Dr. Benjamin Kumbuor, the Member of Parliament for Lawra-Nandom in the Upper West Region and the minority spokesman on finance, says the jailed former Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata did not breach any law when he decided to invest in cocoa production. According to him, though cocoa production is not part of the core business of the GNPC, the laws that established the latter allowed it to venture into other non-core business areas, in order to raise money for the purpose of advancing the work of the corporation. Speaking on "Good Evening Ghana" show on Metro TV last Thursday night, Kumbuor, who also lectures Tax Law at the Ghana School of Law, said it was because of this same clause in the GNPC's statute that made Tsatsu to also venture into Westel, a telecommunications company. He noted that though Westel has been able to generate so much profit to the State, the government and those who prosecuted him are not saying anything about this financial gain to the State but are only interested in the financial loss aspect to the state. Kumbuor also dismissed claims that the board of the GNPC was not aware of the decision to support Valley Farms for the cocoa production. He admitted that Tsatsu did not initially inform the board when he started preliminary discussions with Valley Farms, but he noted that the board later ratified the final decision and all the transactions. The Lawra-Nandom MP also contended that the accused person did not have any cause to suspect that the project would not be viable because the feasibility study on the whole venture was done by a reputable institution like the International Finance Corporation (IFC). Dr. Kumbuor also disagreed with the notion that Tsatsu had a fair trial. According to him, it is a fundamental right as enshrined in the constitution for accused persons to be represented in court by a counsel. He noted that on the day that Justice Henrietta Abban delivered her judgement, counsel for Tsatsu had travelled outside the country with the consent of the court. According to Kumbuor, though the accused person drew the attention of the Judge to the fact that he had no access to legal representation, the judge overruled him on the grounds that the accused is also a lawyer and could represent himself. He described the position of the judge as very unfortunate because she clearly infringed upon the rights of the accused person to have a choice of his own legal representation. Dr. Kumbuor also took serious exception to a comment made by Justice Abban that she would go ahead with her judgement with or without legal counsel and that Tsatsu can go to the press with her decision. Also on the panel was an Accra based legal practitioner and NPP parliamentary aspirant for Abuakwa in the Eastern Region, Mr. Atta Akyea, who challenged that there was no record to confirm the claim by Dr. Kumbuor that the GNPC board ratified the project. He contended that if indeed the board had ratified the transaction, then Tsatsu would have tendered that document in court to support his evidence, but that did not happen. He also argued that even if Tsatsu had succeeded in getting the IFC to tender the feasibility study, it would not have helped his cause because ultimate responsibility for the decision was on him, although Mr. Akyea insisted that Tsatsu did not consult the board. Akyea agreed with Kumbuor that the GNPC laws allow the CEO to look elsewhere for money to finance their operations but said Tsatsu took a gamble when he decided to go into non-core areas of GNPC, such as in telecommunications and cocoa production. Fortunately for him, he succeeded in telecommunication but failed at cocoa production. Atta Akyea, who mentioned Tsatsu as a good friend and sympathised with his family over his incarceration, again disagreed with Kumbuor that the accused did not have a fair trial. He contended that the convict was given his constitutional right to defend himself, before the judge finally gave her judgement. He said during the trial the judge even agreed with Tsatsu to subpoena the IFC to testify on his behalf but the IFC refused to do so on the grounds of the immunity it enjoyed. The Abuakwa NPP parliamentary aspirant also argued that Tsatsu knew that the judgement was going to be delivered that day, therefore the impression being created that he was not aware is nothing but a fallacy. He further said Tsatsu had concluded his written addresses to signify the end of the case, so the decision by the judge to give judgement was not strange. Kumbuor, however, came back to puncture holes in the arguments made by his learned friend. According to him, the mere fact that the defendant had submitted his address did not mean that he could not introduce fresh evidence that would help his defense. "There is no clause in the criminal code that states that fresh evidence cannot be adduced after the defendant has filed his written addresses", he said. He wondered what would happen if the Supreme Court decided that the IFC must come and produce the feasibility study, now that the accused has been jailed. Both Panelists, however, agreed that the law must stay, with Dr. Kumbuor advocating that there should be some definition within the laws’ ambiguity. Source: The Credit