What you need to know about CHRAJ’s ruling on National Cathedral, Okudzeto, Kusi Boateng

The Commission of Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) on Monday, November 25, 2024, released the report of its investigations into a petition brought before it by the Member of Parliament for North Tongu, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa.

The 165-page report made some revelations and conclusions which can be viewed as victories or defeats for Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, the National Cathedral, and/or Reverend Kusi Boateng, alias Kwabena Adu Gyamfi, depending on which side of the issue you stand.

As expected, Ablakwa and his supporters are claiming victories over certain decisions made by CHRAJ, while Reverend Kusi Boateng and supporters of the National Cathedral project believe that there could not be a more blatant vindication than the rejection of the double passport claims.

As Ghanaians digest the report, GhanaWeb highlights the victories chalked up by Ablakwa and Reverend Kusi Boateng, as well as some lingering questions from the report.

Reverend Kusi Boateng's victories

In his petition to CHRAJ, Okudzeto Ablakwa was seeking three reliefs against Reverend Kusi Boateng, alias Kwabena Adu Gyamfi.

The reliefs were conflict of interest, wrongful payment of monies to JNS Talent Centre, and double identity claims.

Conflict of Interest

CHRAJ basically cleared Reverend Kusi Boateng of any issue of conflict of interest on the basis that while Reverend Kusi Boateng was a Director of JNS Talent Centre, he did not place himself in a situation of potential conflict, as the company did not offer any service to the National Cathedral.

The conclusion by CHRAJ reads: “The 4th Respondent as both director of National Cathedral and the 5th Respondent (JNS Talent Centre) did not put himself in a position where his personal interest conflicted or was likely to conflict with the performance of the functions of his office as no transaction for the provision of services existed between the National Cathedral and the 5th Respondent company."

GH¢2.6 million payment

On the financial transaction that ensued between the National Cathedral and JNS Talent Centre, while CHRAJ had reservations about the informal nature of the whole transaction, it believes that there was enough evidence to support the claim by the National Cathedral board and JNS Talent Centre that the money was provided by the company to help the National Cathedral Secretariat settle the salaries of workers.

“The GH¢2,600,000 paid by the National Cathedral of Ghana to the 5th Respondent was a refund of an interest-free short-term loan granted to the National Cathedral by the 5th Respondent at a time when it needed funds to urgently pay its contractors.”

Double identity or double passport claims

While this appears to be the most significant victory for Reverend Kusi Boateng, the ruling appears to be controversial as it is a slight departure from the relief which was being sought by Ablakwa.

Okudzeto Ablakwa’s point was a case of double identity, which CHRAJ indicated that he provided documents from the Ghana Card, Voter ID, and Tax Identification Numbers.

However, CHRAJ in its ruling, based its judgment on the absence of the name ‘Kusi Boateng’ in the database of the passport office.

CHRAJ, therefore, cleared him of double passports and not double identity, as it declined to investigate that angle.

Ablakwa’s victories

Ribade Contract is illegal

The most significant victory for Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa was the conclusion by CHRAJ that the contract signed with Ribade for the construction of the National Cathedral was illegal and did not follow due procurement process.

The CHRAJ report stated: “The contract awarded to Ribade Company for the construction was in the sum of $312,394,049.53. The contract was awarded by the Board of Trustees without recourse to the concurrent approval by the Central Tender Review Committee, a key requirement of the Procurement Act having regard to the contract sum.

“The National Cathedral of Ghana did not strictly comply with the rules of public procurement provided for under Act 663 as amended by Act 914 when it purported to select and award the contract for the construction of the National Cathedral to Ribade Limited.

“The contract awarded to Ribade Company Ltd for the construction of the National Cathedral is illegal and void ab initio.”

Investigation and possible prosecution of the Board of Trustees

CHRAJ concluded in its report that there is a prima facie case for possible corruption activities in the awarding of the contract to Ribade and therefore wants the Special Prosecutor to investigate and possibly prosecute the Board of Trustees for their roles in it.

“The commission further recommends further investigation and possible prosecution of the Board of Trustees of the National Cathedral who superintended over the award of the contract to Ribade company in disregard to Act 663 as amended. These breaches of the procurement laws have the potential of courting international embarrassment for the country, considering its international status and that of Ribade Company Ltd.”



EK/AE