Yaw Odame-Darkwa
The cross-examination of Yaw Odame-Darkwa, the prosecution’s first witness in the trial of former Chief Executive Officer and Board Chairman of the Ghana Infrastructure Investment Fund (GIIF), took another turn as the questions focused on the witness’s claims that the board only approved projects after due diligence is done.
Former Chief Executive Officer of GIIF, Solomon Asamoah and the erstwhile Board Chairman of the Fund, Prof. Christopher Ameyaw-Akumfi, have been charged before the court for their alleged involvement in unapproved $2 million investment in the Accra Sky Train project, which allegedly resulted in financial loss to the state.
The witness had on previous occasions insisted that the board during his time will only approve a project after all the necessary processes had been done in accordance with the policy of GIIF.
However, Victoria Barth, counsel for Solomon Asamoah, confronted the witness with a number of projects approved during his time on the board, seeking to debunk the witness’s claims.
She referred to an “unconditional approval to the recommendation of the Investment Committee that GIIF invests $1 million on behalf of the Government of Ghana in Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.”
The witness agreed that the unconditional approval was given but claimed that the board “had no way of saying no” to the Ministry of Finance when it made such a request to the GIIF.
“Besides, at the back of the minds of the board members, we know that the Ministry would have done some background on the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. We also did our indivisible checks at board level,” the witness claimed.
The lawyer strongly disagreed with the witness’s assertion, pointing out that “It is not correct that the board of GIIF had no right to say no to any orders simply because it was based on a request from the Ministry of Finance.” The witness responded “My Lady, that is so.”
Mrs. Barth also pointed out to the witness that under the GIIF Act, section 10 to be precise, a member of the board of GIIF has the same fiduciary duty to act with loyalty and in good faith as the director of a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The witness agreed.
“So you are aware that GIIF board members were required at all times in the discharge of their functions to exercise independent professional judgment. Is that not so?” the lawyer asked. “Yes, my Lady,” the witness responded.
Mrs. Barth therefore suggested to the witness that it is evident from a board minute that the board’s approvals were not always subject to due diligence.
The witness said on the surface of the minutes, yes, but further indicated that the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is a well-known development financial institution similar to the African Development Bank.
“It is a well-known organisation, a credible organisation which is known all over. If I’m on the board and I’m being asked to make an investment in such institution, I will not apply the same principle that I will apply to an unknown AI Accra Sky Train project or a Crown Safari Project.”
However, the lawyer suggested to the witness that his reasoning for how he will approach an investment decision in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is not captured on the surface of the minutes of the board, which is in evidence before the court. “Yes, my Lady,” the witness agreed. Hearing continues today.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak