Sky Train Trial: You are not a truthful witness – Asamoah tells ex-board member

The former Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Infrastructure Investment Fund (GIIF), Solomon Asamoah, on Monday told a former board member of the Fund, Kofi Boakye that he has not been a truthful witness.

Mr. Asamoah, who is standing trial for allegedly causing financial loss to the state over a US$2 million investment in the proposed Accra Sky Train Project, made the suggestion at the Criminal Division of the High Court in Accra during the cross-examination of Mr. Boakye, the prosecution’s second witness (PW2).The case is being heard by Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay.

Mr. Boakye, who served on the GIIF board until December 2020, had earlier testified that the board never approved the disbursement of the US$2 million to AI SkyTrain Consortium Holdings in Mauritius for the development of the Accra Sky Train Project. However, counsel for Mr. Asamoah, Victoria Barth, challenged the witness’ testimony and suggested that he had not been truthful on matters relating to the board’s approval of the project.

She further accused the witness of undermining the credibility of the Fund’s independent auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and Boateng & Offei, who audited GIIF’s 2019 and 2020 financial statements.

Responding to the suggestion that he was impugning the integrity of the reconstituted GIIF board that took office after his tenure, Mr. Boakye rejected the claim.
He explained that the documents being referenced in court, particularly the audited financial reports for 2019 and 2020, were not considered or approved by the board on which he served.
According to him, although the reports bore the signatures of the board chairman and the CEO, they were signed on May 31, 2021, at a time when the board he served on had already ceased to exist.

Mr. Boakye maintained that the GIIF board did not approve participation in the Accra Sky Train Project nor the disbursement of the US$2 million investment referenced in the audited accounts. He further told the court that while the auditors referenced board approval in their reports, auditors rely on documents provided by management and, therefore, their conclusions may not always reflect board decisions.

Counsel for Mr. Asamoah eventually put it to the witness that he had not been truthful in his testimony regarding the board’s approval of the project. But Mr. Boakye rejected the assertion, insisting he had answered all questions truthfully and that the board minutes clearly reflected the position he had stated in court.

Cross examination

Q. When the final audit report of 2019 as you call it was circulated to board member, did you read it?
A. I cannot recollect that we were furnished with copies of the 2019 audited accounts for our consideration and approval of same. As I told the court earlier on it was at our meeting of 22nd December 2020 that the CFO informed us that the audit to the year 2019 had been done. In about a month’s time we were out of the board.

Q. The CFO in Exhibit 10 was making a presentation to the board on the 2021 budget and happened to mention the fact that the 2019 had been audited. Is that not so?
A. That is correct. And I restate that that audited account for that year was consisted and approved by the board of which I was a member.

Q. From the time that you were invited for investigation by the NIB to today, did you review the 2019 and 2020 financial statements of GIIF, which are referenced in the Auditor General’s report in exhibit it 20?
A. No my Lady. It would have no purpose to do that since I was no more a member of the board. At all times, audited accounts are an expression of the opinion of the auditors. They may therefore write…

Q. Please look at page 3 of Exhibit 3. It is stated under the heading ‘Report of the Governing Board’ that the governing board presents their report together with the audited financial statement of the Fund for the year 2019, discloses the state of affairs of the Ghana Infrastructure Fund?

A. One finds at page 3 that the report of the governing board and at page 4, the signature of the chairman and the CEO and they did so supposedly and I quote “by order of the governing board.” But as I said earlier, the board did not consider and approve Exhibit 21.

Q. Even though you had left the board of GIIF, you didn’t think it was important to alert the Auditor General that he relied on financial statements supposedly approved by the board of GIIF. Did you?

A. My Lady it was not necessary.
Q. Are you aware that the financial statements for the year 2019 covered expenses, revenue, equity investment among other financial transactions that had been undertaken under the watch of the board as constituted at the year ending 31st December 2019?
A. All things being equal, it should. But we, as a board, did not have the opportunity to consider this report.

Q. Are you aware that the financial statement for the year 2020 also covered expenses including disbursement, revenue equity investment among other financial transactions as constituted the year ended 31st December 2019?

A. Exhibit 22 is an annual report and financial report for the year ended 31st December 2020. This was not considered by the board of which I was a member. It is signed at page 4 and 9 by our then Chairman and the CEO. It bears the date 31st May, 2021. Our board had long ceases to be in existence and the board of which I was a member never considered this report.

Q. Whether or not the board of which you were a member considered audited the financial statements of GIIF for the year ended 31st December 2020, are you aware that those financial statements signed by the CEO and board chairman of GIIF on 31st May, 2021 represents that it covers expenses including disbursement, revenue, equity investment among other financial transactions that were undertaken during the tenure of the board

A. It does not. On the reading of this exhibit, one get to know that the board of GIIF had.. and given approval to this audited account consequent upon which the CEO and Chairman of then board appended their signature on 31st of May, 2021.

I restate that by this date a new board was in place and therefore… No meeting by members of the board of which I was a member took place in or around or on the 31st of May 2021 at which meeting the board of which I was a member approved audited account of the year ended 31st December, 2020.

The statement therefore found at page 9 of Exhibit 22 “these financial statement on pages 9 to 47 were approved by the governing board on 31st May 2021 and signed on their behalf by” is erroneous.

Q. Are you aware that at page 42 of Exhibit 21, it is recorded that in the year ended 31st December 2019, while you were still a member of GIIF board, there was a disbursement for the Accra Sky Train Project, which was captured as follows: “AI Sky Train Consortium Holding.

The Fund has invested $2 million in AI SkyTrain Consortium Holdings incorporated in the republic of Mauritius. The purpose is to establish Ghana Sky Train Limited to develop the Accra Sky Train Project through a concession on the design, build, finance and Operate arrangement. The Fund holds an equity interest of 10% in the company.”

A. At page 42 of Exhibit 21, one finds the statement referred to by counsel. However, as stated earlier on in my evidence that an audit report is not sacrosanct. This report is being attributed to the board of which I was a member and I will re-emphasise that this audited account was not considered and approved by the board of which I was a member.

I reiterate that the board did not give its approval to participate in the Sky train project and further the board did not give its approval to the disbursement of the sum of $2 million. Exhibits 20, 21 and 22 are being represented as continuing evidence that the board considered and gave its approval to the sky train project. This position is as erroneous as the attempt made to represent the email sent by the CEO in Exhibit 21 that the board gave its approval to the sky train project.

Q. Are you aware that at page 41 of Exhibit 22, it is recorded that in the year ended 31st December 2020 while you were still a member of the GIIF board there was a disbursement for the Accra Sky Train Project, which was captured as follows: “AI Sky Train Consortium Holding.

The Fund has invested $2 million in AI SkyTrain Consortium Holdings incorporated in the republic of Mauritius. The purpose is to establish Ghana Sky Train Limited to develop the Accra Sky Train Project through a concession on the Design, build, finance and operate and arrangement. The Fund holds an equity interest of 10% in the company.”

A. I restate my answer given in response to whether I am aware of such an entry in the audited account for the year 2019. I empathically said that Exhibit 22 was not considered by the board of which I was a member. Consequently since no such approval emanated from the board one must discount the statement found at page 9 that this report was considered and approved by the board of which I was a member.

Q. Just as you did not protest about the truth of the facts in Exhibit 24, you have also not protested anywhere that the audited financials of GIIF for the years ended 31st December 2019 and 2020 respectively were not duly approved by the GIIF board. Have you?

A. My position on Exhibit 24 has been amply stated and I reiterate in this court’s quest to find whether or not there was an approval for the sky train project, the court should consider the notice and agenda for the meeting of 24th October, 2018 sent by me together with the board minutes of the same day. The IC Sky Train memo attached to the email of the CEO, Exhibit 24 should be completely discarded.

I have no opportunity of contesting in any forum the contents of Exhibits 21 and 22 for the simple reason that no one showed these documents to me as containing evidence of the approval of the sky train project by the GIIF board.

In this court Exhibits 21 and 22 have been shown to me as containing evidence that the board did give its approval to the sky train project for which reason the sum of $2 million were disbursed. In my response, I have stated and restate that the board never considered exhibits 21 and 22 and if it had those references would not have found itself there.

Q. Are you impugning the integrity of the GIIF board as reconstituted feeling your exit from the GIIF board in January 2021?
A. Far from that. I have made no reference whatsoever to any acts or decisions by the reconstituted board of GIIF. Exhibits 21 and 22 do not refer to any act or decision of the reconstituted GIIF board. I, therefore, have no basis for impugning in any way the board that succeeded the one of which I was a member. Exhibits 21 and 22 are not acts and decisions of the board of which I was member.

Q. Are you impugning the integrity of the independent auditors PWC and Boateng and Offei who audited the 2019 and 2020 financial statement of GIIF?
A. The auditors worked on documents submitted to them by management. As a human institution they are fallible.

A reference has been made by them to an approval of the sky train project by the board. This audited report was not submitted to the board that I served on and we, as a board never authorised the chairman and the CEO to append their signature to the report by the auditors.

And the question whether or not an approval was granted can be answered when one read the minutes of October 24 2018. And as a member of the board, I re-emphasis that no approval was given by the board.

Q. Show the witness Exhibit 29. It is an email thread from the CEO to the audit committee members dated 25th January, 2019 at 10:46am and in that thread there is an email dated Monday 28th January, 2019 at 12:12pm to board members with three attachments being:

1. Addendum to the board budget memo dated 22 January, 2019.
2. Memo titled GIIF board operational sustainability dated 21st November, 2018.
3. 2019 budget presentation December, 2018.

On the next page three attachments are described as follows:

I. Memo to audit committee on additional recruitment, January 2018
II. Memo to board on GIIF operational sustainability FINAL
III. 2019 budget presentation

The attachment to Exhibit 29 are Exhibits 29A, 29B and 29C. You will agree with me that even though the subject of Exhibit 29A states addendum to the 2019 estimates presented to the board in December 2019, in the introduction below the subject it is stated as follows: “this short memorandum serves an addendum to the 2019 budget estimates, which was presented to the board on December 2018 (copy attached as annexed 1).”

A. Yes.
Q. You will also agree with me that on that same page under the heading “Background” the last sentence reads as follows: “this Memo essentially warned that without any additional funds, GIIF cannot take on any new investment or major expenditure without failing on its obligations to fund the already board approved projects, according to the details indicated in table 1 below.”

A. Yes. One finds these statements there and it is no different as captured in mother exhibits. As I told this court having expressed the desire to participate in a project sums were ring-fenced against particular projects subject to the board giving its approval. Table 1 contains two of such activities ie the file storage deport project, otherwise retired to some documents as Wood Fields Fuel Storage project or the fidelity led fuel tank storage project.

The other one is Sky Train project. The budget is a forecast of intended activities of the board. It should, therefore, not be reminded that either fuel storage project and the sky train project are captured in table 1, constituted board approval.

Q. In table 1 an amount of $2 million was projected to be disbursed as projected development equity for the sky train project by February 2019.
A. That’s correct. But the approval was never given.

Q. Finally I put it to you that you have not been a truthful witness in all matters relating to the GIIF board’s approval of the sky trail project even when confronted with credible documentary evidence?

A. I have answered all questions truthfully. The matters in contention are covered by the minutes of the board and I, therefore, cannot by any means restate the words already found in an exhibit before the honourable court.

When I testified to the fact that final board approvals are subject to the conduct of due diligence. For example, I pointed this court to an exhibit where the CEO in a board meeting confirmed my testimony that approvals are subject to the conduct of due diligence… I have testified to the truth of matters known to me.
End of cross-examination by counsel for A1

 

For more news, join The Chronicle Newspaper channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbBSs55E50UqNPvSOm2z

The post Sky Train Trial: You are not a truthful witness – Asamoah tells ex-board member appeared first on The Ghanaian Chronicle.

Read Full Story