The Fourth Estate CMS

Author: Evans Aziamor-Mensah

  • Minerals Commission sues RTI Commission for ordering it to charge GH₵2 for information

    Minerals Commission sues RTI Commission for ordering it to charge GH₵2 for information

    The Minerals Commission of Ghana has sued the Right To Information Commission for its ruling ordering the mining regulator to charge only GH₵2 for information requested by The Fourth Estate.

    The mining regulator, in a writ filed at an Accra High Court on August 2, 2021, said the directive by the Right To Information Commission was “unconstitutional, arbitrary, unreasonable and flawed with procedural improprieties.”

    The Minerals Commission charged The Fourth Estate the equivalence of $1,000 (about GH₵6,000) to provide the information. But the RTI Commission said that information could be provided at a cost less than GH₵2 and ordered the Minerals Commission to comply within 14 days of the RTI Commission’s ruling.  

    Unhappy with the RTI Commission’s ruling, the Minerals Commission went to court for a judicial review.

    The Fourth Estate had asked for a list of companies licensed to undertake mining in Ghana between January 2013 and May 2021, and companies whose licenses were revoked or suspended within that same period and the accompanying reasons.

    The information was to assist The Fourth Estate to produce a story.

    The RTI Commission, in its July 2021 ruling that annulled the Minerals Commission’s charge, said:

    “The Commission directs the Chief Executive Officer of the Minerals Commission, Mr Martin K. Ayisi, to ensure the application of a charge or fee of either 1.80 pesewas multiplied by the number of pages of information to be printed or 1.90 pesewas, if the information in its entirety is to be emailed to the Applicant in PDF format,” part of the ruling read.

    But The Minerals Commission is challenging that the ruling was but, a mistake. It said in its writ that “…. the Respondent’s act of pronouncing a new amount as fees for the provision of the information to the Interested Party [ The Fourth Estate] when ACT 989, the statute which birthed the Respondent gave it no such powers, [and] constitute an error of law apparent on the face of the record”.

    Aside from asking the High Court to reverse the ruling, the Minerals Commission also wants the Court to order The Fourth Estate to pay the cedi equivalent of $1000 it had demanded.

    The Minerals Commission justified this in the writ:

    “In so far as the information requested by the Interested Party relates to minerals rights, any information from the Register of Mineral Rights is to be furnished in accordance with the prescribed legal requirements which includes payment by the Interested Party of the statutory Fee.”

    The Minerals Commission had taken a position similar to that of the National Communications Authority (NCA) in the NCA vs Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA) case. In that case, the NCA demanded GH₵2,000 to release information to the MFWA.

    In court, the NCA argued that parliament had not approved any charges for information and, therefore, institutions relied on their own internal arrangements.

    The Minerals Commission also argues that “Act 989[RTI Law] neither truncated nor rendered null and void, the Fee which Parliament had approved for the Applicant and to which the Interested Party was mandated to pay when he requested for the information.”

    This contradicts the ruling in the NCA vrs MFWA case by Justice Gifty Agyei Addo on June 17, 2021 which said:

    “… I come to the conclusion that the fees payable cannot be under section 82 [Electronic Communication Act, 2009 (Act 775)] but under section 75 of Act 989 [Right to Information Act, 2019]. In any event, there are no prescribed fees as they are supposed to be provided by parliament. Their inaction cannot however deny somebody’s right to information…”

    The mining regulator further said only the Minister of Finance with the approval of the Parliament of Ghana could determine the fees and charges for services rendered by public institutions, which includes the Minerals Commission and the RTI Commission.

    Martin Ayisi, acting CEO of the Minerals Commission, signed the letter requesting The Fourth Estate to pay the equivalence of $1,000

    The RTI Commission had stated that section 43(2) (c) and section 44 (c) of Act 989 gave it the power to “make any determination as the Commission considers just and equitable, including issuing recommendations or penalties in matters before the Commission.”

    The Minerals Commission refuted that in the writ and said the RTI Commission “is not a court of law and that it is only a court of law that has the power to interpret the provisions of a law passed by Parliament, and further interpret coordinate the laws”.

    It further added that the RTI Commission acted out of jurisdiction when it told The Fourth Estate to pay GH₵ 1.90 pesewas instead of the GH₵ 6,000 it had demanded.

    The landmark decision of the RTI Commission, the first-ever ruling of the recently established commission, was praised by right to information activists as positive signs that Ghana’s RTI law would work.

    The Minerals Commission’s suit is also the first time the RTI Commission’s authority is being challenged in court.

    You may also be interested in

    https://thefourthestategh.com/2021/06/18/minerals-commission-demands-1000-from-the-fourth-estate-in-a-right-to-information-request-2/

    https://thefourthestategh.com/2021/06/21/we-stand-by-our-demand-for-1000-for-right-to-information-request-minerals-commission/

    https://thefourthestategh.com/2021/07/21/release-information-for-gh%e2%82%b52-not-gh%e2%82%b56000-rti-commission-orders-minerals-commission/

     

    https://thefourthestategh.com/2021/07/14/the-fourth-estate-petitions-rti-commission-over-refusal-of-11-mmdas-to-release-information-first-petition-since-commission-was-established/

     

  • Release information for GH₵2 not GH₵6,000: RTI Commission orders Minerals Commission

    Release information for GH₵2 not GH₵6,000: RTI Commission orders Minerals Commission

    The Right to Information (RTI) Commission has annulled the decision by the Minerals Commission to demand the cedi equivalent of US$ 1,000 as fees for information The Fourth Estate requested.

    The RTI Commission reversed the decision in a landmark decision following an application for review filed by The Fourth Estate, a journalism project of the Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA).

    The Fourth Estate had indicated in its request letter to the Minerals Commission, Ghana’s mining regulator, that it preferred the information in a PDF format. It also provided an email address to the Minerals Commission through which the information could be sent.

    The Minerals Commission demanded $1000 (GH₵  6000) for the information despite the fact that the RTI law says fees charged for RTI requests should cover only the cost  and time for reproducing the information.

    The Minerals Commission defended the decision and cited its governing laws to back the fee charged.

    The RTI Commission’s Executive Secretary, Yaw Sarpong Boateng

    The Right to Information Commission has, however, ordered the mining regulator to charge only GHc 1.90, if the information is to be sent via email. It also instructed the Minerals Commission to charge GHc1.80 per page if it’s to print the information for The Fourth Estate.

    The Fourth Estate had requested information on companies licensed to undertake mining in Ghana between January 2013 and May 2021, and companies whose licences were revoked or suspended within the same period.

    But in what RTI advocates described as “outrageous” and a financial roadblock to access to information, the Mineral Commission demanded almost GHc 6000 for the information.

    This generated a lot of uproar.

    In its June 19, 2021 rebuttal after The Fourth Estate published the story about the $1000 charge, the commission released a press statement and defended its decision.

    “Kindly be informed that in accordance with section 75 of Act 989, Section 103 of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), as well as Regulation 4 of the Minerals and Mining (Licensing) Regulations,2012 (LI 2176), the application fee payable is the Ghana Cedi equivalent of five hundred US Dollars (US $500) per request. Thus, the applicable fee payable for the above information is the Ghana Cedi equivalent of one thousand US Dollars (US$1000).”, the statement signed by its Acting Chief Executive Officer, Martin Kwaku Ayisi said.

    Acting in accordance with the provisions of the RTI law, however, The Fourth Estate appealed to the RTI Commission to intervene.

    In its 13-page decision conveyed to The Fourth Estate on July 19, 2021, the Right to Information Commission said the Mineral’s Commission’s law was “wrongfully applied to the Applicant [ Evans Aziamor-Mensah of The Fourth Estate] when he requested information from the minerals rights register.”

    It also declared the mining regulator’s fee illegal.

    “The Respondent [Minerals Commission] cannot charge a fee of Ghana Cedi equivalent of USD 1,000 on the Applicant for a request for statistical data or information when such a fee or charge has no legal basis”

    Applying the rules of natural justice, the RTI Commission had written to the Minerals Commission asking it to justify its $1,000 demand. The Minerals Commission in its response questioned the locus of the RTI Commission to intervene in the matter.

    “The Minerals Commission and, indeed, the RTI Commission do not have the legal wherewithal to review, vary or waive the fees and charges approved by Parliament for services the Commission renders to the general public as has been erroneously pressed upon the RTI Commission by the applicant,” the Minerals Commission’s response, which the RTI Commission said delayed more than 14 days partly, read.

    But having been clothed with the powers to determine issues relating to state institutions releasing information,  the RTI Commission stamped its feet, stating that section 43(2) (c) of Act 989 gave it the power “make any determination as the Commission considers just and equitable including issuing recommendations or penalties in matters before the Commission”.

    It further schooled the Minerals Commission on the RTI legislation, saying section 44 (c) of Act 989 “mandated it to take appropriate action necessary to help it resolve a complaint” before it.

    The decision

    In a ruling that RTI advocates consider a major victory, the RTI Commission ordered the Minerals Commission on what fees to charge for the information.

    “The Commission directs the Chief Executive Officer of the Minerals Commission, Mr. Martin K. Ayisi, to ensure the application of a charge or fee of either 1.80 pesewas multiplied by the number of pages of information to be printed or 1.90 pesewas, if the information in its entirety is to be emailed to the Applicant in PDF format,” the RTI Commission ruled.

    But this is not without a timeline, knowing that the Minerals Commission failed to respond in time when the RTI Commission wrote to it.

    “The information must be furnished the Applicant as requested within 14 days from the date of this determination”, they warned.

    This determination is a sharp departure from the decision by an Accra High Court in June between the Media Foundation for West Africa and the National Communications Authority.  The court asked MFWA to pay GHc 1,500 for an information request, a decision the MFWA described as “disappointing”.

    Proposed fees for RTI requests being considered.

    To cure the abuse of discretionary power in charging exorbitant fees, the RTI Commission said in June 2021 that it had submitted for consideration proposed fees and charges to be applied for requests made by the public for information from public institutions and relevant private bodies.

    This proposal, the Commission said, “is currently going through the requisite administrative considerations and assessment before presentation to Parliament for approval in accordance with Act 983”.

    Reiterating the legal arguments made by Legal Practitioner Samson Lardy Anyenini, the RTI Commission said fees charged for RTI requests must be reasonable and must cater for the cost of re-production and not an additional source of avenue for generating money for an institution.

    RTI Law as a tool for fighting corruption

    The RTI Commission said the most potent medicine for corruption in the country’s current circumstance was the RTI law.

    “If there is any potent tool for ensuring good governance, strong democracy and fight against corruption, that tool should be the right to access to information held by public institutions or relevant private bodies (which are private bodies funded with state funds or resources and performing public functions),” it said.

    Reacting to the decision of the RTI Commission, a private legal practitioner and strong advocate of the right to information, Samson Lardy Anyenini, said it was  “progressive” and signified fidelity to the law.

    “I wish they had held the request to be about information in the public interest and therefore not liable to any fee. I know the issue of public interest can be controversial. But this is such fidelity to Act 989, especially the critical sections 75 and 85.

    “ It is very progressive and set to get information holders to act in compliance with the law by requiring fees only to cover the true cost of reproduction of information requested by the public,” Mr. Anyenini said.

    “ I have faith this decision will also be a good guide to judges who are not that familiar with the law and matters of RTI generally. The Commission has, by its first decision, put itself in the right and hallowed place of the history of the development of the RTI regime in Ghana,” he added.

    RTI Commission Response by edwin appiah on Scribd

    You may also be interested in:

    https://thefourthestategh.com/2021/06/18/minerals-commission-demands-1000-from-the-fourth-estate-in-a-right-to-information-request-2/

    https://thefourthestategh.com/2021/06/21/we-stand-by-our-demand-for-1000-for-right-to-information-request-minerals-commission/

    https://thefourthestategh.com/2021/07/14/the-fourth-estate-petitions-rti-commission-over-refusal-of-11-mmdas-to-release-information-first-petition-since-commission-was-established/

     

     

  • We stand by our demand for $1000 for Right to Information request-Minerals Commission

    We stand by our demand for $1000 for Right to Information request-Minerals Commission

    The Minerals Commission has defended its demand for $1,000 for a right to information (RTI) request made by The Fourth Estate, amidst criticisms that it is monetising public information.

    The Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Commission, Martin Kwaku Ayisi stated in a press statement that “The Fourth Estate, was asked to pay the fees DEMANDED by law, NOT on the whims and caprices of the Commission.”

    On Friday, June 18, 2021, The Fourth Estate published a story titled : Minerals Commission Demands $1000 From The Fourth Estate In A Right To Information Request detailing the commission’s response to an RTI request.

    The Commission, in the June 19, 2021 statement reacting to The Fourth Estate’s publication, said it would not back down on its demand of the $1,000 fee, which some RTI advocates have described as “ridiculous”.

    In that initial response to The Fourth Estate, the commission said its decision, to collect almost GH¢ 6,000, was based on the provisions of Regulation 4 of the Minerals and Mining (Licensing) Regulations, 2012 (L.I 2176)] on fees and charges.

    With The Fourth Estate and RTI activists disagreeing with the commission’s demand, the Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Commission, Martin Kwaku Ayisi, fired back on Sunday, saying the commission’s laws on fees and charges were blind to whether information carried a “commercial value” or not.

    “Unfortunately, our laws do not make the distinction between information of ‘commercial value including cadastral maps and exploratory data of mining zones…’ that Mr. Aziamor-Mensa [of The Fourth Estate]  has created for his readers. The information he requested is found in the register of mineral rights, which per section 103 of Act 703, requires the payment of a prescribed fee. As we have noted above and in our response to the from The Fourth Estate, the prescribed fee is pursuant to regulation 4 of LI. 2176 request,” the statement said.

    It said the demand for the $1,000 was not made according to any individual’s intuition but the law.

    Court decision 

    While the Minerals Commission refuses to budge on its fees and acknowledge the superiority of the RTI law on information requested under the RTI, a High Court has a contrary view.

    A high court judge, Justice Gifty Agyei Addo, who presided over the Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA) and the National Communications Authority (NCA) case on RTI fees, stated in her judgment that agencies should not apply their respective legislative instruments to determine charges relating to Right to Information requests.

    “Clearly the framers of Act 775 did not intend it to be the Right to Information Act. That is why specific legislation was provided for in the Right to Information Act, Act 989,” she ruled.

    “The respondent [NCA] has therefore misconceived the applicability of fees and charges intended for the objects of their enabling statues as if it is also applicable to request for information under Act 989.”

    A private legal practitioner, Samson Lardy Anyenini, had said that the commission’s laws on fees had become subservient to section 85 of the RTI law. But the Minerals Commission said it would be inaccurate to refer to a law passed by Parliament to regulate the mining regulator’s fees as “internal laws”.

    “We reiterate that our fees and charges, prescribed by law, are not ‘internal fees.”

    According to Mr. Ayisi, it would be  wrong for the fees and charges approved by Parliament for services the commission renders, to the general public, to be described as “internal fees” or an “illegality.”

    While the Mineral Commission said it is ignorant of the fact that any information request which comes under the RTI Act should carry fees proposed by the Act 989, as  Mr. Anyenini indicated, the mining regulator said Act 793(miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2009 empowers it to charge such a fee.

    “We are not aware that the ‘laws about the supply of information were suspended when a request for information comes under the RTI Act.’ In contrast, we find that under section 75(1) of the RTI Act, ‘an applicant seeking access to information under [the Act] shall pay the fee or charge approved by Parliament in accordance with the Fees and Charges (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act,2009 (Act 793).’”

    On Thursday, June 17, 2021, the same day the same the High court gave its judgment on the MFWA and NCA case, the Executive Secretary of the Right to Information to Commission, Yaw Sarpong Boateng, warned public institutions not to turn the fees into a source of money-making avenues.

    “The Law does not intend that any public institution would profit from generating information. We have made a proposal as requested by the law under the section that talks about fees to the Ministry of Finance, which is supposed to lay it before the Parliamentary Subsidiary Legislation Committee, where such approvals are given.”

    The High Court decision, which asked the MFWA to pay 1,500 cedis to the NCA for the RTI request, has raised concerns among the Right To Information coalition which championed the passage of the law.

    Lawyer Samson Lardy Anyenini, a member of the coalition, has criticised the judgment as a decision that failed to “apply the demand of reasonableness or the law.”

    “The courts fix the fees without ascertaining the exact amount required to reproduce the information sought. In the EC case, the MP paid the ¢1,500 only to realise it was for information on only two sheets of paper,” he wrote in his weekly column, Samson’s Take.

    He said the demand by the Minerals Commission was an attempt by some public officers to “make nonsense” of the law.

     

     

     

     

  • Minerals Commission demands $1000 from The Fourth Estate in a Right to Information request

    Minerals Commission demands $1000 from The Fourth Estate in a Right to Information request

    The Minerals Commission has demanded $1,000 (GH¢5,700) from The Fourth Estate in order to provide information requested under the Right to Information (RTI) Law.

    The Fourth Estate had requested information on companies licensed to undertake mining in Ghana between January 2013 and May 2021, and companies whose licenses have been revoked or suspended within the same period.

    But quoting the highest fee any institution has yet demanded to release information under the RTI Law, the mining regulator asked for the equivalent of $1,000 for the information.

    Such demands per Regulation 4 of the Minerals and Mining (Licensing) Regulations, 2012 (LI 2176), apply to requests that of commercial value including cadastral maps and exploratory data of mining zones.

    In the absence of a legislative instrument to guide fees which public institutions should charge RTI applicants, the Minerals Commission said it fell on its internal laws to charge the fees.

    A response to The Fourth Estate’s request signed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Minerals Commission, Martin K. Ayisi, said:

    “Kindly be informed that in accordance with section 75 of Act 989, Section 103 of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), as well as Regulation 4 of the Minerals and Mining (Licensing) Regulations,2012 (LI 2176), the application fee payable is the Ghana Cedi equivalent of five hundred US Dollars (US $500) per request. Thus, the applicable fee payable for the above information is the Ghana Cedi equivalent of one thousand US Dollars (US$1000).”

    RTI advocates say such fees may deter the media, civil society and ordinary Ghanaians from using the law to request information.

    A journalism lecturer and private legal practitioner, Zakaria Tanko Musah, said the Minerals Commission’s fees would amount to an attempt to monetise information, which ordinarily should be available to the public.

    He said it was not out of place for the Commission to demand a fee, but it should not cost an arm and a leg.

    “You will have to pay something, to be determined by the Minerals Commission, in the absence of fees and charges yet to be approved by parliament. But certainly, it should not be exorbitant to the extent of defeating the purpose of the RTI law.”

    “You may have to consider going to the next stage of appeal,” he advised The Fourth Estate.

    Lawyer and host of JoyNews’ Newsfile programme, Samson Lardy Anyenini, agreed with Mr. Musah. Mr Anyenini, who has been an RTI crusader, said the Minerals Commission erred.

    He said that the commission should not have been inward looking in respect of the fees. Quoting the regulation which guides its internal fees and charges to The Fourth Estate, according to Mr. Anyenini, amounts to an illegality.

    CEO of Minerals Commission

    He explained that all laws about the supply of information were suspended when a request for information comes under the RTI Act.

    “The things about which you have applied for information is of public interest, according to Section 75 of the law [RTI law], and because it is in the public interest, they are supposed to supply you the information at no cost.

    “But, even if they insist that it is not of public interest, they are not supposed to reference you to their laws because their laws have become subservient to section 85 of the RTI law and as a result of that, they are supposed to ask you to pay for the cost of reproduction,” he explained.

    A high court judge, Justice Gifty Agyei Addo, who presided over the Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA) and the National Communications Authority (NCA) case on RTI fees, stated in her judgment that agencies should not apply their respective legislative instruments to determine charges relating to Right to Information requests.

    “Clearly the framers of Act 775 did not intend it to be the Right to Information Act. That is why specific legislation was provided for in the Right to Information Act, Act 989,” she ruled.

    “The respondent [NCA] has therefore misconceived the applicability of fees and charges intended for the objects of their enabling statues as if it is also applicable to request for information under Act 989.”

    Samson Lardy Anyenini said the cost of production could mean that an individual is charged for the cost of printing, photocopying or for the cost CD-ROM or USB drive on which information is supplied.

    The Executive Secretary of the Right to Information to Commission, Yaw Sarpong Boateng, said public institutions should not turn the fees into another source of internally-generated funds.

    At MFWA’s forum in Accra last Thursday, Mr. Boateng said the fee an organization charged must be for reproducing the information and not for profit.

    “The Law does not intend that any public institution would profit from generating information. We have made a proposal as requested by the law under the section that talks about fees to the Ministry of Finance, which is supposed to lay it before the Parliamentary Subsidiary Legislation Committee, where such approvals are given.

    “We are hoping that when it goes through, it will reflect obliviously the intention of the law,” he said.

    He added that while they awaited the passage of the instrument regulating fees and charges, they “expect some reasonableness in reproducing information because the constitution which is above all laws says we should provide information.”

    Petition to RTI Commission

    The Fourth Estate has petitioned the Right to Information Commission for a review of the Minerals Commission’s demand of $1000 before granting the RTI request.

    The Right to Information act, 2019 (Act 989) was passed in 2019, after nearly two decades of its drafting and activism.

    The President inaugurated the Right to Information Commission in October 2020 tasking them to oversee the smooth implementation of the law.

    Other fees and court decisions

    This is not the first time a public institution is demanding fees many see as “ridiculous” in an RTI request.

    In July 2020, the  NCA asked the MFWA to pay GH¢2000 for information on the closure of some radio stations across the country.

    The MFWA went to court to challenge the fees, and after almost five months of a legal tussle, the court gave its judgement on Thursday, June 17, 2021.

    The Accra High Court presided over by Justice Gifty Adjei Addo slashed the cost of the information to GH¢1,500.

    “I come to the conclusion that the fees payable cannot be under section 82 of the Electronic communication ACT 775 but 75 of the Act 989(Right to Information Act,2019 (989) [which applies to fees and charges of public institutions]. In any event, there are no prescribed fees as supposed to be provided by Parliament, but they have not been able to do that but their inactions cannot, however, deny somebody the right to information…,” the judge said.

    The MFWA has expressed its disappointment in the judgment because the GH¢1,500 was unreasonable for information that could be given via email.

    Ernest Norgbey Vs the EC

    Justice Gifty Addo gave a similar decision in July 21, 2020, when she ruled on an RTI case brought to her court by a lawmaker.

    Ernest Norgbey, MP for Ashaiman, had written to the Electoral Commission (EC) under the RTI law requesting information on the procurement procedure used by the commission to hire the services of two consultants—Dr Ofori-Adjei, an IT Consultant and Mr A. Akrofi, a procurement consultant.

    The two were said to be very instrumental in the EC’s purchase of a biometric voter management system (BVMS). Mr Norgbey wanted to know whether the hiring of the services of the two consultants was in line with the Public Procurement Act.

    The EC said it could not provide the information because parliament had not yet determined fees and charges for RTI requests.

    Justice Gifty Adjei Addo, as she did in the MFWA and NCA case, ruled that the EC should give out the information but the MP should pay GH¢1,500.

  • FDA sacks Head of Legal over “The Returned Bribe” scandal

    FDA sacks Head of Legal over “The Returned Bribe” scandal

    The Food and Drugs Authority (FDA) has terminated the appointment of its Head of Legal Affairs, Mrs. Cynthia Dapaah-Ntow after a disciplinary committee found her guilty of misconduct.

    The FDA instituted internal disciplinary proceedings against Cynthia Dapaah-Ntow following an investigation by the Editor-in-Chief of The Fourth Estate, Manasseh Azure Awuni, that implicated her in a bribery scandal.

    The disciplinary committee requested and was given the television version of Manasseh’s investigative documentary even though Mrs. Cynthia Dapaah-Ntow, had sought a court injunction against the broadcast.

    An internal memo sent to the staff of the FDA Tuesday evening by the Head of Human Resource reads:

    “Management would like to inform Staff that effective 18th May 2021, Mrs. Cynthia Dapaah-Ntow, Head of Legal, will cease to be a staff of the FDA. The decision was arrived at after Mrs. Cynthia Dapaah-Ntow was taken through the internal disciplinary process of the Authority, following a charge of misconduct leveled against her.

    “The Disciplinary Committee recommended to the Board that the appointment of Mrs. Cynthia Dapaah-Ntow be terminated. The Board has subsequently accepted the recommendation and given her the required notice of termination of appointment.

    “The Staff are also hereby informed that the Investigative Committee exonerated the CEO of all allegations of wrongdoing on her part.

    “Management appreciates the patience exhibited by all Staff while the disciplinary process lasted.

    “As a matured [sic] regulatory agency whose core values include transparency, fairness, and integrity, the Authority reiterates its zero-tolerance for bribery and corruption and reaffirms its commitments to the staff.”

    US-based university denies Cynthia Dapaah-Ntow admission

    Last week, The Fourth Estate broke the story of how Mrs. Cynthia Dapaah-Ntow was denied admission to the Thomas R. Kline School of Law at the Drexel University in Philadelphia, USA, because of “The Returned Bribe” investigation.

    Mrs. Dapaah-Ntow had applied to study the LLM in Healthcare & Pharm Compliance for the Spring Semester of 20-21, but the admission team sent her the following response in an email:

    “Thank you for applying to Drexel University. After careful consideration of your application, the Admissions Committee has determined that we are unable to offer you admission.”

    Unsatisfied with the response and curious to know the reason for the denial of admission, the FDA lawyer wrote to the university to find out.

    “I am passionate about the programme and would want to reapply,” she said in her letter. “I hope you will be kind enough to point to me what worked against me in my last application so I do not repeat the same in my next attempt.”

    In a response sent by the Assistant Dean of Enrolment Management, Audrey Woods, on December 17, 2020, the university explained that the denial of admission had nothing to do with her academic credentials.

    “We found you to be a very qualified candidate, however, it came to the attention of the admissions committee that you were under investigation for allegations of bribery which is not in line with our values and code of conduct,” the university said in an email to the FDA lawyer.

    Details of the correspondence are part of court processes Mrs. Dapaah-Ntow filed to support a case in which she’s seeking an injunction from the court to stop the broadcast of the television version of “The Returned Bribe” an investigative documentary by the Editor-in-Chief of The Fourth Estate, Manasseh Azure Awuni.

    “The Returned Bribe” scandal

    In November 2020, Manasseh Azure Awuni released an investigative report titled “The Returned Bribe” in which the CEO of the COA FS food supplement, Prof. Samuel Ato Duncan, alleged the FDA attempted to extort money from him when his product gained popularity in the wake of the COVID-19.

    In the investigative report, Mrs. Cynthia Dapaah-Ntow was cited in a $200,000 bribery saga. She allegedly demanded a bribe of $100,000 for the CEO of the FDA and another $100,000 for herself.

    This happened at the same period FDA, in April 2020, suspended the production license of COA FS, citing breaches in safety protocols.

    The CEO of COA FS said he suspected foul play in the FDA’s approach and contacted the Head of Legal to complain and seek advice on how to handle the situation. According to him, it was at a meeting to discuss the issues that Mrs. Dapaah-Ntow demanded the money.

    Professor Ato Duncan returned the following day with GHC500,000 (the cedi equivalent of $100,000) for the CEO of the FDA and another GHC100,000 for the Head of Legal.

    Prof. Ato Duncan, CEO of COA FS, said he suspected foul play in the approach of the FDA

    Mrs. Dapaah-Ntow later called him to come back for the money because the CEO of the FDA had rejected the money.

    In that phone conversation, which was recorded, Mrs. Dapaah-Ntow is heard arguing with Professor Samuel Ato Duncan that the agreement was to give both the CEO of the FDA and her (the Head of Legal) $100,000 each. She said her cash of GHC100,000 was far less than the amount agreed.

    “And we said okay bring her $100,000. And I asked you a specific question; [about mine] how much? Then you said the same amount,” she is heard in the audio.

    “That’s what you said, Prof. We never discussed 100,000 cedis at all… Because $100,000, if you were giving her that, would translate into 587 [587,000 cedis]. Is that not correct? Assuming you were giving her cedi equivalent, that’s 587 [587,000 cedis].”

    Prof. Ato Duncan said he thought it was $100,000 for the CEO of the FDA and 100,000 cedis for the Head of Legal Affairs.

    Asked why he gave the money knowing that it was illegal to pay a bribe, Prof. Duncan said he suspected foul play and decided to play along. He added that in the process, he was in touch with the Greater Accra Regional Director of the National Bureau of Investigations (NIB), whom he fed updates of the scheme including exchanges between him and the Cynthia Dapaah-Ntow.

    Injunction and Defamation Suit and Drama

    The radio version of “The Returned Bribe” documentary was aired on the Super Morning Show of Joy 99.7FM on November 12, 2020, and the television version was billed to be broadcast later that night.

    Mrs. Dapaah-Ntow, however, applied for an injunction against the broadcast of the television documentary. She also sued Manasseh Azure Awuni, Professor Samuel Ato Duncan and The Multimedia Group for defamation.

    In January 2021, lawyers for Mrs. Dapaah-Ntow had asked the court to reject Manasseh’s entry of appearance and statement of defence because they claimed Manasseh had failed to provide his residential address.

    The court dismissed their application, stating among other things that the plaintiff had not had any problems with serving any of the processes on Manasseh.

    Unsatisfied with the ruling, Cynthia Dapaah-Ntow appealed at the Court of Appeal.

    The lawyers for Manasseh and the Multimedia Group led by Samson Lardy Anyenini, repeated their stance that the numerous actions by Mrs. Dapaah-Ntow were only meant to delay the hearing of the substantive injunction application, a charge lawyers for Mrs. Dapaah-Ntow took a strong exception to, leading to heated exchanges in the court.

    The Court of Appeal, on March 24, 2021, dismissed her application and awarded a cost of GHC2,000 against her.

    The injunction was supposed to continue at the High Court on March 30, but the docket had not been brought back from the Court of Appeal so the case has been adjourned to May 11, 2021.

    EDITOR’S NOTE: This story shall not be republished or broadcast, in part or in full, in any form or shape without the express permission of the Editor-in-Chief.