Lamarblogspot

The Special Prosecutor’s Office (OSP) exempted former president John Mahama from all corruption and reprehensible act after his investigations on the Airbus scandal, which started in February 2020.

Information journalists on Thursday, August 8, 2024, the special prosecutor, Kissi Agyebeng, said after his investigations, he could not establish any evidence suggesting that John Mahama or any civil servant received bribes from Airbus SE.

Consequently, the OSP found no basis for evidence that suggests that Samuel Adam Foster also known as Samuel Adam Mahama, Philip Shun Middlemerth and Lean Sarah Davies acted as corruption conduits between Airbus and former President John Mahama or any other public agent.

In addition, the PDOS found no basis for evidence that suggests that Samuel Adam Mahama, Philip Shun Middlerts and Lean Sarah Davies have received payments from Airbus with the intention of bringing former President John Dramani Mahama or any other civil servant.

In addition, the PDOS has found no basis for evidence that suggests that former president John Mahama or any other official was paid for bribes by Samuel Adam Foster, also known as Samuel Adam Mahama, Philip Shun Middlememeth and Lean Sarah Davies with regard to the purchase by the Ghana government of Airbus military transport aircraft, “, he noted.
John Dramani Mahama, former president and now carrying a flag for the National Democratic Congress (NDC) was vice-president when the incident occurred.

Fundamental search

A ventilation of the Airbus corruption scandal

Ghana bought three military planes – C295 – in Airbus. The country obtained its first C295 in November 2011. The second plane was received in April 2012 and the third in November 2015.

John Dramani Mahama, former president and now carrying a flag for the National Democratic Congress (NDC) was vice-president when the incident occurred.

The transactions which covered them were supported at the time to comply with the 2009-2012 strategic plan of the Armed Forces of Ghana.

The three purchases, approved by the Ghana Parliament, after soil -lived disagreements, were marketed by the government of the time to modernize the Ghana air forces.

Financing for the purchase of aircraft

The financing of the first two C295 comes from a loan facility of € 60,034,636 of the Deutsche Bank Sae

An additional loan of 11,750,000 million euros from Fidelity Bank Ghana Limited was also approved by the Parliament during the acquisition period of two DA42 Guardian surveillance planes for Ghana Airforce.

The room has also approved a total loan sum of 105,370,177.09 $ from the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES) for the purchase of a Jet Embraer E190 for the country. The Embraer agreement was to cover the related spare parts, the relevant accessories as well as the construction of a hungar of aircraft large enough to house three large planes.

Before the parliamentary approval of the loan agreements, the chief of the minority, Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu, had criticized the transactions that are both questionable and not transparent, adding that the sums of the contract had been padded by the government.

He filed figures obtained on the internet to support his claims, but was despised for having done more than counting on Google to find allegations as serious of reprehensible acts.

One of the C295 acquired within the framework of the agreement supported the missions led by the United Nations in Mali. The others were bought, as the government explained at the time, to support the strategic operations of the Ghana Air Force, including the surveillance of the country’s offshore oil production fields, the border patrol, the training of pilots and the internal transport of troops.

In November 2014, President John Mahama then announced that Ghana planned to acquire more military equipment, including five Super Tucanos, MI-17 and four Z-9, for the Air Force of Ghana.

At the time, Ghanaian troops would have a lot of way on civilian flights for their movements and needed military aircraft to correct this anomaly. Despite opposition criticism, the government has concluded the purchasing agreements.

The judgment of the British Court

The recent judgment of the Court of the Crown of England in Southwark seems to have now given new life to previous suspicions according to which the agreements covering the C295 in particular were corrupt. The decision of January 21, 2020 approved a delayed prosecution agreement (DPA) between the Serious Fraud Office and Airbus SE, a subsidiary of Airbus, after surveys have exposed massive corruption scandals involving the aircraft manufacturer in violation of the 2010 corruption law.

English law authorizes the SFO to postpone the pursuit of an organization based on an agreement between the SFO and a company or companies suspected of having committed economic crimes.

Such an agreement – (DPA) – requires that a judicial approval seal becomes legal and can even allow the incriminated institution to completely avoid prosecution.

The court, in its decision on these requests, considers among other things, whether or not DPA before its public interest.

In addition, the terms of the agreement must be fair, reasonable and proportionate.

In this case, the court concluded that the DPA was in the public interest and that the terms have agreed to respond to the tests of equity, reasonability and proportionality.

The court estimated that the prosecutor Airbus would now, among other things, lead to massive job losses and decimate business performance on the long -term stock market.

The independent estimates suggest that Iirbus could easily bleed around 200 billion pounds in the long term if it was facing prosecution immediately.

The judgment indicated that the SFO surveys revealed that Iirbus – which had since agreed to pay more than 3 billion pounds of fines – had engaged in regimes which involved bringing its way to lucrative contracts in countries such as Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Indonesia and Ghana.

The French and American authorities have also found similar evidence of alleged corruption involving officials from Airbus and their agents in other countries, including Russia and China.

In the case of Ghana, the judgment of the Crown Court highlights the cases where Airbus officials, as part of a program to obtain and or maintain contracts with the government, weld or accepted intermediaries with close links with a senior state official would have influenced the plans of purchasing the country between 2011 and 2015.

The court documents have not mentioned any name, but the period indicated in the judgment covered certain periods of the Mills-Mahama era.

The first agreement to pay bribes in Ghana was to involve around 5 million euros which was disguised as an intermediary of an intermediary – “Intermediary 5” – engaged by Airbus to promote its proposal to sell two C295 aircraft in Ghana. Awakened, regular procedure tests have exposed the questionable provisions and no money has been paid.

Finally, regular procedure tests have exposed questionable agreements and no money was paid.

Airbus’ subsequent approaches have succeeded, which allowed the purchase of 3 C259 aircraft by Ghana through the Spanish defense subsidiaries of the multinational at separate moments.

The transactions were concluded by a certain number of intermediaries led by “Intermediary 5”, who would be an anonymous parent of a powerful Ghanaian official who, in the relevant era, was in a decision -making position on the proposed planes purchase agreements.

However, after an internal investigation exposed the link between intermediary 5 and the high -level government official of the nameless Ghana, a program was then developed by the parties to transport the transaction through a third -party company of Spanish origin, that the company had no previous transaction with Ghana.

The Spanish company has been sent as a facilitator of the purchase agreements of aircraft offered while in fact, it was simply inserted into the provisions to bypass the reasonable diligence requirements in order to give the questionable transaction a clean health invoice. At the end of the agreement with Ghana, under which two planes were initially sold, Airbus or its agents relied on false performances and documentation to pay amounts of bribes nearly 4 million euros to the Spanish third-party company which in turn channeled payments at the intermediary 5.

The payments were disguised as a committee on the amount of the contract. The Spanish third -party company withdrew from a subsequent agreement which presented its third C259 plane to Ghana. It was after Airbus hired an external lawyer to show reasonable diligence. The subsequent assertion of intermediary 5 according to which Airbus owed it around 1.6 million euros under the agreement covering the third C295 was not honored.

The DPA does not mean that the Airbus and its officials are immune to prosecution for alleged crimes.

Under English law, the SFO is entitled to, in due time, to continue Airbus if it is convinced that the company has not respected the terms of the DPA approved by the court.

Indeed, the in progress surveys mean that even if the SFO could, in the light of Airbus cooperation, so far, to give up continuing the aircraft manufacturer, it is possible, after the surveys have brought criminal actions against the people who have really paid or received the bribes.

Such a decision is likely to include intermediaries of Ghana and related individuals. In such a case, the SFO can rely on the provisions of mutual assistance (MLA) under English law to increase the relevant accusations.

Non-liability clause: Views, comments, opinions, contributions and declarations made by readers and contributors on this page do not necessarily characterize the views or policy of Lamarblogspot. Please inform us of any inappropriate content so that we can prioritize the evaluation.