NDC fights ‘Agenda 111’ hospital projects in court

The opposition National Democratic Congress has taken its fight against the government’s ‘Agenda 111’ hospital projects a notch higher, by seeking refuge in the court in an attempt to put impediment in the way of the government from seeing to the success of the project.

The party’s South Dayi MP, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, has filed a case at the High Court accusing the government of ignoring procurement laws when it awarded the building design contract to Adjaye and Associates, a Ghanaian UK based company.

He alleges that an amount of $6 million of public money has already been paid to the company as consultancy fees. This, he argues, breaches portions of Ghana’s constitution.

His accusation is coming at a time the government has debunked claims of wrong doing in the award of the contracts.

Allegations

In the writ issued on his behalf by his lawyer, Nii Kpakpo Samoa Addo, the NDC MP claimed that the government also contracted iRisk Management Limited, a company led by one Dr Alolo as the insurance broker, and Enterprise Insurance as the insurance company responsible for the insurance of the projects.

“The Plaintiff says that the Defendant, in contracting iRisk Management Limited and Enterprise Insurance, ignored the procurement processes laid down by law, in particular, the Public Procurement Act, 2003 (Act 663).

“The Plaintiff says that the Ministry of Works and Housing, which was the entity responsible for procuring the services of an insurance broker and insurance company in relation to the Agenda 111 project was mandated by the Public Procurement Act, 2003, Act 663 to do so by competitive tendering process, save under exceptional circumstances,” the writ said.

It continued: “The Plaintiff says that the Ministry of Works and Housing was mandated to undergo a two-stage procurement process by sending out invitation documents calling upon insurance brokers and insurance company to submit, initial tenders which contain the proposals of interested persons but failed to do so.

“The Plaintiff says that the manner in which the Defendant contracted iRisk Management Limited and Enterprise Insurance could not be said to be under the restricted tendering as it did not satisfy the conditions and requirements provided under Section 38 of the Public Procurement Act, 2003 (Act 663).”

He further listed other alleged breaches involved in the award of the contract.

Reliefs

He is therefore asking the court for a “declaration that the Defendant’s failure to award the contract for the design of the hospitals forming the Agenda 111 by competitive tendering was unlawful and contrary to Section 35 and 36 of the Public Procurement Act,2003 (Act 663)” and “a declaration that the failure of the Defendant to comply with the laid down procedure provided under Section 35 and 36 of the Public Procurement Act, 2003, Act 663 when it awarded the contract to Adjaye and Associates renders the design contract null and void with no effect.”

Other reliefs being sought include “a declaration that the failure of the Defendant to comply with the laid down procedure provided under Section 35 and 36 of the Public Procurement Act, 2003, Act 663 when it awarded the contract to Adjaye and Associates is in contravention of Article 36(2)(c) of the 1992 Constitution, an order directed at the Government of Ghana to terminate the building design contract with Adjaye and Associates and an order directing the Defendant to engage in a competitive two-stage tendering procurement process in order to award the contract as provided under Sections 35 and 36 of the Public Procurement Act, 2003 (Act 663).”

He is also asking the court for “an order that the Thirty-Six million Ghana Cedis (GHC36, 000,000.00) advanced to Adjaye and Associates as payment for consultancy fees for the design. Project management and coordination under the building design contract be refunded to the State, a declaration that the Defendant’s failure to award the contract for the insurance brokerage of the Agenda 111 project by competitive tendering was unlawful and contrary to Section 35 and 36 of the Public Procurement Act,2003 (Act 663), a declaration that the failure of the Defendant to comply with the laid down procedure provided under Section 35 and 36 of the Public Procurement Act, 2003, Act 663 when it awarded the insurance brokerage contract to iRisk Management Limited renders the award null, void and of no effect, a declaration that the failure of the Defendant to comply with the laid down procedure provided under Section 35 and 36 of the Public Procurement Act, 2003, Act 663 when it awarded the insurance brokerage contract to iRisk Management Limited is in contravention of Article 36(2)(c) of the 1992 Constitution,” among others.