<<Print>>

The Ghana@50 Commission Inquiry was yesterday, Wednesday, 9th September, 2009 rocked by allegations that Dr Charles Wereko-Brobbey, Chief Executive Office (CEO) of the Ghana@50 Secretariat, paid money to construction workers in polythene bags. Mr Theophilus Pesseh, Manager of Dorotpress Engineering Services Limited, claimed that he was paid the sum of GH�1000 in 2007 by Dr Wereko-Brobbey for labour cost incurred by his company, whilst carrying out construction work on thirteen houses in 2007. Me Pesseh said after completion of the work on the thirteen houses, has company stopped work on the project, as no more money had been forthcoming, either from Dr Wereko-Brobbey or Landmark Construction, the company who had sub-constructed Dorotpress to do the work. Me Pesseh sid that the total outstanding debt to his company stood at GH�6,262. From which he accounted that materials for the job cost GH�4.662 and the remaining labour cost stood at GH�2,000. However, this was where Mr Pesseh�s documentation ended, as he was unable to provide the commission any other form of documentation. In a heated exchange between Mr Akoto Ampaw, counsel for Dr Wereko-Brobbey and Mr Pesseh, Mr Ampaw put it to Mr Pesseh that he had no contract with the Ghana@50 Secretariat and, therefore, had no claim to make in his attempt to recuperate the debt from the Secretariat. Mr Ampaw further acknowledged that Mr Pesseh�s company may have a perfectly legitimate claim for the debt, but it should rather be against Landmark Construction. Mr Pesseh then shocked the commission by claiming that he did have a claim against the Secretariat as the first payment was made to him directly by Dr Wereko-Brobbey in the form of cash in a polythene bag. He also admitted, when questioned by Mrs. Marietta Brew Appiah-Opong, member of the commission, that he was not given receipt covering the transaction, by Dr Wereko-Brobbey. Mrs Appiah-Opong, recognizing the seriousness of the allegation warned Mr Pesseh of his difficult situation. She said that without any witnesses or documents to prove there was an agreement between the parties, it would be impossible for the commission to instruct the Secretariat to settle the debt with Dorotpress. Mr Ampaw also criticized the commission for their procedure. He dismissed the current procedure, whereby those called before the commission will make a submission before them, then answer questions from counsel on both sides, before finally answering questions from the commission panel, as unfair. Mr Ampaw claimed that in allowing claimants to answer questions from the panel last claimants had the opportunity to tell their history of events twice, while the role of counsel and their claimants is devalued.