Parts of Ameri deal didn’t get parliamentary approval – Report

Read Comments Comments (6)

• Bukom Banku 7 years ago

  This is absolute nonsense and retroactive attempt to find porous legal basis to invalidate a bad contract entered into by the government.Unless there is evidence of coercion or fraudulent inducement, the law does not relieve ...
  read full comment

  This is absolute nonsense and retroactive attempt to find porous legal basis to invalidate a bad contract entered into by the government.Unless there is evidence of coercion or fraudulent inducement, the law does not relieve one from its obligation on the basis that it entered into a bad agreement. The wording of the SLBC may have been too broad entering but it was incumbent on the government's lawyers to have

  reply
• Kofi Ofori 7 years ago

  This is absolute nonsense and retroactive attempt to find porous legal basis to invalidate a bad contract entered into by the government.Unless there is evidence of coercion or fraudulent inducement, the law does not relieve ...
  read full comment

  This is absolute nonsense and retroactive attempt to find porous legal basis to invalidate a bad contract entered into by the government.Unless there is evidence of coercion or fraudulent inducement, the law does not relieve one from its obligation on the basis that it entered into a bad agreement. The wording of the SLBC may have been too broad but it was incumbent on the government's lawyers to have made the necessary corrections to the document before it was executed. The law may make an exception for what might in retrospect appear to be an unfair agreement when it feels one party was taken advantage of by another party who was more sophisticated and better grounded in legal nuances and also probably because the unsophisticated party was without legal representation and legal acumen to understand the implications of an agreement drafted by the sophisticated party.But that relief is an exception rather than the rule and is granted in very egregious cases when the outcome otherwise would be unfair and shock the conscience.But as between two sophisticated parties such as the government of Ghana with an arsenal of waht would assume competent lawyers (unless we are making a claim of inadequate legal representation, which would be laughable), the law would not invalidate an agreement just because a party to the agreement in hindsight believes it entered into a bad deal. The lack of governmental approval for the assignment argument might be a a little more cogent and provide a basis for invalidation if the statute or laws governing such transactions expressly requires parliamentary approval for assignments. Otherwise this argument may also not fly especially if the assignment was done with the consent of the government and moreso when such assignment is between subsidiaries or related companies which Ameri Energy and Ameri Equipment appear to be. I will urge the Minister to seek a second opinion from General Vigilante who I respect as a brilliant counsel before it takes action or it risks being hit with a gargantuan judgment debt. action

  reply
• Mallam Tulla 7 years ago

  This is a hollow and politically biased report that will fall flat on its face in the coming days. Even an idiot knows that when government is buying Toyota vehicles, it does not go directly to the manufacturers to buy it. It ...
  read full comment

  This is a hollow and politically biased report that will fall flat on its face in the coming days. Even an idiot knows that when government is buying Toyota vehicles, it does not go directly to the manufacturers to buy it. It contacts a second party like Japan Motors which may also, depending on their line of operations, contract a third party in Japan closer to the manufacturers to get the vehicles. What about the issue of risks? What about the time period for payment by the government in order that the various groups recoup their investments. Ghana government never invested even a penny to bring in the plants, and that it will take five years for Ameri to recoup its investment. Remember that a dollar today is much higher in value than what a dollar will be in five years. These NPP guys must be mad. And to make matters worse, we have a bunch of hypocritical intellectuals and semi-literate supporters shouting corruption and fraud in something any reasonably intelligent person will understand as fair. We wait to see where this bogus report led by a failed parliamentary candidate and lawyer, Philip Addison, who I believe barely understands financial and contractual arrangements will take us to. This propaganda to vilify and destroy the NDC is dead on arrival.

  reply
• BOY KOFI 7 years ago

  We saw how Phillip Addison falsified documents during the 2012 election petition at the Supreme Court.To the best of my knowledge this guy is a crook and wants Ghana to pay useless judgement debt for Ameri.
  This guy Addison ...
  read full comment

  We saw how Phillip Addison falsified documents during the 2012 election petition at the Supreme Court.To the best of my knowledge this guy is a crook and wants Ghana to pay useless judgement debt for Ameri.
  This guy Addison is ignorant and a pure crook.Thank you.

  reply
• Mr Bond 7 years ago

  That said it all.is the reason for the bloated price.NDC are thieves.

  That said it all.is the reason for the bloated price.NDC are thieves.

  reply
• NPPigs 7 years ago

  SERIAL LOSER WITH A FAT FART FACE. YOU WILL LOSE AGAIN AND THIS TIME YOU WILL ALSO CAUSE FINANCIAL LOSS TO THE NATION.

  SERIAL LOSER WITH A FAT FART FACE. YOU WILL LOSE AGAIN AND THIS TIME YOU WILL ALSO CAUSE FINANCIAL LOSS TO THE NATION.

  reply