Judicial Service stinks

A report of the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament has confirmed allegations of bribe-taking, misapplication of funds, inflation of contract sums and the absence of proper procedures for ensuring accountability in the judicial service, a report carried by ?The Insight? indicates.

Incidentally, the service is headed by the Chief Justice and the report signed by minority leader, Alban Bagbin, the Committee?s chairman does not spare the former chief justice.

The report quotes the Auditor General as indicating in his report that between January 1994 and May 1997, the tribunal section of the judicial service misapplied a total amount of ?1.9 billion meant for the payment of allowances and personal emoluments of tribunal panelists.

The Audit report reveals that though the second deputy judicial secretary, Mr. NCA Agbevor stated that the expenditure was made under the authorization of management, he could not substantiate it with any documentary evidence.

Whiles evidence tendered before the Parliamentary Committee confirmed that ?1.9 billion was actually misapplied; it showed that the misapplication was approved by management.

The Parliamentary Committee strongly recommended that a Mr. Fordjour, a former financial controller of the service who allegedly received ?62 million as bribe to enable him process documents of the Integrated Electrical Services for payment should be referred to the police for further investigations.

The managing director of the IES told the Committee that a total amount of ?62 million was paid to Fordjour on different occasions.

She alleged that an amount of ?24 million was paid to Fordjour per cheque number 38/C006237 of 4th December 1997 and additional ?10 million cash was paid to him in the presence of his wife and some staff of the company.

She also alleged that ?11million was paid to Mr. Fordjour on 23rd December, 1997 with cheque number 38/C006262, an additional ?7million in cash whilst the remaining ?5million was paid with cheque number 030860 of 10th August 1998.

The former financial controller, however, disputed the ?62million quoted by the managing director of IES.

He however admitted receiving only ?11million and ?5million on different occasions from the managing director of IES but indicated that the sums were for officials of the ministry of finance.

The Parliamentary Committee also found that the prices of several items bought by the service had either been varied without justification or inflated.

Although recommendations were made for the purchase of a number of computers with their accessories at ?4,400 each, the service eventually paid between $6,200 and $6,600 for each computer.

According to the paper, even the price of ?4,400 is believed to be on the high side.

In its Executive Summary, the Committee noted that there is no development planning in the service and, therefore, there is the tendency to opt for unauthorized selective development.

?Projects were often initiated before the source of finance was identified. In the rationalization of unauthorized expenditure, management for instance invented excuses and answers for possible future audit questions,? the Committee said.

There was also evidence before the Committee that the Internal Audit system was ineffective as the first bastion of defence against financial indiscipline.

It was also found out that the service has no Tender Board. Consequently, there is lack of coordination in the award of contracts. ?Contracts were awarded anyhow to friends and favourites and almost all senior management including the Chief Justice are guilty of this failure.?

Strangely, Mr. Fordjour has been re-engaged and there are reports that a number of very strange developments are taking place in the judicial service.