The trial of the Accra Sky Train project took another dramatic turn at the Criminal Division 4 of the High Court in Accra, where disagreements among former board members of the Ghana Infrastructure Investment Fund (GIIF) dominated proceedings.
Kofi Boakye, a former GIIF board member and prosecution witness, continued his testimony in support of the Republic’s case against the former Board Chairman, Prof. Christopher Amenyaw Akrofi, and former Chief Executive Officer, Solomon Asamoah.
The two are facing charges of wilfully causing financial loss to the state and misappropriation of public funds in relation to the disbursement of US$2 million for the Accra Sky Train project.
Appearing before the court presided over by Her Ladyship Audrey Kocuvie-Tay, Mr. Boakye maintained his earlier position that the Sky Train project never received approval from the GIIF board during his tenure.
A significant portion of the hearing centred on a legal tussle between defence counsel, Victoria Barth, and Deputy Attorney General, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, over the production of documents linked to a March 13, 2019 board meeting.
Counsel for the first accused person (A1), Victoria Barth, prayed the court to compel the witness to produce both the draft and approved minutes of the March 13, 2019 meeting, along with the covering email used to circulate the documents.
Barth argued that the materials were crucial to the defence, particularly as the prosecution’s case hinges on the claim that no board minutes support approval of the Sky Train project.
“The witness is the author of the minutes that we are requesting. He has testified that he circulated them and believes they may still be in his email,” she submitted, adding that the minutes fell within the investigative window of September 2018 to December 2020.
However, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, opposed the request, describing it as a “fishing expedition.” He contended that the accused persons, as former board members, should already possess the documents if they existed.
Dr. Srem-Sai further maintained that draft minutes were not authoritative records of board decisions, stressing that only approved minutes held evidential value. He also asserted that the burden rests on the accused persons to demonstrate that the US$2 million disbursement was lawful.
Ruling on the objection, the court granted the defence’s prayer in part, directing the witness to produce only the approved minutes of the March 13, 2019 meeting if he was able to locate them.
The hearing then proceeded with the cross-examination of Mr. Boakye, during which multiple email exhibits were introduced by the prosecution.
The witness confirmed receipt of several email communications relating to Investment Committee (IC) meetings in 2018, including documents referencing the Sky Train project.
But Mr Boakye insisted that references to the project in agendas and communications did not amount to formal approval by either the Investment Committee or the Board.
He emphasized that for a project to be deemed approved, specific terms — such as loan amounts and conditions — must be deliberated upon and agreed by the board, which he said never occurred for the Sky Train project.
Mr. Boakye also explained that projected drawdowns could be made for pipeline projects, arguing that the practice was intended to ensure liquidity should final approval be granted.
Proceedings were subsequently adjourned to February 19, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.
The following are some questions and answers.
Q. Please show the witness exhibit 11. It is an email dated 30th July, 2018 on the subject “Board Pact for IC Meeting”, Tuesday 31 July, 2pm. Is that correct?
A. That is so.
Q. You were a recipient of exhibit 11 because it was sent to your email address [email protected]. Is that not so?
A. That is correct.
Q. Following the circulation of the attachments listed in exhibit it 11, there was an IC meeting held on 31 July 2018 at 2pm. (You may refresh your memory by looking at exhibit 18, which is an email from you circulating the draft minutes of the 31st July 2018 IC meeting).
A. Yes
Q. In item 4.4 of exhibit 18, members expressed support for the project and noted the need to consider it in further details before a recommendation to be made to the board. Is that correct?
A. My lady That is correct.
Q. Please turn to exhibit 12. It is an email thread starting from September 16, 2018 at 9:12am to Monday 17 September, 2018 at 11:09 pm?
A. That is correct.
Q. You were a recipient of that email. Is that not so?
A. My Lady that is correct.
Q. The first email in the thread was from A1 to members of the IC informing them that there would be a meeting of the IC on Friday 28 September at 2pm.
A. My lady that is so.
Q. Please turn to exhibit 13. It is an email thread starting from September 22nd, 2018 at 5:15pm and ending on Tuesday September 25, 2018 at 8:10am?
A. That is so.
Q. In the first email in exhibit 13, A1 again informed the IC members that per a discussion with the IC Chairman there would be an IC meeting on Friday 28 September at 2pm.
A. That is what you find when you read the email sent by A1 to members of IC Committee. Only the members of the IC were copied.
Q. The email in exhibit it 13 came with an agenda for the IC meeting that was to be held on 28 September, 2018. Is that correct?
A. My Lady you will find in the email listed proposing items for the agenda of the meeting. One would also find from the email thread that the only person who responded was Yaw Odame-Darkwa with the word “Noted.”
Q. Exhibit 13 also came with attachments, the first of which is the investment committee agenda?
A. My Lady I believe that is so.
Q. You will agree with me that under agenda item 8, projects for approval, Sky Train project development contribution is listed ‘a’
A. My lady that is what the record says.
Q. You will also agree with me that exhibit 13C the investment committee memorandum on the Accra Sky Train project?
A. I see investment committee (IC) memorandum on the Accra Sky Train project.
Q. Were you in the habit of acknowledging every email that you received as a member of the GIIF?
A. My Lady, to the best of my recollection, yes.
Q. You did not acknowledge the first email in exhibit 11 as far as the email thread shows?
A. From the email thread on exhibit it 11, one does not find a member apart from Nana Afua acknowledging…
Q. Take a look at exhibit 17, it is an email dated September 26, 2018 at 10:55am from A1 forwarding additional documents for the IC meeting that was to be held on 28 September 2018. Is that not so?
A. Exhibit 17 refers to additional documents the CEO sent to the committee.
Q. Those additional documents are:
1. Portfolio update report September 2018.
2. Project drawdown
3. Board investment and finance committee (IC) memorandum. Crown forest hospitality project (Safari Echo Park).
4. Projects update 28 September 2018.
A. These are documents attached to the exhibit shown.
Q. Exhibit 24. It is an email dated 22 October, 2018 at 8:6pm from A1 to board members on the subject ‘Board meeting on Wednesday 24th, October. Is that correct?
A. The heading of the email 22 October 2018 is board meeting on Wednesday, 24th October 2018.
Q. In exhibit 24, A1 informed the recipients of this email that he had attached documents, which were approved by the investment committee in the last meeting on 28 September, 2018. Is that not so?
A. One would find that in the record and also a formal notice of the meeting would be circulated by me.
Q. In exhibit 24, after the second paragraph, Sky Train is listed under projects approved? Is that not so?
A. One would find under column 2 with the heading ‘projects approved’ a: sky train (project development contribution, b: Wood Fields.
Q. Please compare the agenda circulated for the IC meeting on 28th September 2018 in exhibit 17 to the agenda in exhibit 24B, which is attached to exhibit 24 on the upcoming Board meeting and confirm if it is the same from agenda item 1 to agenda item 10(C) (iii) in both document?
A. I believe they are.
Q. Please take a look at exhibit 24, which is the minutes of the meeting of the Board of GIIF held on 24 October 2018 and compare from item 1.0 all the way to item 9.4, the agenda items in exhibit 24 B and confirm, which ones appear in both documents.
A. Let me start by saying that the IC report that was submitted to the board for the meeting of 24 October, 2018 was prepared by Mr. Tweneboako Fokuo, then IC chair. If you look at the attendance record of the meeting of 24 October, 2018, one would find that Mr. Tweneboako Fokuo was absent. Because he was unable to attend this meeting he sent a report of all that had transpired at the IC meeting held between the 5th September 2018 and 24th October 2018 to Mr. Yaw Odame-Darkwa by email. The CEO was copied toghter with Ms. Nano and myself. I’m not sure whether the email is in my inbox but I did make a copy.
If one looks at the minutes of 24th October, 2018, the committee report as delivered at the meeting ‘report by finance and investment committee’. If the sky train project and the Wood Fields project had been approved by the IC, as counsel wants this court believe, it would have formed part of the IC report to the board.
If you look at the minutes, a member raised concern about the Wood fields project, which had been pending for two years and nothing being done about it…
This concern was raised by the member because although several meetings have been held and documents have been made available by both to the IC and the board, no approval of this project had been made by IC and no recommendation had been made by IC to the board and the Board had considered approving this project as at 2020.
However, if one looks at records of meetings between 31 July, 2018 to 31 December 2018, one would find that a sum of money had been ring fenced such that, should it be that the Board approved, there would be money to fund that project. The…provision for a project did not automatically mean that the project had been approved. If the court looks at Minutes of 31 July, 2018, exhibit 18, members of IC expressed support for the project. That is never an approval by the IC.
At no subsequent meeting of IC held after the 31st July meeting leading up to the Board meeting of 24 October 2018 did IC meet to consider and approve that the sky train project to be recommended to the Board for approval.
To end, the sky train project and the Wood Fields were not approved throughout the period that I served on the board.
Q. You were a member of the IC, is that not so?
A. That is so
Q. When exhibit 24, the email in which A1 stated that the sky train project had been approved at the IC meeting of 28 September 2018 was circulated to you and other board members, you did not reply to say that no such thing had happened. Did you?
A. Yes, I did not. There was no point in arguing out a fact on an email trail. The decision of the Board are as found in the Board minutes. The report of IC to the Board during its meeting of 24 October, 2018 did not include a recommendation to the Board that IC had considered the sky train project at its meeting and was, therefore, recommending the project to the Board.
All that IC deliberated upon is what is captured under the heading ‘report by investment and finance committee.’ And as I said earlier on, this was based on … sent to all members of IC by its chair Tweneboako Dua Fokuo. I will make a copy of this email available to the investigators to confirm that exhibit 4 in so far as it relates to work done by is what one finds in the board minutes.
Q. The Wood Fields project was captured in the report presented to the board in the Board, minutes of 24 October 2018; exhibit 4 at item 5.3 contrary to your testimony. Is that not so?
A. On the contrary, we need to make a differentiation between expressing an interest in project and giving an approval to partaking in the project. When the Board disapproves of a project, the Board would at that stage has agreed on the specific terms that were gathered by the participation of GIIF in the project. For example the loan amount must be agreed by the board.
The term of the loan equally must be known.
As at 24 October 2018, all these were yet to be concretised. To add to this, management was still yet to decide at what level the money being advanced by GIIF were to take prominence among the earliest companies such as Fidelity, which had advanced money… for its project.
In the same vein, one would not find the terms and conditions approved by the Board under which GIIF was to participate in the Sky Train project. The project proposal was never tabled at the IC and, therefore, never reached the Board for approval.
Q. You will agree with me that the minute mentions updates on existing and pipeline projects?
A. Yes.
Q. You will also agree with me that the existing projects are listed under item 3.1 all the way to item 3.1.14,?
A. That is so.
Q. From item 3.2 on exhibit 9 then has update on pipeline projects?
A. That is what the record says.
Q. And the list of pipeline projects start from item 3.2.1 all the way to item 3.2.5?
A. That is what you will find when you look at it.
Q. Projected drawdowns were only made for Board approved projects of GIIF?
A. No my lady. Once we express a desire to participate in a project, the amount required to participate in that project is immediately ring fenced. We do so to ensure that at final approval there is money available for that project.
This is necessary because monies of the Fund, that is GIIF is invested and there are periods within which we can access these monies. So to avoid the situation where the Bible says you reach the point of birth, but there is no strength to deliver, we avoid that situation.
Q. Is it your case that projected drawdown could also be made for pipeline projects?
A. That is so.
Q. You are aware that as of 22nd December, 2020, when the meeting of the Board in respect of which the minutes in exhibit 10… GIIF had already disbursed the sum of $2 million for the Sky Train?
A. Not so the approval of the board.
Q. You will agree with me that there is a difference between an unapproved project, a project that has been approved, but in respect of which disbursement are yet to be made?
A. Yes, there is a difference.
Q. I’m suggesting to you that the GIIF board approved of the Wood fields fuel storage project in item 5.3 in exhibit 4 and all that remained was disbursement?
A. No my lady. No because if one reads it says management …
For more news, join The Chronicle Newspaper channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbBSs55E50UqNPvSOm2z
The post Sky Train project never received Board approval – prosecution witness insists appeared first on The Ghanaian Chronicle.
Read Full Story
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Instagram
Google+
YouTube
LinkedIn
RSS