Charlotte Osei
“Excerpts of Cross-Examination of so-called Representative of the Petitioners:
Q. Are you aware that it was Dr. Asamoah who wrote to Super Tech Ltd there was the need to abrogate that contract?
A. I don’t know and I don’t believe that is the truth. If that is so, he would not have told me the contract was abrogated by the respondent.
Q. I put it to you that it was Dr. Asamoah who sent an email dated 17th August, 2015 informing them about the abrogation of the contract, and copied same to the respondent and her two deputies.
A. That is contrary to what he Dr. Asamoah told me, so when he comes here he will answer.
Q. I further put it to you that the Director of Finance Dr. Asamoah admitted that the contracts that were abrogated were illegal contracts.
A. I don’t know that. He will answer when he comes here.
Q. I, therefore, put it to you that your testimony that the respondent unilaterally abrogated the contract is untrue.
A. If that is it means Dr. Asamoah did not tell me the truth, and he has to explain when he comes here.”
Part 2:
“This time again, Petitioners’ witness, Dr. Asamoah, admitted during cross-examination that the award of the contracts for consultancy and partitioning of the office was first approved by the PPA Board. It then went before the ETC, then through the process of evaluation after which the evaluation report was submitted to members of the Tender Review Committee.
Although Dr. Asamoah tried to avoid the consequences of his testimony by saying that Respondent unilaterally signed the contract, the witness failed to show that the Tender Review Committee did not give its approval to the award of the contract. This is evidenced by the following line of questions and answers during cross-examination:
“Q. Did the Tender Review Committee reject your report?
A. I am informed the other members of the Committee did not take part in the review process. Ordinarily the approval should come with a report indicating which persons attended the meeting but there was no such report.
Q. The Procurement unit of the EC generated a contract in the sum recommended by the Evaluation Committee.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any report from the Entity Tender Review Committee after the Evaluation Committee has submitted a report to it?
A. No.
Q. I put it to you that the reason you do not have any such report is that the Review Committee does not write any report upon receipt of a report from the Evaluation Committee.
A. I am not aware about that.”
From the line of questions above, the petitioners’ witness had a fine opportunity to show reports produced by the Tender Review Committee for previous contracts awarded by the Commission so as to establish his testimony that the Tender Review Committee issues reports on the reports of the Tender Evaluation Committee submitted to them. He did not.
Petitioners therefore failed to prove that Respondent breached any procedure in the procurement laws.” – Counsel for Respondents