AG frees DVLA boss of rape charges

The Attorney General’s Office has directed the Domestic Violence and Victims Support Unit (DOVVSU) of the Ghana Police Service to discard any attempt to prosecute the Accra Regional Manager of the Driver Vehicle and Licensing Authority (DVLA), Mr. Noah Tetteh Martey, who was being investigated for allegedly attempting to rape a lady in his office.

Mary Ama Serwaa Kulevome, then on secondment from the National Youth Employment Programme (NYEP) to the DVLA about 17 months ago, went on media platforms in the capital and claimed that the Accra Regional boss of the authority, Tetteh Martey, attempted to rape her in his office at about 07:00 hours.

She then ran to DOVVSU and reported for action, and just around the same time, the authority also instituted a fact-finding committee, chaired by its Board Member, Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCOP) Julius Avoka (Rtd), to probe into the incident administratively.

As the two bodies embarked on their respective inquisitions, the Ashanti Regional Police Command, led by its Crime Officer, Chief Superintendent John Naami, busted a syndicate, led by one Prosper Agbenke, that was recruiting females from the “Garden City” to appear before the committee to also claim that the Accra boss made similar attempts on them when he was in Kumasi.

In the course of investigations at the head office of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) in Accra, it was uncovered that the plot was hatched by Samuel Etse, an employee of the DVLA in Accra, and Mary Kulevome to tarnish the name of Noah Tetteh Martey, when the lady’s attachment ended and was not renewed, due to misconducts.

After the syndicate was exposed by the detectives, Mary refused to co-operate with both the DOVVSU and administrative committee put up by DVLA, and was at a stage cited by the police as being a hostile witness.

The police forwarded the case docket to the Attorney General’s Office for advice, and after a careful study, the law office directed the police not to prosecute the DVLA Accra boss.

Meanwhile, the head office of the DVLA, on three occasions, invited the media to be briefed on the outcome of its committee’s findings, but ended up wasting the precious time of the journalists, with excuses that they would be invited at the right time.

The Chronicle also made countless efforts to secure the report of the committee for public consumption, but all to no avail, as the boss, Rudolph Beckley, continued to toss this reporter from his office to that of the Public Relations Unit.

The refusal of the DVLA head office to release the report of the committee’s findings, gives credence to rumours that the authority was protecting Mary Kulevome, whose secondment at the authority was influenced by a top lady politician, hence the hierarchy would not want to embarrass her.

Investigations revealed that Samuel Etse started working at the DVLA a year before the Regional Manager, Noah Tetteh Martey, was engaged.

Our investigations revealed that Etse was, some time ago, sacked from the DVLA Asante Mampong office over alleged malpractices, including the issuance of roadworthy certificates without seeing the vehicles and also issuing driving licenses without testing the applicants.

He, however, pursued the dismissal in court, won the case, and was recalled to work, and by the time Etse returned, Tetteh Martey had become the boss, but the former decided not to be a subordinate to somebody he had superintended in the past, hence hatching the plan to disgrace him.

Prosper Agbenke was a non-permanent staff at the DVLA, Kumasi, and like Etse, had a personal problem with the authority over renewal of stickers, a case which was handled by the Asawase police, and was later withdrawn from the police station and settled amicably.

He was, however, sacked when the time came for redundancy, and ever since, he has been at loggerheads with Tetteh Martey over his dismissal.

Mary Kulevor, we gathered, used to be a ‘goro girl’ on the premises of the DVLA, but found her way to the office as an attachment personnel from the Ghana Youth Employment and Entrepreneurship Development Agency (GYEEDA) for five months.

She was posted to the issuing office in the banking hall, where she shared the same office with a national service personnel, Akwetey Agbo.

A misunderstanding ensued between the two in the office, which also roped in three management persons – Leonard Odum, Regional Accounts Supervisor, Paintsil, Accounts Clerk, and Godwin Sekobs.

The Internal Auditor, however, intervened and settled the dispute amicably.

At that meeting, Mary reportedly admitted extorting GH¢5 from each client, even though the service personnel worked without demanding anything.

Mary, however, wanted her colleague out of the place because he was not obeying her instructions, a claim, which the service personnel denied, insisting that Mary wanted him out of the office because of the extortion she was engaged in.

Mary, in turn, denied the counter-claim of the service personnel, insisting that because of his presence in the office, she could not scratch her private part.

To demonstrate this, Mary reportedly folded her cloth up and started scratching her vagina in the presence of the panel.

This conduct was reported to management, so when Mary’s attachment period expired, management decided not to extend it, and this triggered animosity between her and Mr. Noah Tetteh Martey.

The plot to blackmail the regional boss then started with Etse as planner and Prosper in Kumasi as recruitment officer for people to come to Accra to testify before a committee that they were victims of sexual harassment by Noah Tetteh Martey, while he was in Kumasi.

The Director of Public Affairs of the Ghana Police Service, Superintendent Cephas Arthur, when contacted, confirmed the directives from the AG’s office, saying that the law office had concluded that the witness, Mary Kulevome, was not cooperating with investigators, hence she could not be relied on for prosecution of the case.

He further stated that evidence so far deduced would not have supported her claim, hence the order.

Highly placed sources at the DVLA head office described the incident as malicious and willful, and said that the allegation by the lady is quite demoralizing, and as though adding salt to injury, the refusal of the authority to release the committee’s findings go to set a bad precedence for people to enforce discipline at work places.