Former President John Dramani Mahama, the current presidential-candidate for the National Democratic Congress (NDC) to contest the upcoming 7 December 2020 general elections in Ghana with President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo on the ticket of New Patriotic Party (NPP), has broken his long, but obviously worrisome, silence on the Airbus scandal.
In the outbreak of the news on Ghana’s involvement in the purchase of three military aircrafts from Airbus SE under certain untoward conditions breaching international commercial trade deals, former President John Dramani Mahama decided to keep his silence despite all prodding by Ghanaians to get him tell what he knows about it.
It was only until 20 June 2020, many months later (since February 2020), that he broke his long silence about the scandal. Most of what he had to say could be found in the two web links quoted below with two of the most interesting statements he made among many, subsequently reproduced.
“Let me state without any equivocation that no financial benefit accrued to me. Neither was there any form of inducement in the purchase of the aircraft. My singular motivation was to equip and retool the Ghana Armed Forces in a manner that would make the discharge of their national and international roles efficient and less burdensome and for all the sacrifices that our men and women in uniform make, they do not deserve less”
“All the processes and negotiations by the government in the acquisition of the aircraft were conducted directly with Airbus and my administration without any untoward influence either directly or indirectly through any agents it may have appointed. Indeed, nowhere in the available UK Court Documents has it been said that Airbus paid any public or government official on the side for the purchase of the aircraft”
I wonder why and how former President John Dramani Mahama feels it is genial for him to tell lies at any least opportunity made available to him. From the Approved Judgment delivered by The Rt. Hon. Dame Vitoria Sharp in the Crown Court of Southwark in London on 31 January 2020, on a deferred prosecution agreement (a DPA) reached between the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and Airbus SE, Ghana was cited at count 5 as among many countries where Airbus SE and her subsidiary companies had conducted themselves corruptly in their international business trading.
I have taken time to print and read the report. Ghana is mentioned in paragraphs 3, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 and 98. Interestingly it is stated under Count 5: Ghana – under paragraph 52 as follows:
“The fifth count alleges that contrary to section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010, between 1 July 2011 and 1 June 2015 Airbus SE failed to prevent persons associated with Airbus SE from bribing others concerned with the purchase of military transport aircraft by the Government of Ghana, where the said bribery was intended to obtain or retain business or advantage in the conduct of business for Airbus SE”.
In paragraph 53 it reads “Between 2009 and 2015 an Airbus defence company engaged Intermediary 5, a close relative of a high ranking elected Ghanaian Government official (Government Official 1) as its BP in respect of the proposed sale of three military transport aircraft to the Government of Ghana. A number of Airbus employees knew that Intermediary 5 was a close relative of Government Official 1, who was a key decision maker in respect of the proposed sales. A number of Airbus employees made or promised success-based commission payments of approximately €5 million to Intermediary 5. False documentation was created by or with the agreement of Airbus employees in order to support and disguise these payments. The payments were intended to induce or reward “improper favour” by Government Official 1 towards Airbus. Payments were eventually stopped due to the arrangement failing the due diligence processes required by the Liquidation Committee”.
If one reads through the entire quoted paragraphs concerning Ghana, one will see that eventually, a sum of €3,001,718.15 out of the approximately €5 million agreed, was dubiously paid to the said Intermediary 5 through Intermediary 8.
Is it not said in part in paragraph 53 that the payment of the money was to induce or reward “improper favour” by Government Official 1 towards Airbus? Is Intermediary 5 not a brother to former President John Dramanai Mahama? If he was not involved, how come that the full amount or part, was paid to him (Intermediary 5) through Intermediary 8? The Airbus SE directors or agents are not that stupid to pay money to Intermediary 5 if he had not played any substantial role in Ghana government’s purchase of military aircraft(s) from Airbus SE or its Spanish subsidiary company.
I shall encourage interested Ghanaians to print copies of the judgment and read them thoroughly well to confirm that some intermediaries did play a role in the purchase of the military aircrafts contrary to the assertions made by former President John Dramani Mahama. He is an inimical liar. He has said on a video that politicians lie. Therefore, he said to the applause of his ignorant NDC audience that he himself tells both lies and truth depending on the occasion. I shall publish that video in one of my subsequent publications.
Here is he, lying again, only to be exposed by Rockson Adofo, the fearless and no-nonsense son of Kumawu/Asiampa soil, an appointed vessel of God to ensure that justice prevails in the ongoing Kumawu chieftaincy dispute as based on the abundance of credible, permissible and acceptable evidence submitted to the court but not on any inducement of some sort.
He will finally officially be exposed by the Special Prosecutor, Honourable Martin Amidu.
One can get a full copy of, or read, the judgment, by the web link below or by googling “SFO – V – Airbus judgment” from the internet.
As a person fighting for the establishment of truth as much as possible, I always try as much as I can to lay hands on vital proofs to support my claims.
I shall kindly entreat my fans and public readers to check all my three online publishers (Modernghana.com, Ghanaweb.com and Dailymailafrica.com) for each article I put out. This is because I have remarked that at times some of them may delete the web links I cite, thereby not making the publication appear as comprehensibly as intended to the reader. If one publisher refuses to publish the links, another may publish them hence asking you to crosscheck if the first one you read appears inconclusive to you.
Sunday, 28 June 2020