Minority leader, Alban Bagbin for and on behalf of t he minority group in Parliament has petitioned the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice, (CHRAJ) to investigate the renovation works carried out on President Kufuor’s house.
The petition asks the Commission to particularly ascertain the scope of works done on the house, the amount of money involved and the sources of funding for the said renovation.
The NDC minority named President Kufuor as the first respondent, Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Nana Akufo-Addo, second respondent, former Works and Housing Minister, Kwamena Bartels MP and former Chief of Staff, Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey as third and fourth respondents respectively.
The complainant, Hon. Bagbin contended that the application of public funds for the renovation of the president’s house was illegal and amounts to an abuse of office.
According to the petition, the acceptance of the donation has the potential of compromising and corrupting the presidency and the same sins against the strict provisions of Article 284 of the 1992 Constitution.
Publish the full text of the petition
COMPLAINT TO THE COMMISSION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE
1. Name of Complainant: Alban S.K. Bagbin (Minority Leader) for and on behalf of the Minority Group in Parliament.
2. Address of Complainant: Office of Parliament Parliament House Accra. 3. Persons against whom complaint is lodged: a. His Excellency President J.A. Kufuor Office of the President The Castle, Osu Accra
b. The Honourable Attorney-General c. Mr. Kwamena Bartels (Former Minister for Works and Housing) d. Mr. Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey (Former Chief of Staff) Office of the President
Particulars of Complainant:
a) The 1st Respondent is the President of the Republic of Ghana b) The 2nd Respondent is the Principal legal adviser and the representative of the government in all-legal matters.
c) The 3rd Respondent is a Member of Parliament and the former Minister for Works and Housing.
d) The 4th Respondent is the Minister for Information and the former Chief of Staff at the office of the President.
e) That at all material times the Respondents herein acted as public officers in a matter touching and concerning the renovation of the private residence of the 1st Respondent.
f) That a few weeks into his assumption of office as the President of the Republic of Ghana the 1st Respondent agreed with the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents to have his private residence renovated with funds procured from the vote of the office of the Chief of Staff.
g) That the said funds from the security vote were at all material times public funds.
h) That the exact amount involved in the renovation and extension works to the private residence of the 1st Respondent has to date not been disclosed to the public.
i) When the issue of the renovation works around the 1st respondent’s house came up, three gentlemen two in the construction industry and one in manufacturing came out to say on a radio station which was later reported in the Public Agenda that they worked on the 1st Respondent’s house free of charge. Please see copy of an extract of Public Agenda dated April 9, 2001 and marked Exhibit AB1.
j) Sometime in May 2001 the issue of the renovation and external improvement Honourable Alhaji Amadu Seidu raised works to the private residence of the 1st Respondent in Parliament.
k) In answer to the question raised by the Honourable Alhaji Seidu the 3rd Respondent admitted that public funds were used to provide additional improvement to t he 1st Respondent’s house, which included the levelling of a car park and the installation of barbed wires over the wall of the house.
l) The 3rd Respondent failed and/or refused to disclose to the House who the contractors were and the amount involved in the renovation works but promised to lay the information on the table of Parliament for security reasons. Please see copy of Hansard dated 29th may, 2001 and marked as Exhibit AB2.
m) In a further answer to the urgent question posed by Honourable Alhaji Seidu the 3rd Respondent disclosed in a letter dated 1st June 2001 that the amount involved in the external works to the House of the 1st Respondent was C40, 781,683.00 in addition to repairs to the original gate at the cost of C683, 500.00 and same was carried out by the Public Works Department (PWD) and Look and Pick Enterprise. See copy of letter dated 1st June 2001 attached and marked Exhibit AB3.
n) It is pertinent to note that the 3rd Respondent claimed this time that the renovation works did not include the installation of the barbed wires over the wall of t he 1st Respondent.
o) That the 4th respondent who at all material times had control of these public funds authorised the disbursement of same for the execution of a private job.
p) That it is our contention that the application of public funds for the renovation of the 1st Respondent’s house was illegal and amounts to an abuse of office.
q) That it is further contended that by falling and/or refusing to disclose the exact amount involved in the renovation of the 1st respondent’s house and the contractors involved, the respondents failed to live up to the provisions of the Directive Principles of State Policy as enshrined in Chapter 6 of the 1992 Constitution.
r) Sometime in June 2001, it was reported in the media that a cheque for C41 million had been donated to the 1st respondent and same was received on his behalf by the 3rd respondent from one Kwame Marfo, a Kumasi based farmer to cover the cost of renovation and extension works carried out at the private residence of the 1st respondent.
s) The 3rd respondent has since admitted in public that the 1st respondent has accepted the donation.
t) That the 3rd respondent at all material times aided and/or facilitated the making of the donation by Kwame Marfo.
u) That the acceptance of the donation has the potential of compromising and corrupting the Presidency and the same sins against the strict provisions of Articles 284 of the 1992 Constitution.
v) That since the 1st respondent received the donation no attempt has been made to pay the necessary taxes on it as stipulated in section 108 of the Internal Revenue Act (Act 592).
Reliefs sought by the Complainant:
a) That the Commission cause an investigation to be conducted into the renovation works carried out on the 1st respondent’s house and particularly to ascertain the scope of works done on the house, the amount of money involved and the sources of funding for the said renovation.
b) Pursuant to the aforesaid investigations the Commission makes any further orders or other orders, as it may deem necessary.
Minority leader, Alban Bagbin for and on behalf of t he minority group in Parliament has petitioned the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice, (CHRAJ) to investigate the renovation works carried out on President Kufuor’s house.
The petition asks the Commission to particularly ascertain the scope of works done on the house, the amount of money involved and the sources of funding for the said renovation.
The NDC minority named President Kufuor as the first respondent, Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Nana Akufo-Addo, second respondent, former Works and Housing Minister, Kwamena Bartels MP and former Chief of Staff, Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey as third and fourth respondents respectively.
The complainant, Hon. Bagbin contended that the application of public funds for the renovation of the president’s house was illegal and amounts to an abuse of office.
According to the petition, the acceptance of the donation has the potential of compromising and corrupting the presidency and the same sins against the strict provisions of Article 284 of the 1992 Constitution.
Publish the full text of the petition
COMPLAINT TO THE COMMISSION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE
1. Name of Complainant: Alban S.K. Bagbin (Minority Leader) for and on behalf of the Minority Group in Parliament.
2. Address of Complainant: Office of Parliament Parliament House Accra. 3. Persons against whom complaint is lodged: a. His Excellency President J.A. Kufuor Office of the President The Castle, Osu Accra
b. The Honourable Attorney-General c. Mr. Kwamena Bartels (Former Minister for Works and Housing) d. Mr. Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey (Former Chief of Staff) Office of the President
Particulars of Complainant:
a) The 1st Respondent is the President of the Republic of Ghana b) The 2nd Respondent is the Principal legal adviser and the representative of the government in all-legal matters.
c) The 3rd Respondent is a Member of Parliament and the former Minister for Works and Housing.
d) The 4th Respondent is the Minister for Information and the former Chief of Staff at the office of the President.
e) That at all material times the Respondents herein acted as public officers in a matter touching and concerning the renovation of the private residence of the 1st Respondent.
f) That a few weeks into his assumption of office as the President of the Republic of Ghana the 1st Respondent agreed with the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents to have his private residence renovated with funds procured from the vote of the office of the Chief of Staff.
g) That the said funds from the security vote were at all material times public funds.
h) That the exact amount involved in the renovation and extension works to the private residence of the 1st Respondent has to date not been disclosed to the public.
i) When the issue of the renovation works around the 1st respondent’s house came up, three gentlemen two in the construction industry and one in manufacturing came out to say on a radio station which was later reported in the Public Agenda that they worked on the 1st Respondent’s house free of charge. Please see copy of an extract of Public Agenda dated April 9, 2001 and marked Exhibit AB1.
j) Sometime in May 2001 the issue of the renovation and external improvement Honourable Alhaji Amadu Seidu raised works to the private residence of the 1st Respondent in Parliament.
k) In answer to the question raised by the Honourable Alhaji Seidu the 3rd Respondent admitted that public funds were used to provide additional improvement to t he 1st Respondent’s house, which included the levelling of a car park and the installation of barbed wires over the wall of the house.
l) The 3rd Respondent failed and/or refused to disclose to the House who the contractors were and the amount involved in the renovation works but promised to lay the information on the table of Parliament for security reasons. Please see copy of Hansard dated 29th may, 2001 and marked as Exhibit AB2.
m) In a further answer to the urgent question posed by Honourable Alhaji Seidu the 3rd Respondent disclosed in a letter dated 1st June 2001 that the amount involved in the external works to the House of the 1st Respondent was C40, 781,683.00 in addition to repairs to the original gate at the cost of C683, 500.00 and same was carried out by the Public Works Department (PWD) and Look and Pick Enterprise. See copy of letter dated 1st June 2001 attached and marked Exhibit AB3.
n) It is pertinent to note that the 3rd Respondent claimed this time that the renovation works did not include the installation of the barbed wires over the wall of t he 1st Respondent.
o) That the 4th respondent who at all material times had control of these public funds authorised the disbursement of same for the execution of a private job.
p) That it is our contention that the application of public funds for the renovation of the 1st Respondent’s house was illegal and amounts to an abuse of office.
q) That it is further contended that by falling and/or refusing to disclose the exact amount involved in the renovation of the 1st respondent’s house and the contractors involved, the respondents failed to live up to the provisions of the Directive Principles of State Policy as enshrined in Chapter 6 of the 1992 Constitution.
r) Sometime in June 2001, it was reported in the media that a cheque for C41 million had been donated to the 1st respondent and same was received on his behalf by the 3rd respondent from one Kwame Marfo, a Kumasi based farmer to cover the cost of renovation and extension works carried out at the private residence of the 1st respondent.
s) The 3rd respondent has since admitted in public that the 1st respondent has accepted the donation.
t) That the 3rd respondent at all material times aided and/or facilitated the making of the donation by Kwame Marfo.
u) That the acceptance of the donation has the potential of compromising and corrupting the Presidency and the same sins against the strict provisions of Articles 284 of the 1992 Constitution.
v) That since the 1st respondent received the donation no attempt has been made to pay the necessary taxes on it as stipulated in section 108 of the Internal Revenue Act (Act 592).
Reliefs sought by the Complainant:
a) That the Commission cause an investigation to be conducted into the renovation works carried out on the 1st respondent’s house and particularly to ascertain the scope of works done on the house, the amount of money involved and the sources of funding for the said renovation.
b) Pursuant to the aforesaid investigations the Commission makes any further orders or other orders, as it may deem necessary.
Copyright © 1994 - 2024 GhanaWeb. All rights reserved.
