Europe’s largest aircraft manufacturer, Airbus, has been ordered to pay a £3 billion fine after admitting to paying huge bribes to land contracts in 20 countries, including Ghana.

Airbus agreed to pay the fine on Friday after reaching settlements with investigators in the UK, France and the US to end inquiries that started four years ago.

The fine has been described by anti-graft bodies as the largest corporate handed to a company in the world after judges declared that the corruption was “grave, pervasive and pernicious”.

But how is Ghana involved in the scandal?

Ghana bought three Airbus C-295 military transport aircraft in 2015. It is the processes leading to the purchase of these aircraft that was investigated by the UK’s SFO.

This is what a document from the UK Crown Court revealed:

- Between July I, 2011  and June 1, 2015, Airbus failed to prevent persons associated with it from bribing others concerned in the purchase of military transport aircraft for the government of Ghana. - The bribe was intended to obtain or retain business for advantage in the conduct of business for Airbus. Read the full dossier on Ghana below - Between 2009 and 2015, an Airbus defence company engaged someone only identified as Intermediary 5 as its representative in respect of the proposed sale of three military transport aircraft to the Government of Ghana. - We do not know who intermediary 5 is but there are clues provided by the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO). They describe this individual as a close relative of a high ranking elected Ghana government official. - He is also described as a UK national with no prior expertise in the aerospace industry. A number of Airbus employees knew that Intermediary 5 was a close relative of the government official. - The name of that government official was also not disclosed but the UK SFO observes that this official was a key decision-maker in respect of the proposed sale. - False documents were created by or with the agreement Airbus employees in order to support and disguise the payment of the bribes. - The payments were intended to induce or reward improper favour by the government official towards Airbus. - That was, however, halted due to the arrangements failing due diligence processes required by the liquidation committee.

Key actors in the scandal

- Government Official 1 (high ranking and elected) - Intermediary 5 (British national and a close relative of Government Official 1) - Company D (corporate vehicle for Intermediary 5 - shareholder) - Intermediary 6 (British national and associate of Intermediary 5) - Intermediary 7 (British national and associate of Intermediary 5) - Intermediary 8 (Spanish company and front for Intermediary 5)

Hansard from Parliament on the deal

As the media launches a manhunt for the identity of this ‘intermediary and government official’ mentioned in the UK court ruling, a 2011 Hansard from Parliament details the then Minority’s [NPP] opposition to the purchase of the aircraft.

Alban Bagbin (L) was Majority leader at the time the deal was brought to Parliament

Led by the then Minority Leader, Osei Kyei Mensah Bonsu, the NPP MPs did not want the deal to go through because they were concerned about the lack of due diligence report or value for money audit made available to the House on the purchase agreement.

He did not understand why Ghana was buying an aircraft which the manufacturer stated on its website as costing $22 million for €24.5 million.

The Minority leader wanted an explanation for the difference, insisting all of the explanations given him, suffered “a deficit of rationalisation.”

What has been the responses since the story broke?

The opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC) was the first to issue a statement on the subject.

In that statement, signed by Marietta Brew Appiah-Oppong, the Former Attorney General and Minister of Justice, denied that nay bribes were paid during the purchase of the military transport aircraft.

Shortly after that, a statement from the Presidency followed, tasking the Special Prosecutor to conduct an inquiry into the Ghanaian officials accused of engaging in bribery.

At a press conference organized by the governing New Patriotic Party on Monday, Director of Communications, Yaw Buaben Asamoa claimed former president John Mahama was the ‘Government Official 1” mentioned in the court document.

He challenged Mr Mahama to officially respond to the court document.

Related: Airbus bribery scandal is nothing but NPP at its diversionary best - Asiedu Nketia

But did the media misinterpret the court document?

Law lecturer, Justice Srem Sai thinks so.

In an interview on Joy FM’s midday news bulleting, he said that while the issue is related to corruption, the statement of fact and the settlement terms as available do not in any way suggest that a bribe was actually paid.

He explained that under UK laws, companies are supposed to put in place measures, policies and programmes to prevent landing in a conflict of interest situations that may lead to corruption and the failure of a company to put such measures in place is in itself a crime

What is seen from the statement of fact and the settlement terms, he indicated, is a failure on the part of Airbus to put in place mechanisms that would have prevented dealing with a conflicted person.