The Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) has concluded that no evidence corroborated the allegations of conflict of interest and identity fraud filed against Victor Kusi-Boateng, alias Kwabena Adu Gyamfi.

Following its investigations into the complaints brought to it by the Member of Parliament for North Tongu, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, CHRAJ said it could not identify any issues of conflict of interest and dual identity against Kusi-Boateng.

“As has become abundantly clear by now, the allegation of conflict of interest against the 4th Respondent, having been examined in the light of facts, does not support the conclusion that the 4th Respondent put himself in a conflict-of-interest situation, contrary to the allegations of the complainant.

“Accordingly, the aspect of the complaint bordering on conflict of interest against the 4th Respondent is hereby dismissed for lack of merit”, CHRAJ said.

The findings were contained in the Commission’s report on the Samuel Ablakwa petition, sighted by The Chronicle.

The North Tongu Legislator had petitioned CHRAJ to investigate Kusi-Boateng, who served on the National Cathedral Board of Trustees, to see whether he used his position to the advantage of his company, JNS Talent Limited.

Mr Ablakwa claimed that the company, owned by Rev Kusi-Boateng, had received GH¢2,600,000 from the National Cathedral.

He also accused the man of God of using two passports with different names and different dates of birth on each document.

FINDING

In its report, CHRAJ found that “the GH¢2,600,000 paid by the National Cathedral of Ghana to the 5th respondent was a refund of an interest-free short-term loan granted to the National Cathedral by the Respondent company, at a time when it needed funds urgently to pay its contractors.

“The 4th Respondent, as both Director of the National Cathedral and the 5th Respondent company, did not put himself in a position where his personal interest conflicted or was likely to conflict with the performance of the functions of his office, as no transaction for the provision of services existed between the National Cathedral and the 5th Respondent company,” the report added.

On the issue of two passports, the Commission’s report said that “the 4th Respondent, Victor Kusi-Boateng, a.k.a. Kwabena Adu Gyamfi, does not hold two different passports, each bearing one of his two names, with different dates of birth on each document.”

It continued that, “There is no Victor Kusi-Boateng in the passport database. The 4th Respondent has rather been issued four ordinary passports (three of which have expired) and one diplomatic passport, under his name Kwabena Adu Gyamfi, with the same date of birth.

OBSERVATION

However, the Commission observed a situation of informality in the handling of affairs, as evidenced in where the Board resolved that Kusi-Boateng’s company should transfer the money to the National Cathedral pre-dated the formal request for the money.

The Commission took notice of the fact that the Board of Trustees of the National Cathedral is all clergymen who may not be well versed in corporate governance.

The Commission also observed the amount of money spent on the project and concluded that there were procurement breaches in the award of the contract to Ribade Company.

RECOMMENDTION

CHRAJ recommended that informal handling of affairs at such a high level should be discouraged, explaining that it has the potential to cast doubts in the minds of the ordinary man on the integrity of transactions.

The Commission also recommended additional capacity building on good corporate governance to be organised for the Board by credible professional bodies to sensitise them on good corporate practices in the conduct of their official duties.

On the amount spent on the project, CHRAJ said it had no expertise to determine whether there has been value for money and thus recommended that the Auditor-General conduct a forensic audit on the construction of the National Cathedral project.

It also recommended the possible termination of the contract with Ribade Company LTD, as it said it was illegal.