SFO REPORT ON NDUOM

Dr Paa Kwesi Nduom is currently the presidential candidate for the Convention Peoples Party (CPP) which, together with the Peoples National Congress led by Dr Edward Mahama, represent Nkrumaist claim to Government in the forthcoming 7 December 2008 Ghanaian elections.Prior to, during and after Nduom’s election to the CPP flagbearership, members and non-members of the CPP raised concerns about adverse findings made against Nduom by the Serious Fraud office (SFO) in November 1995. To date, the details of those findings have not been made public. Yet some MPs have managed to leak out the SFO report to parliament in Feb. 2001, during the vetting of Nduom for position of Minister of economic planning and regional co-operation.I have had a copy of the SFO report to parliament for some while now but took the view that if Ghanaians, Ghanaian politicians and Ghanaian institutions have chosen not to deal with the matter, then it is essentially where the matter should rest. That is, till now.Now, I believe the SFO report to parliament in February 2001 must be made public. And must be made public for following reasons:1. In the light of Nduom’s electoral promise that he would not pursue corruption trials against some past opposition officials. Seehttp://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=153782Readers should note carefully that I am not questioning the appropriateness or otherwise of Nduom’s electoral promise to discontinue corruption trials of past NDC Government members, even pardoning one jailed under same. Rather the promise, by a person who himself may well face corruption trial in future, raises questions about public corruption.2. Since the SFO docket in June 1996, nothing has been done. Failure to pursue the matter to date in the light of clear adverse findings against Nduom is a failing of the NDC government that left office in December 2000, as much as the current NPP Government which has been in power since January 2001. Significantly some NDC officials, at least one, aided Nduom’s breaches. Hence the promise by Nduom, to abandon current corruption trials against NDC members, might well be seen as serving self interest rather than public interest, regardless of the merit or otherwise of the Nduom’s promise.3. Then also the question of Nduom’s incapacity to deal with CPP’s internal dissent that may relate directly to the SFO albatross. Freddie Blay, a CPP card carrying member, was (and still is) the First Deputy speaker and Chairman of the Appointments Committee of Parliament, to whom the SFO directed its report on Nduom during Ndoum’s parliamentary vetting in 2001. Freddie facilitated Nduom’s confirmation as Minister, without bother of the SFO report. This IOU means that Nduom is unable to reign in Freddie as much as he has been successful in reining in leftists in the CPP. Readers should note below[- http://sil.ghanaweb.com/r.php?id=4172863&thread=4171768Nana To Appoint Blay Minister: “At a mammoth rally, unprecedented in this year’s election campaign, at Essiama to introduce Mr. Blay to his constituents on Saturday, Nana Addo Dankwa (NPP) electrified the crowd that besieged the event ground, when he revealed for the first time, one of the people he would appoint as a minister, to help him run the government he was preparing to form. According to Nana Addo, the cooperation that had existed in past elections between the NPP and Mr. Blay, was not going to end abruptly, during and after the campaign season, but would continue to another level, and this time in government.- http://sil.ghanaweb.com/r.php?id=3995014&thread=3993494The Central Committee of the Convention People's Party (CPP) on Friday nullified the re-election of Mr. Freddie Blay as aspiring parliamentary candidate of the party for the December polls and advised the regional and constituency executives to adhere to the directive. According to the CPP, Mr Blay, on three different occasions failed to appear before the party's Disciplinary Committee to explain his presence and pronouncements at a New Patriotic Party (NPP) rally on April 30 contrary to the party's position. ]I now summarize briefly the findings in SFO report as presented to parliament in February 2001, as attached, and provide comments.In the course of investigating the State Enterprises Commission (SEC) which gave contracts to Nduom, the SFO delved into the following:“(i) The means by which Dr. Nduom obtained contracts from the Stat Enterprises Commission (SEC); for example, holding himself out as a representative of Deloitte and Touche USA and at the same time purporting to be operating another Deloitte and Touche Consultancy, udder which he undertook various contracts with the State Enterprises Commission (SEC).“(ii) Allegations of conflict of interest involving Dr. Kwesi Nduom while he was a consultant and at the same time an Executive Director of the State Enterprises Commission (SEC).“(iii) Payments received from the State Enterprises Commission (SEC) for contracts not executed.“(iv) Illegal repatriation of income accruing to Dr. Kwesi Nduom from State Enterprises Commission (SEC) contracts into his personal account abroad, in the breach of aspects of the Exchange Control Act, 1961, Act 71 with attendant tax evasion on these incomes.”It would appear that Nduom was found guilty on all charges.1. Breach of fiduciary duties2. Divergence of individual interest from interests of employers, conflict of interest, pecuniary interest, fraudulence3. Wilful criminal act, masquerading another entity to subvert laws on repatriation of money overseas, obtaining financial advantage by deception4. causing financial loss to the state.It is instructive to note that the SFO did in fact say that the matter as I write is not closed. So any pursuit of the matter would have regard to the terms of the relevant Act and the ambit of criminal sanction. But in what appears to me to be some concession on the shortcomings of Nduom’s SEC contract performance, the evaluation committee reported thus:“In what the committee sees as a sign of co-operation with the investigation, Dr. Nduom has indicated that he may settle his taxes to the Internal Revenue Service in Ghana if his exemption from paying those taxes is unlawful. However the committee has recommended a return of the foreign currency equivalent of the amount unlawfully repatriated as Dr. P. K. Nduom’s fees, after the payment of taxes and a reasonable deduction for his expenses and business costs”.AND“However, it is pertinent to note that Dr. Nduom has indicated in his statement to the committee that in line with his company’s client service standard and obligation to meet the expectation of it’s customers, he feels obliged to go back to complete any aspects of concern raised by beneficiary organisations at no cost to the (organisations) should there be any compelling reasons to revisit areas in the original statement of work. The committee shares the above submission and recommendations that it must be seriously considered”.Should the matter be revisited today, there can be three clear unambiguous paths to a form of accommodation to Nduom and a possible pardonNduom must provide full disclosureNduom must make good all financial losses to the stateAnd both above must be fully accepted by the employing entitiesBy Nii Armah Kweifio-OkaiThe author is a native of Ghana, resident in Australia, and member of the NkrumaistForum-----------(FROM) SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE* * *(TO) HON. FREDDIE BLAY FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER & CHAIRMAN OF THE APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEE PARLIAMENT HOUSE ACCRA7th February 2001Dear SirRE: REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION REPORT ON DR. KWESI NDUOM, MINISTER OF ECONOMIC PLANNING AND REGIONAL CO-OPERATION DESIGNATEYour letter No. OP/A.101/2 of 6th February 2001 on the above subject refers.The following are the answers to your specific questions :1 (a) Question: Has Dr. Nduom ever been officially investigated by your outfit, when and for what?Answer: In November 1995, the Serious Fraud Office commenced investigations into allegations of fraud and malpractices in the State Enterprises Commission (SEC). Specific allegations covered irregularities in the areas of :(a) Management. (b) Discipline. (c) Corporate Director. (d) State Enterprises Commission Board. (e) The Executive Committee of the Commission (f) The Administration of the Commission. (g) Disposal of Vehicles. (h) Use of Vehicle. (i) Reform Programme. (j) Consultancy Agreements. (k) Consultancy Fees. (l) Courses and Seminars. (m) A Publication on the Executive Chairman of the Commission, Mr William Adda.In the course of the investigations, Dr. Kwesi Nduom’s transactions with the State Enterprises Commission (SEC) during the period were examined for their relevance to the State Enterprises Commission (SEC) affair.Among the issues were :(i) The means by which Dr. Nduom obtained contracts from the Stat Enterprises Commission (SEC); for example, holding himself out as a representative of Deloitte and Touche USA and at the same time purporting to be operating another Deloitte and Touche Consultancy, udder which he undertook various contracts with the State Enterprises Commission (SEC).(ii) Allegations of conflict of interest involving Dr. Kwesi Nduom while he was a consultant and at the same time an Executive Director of the State Enterprises Commission (SEC).(iii) Payments received from the State Enterprises Commission (SEC) for contracts not executed.(iv) Illegal repatriation of income accruing to Dr. Kwesi Nduom from State Enterprises Commission (SEC) contracts into his personal account abroad, in the breach of aspects of the Exchange Control Act, 1961, Act 71 with attendant tax evasion on these incomes.2. Question: What were the findings ? Answer: The findings are contained in the attached document entitled :--------“REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS INTO ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES AT THE STATE ENTERPRISES COMMISSION (SEC) CONDUCTED BY THE SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE (SF) JUNE 1996”A summary of events pertaining to Dr. Kwesi Nduom is also attached.CommentIt is important to mention that the Serious Fraud Office does not issue REPORTS to any authority. Documents on Serious Fraud Office investigations titled “Reports” are part of the internal records of the Serious Fraud Office.If there are criminal charges arising out of any Serious Fraud Office investigation, a DOCKET is prepared for study and advise by the Attorney General. A fiat is then obtained from the Attorney General for prosecution in court.In the specific case of the State Enterprises Committee (SEC) no docket was sent to the Attorney General because the former Acting Executive Director of the Serious Fraud Office during whose tenure of office the investigation was conducted did not act accordingly. The State Enterprises Committee (SEC) case, therefore, can still be said to be pending, the findings notwithstanding.Yours faithfullyB. A. SAPATI Ag. Executive Director.----------SUMMARY OF REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS INTO ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES AT THE STATE ENTERPRISES COMMISSION (SEC) CONDUCTED BY THE SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE (SF)On the instruction of the then Presidential Staffer Nii Okaija Adamafio, a special committee set up for the purpose in November 1995 conducted investigations into allegations of fraud and other malpractices in the State Enterprises Commission (sec) that had caused serious losses to the State.Specific allegations covered irregularities in the areas of : (a) Management. b) Discipline. (c) Corporate Director (d) State Enterprises Commission Board. (e) The Executive Committee of the Commission (f) The Administration of the Commission. (g) Disposal of Vehicles. (h) Use of Vehicle. (i) Reform Programme. (j) Consultancy Agreements. (k) Consultancy Fees. (l) Courses and Seminars. (m) A Publication on the Executive Chairman of the Commission, Mr William Adda.In the course of the committee’s work, Dr. Kwesi Nduom's transactions with the Commission during the period relevant to the probe came into sharp focus and had to be examined for their crucial relevance to the entire SEC affair.Among issues that became the subject of the Committee’s investigations were :(i) The propriety or otherwise of means by which Dr. Nduom obtained contracts from the SEC. For example, holding himself out as a representative of Deloitte and Touche USA and at the same time purporting to be operating another Deloitte and Touche Consultancy, under which he did various contracts with SEC.(ii) Allegations of conflict of interest involving Dr. Nduom while he was consultant and specifically while he acted as Executive Director (PME) of the Commission.(iii) Payments received from the State Enterprises Commission for contracts not executed.(iv) Illegal and fraudulent repatriation of income accruing to Dr. Nduom from the contracts into his personal account abroad, in breach of aspects of the Exchange Control Act, 1961, Act 71 with attendant tax evasion on these incomes. That operating together wit other Ghanaians as “foreign consultants”, Dr. Nduom and his colleague professionals had siphoned foreign exchange out of the country.A number of infractions incidental to Dr. Nduom's various contracts with the State Enterprises Commission as noted by the Committee were as follows :DR. NDUOM'S CONTRACTS WITH THE STATE ENTERPRISES COMMISSION (SEC)The Mode of Dr. Nduom's appointment as consultant to SEC on the SOERP presents some curious aspects.In 1987 the State Enterprises Commission embarked on a process of reforming the State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) with the aim of improving their efficiency. This was done under the State Owned Enterprise Reform Project (SOERP). In this regard the Government of Ghana, under an agreement, procured a credit facility from International Development Association (IDA) to implement the project.The agreement provided for the engagement of various shades of consultants - financial, management legal etc., including a State Owned Enterprise (SOE) Reform Program advisor and a divestiture advisor with satisfactory qualification, experience and terms and condition of employment.After the termination by SEC of an earlier contract with Price Waterhouse (PW) under the programme, on the grounds of unsatisfactory work, a new round of invitation for proposals from interested firms was initiated in October 1989. In response a number of firms / groups submitted proposals.In bidding for the contract Dr. Kwesi Nduom made representations to the effect that he had been appointed by Deloitte and Touche USA. He introduced a Deloitte and Touche Consultancy (West Africa)In this regard the committee saw for the first time the appearance of another “Deloitte and Touche” introduced as a consulting firm. In the circumstance the committee was confronted with a situation of two entities claiming the title Deloitte and Touche - the existing Deloitte and Touche Company-Charted Accountants, and Dr. Nduom's.The proposal from the new Deloitte and Touche Consultancy (Dr. Nduom's) had the following interesting features :(i) The proposal was not on letter headed paper showing its official origin as is usual in business communication.(ii) The only indication as to author was a mention in the last paragraph of “P Kwesi Nduom” and Aubert Zohore and their telephone numbers for contact purposes.(iii) The paper had “DRAFT” imprinted on it.(iv) The proposal was not signed.The above not withstanding Dr. Nduom won various contracts with the SEC. To facilitate his dealings under the consultancy Dr. Nduom manufactured letter heads to give the impression that he was a member of Deloitte and Touche.When contacted by the Committee on his views on the legitimacy of the new ”Deloitte and Touche” introduced by Nduom, Mr. J.K. Forson a Director of the existing Deloitte and Touche made it clear that the only entity which could claim the name Deloitte and Touche in Ghana was his firm and that he was in fact the International Service Co-ordinator for Deloitte and Touche International.However in an effort to “legitimise” his claim to Deloitte and Touche and transfer of his earnings abroad Dr. Nduom stated that he was a Managing Partner of Deloitte and Touche USA in which capacity he was mandated to represent the company and to hold himself out as such representative and to use the name of the company. As a result of such mandate, he was also bound to remit all his earnings to Deloitte and Touche USA [not readable]. Dr. Nduom could, however, not furnish the committee with any record of such mandate from the US company when requested by the committee to do so.At the Instance of Dr. Nduom SEC illegally transferred a total of one million and forty six thousand, two hundred and fifty eight US dollars and eighty seven cents (US$ 1,046,258.87) to the USA in favour of the former. Dr. Nduom has made various representations to the Commission to the effect that he was appointed by the US firm of Deloitte and Touche as their representative for which reasons he insisted on his earnings being transferred to his “employers” in the US.The Committee found that although the above amount was paid into an account in the US as instructed by Dr. Nduom the US firm of Deloitte and Touche never signed a consultancy agreement with the SEC for SOERP in which contract they appointed Dr. Kwesi Nduom as their representative in Ghana, and for which service under the contract they received payments in the US.The Committee found Dr. Nduom's acts as fraudulent, intended to induce Ghanaian Institutions to deal with him in the belief that they were dealing with the international firm of Deloitte and Touche thereby inducing payments to be made to the account he set up in the US in the name of “Deloitte and Touche(West African) Limited”.Another interesting dimension is the fact that although Nduom's wife, Mrs. Yvonne Nduom, a US citizen was a Director of Dr. Nduom's “Deloitte and Touche”, the company was not registered at the GIPC as an investment venture. In fact Dr. Nduom's wife stated her nationality as Ghanaian. In the light of the above, the committee was of the opinion that the company could not claim repatriation of profits under the investment law.ALLEGATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST INVOLVING DR NDUOM WHILE HE WAS CONSULTANT AND SPECIFICALLY WHILE HE ACTED AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (PME) OF THE SEC.On the above the committee found that while Dr. Nduom was engaged as an external consultant for the SEC he was appointed by the then Executive Chairman of the Commission Mr W. A. Adda as Executive Director of the Performance Monitoring and Evaluation (PME) Department, a position he occupied for two years. This placed Dr, Nduom in a situation where he became a client of his own consultancy services - having to evaluate and accept his own work.The fact was a source of conflict between Dr. Nduom and the other internal consultants of SEC.A further source of conflict was Dr. Nduom's claim for per diem. By treating Nduom as a ‘foreign consultant’, SEC paid him a total per diem of US$41,261. The Committee found that the provisions in Dr. Nduom’s contract for these benefits were improperly included and are null and void. See exhibit 11 (main report) for evidence of prohibition on Nduom charging per diem.Exhibit 14 (main report) shows per diem collected by Dr. Nduom from 1990 - 1995 while he worked at SEC and was concurrently a consultant at Ashanti Goldfields Company (AGC), Tema OIl Refinery(TOR), the then Post and Telecommunications (P&T) and Nestle (Gh) Ltd. for various periods of time. The committee found these periods substantial enough to support a conclusion that SEC did not have such exclusive monopoly of Dr. Nduom’s time that SEC should pay him per diem.Conflict of Interest in the Appointment of Consultants and in Decisions to Purchase Management Information Systems (MIS) for SOE’sBy his position as acting Executive Director of the PME Department of the Commission, Dr. Nduom was an insider who knew what specific jobs would require execution and what categories of professionals would be needed. Having responsibilities for deciding what job should be done and by who, Dr. Nduom appointed his associates and friends in the Deloitte and Touche scheme. By this foreign exchange was transferred abroad in payment to these consultants.Exhibit 15 to 15c (Main report) appear to demonstrate Dr. Nduom’s interest and influence in the appointment of one Mike Obuobi for the job of making decisions fo the provisions of a management information system for the SC and SOE’s, and the engagement of one Henry Benya on the Ghana Airways Improvement Programme. Theses were his friends and associates from his ‘Deloitte and Touche’ and whom the committee found to have had the most lucrative jobs for which payments were made by direct transfers of foreign exchange to his account in the US.Other situations that are suggestive of a conflict of interest with regards to Dr. Nduom’s advisory role in SEC in the procurement and installation of Management Information Systems was his involvement / relationship with companies that dealt in information systems as follows :(i) As Director and Shareholder together with Henry Benya and Phillip Sowah, two of his associates in the ‘Deloitte and Touche’ set up, in Touche Software solutions Global Software Limited,incorporated in Ghana in August 1992 to (a) develop computer software solutions (b) market package computer software solutions (c) provide facility management services.(ii) As Director and Shareholder with his wife,Yvonne Nduom, in Sterling Management Services Ltd., incorporated in Ghana in August 1992 to provide among its other business, management systems services.(iii) Dr. Nduom’s wife Yvonne was a Director and Shareholder together with Henry Benya, Mike Obuobi and Phillip Odotei Sowah in Intersys Limited incorporated in Ghana in June 1991 to do business in the provision of services in Information Technology systems.There is evidence on record that these companies did business with SEC during the time Dr. Nduom was acting Executive Director (PME) and during the time that Obuobi, Benya and Sowah worked at the SEC on the implementation of Management Information Systems for the SOE’s. There is also evidence that MIS hardware and software were supplied by one of these companies to SEC. Dr. Nduom admitted these facts but maintained that he had the approval of Mr. W. A. Adda for any action he took which involved these companies.RECONSTRUCTING OF THE STATE NEWSPAPER HOUSES AND GHANA PUBLISHING CORPORATION BY DR. NDUOMAnother example of conflict of interest situation involving Dr. Nduom was the evaluation of consultancy work done by his own Deloitte and Touche in the Newspaper Houses Restructuring Project, while he held Executive position in the SEC. By virtue of the Executive position he held in SEC, Dr. Nduom did evaluate the work of Deloitte and Touche based upon which evaluation the company’s work was accepted as satisfactory and paid for.Background.In line with Government policy initiated in 1989 by the then PNDC Secretary for Information, Dr. Mohammed Ben Abdallah, to arrest the poor state of the finances of the State Newspaper Houses, SEC sent out invitations to the under listed companies to submit proposals for a contract to undertake a study to determine the most appropriate mechanism for restructuring and capitalisation of the State Newspaper Houses., SEC sent out invitations to the under listed companies to submit proposals for a contract to undertake a study to determine the most appropriate mechanism for restructuring and capitalisation of the state newspaper houses.The companies included : !. Jacob Arthur and Partners 2. Egala Ocansey & Associates 3. Owusu and Fiadjoc. 4. Resource Management Consultants. 5. Coopers and Lybrand. 6. Peat, Marwick & Okoe. 7. Bening, Anang & Partners. 8. Deloitte and Touche Company - Chartered Accountants.The various proposals were evaluated and a recommendation was made by the Evaluation Committee to the effect that Peat, Marwick & Co. be given the first option of the negotiation having been assessed by the committee as the best among all the companies that submitted proposals. By a letter dated 22/4/91 (Ref. No. SEC/SCR.345) Mr. W. A. Adda made a proposal to Mr. Totobi Quakyi, then PNDC Secretary for information .... "to put together a team from various sources which, collectively does possess the expertise and experience needed for the assignment”.Dr. Kwesi NduomHowever, by a strange turn of events (as the committee did not find any records of how the choice was made), Dr. NDUOM emerged on the scene. On 31/5/91 Dr. Kwesi Nduom submitted a stage 1 Summary Results of the New Times Corporation, Restructuring Project to Mr. W. A. Adda. Again on 24/6/91 Dr. Nduom submitted another memorandum to the Executive Chairman of the SEC Mr. W. A. Adda on a stage 1 Summary Results Covering the Graphic Corporation Restructuring Project.On the [not readble] July 1991, Dr Nduom provided [not readble] General Recommendations on Ghana Publishing Corporation for discussion.Based on the above Summary Results, the Executive Chairman of the SEC Mr. W. A. Adda submitted recommendations to the then PNDC Secretary for In formation Mr. Totobi Quakyi for his reaction and possible approval to the implementation of the recommendations. Following this the Information Ministry signed an agreement with Dr. Nduom’s Deloitte and Touche Consulting (WA) to provide consultancy services in the restructuring of the Graphic corporation, New Times corporation and the Ghana Publishing corporation.The committee found that there was a great deal of reservations from the beneficiary organisations and in some cases outright rejection of the project as was executed by Dr. Nduom as follows:EXECUTION OF JOB AT THE GRAPHIC CORPORATIONAmong the flaws that characterised jobs undertaken by Dr. Nduom at the Graphic Corporation were that time frames provided by Deloitte and Touche to be spent by the various professionals engaged on the project were not met.With regards to the terms of reference that was attached to the project, Mr. Kofi Badu then Managing Director of the Graphic Corporation who had only inherited the project, stated, when he was shown the attachment by the committee, “if the documents shown to me represent the terms of reference agreed upon between the SEC and Deloitte and Touche, I can affirm that the tasks were not accomplished. Specifically : * No pilot project on the privitisation of the distribution along one route was ever carried out; * No strategy was designed or implemented by them to ensure effective debt collection; * No overhead cost reduction plan was designed and implemented; * Apart form the redundancies declared in their original reports which were carried out by management, no independent assessment of all established posts was done; * Nothing ha been done about the financial recapitalisation requirements of the project; * No product costing methods and procedures were developed for the corporation; * On the Information Systems Implementation, Mr. Kofi Badu stated that ... 'The Corporation encountered enormous difficulties with the software and in 1995, we were obliged to abandon it and replace it with a Sage software.’”EXECUTION OF JOB AT THE NEW TIMES CORPORATION Although Deloitte and Touche were supposed to have undertaken a restructuring exercise at the New Times Corporation in 1992, Mr. George Aryee, Managing Director of the corporation who assumed office at the time of the enquiry stated that on his assumption of office in July 1994 he did not find any indications of the restructuring by Deloitte and Touche. He described a computerisation exercise at the corporation’s account system by Deloitte and Touche as unsuitable. The Managing Director said any success story of the corporation was the result of his management’s efforts and not in any way related to any work carried out by Deloitte and Touche.EXECUTION OF JOB AT GHANA PUBLISHING CORPORATION In respect of the above job taken by Dr. Nduom, the Managing Director expressed a depth of dissatisfaction. For example an arrangement to station the under listed categories of officers at the Ghana Publishing Corporation Offices in connection with the project was never fulfilled by Deloitte and Touche. i. A Senior Consultant (operation and costing) for nine months; ii. A Project Director (Human Resources) for three months; iii. A Project Director, part time for nine months; iv. A Manager for 35 days; v. A Senior Consultant for 60 days; vi. A consultant for 130 days.The entire job was done by Deloitte and Touche and was described as having provided half-measured solutions. The committee found instances where the Ministry of Information accepted invoices from the consultants for processing for payment without verifying the status of the job done. By this action of processing for payment without verification, and amount of one hundred and fifty eight thousand, eight hundred and forty US dollars (US$ 158,840.00) has been paid by the state for no job done.OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Committee in its conclusions did not lose sight of the various categories of violation and findings of incompetence in administrative procedures with regards to the running of SEC by Mr W. A. Adda the then Executive Chairman of the Commission.Based on its findings with respect to Mr Adda’s handling of the consultancy for the SOERP, the committee recommended that Mr Adda bear responsibility for some of the financial losses to the State from the unlawful transfer of consultancy fees to the foreign account of four consultants namely, Dr. P. K. Nduom, Dr. Tait Davis and Professors Mkhululi and Shirima.For the unlawful manner in which Dr. Nduom got his fees transferred abroad with the attendant financial loss to the State (through taxes etc.), the committee is of the opinion that there is enough evidence to charge Mr. Adda, Dr. Nduom and Dr. Davis with criminal responsibility for the loss to the State.In what the committee sees as a sign of co-operation with the investigation, Dr. Nduom has indicated that he may settle his taxes to the Internal Revenue Service in Ghana if his exemption from paying those taxes is unlawful. However the committee has recommended a return of the foreign currency equivalent of the amount unlawfully repatriated as Dr. P. K. Nduom’s fees, after the payment of taxes and a reasonable deduction for his expenses and business costs.REACTION FROM DR. P. K. NDUOM In the opinion of Dr. Nduom his company Deloitte and Touche fulfilled its contractual obligations to its client the Ministry of Information (MOI) through the submission of monthly status reports. He stated further that he dealt directly with [not readable] the issues/activities and not the beneficiary organisation. According to Dr. Nduom, emerging from the monthly reports, a final report was prepared for approval by MOI on all aspects of the statement of work in the terms of reference.On complaints received on the job, Dr. Nduom provided evidence to show that his company took steps to address those that did come up. One other flaw which became of interest to the Committee was DR. Nduom’s failure to give copies of his monthly status reports to the beneficiary organisation, and neither did the Ministry of Education do that. The effect of this omission was that the beneficiary organisations were unable to monitor the progress / extent of work done and later had cause to complain to the Committee that Deloitte and Touche (D&T) did not complete the job for which they (D&T) had received full payment.The changes in the personalities at the top positions at the three beneficiary organisations at the start, during and at the completion of the project were identified as some of the factors that accounted for the inability of the Heads to keep track of the project.The committee held the view that the choice of Dr. P. K. Nduom and his Deloitte and Touche Consultancy for the project violated procedures, and systems laid down for appointing firms for projects of that nature. The committee expressed serious doubts about the competence of Deloitte and Touche Consulting in terms of experience and expertise in the Newspaper House Restructuring Project. The breaches observed by the committee were yet another demonstration of Mr. W. Adda’s unilateral decisions and actions in the absence of a substantive board.However, it is pertinent to note that Dr. Nduom has indicated in his statement to the committee that in line with his company’s client service standard and obligation to meet the expectation of it;s customers, he feels obliged to go back to complete any aspects of concern raised by beneficiary organisations at no cost to the (organisations) should there be any compelling reasons to revisit areas in the original statement of work.The committee shares the above submission and recommendations that it must be seriously considered.

FROM:Kweifio-Okai, George