Solomon Asamoah and Christopher Ameyaw-Akumfi
The Office of the Attorney General yesterday called its second witness in the trial of former Chief Executive Officer of Ghana Infrastructure Investment Fund (GIIF), Solomon Asamoah and former Board Chairman, Prof. Christopher Ameyaw-Akumfi, who are accused of causing $2 million financial loss to the state by investing it in the Sky Train project.
The witness, Kofi Boakye, a former board member of GIIF, in his witness statement, indicated that the GIIF board did not approve the Sky Train project.
He also indicated that the board did not approve the $2 million payment for the acquisition of shares in relation to the Sky Train project.
Contradiction
During cross-examination, the witness made a categorical statement which sharply contradicted what the prosecution’s first witness had told the court.
“If my lady would have a look at my witness statement, I stated in there that the Sky Train matter was a matter that was mentioned at several board meetings so, it would not be out of place if one were to find that in the minutes,” Kofi Boakye, who was an Acting Board Secretary of the GIIF, said.
This statement sharply contradicted the first prosecution witness, Yaw Odame-Darkwa’s claim that “the Sky Train concept was only introduced at one of our board meetings.”
Victoria Barth, counsel for Mr. Asamoah, in her cross-examination, focused on minutes of the GIIF Board in October 2018 which captured the Sky Train project as having been approved, as well a memo which partly states “following the approval by the board in 2018.”
The witness was however, insistent that the word captured in the minutes cannot be taken as an approval for the Sky Train project.
He even went to the extent of telling the court how he had to explain to a secretary at GIIF, Harriet Abban, who had to called him to enquire about the minutes after she and others had appeared before the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament, about four years after its preparation.
“…but the Public Accounts Committee had raised an issue that related to the Sky Train project so, the company secretary together with the Chief Accountant called me and I told them that the Sky Train project was never approved by the board. It was around that time that Ms. Abban drew my attention to the minutes of October 24, 2018, that is exhibit 4, that there was a sentence in there that states that the board had approved the project. I reiterated to her that the board never approved the project,” the witness claimed.
“According to your own testimony this morning, but for your independent explanation or clarification to Ms. Abban and the Chief Accountant about four years after exhibit 4 (minutes of October 24, 2018) were signed, Ms. Abban and the Chief Accountant had understood that there was a sentence in exhibit 4 that indicated the board approval of the Sky Train project,” Mrs. Barth asked.
“My evidence this morning was that Ms. Abban called me that at all time I made her understand that the Sky Train project was not approved. Then she drew my attention to exhibit 4 and my response was that that sentence did not constitute an approval of the board,” he responded.
The lawyer then accused him of embellishments that were not in his earlier testimony regarding what Ms. Abban told him when she drew his attention to the fact that there was something in exhibit 4 that shows that the board approved the Sky Train project.
“Far from testifying to matters that never happened, the question that was posed by counsel was that Ms. Abban “understood the words in exhibit 4 to constitute an approval.” That was the question, so it is important to state the fact as they are,” the witness answered.
“It is not correct that Ms. Abban told you that the CEO had referred to the minutes of October 24, 2018 as the record for the board approval. No such conversation ever occurred,” the lawyer pushed.
Mr. Boakye, in his response, said what exactly transpired in his conversation with Ms. Abban in the presence of other board members was that the CEO insisted that the minutes of October 24, 2018 constituted the record that showed that the board had approved the Sky Train project.
Mrs. Barth then pointed out to the witness that Ms. Abban was not present at the National Intelligence Bureau (NIB) when the “CEO insisted that the minutes of October 24, 2018 captured the board approval of the Sky Train project.
“No, she was not,” the witness agreed. The case was adjourned to February 17, 2026, for continuation.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak