Osafo-Maafo,4 others appeal against Auditor-General’s disallowance and surcharges

By Joyce Danso, GNA

Accra Dec. 12, GNA - Senior Minister Yaw Osafo-Maafo and four other officers at the Ministry of Finance have appealed against the disallowance and surcharge by the Auditor-General’s Department headed by Mr Daniel Yao Domelevo at an Accra High Court.

Mr Osafo-Maafo, Michael Ayesu, Abraham Kofi Tawiah, Eva Asselba Mends and Patrick Nomo said they were dissatisfied with the notice of specification and certification of disallowance and surcharge made by the Auditor- General.

In the appeal filed by Mr. Daniel Yaw Oppong, Counsel for the appellants, contends the grounds of the appeal as follows:

That firstly the determination by the Auditor General (A-G)that the payment of the sum of GH¢4,869,421.87 was without approval from Parliament and Public Procurement Authority (PPA) and thus offended Article 181 of the 1992 Constitution and the PPA Act, violated the appellants right to hearing as same did not formed part of either the Audit Observations issued to the Ministry of Finance under section 29 of the Audit Service Act, 2000 (Act 584), or the Final Report of the Auditor General laid before Parliament pursuant to Article 187 of the Constitution.

Secondly, the findings violated the Osafo-Maafo’s right to fair hearing as the A-G, in contravention of Section 29 of Act 584 and Articles 23 and 296 of the Constitution, failed to serve Mr Osafo-Maafo with any audit observations containing the said breaches by him before proceeding to issue the notice of intention to disallow or surcharge.

Thirdly, the A-G acted unreasonably, capriciously and maliciously towards all the appellants, in blatant violation of his duty as a public officer, when he refused to inspect and study the evidence of work done by Kroll Associates UK Limited, as requested by Osafo-Maafo in his response to the notice of intention to disallow/ surcharge, before proceeding to serve the notice of disallowance or discharge.

The appellants are of the view that A-G committed a grave and fundamental error of law in purporting to investigate and make findings of breaches of the procurement law by the appellants when he had no such authority in law.

On the Particulars of error of law, the appellants contend that Section 3 (d) and (q) of the PPA Act, 2003, (Act 663), mandate the Board of PPA to monitor and supervise public procurement.

According to the appellants, Sections 89 and 90 of Act 663 further vest the Board of the PPA with the power to investigate matters related to the conduct of proceedings, or conclusion or operation of a procurement contract, established contravention of the act and make such recommendations as is allowed by Act 663.

The appellants contention was that the A-G is not vested with the power to conduct investigations and establish a breach of Act 663, noting that the statutory audit power of the A-G do not extend into investigations to establish alleged violations of Act 663.

They held that the A-G was neither authorized nor requested by the board of PPA to carry out the purported investigations relating to alleged contraventions of the procurement law, Act 663.

The appellants avers therefore said the conduct of the A-G, under the circumstance amounts to an abuse of office and power and desire the court’s intervention under the law.

GNA

Read Full Story