Anas Video: I didn't take $65K 'gift' or 'bribe' – Nyantakyi
Former President of the Ghana Football Association (GFA), Kwesi Nyantakyi, has denied taking a sum of $65,000 from a member of the Tiger Eye PI investigative team who posed as a Qatari businessman in the Number 12 exposé of investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas.
The undercover work uncovered rot within the GFA.
Mr Nyantakyi, who was caught on camera taking the alleged $65,000 from the undercover team, denied the said amount in a long statement.
He said: “From voice over commentaries on the video, I was reported to have accepted $65,000 in banknotes in October 2017 from a man claiming to be a member of the Qatari Royal Family (the Sheikh) who told me that “the money was for shopping” and that I then thanked the said man, “placed the banknotes into a black plastic bag” but “failed to report this large gift to the GF”. I vehemently deny the same, and wish to state that;
i. it is completely false that I received $65,000 from a person claiming to be a member of the Qatari Royal Family.
ii. It is also completely false that at the time the money was handed to me, I was informed “that the money was for shopping”.
iii In the context of (ii) above, it is, therefore, false that I was handed a “large gift”.
Mr Nyantakyi explained that he was handed the sum of $40,000 only in eight bundles of US$50 banknotes but not $65,000 “which both I and the Sheikh’s agent understood to be reimbursement for the travel costs incurred by me, at the Sheikh’s request. It is very easy to confirm how much was given to me from the video tapes. The money was exposed before I was tricked to put in the bag personally”.
“A critical review of the video clip will reveal that when the money was handed to me, there was no mention of shopping. A different video has a voice emerging from a faceless speaker saying ‘shopping for now’. This insertion of an overriding voice was clearly an afterthought.”
He said he was baffled as to why “Tiger Eye lied about the amount of money given to me. Why was the viewing public not allowed to perceive what they saw and heard on the video themselves? Why run commentaries to deceive the viewing public?”