Former Deputy Information Minister, Felix Kwakye Ofosu, recently provided insight into the factors contributing to the UK court’s dismissal of Ghana’s appeal against a US$140 million judgment debt.
Kwakye Ofosu highlighted that the absence of the Attorney General during the court proceedings, attributed to Ghana’s elections and the COVID-19 pandemic, significantly influenced the court’s decision.
During his appearance on the “Good Morning Ghana” show, Kwakye Ofosu expressed his concerns about the situation, emphasizing the importance of the Attorney General’s presence during such critical legal proceedings.
“The Attorney General has made us lose $140 million due to petty political issues. It sounds funny but it is not. $140 million, especially for a country facing the economic challenges that we are, is a significant amount. We are currently seeking the next tranche of IMF extended rate facility, which is around $600 million. Yet, we have to allocate an additional $140 million in this already strained economy to pay off an entirely avoidable debt.”
Kwakye Ofosu further criticized the Attorney General’s decision not to appear in the UK court, stating, “The Attorney General, while the UK courts were in session for the hearing, was in Ghana claiming that there was an election. Did the Attorney General’s office close down due to an election? What role was the Attorney General playing in an election? It was as though he was even contesting for a parliamentary seat. Even if he was, he had an obligation to defend the state.”
He continued, “They cited elections and COVID as excuses, as if there was no COVID in the UK. The UK courts did not entertain these excuses and dismissed the case. Now, we are on the verge of losing some of our assets in the United Kingdom because Trafigura has attached those assets to offset the debts we owe them.”
This recent development follows a judgment debt claim made by GPGC, a subsidiary of the global commodities firm Trafigura, against the Ghanaian government. The company filed a lawsuit against the Ghanaian government regarding the termination of two power agreements and ultimately secured a US$140 million judgment debt issued by a UK court.
The dispute centered on the method of delivering legal proceedings related to the judgment debt claim to the government. Ghana argued that, based on existing laws, the government should have been served through diplomatic channels, as opposed to the alternative methods used.
The UK High Court ruled against Ghana, determining that the provisions of the State Immunity Act, which Ghana had cited, did not provide a valid basis for preventing Trafigura from serving the judgment debt documents via postal and email services.
Consequently, Ghana now faces the possibility of having its state assets in London confiscated by a Trafigura subsidiary to satisfy the US$140 million judgment debt.