Paul Adom-Otchere, the board chairman of Ghana Airports Company Limited (GACL), has been cleared by the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) of any wrongdoing regarding the company’s purchase of Christmas decorations in 2021.
After Sacut Amenga-Etego filed a petition alleging that the Board Chair violated many laws and regulations in the process of obtaining the decorations, Mr. Adom-Otchere was investigated by CHRAJ.
CHRAJ confirmed in its report dated October 30, 2023, signed by Commissioner Joseph Whittal, that Mr. Adom-Otchere had sought an invoice from one of the vendors, Favours and Arts, in the combined names of himself and GACL, a “breach of Act 663, albeit minor.”
Read Also: 1,105 Ghanaians benefit from National Rental Assistance Scheme – Asenso-Boakye
However, the Commission declared that it had not discovered any proof to support the allegations that Mr. Adom-Otchere had violated other Act 663 provisions or other corporate governance guidelines.
Background
GACL, allegedly under the direction of Adom-Otchere, allegedly spent around $118,000 in government funds on the abovementioned Christmas trees and lights.
Sacut Amenga-Etego brought the Board Chair of the corporation before CHRAJ over the accusations as a result.
One of his demands was a declaration that, in December 2021, Mr. Adom-Otchere had acquired decorations in violation of many provisions of the Public Financial Management Law, the Public Acquisition Law, and corporate governance norms.
In addition, he asked that GACL surcharge Mr. Adom-Otchere for the total amount in question and that CHRAJ forward its findings and suggestions on the respondent’s prosecution to the appropriate authorities.
CHRAJ in its report said: “Our investigations did not reveal that the respondent breached several provisions of Act 663 as amended. The procurement of the Christmas inspirations was done by the management albeit with some active participation by the respondent in the sense that he requested an invoice from one of the suppliers, Favors and Arts.”
“This invoice was issued in the joint names of the respondent and the GACL. As the provisions of Act 663 do not require that invoices be submitted in the personal names of Board Chairmen of state-owned enterprises, we agree that was a breach of Act 663 albeit minor.” CHRAJ further said, “Apart from this, we did not find that the respondent breached other provisions of Act 663 as amended. We also find that the respondent breached some but not several provisions of corporate governance in some roles that he played in the procurement of the inspirations and his appearance via media on media matters relating to the procurement.”
Despite exonerating the GACL Board Chairman, CHRAJ chastised him for “requesting invoices and his media appearances in relation to matters involving the GACL of which he is the Board Chairman.”
Such conduct, according to the CHRAJ, “does not auger well for good corporate governance.”
“We recommend that the respondent should restrain himself from interfering in the work of management and restrict himself purely to his prescribed functions as Board Chairman.”
