[ 2012-07-08 ]

Sorry, we are not fools
Baako tells AAL over controversial galloper
vehicles

The Editor of the New Crusading Guide newspaper
has described as outrageous claims by Africa
Automobile Limited (AAL) against the government of
Ghana.

Kweku Baako Jnr said the claim of $1.5 billion is
an insult to the intelligence of all Ghanaians and
urged government to immediately return to court to
litigate the matter.

Africa Automobile Ltd has been in and out of court
since 2005 battling government over a purported
breach of contract in the importation of some 87
galloper vehicles.

The company among other things claims it has lost
its franchise for the importation of Mitsubishi
vehicles into the country and is claiming damages
to the tune of $1.5 billion.

Government has accepted liability for the vehicles
which are said to be rotting at the premises of
the Local Government Institute but is challenging
the damages being demanded by AAL.

On MultiTV and Joy FM Newsfile programme,
Saturday, a deputy Information Minister Samuel
Okudzeto Ablakwa presented a contract between the
government of Ghana and officials of AAL in which
the orders of 110 galloper vehicles were made.

The said contract is a letter signed by the then
Chief Director of the Local Government Ministry,
SY M Zanu acknowledging the presence of a proforma
invoice submitted by AAL.

Out of the 110 vehicles to be supplied only 23 of
the vehicles were supplied with the remaining 87
expected to be supplied in May 2000.

The contract, Okudzeto Ablakwa argued exposes
earlier denials by officials of the New Patriotic
Party who he said were irresponsible in the
handling of the AAL agreement and should be held
accountable for the claims being made by AAL.

He said the case is presently out of court with
government seriously negotiating with AAL to beat
down the $1.5 billion being demanded.

Ablakwa said government has to be commended for
putting the case in the public domain and to bring
“full sunshine” to the issue.

He said the NPP officials owe this country an
apology for the contradictions they have made on
the matter.

But Kweku Baako Jnr said government has no
business negotiating the case out of court.

He argued per the State Property and Contract Acts
the proforma invoice from AAL and a letter of
acceptance by the Ministry of Local Government
which Okudzeto Ablakwa is boldly brandishing in
public does not constitute a legally binding
contract.

He questioned how Ghana, having grown its
governance structure will settle for this mediocre
arrangement in a form of a contract.

Even if that "embarrassment of a contract" were to
hold, Malik Baako insists AAL failed to respect
the contract.

According to him, per that contract, AAL was
expected to supply the vehicles on May 2000, but
reneged on their promise and supplied them on
October 2001.

He said per the Sales of Goods Act 137, if the
seller violates a contract, the buyer can reject
the goods.

He said the NPP government did not err in
rejecting the 87 vehicles because the contract was
violated by AAL.

Malik Baako was intrigued at the demands being
made by AAL during the out of court of settlement
when no such demands were made during litigation
in court.

He said but for 127 million dollars they were
claiming in 2005, “No court documentations
captured any of those things [franchise, storage
demurrage, bank loans].

“…Franchise? Ridiculous!" he swore," questioning,
"They lost their franchise because of this
litigation? Or because Ghana government abrogated
a contract? And that they are billing us a
billion?

“Come on, we are not fools. This is a nation of
intelligent people. We have a proud history and
even if we sit with people to negotiate they ought
to credit us with some level of intelligence.

“Where is the evidence that indeed the purported
abrogation of a contract is what led to their loss
of franchise”

“You don't negotiate over this. Indeed it is
better contested in the court of law,” he argued,
adding in court it is strict proof for AAL to show
how the abrogation of this contract led to the
loss of franchise.

He said even if government erred in not taking
custody of the vehicles at the time, AAL could
have taken steps to mitigate the cost involved.

If they failed, and they did, Malik Baako said no
court will agree to pay a dime to AAL for watching
their own vehicles rot at their own garage.

Baako said the wisest thing for AAL to have done
under the circumstances was to have taken steps to
sell the vehicles and sue government for any loss
it may have incurred.

He conceded however government's case may suffer a
"fatal injury" because it took custody of the
vehicles in 2010.

Source - MyjoyOnline

... go Back