The first and foundational claim the prosecution must prove is that the accused:<\/p>\n
\n\u201cConspired to set up and did perform acts in furtherance of the conspiracy to set up a criminal enterprise of directly and indirectly influencing the procurement process to obtain unfair advantage\u201d<\/em> for Strategic Mobilisation Ghana Limited (SML).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/span>Why This Claim Matters<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\nThis allegation goes to the core of the prosecution\u2019s case<\/strong>. It asserts that the defendants did not merely make isolated mistakes or procedural errors; instead, they coordinated systematically to create a criminal enterprise<\/em> that manipulated the public procurement system for private gain.<\/p>\nIn legal terms, the prosecution must show:<\/p>\n
\n- \n
Agreement Among Defendants:<\/strong> There was a common intention and agreement between Ofori-Atta and co-accused to engage in wrongful conduct.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n- \n
Acts in Furtherance of Conspiracy:<\/strong> They took concrete steps\u2014such as influencing procurement decisions, structuring contracts, or bypassing regulations\u2014to implement the agreed scheme.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n- \n
Unfair Advantage Sought:<\/strong> The result of this conspiracy was that SML was positioned to receive contracts or financial benefits that were neither competitive nor justified by genuine need.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/span>Proving \u2018Criminal Enterprise\u2019<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\nIt\u2019s not enough for the prosecutor to show that contracts were awarded or payments made. They must prove that the contracts were the product of a coordinated strategy to influence procurement for the benefit of SML\u2014allegations the prosecution describes as being based on \u201cself-serving patronage, sponsorship, and promotion\u2026 based on false and unverified claims\u201d<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/span>Legal Standards<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\nFor a conviction, the prosecution must convince the court beyond reasonable doubt<\/em> that:<\/p>\n\n- \n
The accused formed a conspiracy.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
The conspiracy was manifest in deliberate, unlawful actions.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
These actions were taken to benefit SML improperly.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Successfully proving conspiracy is often challenging, as it requires evidence not only of outcomes (such as payments or contracts) but of intent and coordination between people in positions of power.<\/p>\n
\n<\/span>2. Egregious Prohibited Acts and Disregard for Mandatory Approvals<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\nThe second claim focuses on statutory violations:<\/p>\n
\n\u201cEgregious prohibited acts were committed, as mandatory statutory prior approvals by Parliament, and the Board of Public Procurement Authority were wantonly disregarded by the public official accused persons who collectively acted with increased emboldened impunity.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/span>The Crux of This Claim<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\nGhanaian public procurement laws impose strict requirements for due process, transparency, and oversight. For example:<\/p>\n
\n- \n
Major contracts above set thresholds must be advertised competitively.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
The Public Procurement Authority (PPA)<\/strong> must review and approve procurement actions.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n- \n
In some cases, Parliamentary approval<\/strong> is constitutionally or statutorily required before awards can be ratified.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nThe OSP alleges that these mandatory procedures were ignored, bypassed, or skirted<\/strong> to benefit SML and that the public officials named in the indictment acted with impunity<\/em>\u2014meaning without regard for compliance, oversight, or legal constraint.<\/p>\n<\/span>What the OSP Must Prove in Court<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\nTo succeed on this claim, the prosecution will need to demonstrate that:<\/p>\n
\n- \n
The applicable statutory approvals were legally required<\/em> in the specific contracts at issue.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n- \n
These approvals were not obtained<\/em> or were obtained through misrepresentation or coercion.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n- \n
The failure to observe these statutory requirements was intentional and not due to error, oversight, or misunderstanding.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
This is not merely a technicality\u2014showing disregard for statutory controls goes to both the legality<\/strong> and the integrity<\/strong> of the contract awards.<\/p>\n
\n<\/span>3. Absence of Financial Oversight and Automatic Payments Detached from Performance<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\nThe third key claim concerns the financial mechanics<\/strong> of the contracts:<\/p>\n\n\u201cThe accused officials ensured that there was no established financial management system of monitoring and verification for the contracts. Crucially, it alleges \u2018the channels of payments of public funds to the private company were set on automatic mode\u2026 detached from actual performance and based on false and unverified claims in willful oppressive injury to the public.\u2019\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/span>Why Financial Oversight Matters<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\nPublic contracts ordinarily require:<\/p>\n
\n- \n
Verification of deliverables<\/strong> before payment is authorized.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n- \n
Performance tracking systems<\/strong> to ensure that work claimed to have been done was actually delivered.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n- \n
Checks and balances<\/strong> to prevent misuse of public funds.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nThe prosecution alleges that such systems were absent or deliberately bypassed, allowing SML to receive state funds on an automatic basis\u2014irrespective of whether the company performed any of the services it was contracted to do<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/span>Elements to Prove<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\nThe OSP will need to show that:<\/p>\n
\n- \n
A system of monitoring and verification should have been in place under applicable public financial management laws.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
The defendants either removed such systems or ensured they were not implemented.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
Payments were made automatically without evidence of actual performance.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
This failure resulted in financial loss or risk of loss to the State.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
If proven, this claim would demonstrate that the defendants not only breached procurement and contract compliance standards but also actively facilitated financial mismanagement<\/em>.<\/p>\n
\n<\/span>4. Creation of Opportunity to Pretend to Perform Services, Causing Financial Loss<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\nThe fourth claim focuses on the actual consequences<\/strong> of the alleged wrongdoing:<\/p>\n\n\u201cThe actions of the accused \u2018created the opportunity for the private company to largely pretend to perform the services under the various contracts,\u2019 leading to the alleged GH\u00a21.4 billion loss.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/span>Connecting Misconduct to Financial Harm<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\nIn criminal corruption cases involving procurement, it is not enough to show that laws were broken; prosecutors generally must link those violations to tangible harm\u2014such as financial loss\u2014to demonstrate the gravity<\/em> of the offence.<\/p>\nIn this case, the OSP alleges that the defendants\u2019 actions:<\/p>\n
\n- \n
Opened the door for SML to pretend<\/em> that it was providing oversight or revenue assurance services.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n- \n
Allowed payments to be made without regard to actual deliverables.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
Ultimately resulted in massive monetary losses to the State.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
<\/span>Prosecutorial Burden<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\nTo substantiate this part of its case, the OSP must present evidence that:<\/p>\n
\n- \n
The services SML purported to provide were not actually delivered\u2014or were materially deficient.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
Payments were made despite lack of performance.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
As a direct result of the breaches of procurement and monitoring standards, funds were lost or wasted.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Financial auditors, forensic accountants, and expert witnesses may be called to demonstrate the gap between what was paid and what was delivered.<\/p>\n
\n<\/span>5. False Claims About SML\u2019s Expertise and Technical Capability<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\nThe fifth and final core claim focuses on misrepresentation:<\/p>\n
\n\u201cThe accused based their actions on their false claims that the private company possessed technical expertise and capability in revenue assurance. It further alleges they falsely claimed SML had \u2018greatly increased revenue for the Republic\u2019 and \u2018exclusively possessed the only patented and proven technology systems in the world\u2019 for audit services in the petroleum and minerals sectors.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/span>The Importance of Truthful Representation<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\nProcurement processes rely on accurate information about the qualifications and capabilities of bidders. When public officials ensure that a contractor\u2019s claims are genuine and supported by evidence, the result is competitive and fair contracting.<\/p>\n
Here, the OSP alleges that the defendants:<\/p>\n
\n- \n
Promoted SML using false and unverified claims<\/em> about its capacity and track record.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n- \n
Misled decision-makers and oversight bodies into believing that SML was uniquely qualified.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
Enabled SML to secure contracts on the basis of those misrepresentations.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
<\/span>What the Prosecution Must Show<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\nTo prove this fifth claim, the prosecution must establish:<\/p>\n
\n- \n
The factual truth about SML\u2019s capabilities and technological expertise.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
That the claims made by or on behalf of the accused regarding SML\u2019s qualifications were knowingly false or recklessly unverified.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
That these false claims influenced the decision to award contracts or to bypass statutory safeguards.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
This element links intent and misrepresentation<\/strong>\u2014a key distinction in corruption law. It is not enough that the contractor lacked capability; the prosecution must show that the accused knowingly relied on false information to benefit the company.<\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Putting It All Together: The Roadmap to Conviction<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\nIn summary, the OSP\u2019s case rests on proving the following sequential elements:<\/p>\n
\n- \n
Conspiracy and criminal enterprise:<\/strong> The accused colluded to influence procurement unfairly for SML\u2019s benefit.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n- \n
Statutory violations:<\/strong> Mandatory approvals were ignored or circumvented under the law.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n- \n
Lack of financial control:<\/strong> Proper systems for verification and performance monitoring were absent or undermined.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n- \n
Financial harm:<\/strong> The conduct enabled the company to receive funds without performing services, causing massive loss.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n- \n
False representation:<\/strong> Misleading claims about SML\u2019s expertise were used to justify awards.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\nEach claim interlocks with the others. For example, proving statutory violations (claim 2) reinforces the prosecution\u2019s argument that the accused disregarded due process, and proving financial loss (claim 4) ties the misconduct to concrete harm to public resources.<\/p>\n
\n<\/span>