Dirty fuel saga: BOST, NPA sued

BOST New File Photo

Thu, 6 Jul 2017 Source: classfmonline.com

Strategic Thinkers Network-Africa, a public interest advocacy group, has filed a suit at the Accra High Court to have the transaction involving the sale of off-spec oil by the Bulk Oil Storage and Transportation Company Limited (BOST) to Movenpinaa Energy and others rendered “null and void”.

Cited in the suit are the National Petroleum Authority (NPA), BOST, Managing Director of BOST Alfred Obeng Boateng, Movenpinaa Energy, Zup Oil, and Macwest as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th defendants.

The Plaintiff averred that without investigating the background of Movenpinaa Energy and its standing with the NPA, Mr Boateng approved the sale of five million litres to Movenpinaa at a unit price of GHS1 per litre on credit without public tender or auction for disposing public property.

The Plaintiff avers that Mr Boateng, acting on behalf of BOST, had no legal authority to approve and should not have approved the sale of the adulterated products to Movenpinaa since the firm was not licensed to engage in the downstream petroleum industry by the NPA.

The Plaintiff says that the Movenpinaa subsequently sold to Macwest, two million litres at GHS1.32 per litre for GHS2,640,000, making a profit of GHS640,000 having purchased the product at GHS1 per litre in a scheme to cause huge financial loss to the state.

Based on all the information stated, counsel for the plaintiff, Godwin Kudzo Tameklo, who filed the case on Thursday July 6, indicated in the statement of claim that the entire transaction was “illegal, fraudulent, and with potential to cause financial loss to the state”.

Strategic Thinkers Network-Africa is therefore seeking the following reliefs:

1. A declaration that the transaction for the disposal of the contaminated fuel from the 1st Defendant acting through the 2nd Defendant to the 3rd and 4th Defendants is illegal, unlawful and in clear violation of Section 16(2)(c) of the Page | 6 Public Procurement Act, 2003(Act 663) as amended by the Public Procurement (Amendment) Act, 2016 (Act 914).

2. A declaration that the decision to single source the sale of the contaminated fuel products to the 4th Defendant by the 2nd Defendant acting through the 3rd Defendant is in clear contravention of Section 35 and 40(1) of Public Procurement Act, 2003, (Act 663) as amended by the Public Procurement (Amendment) Act, 2016 (Act 914).

3. A declaration that the activities of the 4th and 5th Defendants in engaging in downstream petroleum activities without licenses is in violation of Section 11 of the National Petroleum Authority Act, 2005 (Act 691).

4. An order of the Honourable Court setting aside the entire transaction on grounds of illegality and fraud.

5. Costs, including the cost of legal representation.

6. Any other reliefs that this Honourable Court may deem fit.

Source: classfmonline.com
Related Articles: