Group sues Ken Ofori-Atta, CHRAJ over $2.25bn bond saga

Group sues Ken Ofori-Atta, CHRAJ over $2.25bn bond saga Featured

 

In the suit filed at the Supreme Court Thursday, the group is accusing the anti-graft agency of making pronouncement of guilt or otherwise in its report after it investigated the matter. 

It also said CHRAJ interpreted Article 284 of the 1992 Constitution as contained in page 127 paragraph 3 of its report on the bond issued by Mr Ofori-Atta.

As part of claims against the Finance Minister, DYMG said his failure to reveal the relational interest with a Director at Templeton, Trevor G. Trefgarne during the issuing of the bond contravenes Article 284 of the Constitution.

CHRAJ had said Mr Ofori-Atta exposed himself to a possible conflict of interest situation when he issued the bond but concluded he did not benefit from it personally. 

The conclusion was reached after the Commission investigated the matter following a petition submitted by DYMG Executive Director Edward Tutor.

The pressure group has registered its dissatisfaction with the work of CHRAJ and has asked the apex court to make some declarations.

Among the reliefs DYMG is seeking include:

(a) A declaration that by going beyond investigations to make a pronouncement (of guilty or otherwise) on the 1st Defendant in respect of the allegation of breach of conflict of interest, the 2nd Defendant has contravened Article 287 of the 1992 Constitution.

(b)A declaration that by interpreting Article 284 of the 1992 Constitution (as disclosed between paragraph 3 of page 127 and paragraph 3 of page 133 of the Report) , the 2nd Defendant has contravened Article 130(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution.

(c)A declaration that by issuing or overseeing the issuance of the said bonds to Templeton without disclosing his relational interest with a director at Templeton, one Trevor G. Trefgarne, the 1st Defendant has acted in contravention of Article 284 of the 1992 Constitution.

(d)A declaration that by issuing or overseeing the issuance of the said bonds without disclosing his interests in the secuirties industries in general, the 1st Defendant has acted in contravention of Article

284 of the 1992 Constitution.