The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) has hit back at the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) over its lack of interest in probing the money laundering charges levelled against former Water and Sanitation Minister, Cecilia Abena Dapaah.
OSP forwarded its docket on the former minister to EOCO for onward action, but EOCO’s Executive Director, Maame Yaa Tiwa Addo-Danquah, in a media interaction at the 14th Commonwealth Regional Conference of Heads of Anti-corruption Agencies in Africa on Monday, disclosed that steps were being taken to return the docket to the OSP.
But the Director of Strategy, Research, and Communications at the OSP Samuel Appiah Darko, has since disclosed that EOCO, had already returned the docket on former Sanitation Minister Cecilia Dapaah.
To him, EOCO’s assertions that it intends to return the docket are untrue because that has already happened suggesting either was not aware of things happening around her or she was not the one working on the Cecilia Dapaah case altogether hence unaware that the file had long moved from her office.
The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) has hit back at the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) over its lack of interest in probing the money laundering charges levelled against former Water and Sanitation Minister, Cecilia Abena Dapaah.
OSP forwarded its docket on the former minister to EOCO for onward action, but EOCO’s Executive Director, Maame Yaa Tiwa Addo-Danquah, in a media interaction at the 14th Commonwealth Regional Conference of Heads of Anti-corruption Agencies in Africa on Monday, disclosed that steps were being taken to return the docket to the OSP.
But the Director of Strategy, Research, and Communications at the OSP Samuel Appiah Darko, has since disclosed that EOCO, had already returned the docket on former Sanitation Minister Cecilia Dapaah.
To him, EOCO’s assertions that it intends to return the docket are untrue because that has already happened suggesting either was not aware of things happening around her or she was not the one working on the Cecilia Dapaah case altogether hence unaware that the file had long moved from her office.
According to Madam Addo-Danquah, whatever they “would have done had already been directed at the police CID” and so there is nothing her outfit could do.
Mr Appiah Darko, insisted that EOCO simply does not have the appetite to investigate and prosecute the former minister.
“The second point I want to make is this whole idea that the docket that the OSP sent to EOCO was baseless and if you will indulge me, I am going to be a bit detailed, although we are not supposed to do this but our point is that if there is no appetite to want to investigate and prosecute, tell the people of Ghana that there is no appetite but don’t try to put the blame on the OSP,” Mr Darko told the host of the Citi Breakfast Show, Bernard Avle, on Citi FM.
He also rejected claims that the OSP, had cleared the former minister.
“The AG saying that we had cleared Cecilia Dapaah of any offence is also not accurate because the OSP has never cleared Cecilia Dapaah because when you say you have cleared someone, it means that you have investigated and come to the conclusion that no offence has been committed.”
It comes as the Executive Director of Ghana Integrity Initiative (GII), Mary Adda, has raised significant concerns regarding the conduct of EOCO and the OSP in the investigation of the former sanitation minister, Cecilia Dapaah.
According to her, the current trajectory of the case involving the former sanitation minister reinforces the perception of bias and the notion that some high-profile individuals are beyond the reach of the law.
Also speaking onCiti Breakfast Show, Madam Mary Adda, expressed disappointment over the lack of communication between EOCO and OSP, which she said has led to a standstill in certain investigations.
Madam Adda, said the attitude of the two bodies “begins to give the impression to some of us that there is something we are not being told. Everybody is trying to shift the burden to the other and that is not fair. It was myself or you, Bernard, people will work.
EOCO will sit up, they will do suspicious transaction tracing, and they will work with the Financial Intelligence Center (FIC) if it was necessary.
“So the impression is being created that some people are untouchable and so if we do not want to touch them, we shift the burden to the other and we continue to shift until we give it to those who cannot do anything about it. So that is the impression and I believe that is why CDD is saying it is a done deal,” she stated.
EOCO disclosed on May 6, that it intended to return the docket on the former minister to the OSP,
This, according to the Executive Director of EOCO, follows advice from the Office of the Attorney General against the initiation of money laundering investigations into Cecilia Dapaah, citing failure by the OSP to establish evidence of corruption or corruption-related offences.
She said that there was nothing her outfit could do.
Last week, the Office of the Attorney-General (A-G) and Ministry of Justice, had advised EOCO, not to initiate investigations on money laundering regarding the former Sanitation Minister.
According to the A-G, the OSP’s referral of the case to EOCO for investigations into money laundering was baseless. Also, there was an absence of the identification of any criminality associated with the properties retrieved from the suspects.
A letter signed by Evelyn D. Keelson, Chief State Attorney, addressed to the Executive Director, EOCO, said a study of the docket from the OSP and the report by their office indicated that investigations by the OSP did not establish any evidence of corruption, corruption-related offences, or procurement breaches against the suspects.
“The OSP has returned money and other properties retrieved from the suspects in the course of their investigations to them and the suspects have been accordingly discharged by the OSP. We observe that the OSP did not place a copy of its report on investigations conducted by that outfit on the docket submitted to your office. The OSP’s letter to you also did not disclose the basis for the suspicion of the commission of the offence of money laundering and structuring.”
The letter said it was thus difficult to ascertain the basis for the OSP’s suspicion of the commission of the offence of money laundering and structuring by the suspects.
It said a study of all the documents on the docket submitted by the OSP did not disclose how the offence of money laundering and structuring might have been committed, as alleged by the OSP.
The letter said after the OSP had stated that it had conducted “seven months of extensive investigations and four months of collaborative investigation” concluded that “the case is largely in the province of suspected money laundering and structuring”.
“It is noted, however, that the OSP did not present a copy of the report on the collaborative investigations conducted with the FBI to your outfit. Neither are the findings of the ‘transboundary investigations’ conducted by the OSP stated in the OSP’s docket to you.
“We observe that by a letter dated February 1, 2024, you wrote to the OSP to furnish you with a copy of the findings on the case to facilitate your investigations. You inform us that, to date, the OSP has not responded to your request.
“Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2020 (Act 1044) create offences relating to money laundering.
At the outset, it is important to indicate that the offence of structuring is not known to Ghana laws. At the heart of the offence of money laundering is gains obtained from criminal proceeds arising from an unlawful activity, which is defined in section 63 of Act 1044 to refer to offences specifically spelt out therein.
“The status of property being proceeds of crime is, therefore, crucial to money laundering. This is even so under section 55(2) of Act 1044 where an accused may be presumed to have unlawfully acquired property in her possession which cannot be accounted for. In any event, to is material to note that section 55(2) of Act 1044 is triggered only in the course of a trial of an accused person for a specified offence under the Act.”
theheraldghana.com
