Three former managers of the National Communication Authority (NCA) under the erstwhile Mahama Administration have received a total of 16 years jail terms with hard labour for causing financial loss to the state and other related offences.
The three – Eugene Baffoe-Bonne, William Matthew Tetteh-Tevi and Alhaji Salifu Mamina Osman – respectively occupied the positions of former Director General, Board Chairman and former Deputy National Security Coordinator who doubled as a Member of the NCA Board.
However, the fates of these three persons were determined by Justice Eric Kyei Baffour, a Justice of the Court of Appeal sitting as an additional Judge of the High Court yesterday, May 12, 2020, after over two and half years of a long haul prosecution.
Justice Eric Kyei Baffour, in determining the case, found the three guilty in a US$4 million Pegasus system equipment deal they fronted for in its purchase at a time the state was not in need of it and was passing a law against bugging peoples’ calls.
The criminal trial had five persons accused of the offences of conspiracy to cause financial loss to the state, contrary to sections 23(1) and 179(A), wilfully causing financial loss to the state contrary to section 179(A), conspiracy to steal contrary to sections 23(1) and 124, stealing contrary to section 124, and using public office for profit contrary to section 179(c), all of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, 1960, (Act 29).
Other charges include contravention of the Procurement Act contrary to sections 92(1) and 134(1)(a) of the Public Procurement Act, 2003, (Act 663), money laundering contrary to section 1(1)(c) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2007, (Act 749), and intentionally misapplying public funds contrary to section 1(2) of the Public Property Protection Act, 1977, (SMCD 140).
Nevertheless, two of the accused – Dr Nana Owusu Ensaw, former NCA Board Member, and businessman Derek Oppong – were acquitted and discharged of all the charges by the Court of Appeal and High Court.
Eugene Baffoe-Bonne was found guilty and convicted for wilfully causing financial loss to the state, using public office for profit, in contravention of the Procurement Act, money laundry, and intentionally misapplying public funds, but was discharged of one count, stealing.
On each count, he was handed down prison terms of three, five to six years, which he is to serve concurrently.
Tetteh-Tevi, on the other hand, was guilty and convicted on five counts, while acquitted and discharged off three. He was sentenced three to five years on each count, which he is to serve concurrently.
Alhaji Salifu Mamina Osman was similarly convicted on five counts and acquitted and discharged on three.
The defence counsel of the convicts, Thaddeus Sory, Godwin Tamakloe, Baffour Assasie-Gyimah, pleaded with the judge to turn the custodian sentence into fine, since they are first time offenders.
With Tevie, his counsel, Godwin Tamakloe, pleaded that he had been on dialysis for 15 years, therefore, a jail sentence would be like a death sentence due to his health challenges.
Mr Tamakloe argued that his client, aside the underling health conditions, did not also benefit from the purchase of the Pegasus equipment, hence should be made to pay a fine.
Justice Baffour held the view that the lawyer’s argument that the convicts were first time offenders does not hold water, since they were adults who were well-informed and know much about life.
The following was how the Justice concluded his decision on the entire two and a half years trial:
By way of summary, Al is found guilty and convicted of the following charges, count 1, 2, 5, 10, 11, 12 and 17. A1 is however found not guilty and acquitted and discharged on count 3. For A2, he is found guilty and convicted on counts 1, 2, 10, 11 and 17. He is found not guilty and acquitted on counts 3, 6 and 13. A4 is found guilty and convicted on counts 1, 2, 10, 11 and 17. A4 is found not guilty on counts 3, 8 and 15. A5 is found not guilty on all the counts. He is acquitted and discharged.
SENTENCE
I have carefully considered the plea of allocutus in the viva voce submissions for mitigation by the defence lawyers. To aid a court in applying mitigating and aggravating factors in sentencing, I would first need to have regard to three main principles, being the crime committed, the criminal, and the community. What I mean by the crime committed is basically the nature of the offences and the circumstances under which the crimes were committed. US$4 million of Ghana’s money has been wasted, with only US$1 million recovered on what they claimed was an equipment to fight crime, at a time when popular protests from the media and Ghanaians have compelled Parliament to shelve the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages Bill, also referred to as the Spy Bill, on the basis that it had the capacity to invade the private space of citizens. The intendment of that law was for the noble act of fighting terrorism and organised crime, and the impunity and recklessness with which the convicts acted, by acting in a manner as if whether there were laws or no laws they cared less and purchased such an equipment. There is no indication that it has ever been of use to this nation having been parked and forgotten in a private residence.
In dealing with the convict themselves, I take into consideration that they are first time offenders, but certainly not young offenders. For youthfulness itself induces leniency in the eyes of the law, as there are lessons to be learnt by persons of young age. But these are experienced men of the world, and lessons to be learnt by the youth are well known to them. As persons who were in positions of trust, they completely failed in the discharge of their duties. In that circumstance, an exemplary and deterrent punishment is necessary to send the right signals to public office holders that if they fail to be good custodians of the resources of the nation, they would not be left off the hook by the law. Al has been found to have personally benefitted from the transaction in a whopping sum of US$200,000. In passing sentence, the role played and the benefit that personally accrued to each must be made to reflect in the sentence. Besides, I must also take into consideration the fact that A2 in particular is not in the best of health, and the trial had to proceed by taking account of his health needs.
Punishment examined from the angle of the community and its laws, means every punishment must fit the crime committed, and the wanton dissipation of the resources of the state, with the consequent benefit that accrues to the actors, have reached alarming proportions in the eyes of the public. Just as hard won personal resources are usually not wasted by level headed persons, so do the citizens of this nation expect their taxes not to be thrown away by public officials placed in a position of trust. I am further guided by the wisdom in a plethora of judicial decisions on sentencing, such as KWASHlE v THE REPUBLIC [1971] l GLR 488; DICKSON MANU v REPUBLIC [20l3] 55 CM] 176 COA; DABLAV THE REPUBLIC [1980] GLR 50]; ABU v THE REPUBLIC [1980] GLR 294; ADU BOAHENE v THE REPUBLIC [1972] 1 GLR 70.
Accordingly, the mitigating factors that come up for consideration are the health conditions of some of the convicts, being first time but not young offenders, A2 and A4 having been found not to have personally benefitted. The aggravating factors include the sheer recklessness of their conduct, the unrepentant and unremorseful attitude of the convicts, the benefit that accrued to Al, and his unpreparedness to restore his ill-gotten booty to the Republic, the convicts being experienced men of the world who have abused their positions of trust, the inappropriate nature of non-custodial sentence as they are not indigent or impecunious men. They can easily afford to pay any fine imposed on them, and that will send the wrong signal to the public that for the rich they can use their riches to avoid jail for their criminal acts. With the aggravating factors preponderating against the mitigating factors, and being guided by the utilitarian concept of deterrence of both the convicts themselves and public office holders in a position of trust in general, and in the exercise of my discretion according to law, but not private opinion, I proceed to sentence you as follows: A1, A2 and A4 are sentenced to five years imprisonment each with hard labour on count one (I). On count two (2), each of the convict is sentenced to five years imprisonment with hard labour. Having benefited by the use of his public office for his personal profit, coupled with his obstinate conduct not to return the ill gotten wealth to the Republic, I sentence A1 to six (6) years imprisonment with hard labour on count five (5). On count ten I sentence each accused convict to three (3) years imprisonment with hard labour. Each convict is sentenced to another three years imprisonment with hard labour under count eleven. For having laundered US$200,000, I sentence Al to six years imprisonment with hard labour on count twelve (12). And finally, on count seventeen (17), each convict is sentenced to three years imprisonment with hard labour. All the sentences are to run concurrently.
I further proceed to make a consequential order under section 6( l)(a) of SMCD 140, as I find it necessary to make an order for the seizure and forfeiture to the Republic of any asset of the convicted persons to the tune of US$3 million with US$1 million out of the US$4 million having been recovered. The Attorney General is to take steps to enforce this order of the court.
The post Baffoe-Bonnie jailed 6yrs appeared first on The Chronicle Online.
Read Full Story
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Instagram
Google+
YouTube
LinkedIn
RSS