WHY I WROTE TO FIFA-EBOW QUANSAH

Former President of the Sports Writers Association of Ghana Ebow Quansah spoke to Citi Sports on his recent letter written to football’s governing body Fifa on alleged governmental interference in football administration in the country.

The news has generated much public debate with many questioning the authenticity of the claims while some also support the claims by the veteran journalist.

On Citi Fm’s flagship sports programme Half Time on 20th October 2010 hosted by Erasmus Kwaw, Ebow Quansah was given the chance to clarify issues that have arisen since the publication of his letter.

The following is an extract of the interview.

“Listen, no one, nobody has ever denied a word of what I wrote in that letter. All the FA is saying is, we don’t know how this thing was written, we have no hand in it, and we do not want to have a hand in it that is all what they are saying. As I sit here, nobody has denied a word of what I wrote”

Erasmus Kwaw
What made you write the letter to Fifa?

Ebow
Ghana Football is moving forward and looking at the way it’s going, if we don’t take care and we allow government to step in, we may run into danger of getting into what Nigeria got( Nigeria was suspended recently by Fifa due to government interference) government putting people before the court and that kind of thing.
We have not reached there yet but I think there are scenarios indicating that if we don’t take care, we might get there. So I sought of raised the Red flag to warn that if we don’t take care, we might get into danger.

Erasmus
You stated in your letter that agents of the governing party started a campaign of hate to undermine the authority of the football administration in 2009. We had members of the CPP, NPP on the transitional committee?

Ebow
I’m talking of the NDC transitional team composed of NDC members. I do not mean the entire transitional team that worked out how the new government will come in.

Erasmus
And you saw that to be a hate campaign?

Ebow
Of course yes. Straight away!

Erasmus
Was this thing being perpetuated by the government or a member of the government?

Ebow
I said agents of the government. Agents of the party, I did not even mention the government but agents of the party.

Erasmus
Did they have the backing of the President?

Ebow
They did not necessarily need the backing of the President. I cannot tell whether they had the backing of the President but some agents of the NDC did that. I have no reason to believe that the President directed them to do so but I say agents of the ruling party did that.

Erasmus
You said there was a circular which was sent to leading members of the government.

Ebow
Yes there was this circular and after the Public Interest Committee thing stalled in fact until now the PIC has not been formed. As we speak right now, there is an order from the Ministry of Youth and Sports to the Ghana Football Association that the PIC should be formed with three members nominated by the government and Abedi Pele as the chairman.
Erasmus

Are you aware that there have been deliberations between the government and the GFA over the period?

Ebow
I know that some people claiming to be representing the government have been meeting some members of the Executive Committee of the FA.

Erasmus
And the FA chose to meet them?

Ebow
Well, that is you know I mean obviously they are people in football already but tracing their power to the new administration.

Erasmus
Then it means the FA recognises their power?

Ebow
Well that is their own business, whether they recognised their power or not, it’s their own business. I didn’t write because I’m a member of the FA or I’m writing on behalf of the FA. But as a Sport journalist with several years of experience, I wrote on my own behalf. People have said all kind of things as if we don’t have brains of our own.

Erasmus
You say a hate campaign is being waged against the FA but then you just explained that you are aware there have been several meetings between government and the FA. Did the FA voluntarily choose to meet those people? Were they forced to meet them?

Ebow
I say I cannot tell. But what I know is that there were several meetings. I cannot tell whether some were coerced or people were marched to the meeting grounds.

Erasmus
What is your understanding of what transpired between President Mills and Fifa President Sepp Blatter? Why are you so intent on knowing the exact details?

Ebow
Because immediately after the Presidential delegation to Switzerland, the FA was hauled before the Serious Fraud Office to account for some monies, some entirely private. The monies they are talking about never came from the state. So the government of Ghana, as I indicated has absolutely no power to demand that kind of accountability. What the government of Ghana has power over is monies paid for in respect of national teams.

Erasmus
Let’s try to define exactly who constitutes the state. Do you see the SFO as acting directly under the orders of the government?

Ebow
SFO is a State agency. It was set up by an act of Parliament. The SFO has absolutely no power to investigate the FA over monies that have been generated by the FA. That is why Fifa has instructed its entire agencies that: please don’t allow government interference in your affairs. SFO is a state organsation funded by the state and its run as a state agency.

Erasmus
Can the FA invite state agencies to step into its affairs?

Ebow
In what way, I don’t understand what you mean. Can you break it down?

Erasmus
I’m talking in respect to this issue about the Auditor General. The FA allows itself to be audited.

Ebow
In respect of monies that have been paid it by the state.

Erasmus
No not only that. I have here the management letter that was written by the Auditor to the FA in April 2010. The FA allowed itself to be audited, how do you classy that?

Ebow
Well, you said that FA allowed itself to be audited. So that is the business of the FA. What I know is what I wrote that..

Erasmus
Under the Company’s Code, any company that registers in Ghana needs to be audited at certain stages. Are you aware?

Ebow
You said the FA allowed itself to be audited. Look I’m talking of Football regulations, please don’t send me into some polemics. I’m talking of football regulations as I know.

Erasmus
You are saying that State agencies cannot investigate the FA. True or false.

Ebow
Well, as I’m saying I don’t know about that, if they audit the FA that is a different matter but I’m talking of International football regulations.

Erasmus
When they (Auditor General) audited the FA, they did not do classifications such as state issues or private issues. They just audited everything that had to do with monies that were given to them by government, by Glo or by every other agency.

Ebow
And so! So because the Auditor General has audited the FA, it means that every other state agency has the right to investigate the FA? Is that what you are saying?

Erasmus
You made a categorical statement that state agencies have no right to investigate the FA.

Ebow
As far as I know, in international football regulations that state of Ghana is supposed to keep off the affairs of the FA. If the FA allowed the auditor general to investigate it, then it’s their own matter.

Erasmus
Under the company’s code, every company in the country is supposed to submit accounts to the Auditor General and the FA as an entity is a company. Today they are saying that they are a private entity and for that matter the SFO can’t investigate them.

Ebow
Listen I’m talking about the Football aspect of the FA.
If they FA invites the Auditor General to look at its accounts….as I’m sitting here if I form my company and I feel that the Auditor General’s account would be beneficial to me, I can inform the Auditor General to come and audit my accounts. I think we are confusing the two issues because Fifa is very clear on what constitutes state or governmental interference.

Erasmus
Tell me about it.

Ebow
The reason why Fifa issues such instructions is that otherwise governments will use football as the public relations wing of political parties. Football is so emotional; football brings so much satisfaction, look at what happened to Ghana during the recent world cup. Otherwise various governments will use football as their tool to win various people to its side. Fifa says please keep off so that football can stand on its own and not become a tool for government.

Erasmus
What is your understanding of the Mid Sea saga?

Ebow
I don’t think I came here to discuss the mid sea issue. That is a different ball game. The Mid Sea money is a sponsorship deal the FA brokered; it’s not state money given to the FA. That is what I want the whole of Ghana to understand. Sponsorship raised by the FA is entirely different from monies that the State of Ghana pays in respect of national teams. If the government of the day wants to find out how its monies have been used in respect of the national teams, well I have no problem with that.

Erasmus
But when it comes to private issues, don’t touch them?

Ebow
Please, don’t.

Erasmus
Which rule says that?

Ebow
Fifa International regulations.

Erasmus
Please if you have the Fifa rules here, can you just give us the portion that says that because it’s very crucial to this letter?

Ebow
I don’t have it here and I can’t quote it off hand but that is what the International regulations say about football administration in the whole wide world not only Ghana. Look why were Nigeria banned? Because government sent people to court.

Erasmus
They (the Nigeria Football Officials) have been meeting the Economic and Crimes Commission for a long time. The final thing that made Fifa step in was when they coerced Adamu, the General Secretary to step down from his position. They (government) interfered because they were physically taking somebody out of his position. That is the difference.

Ebow
Here there were appeals to get Randy Abbey off his position. Yes, I can tell you that even a letter was prepared but Randy Abbey did not sign.

Erasmus
A letter was prepared by whom?

Ebow
I cannot tell you who signed the letter but a letter was prepared to be signed by Randy Abbey resigning his position as spokesman of the FA and chairman of the Management Committee of the Black Meteors.

Erasmus
You say somebody demanded that. Who demanded that?

Ebow
Agents claiming to represent the government, people who claim to represent the government.

Erasmus
But the FA has dissociated itself from your letter.

Ebow
There is a difference between dissociation from my letter, I did not consult the FA before writing my letter, and the FA had no input in my letter. Listen, no one, nobody has ever denied a word of what I wrote in that letter. All the FA is saying is, we don’t know how this thing was written, we have no hand in it, and we do not want to have a hand in it that is all what they are saying. As I sit here, nobody has denied a word of what I wrote. Simple English says that dissociating yourself from somebody’s action means that I’m not part of that action. But as to whether was written was true or false, as we sit here nobody has told me it’s not true.

Erasmus
And indeed Mr. Nyantakyi has not come public to tell us what is going on? If it affects him so much, why has he not come out publicly on the issue?

Ebow
My friend, I’m not in the mind of Nyantakyi. I do not know how he sees things. I wrote as Ebow Quansah, seeing that things are going wrong if we don’t take care we will reach a point of no return. This is some form of red flag I raised. The background I have built is just for the Fifa President to tell us what he told our President. That I will be surprised if indeed he told our President to come and investigate the FA. Unfortunately, when I said I was surprised some papers have written around the world, and my information is that it came from GNA. That is not what I said. I said I will be surprised if indeed Fifa asked the President of Ghana to investigate the FA.

Erasmus
You said a letter was prepared for Randy Abbey to sign but he did not sign, again the agents demanded they be given slots on the management committees of the national teams? So again did this demand come officially to the FA?

Ebow
No this is part of the discussions they had with the FA executives. As I sit here, they have indicated that Public Interest Committee should be formed with three members nominated by the government and that PIC must be chaired by Abedi Pele and this for me is complete government interference.

Erasmus
You said the Special Aide to the President Nii Lantey Vanderpuye was not supposed to be at the Ghana Olympic Committee congress?

Ebow
Yes, he was not supposed to be part of the electoral process.

Erasmus
I can also confirm to you that Nii Lantey Vanderpuye was the chairman of the Ghana Weightlifting Association.

Ebow
But at the time he became chairman of the Weightlifting Association, the GOC had already called a congress so he was not qualified to go and contest. That is what I’m saying.

Erasmus
Who appoints those members of the sporting associations? It’s very clear: the government. A new government always has power to appoint new people. Am I with right or not?

Ebow
You are wrong. The various Associations were asked to organise elections after the GOC impasse.

Erasmus
Please let’s go back to the main point. Does the government have the power to appoint people to the sporting associations?

Ebow
What I’m saying is at a point in time government used to appoint the chairman and other members of the Ghana Football Association. But we have moved very far from that.

Erasmus
With the other Associations, does the government still have that power over them?

Ebow
Yes, some of the other Associations managed by the National Sports Council.

Erasmus
Apart from Football, which other Association is very independent?

Ebow
No Association is independent at the moment.

Erasmus
So it’s true that government has the power to appoint those people. So Nii Lantey Vanderpuye was appointed by the government.

Ebow
Listen to me, I’m not saying that the Nii Lantey Vanderpuye’s shouldn’t have been chairmen of the Associations. What I’m saying is that at the time the elections were called, all these people did not qualify for the elections because the statutory notice had already been given.

Erasmus
What the GOC constitution says is they invite member associations. In this instance they invited member associations, they did not invite specifically the chairman, secretary or whoever. So if government made appointments after or within 21 day notice who was to represent them at congress? Was it the new ones or the old ones?

Ebow
Look, we dealing with statutory obligations. Every election has its rules.

Erasmus
Until you are able to prove that the GOC specifically said we invite chairmen.

Ebow
Please you are taking me to polemics that does not apply here.

Erasmus
They are not polemics if you are talking about 21 day notice they invite associations so if there are changes assuming the chairman dies, the secretary dies, we have treasurer and the other members. So the associations delegate their powers to those members who go for the congress.

Ebow
Listen we have crossed that line long ago because the IOC says no, the elections you conducted is not proper. So the GOC as we knew it should remain in power and organise elections. We cannot go away from International regulations because a new group of people are in power.

Erasmus
We keep on talking about Fifa, IOC these people are not angels?

Ebow
Please even that, don’t come there. Who is an angel? There are regulations that must be obeyed. What is in the statutes is that, there must be a 21 day notice.

Erasmus
There was a 21 day notice, government had the right to change people at the associations.

Ebow
The rule has been specified and if you don’t qualify, you wait. Because I remember when the NPP came to power and at a point in time they were going to the polls and that issue came up. They said well, if that is their rule then they should go out and hold their elections. Nobody bothered about their congress because a new government had come to power.

Is Mid-Sea just a tip of the iceberg?

President of the Ghana Football Association Kwesi Nyantakyi is gradually sinking in the quagmire of “Mid Sea” following revelations from a recent audit of his outfit.

The audit reports followed dark clouds hanging around a purported sponsorship package signed between Nigerian mobile telecommunication giant, Glo and the private company, Mid-Sea.

The latter, according to reports, signed on behalf of the FA but allegations about malfeasance have surfaced, raising doubts about the credibility of a man whose administration has led Ghana to two successful world cups.

The issue of how Afrisat International acting through its local agent Mid Sea Limited brokered the $15 million Glo sponsorship deal for the Ghana Premier league in December 2008 has become a thorny issue in the flesh of the FA boss and some members of his administration.

The inconsistencies in statements from the members of the FA, as well as revelations by a director of Mid Sea, Professor Marian Ewurama Addy, that her outfit has never received monies for any service has only led to more questions, instead of answers.

For instance, the solicitor of Afrisat International and Mid Sea Estates Limited, Dominick Ayine, in a desperate attempt to put the matter to rest, stated in a press release that the Board of Directors of Mid Sea knew in general terms about the deal between their outfit and the FA.

However, a director of the company, Professor Marian Ewurama Addy, rebutted that claim in a subsequent rejoinder stating emphatically that the directors only got to know about the deal after the story broke in the media.

“Management must have dealt with, and received money from, the GFA for the role it played in the deal, but the directors neither dealt with nor received money from GFA, neither does the account of Midsea show any inflows from GFA,” Professor Ewurama Addy said.

Professor Addy went even further to explain that she had raised serious objections about the press release by the solicitor of the Management of Mid Sea Dominick Ayine, concerning the specific time she and the other director actually got to know about the deal.

Again, the revelations by Professor Addy contradicted what FA boss Nyantakyi had said at its earlier press conference that $450,000 less tax had been paid into the accounts of Mid Sea which represents 10% of $4.5 million of the total amount of money paid out to the FA by Glo so far. According to Professor Addy, no such monies reflected in Mid Sea’s account.

Despite all the emotive language and talk of plots, conspiracies and swindles, the central legal question here is this: did the GFA pay Mid Sea the reported 10% of the total sponsorship money?

It is instructive to note that Mid Sea Estates Limited is duly registered under the Companies Act as a business entity with its authorized business including real estate, import and export and manufacturers’ representation.

Therefore the deal the company entered into with the GFA and Afrisat International is illegal under the company’s code since section 25 states: ‘A company shall not carry on any business not authorised by its regulations and shall not exceed the powers conferred on it by this code.’

This is despite the fact that elsewhere in the code specific steps are given as to how a company can amend its regulations in order to venture into other business. Subsequent investigations by this writer have led to the fact that the FA has dealt previously with the Managing Director of Mid Sea, Anthony Cole, on at least two suspicious deals; on 1st April, 2008 ($181,687.50) and on 7th February, 2009 ($142,500.00).

However, the Auditor General has queried the FA on those payments, because there were no receipts to validate the payments.

Clearly, the GFA and the managing director of Mid Sea – Anthony Cole – have transacted business prior to October, 2008, the point in time in which the purported deal between Afrisat International-GFA on one hand and Afrisat International-Mid Sea on the other were signed.

Therefore, the earlier argument by the solicitor of Mid Sea and Afrisat International that Mid Sea took advantage of the deal to enhance its earnings and diversify its business in the face of a slump in the real estate market due to the global recession is untenable.

Mr. Cole later wrote a press release admitting he had acted without the consent of the Board of Directors of his company and begged for forgiveness, but he failed to address the relevant issues about how much money he made on the various deals he is purported to have signed with the FA. It appears some people at the FA took advantage of the naivete of Mr. Cole who was only paid peanuts while the other key actors in the deal took the chunk of the so- called agency fee.

In her earlier press release, Professor Ewurama Addy, a director of Mid Sea wondered, “Let me state also that the manager of Midsea, Mr. Anthony Cole, has been a very hardworking and trustworthy individual. I am at a loss as to how he got introduced to Afrisat Company in the first place. Only Afrisat, who has been an earlier agent of GFA – as stated in the article - and GFA would know.”

There are further contradictions on another deal involving Glo’s sponsorship of the senior male national team, the Black Stars. At its press conference in August, FA President Kwesi Nyantakyi said that the sponsorship for the Ghana Premier League and the Black Stars both involved agents (seemingly the same agents).

But doubts still surround the whole deal following revelations by former Deputy Minister of Youth and Sports O. B. Amoah that Glo’s sponsorship of the Black Stars never involved an agent during the reign of the previous government up to December, 2008. Contrary to O. B. Amoah’s assertion that he was fully aware that there was no agent on the football team deal because he was himself at the table, the Glo sponsorship for the national team was somehow eventually signed in February, 2009 with Afrisat International as the agents.

It has also emerged that Glo Ambassador Abraham Boakye introduced officials of Globacom Nigeria to the GFA in 2008. The Nigerians expressed interest in sponsoring both the league and the Black Stars but were told the FA had existing sponsorship deals with the then One-touch and MTN.

Mr. Boakye alleges that he was kicked out of the deal by the FA President on the excuse that the league clubs wanted to deal directly with Glo and not through an agent due to the cost implications.

So again, the question that arises is why the FA contracted Afrisat International as agents to secure the deal, when the deal had already been offered to them on a silver platter? After all, this was not the first time that the FA was going to negotiate a multimillion dollar deal.

Our company law prohibits companies from engaging in business not authorized by their regulations: Companies Act 25. But a cursory look at the Management Letter on the Accounts of the GFA, covering the period between 1st July, 2007 and 30th June, 2009, raises serious queries about the financial controls at the football governing body. Perhaps there are more “Mid Sea style deals” hidden in the accounts.

In summary, some officials of the FA have failed to account for monies given to them as imprest for various assignments while monies paid out to individuals and business entities for services totaling about $6million in all have not been receipted.

As at now, the queries do not legally implicate any FA official in any financial embezzlement or malfeasance but there are several relevant questions which border on questionable financial controls, morality and to some extent potentially illegal payments.

It’s puzzling to notice that $316, 301 and Gh¢ 165,696 worth of imprest which was paid out to 23 officials is yet to be accounted for despite the fact that the programmes they were intended for had been completed at the time the letter was written. By convention, the officials were supposed to have accounted for their stewardship once the programmes for which the monies were assigned for had been completed. Therefore there is uncertainty surrounding the use of the imprest, as to whether the monies were indeed used for their intended purposes or not.

In one instance, $69, 600 was paid out to a top official of the FA as appearance fees to officials who accompanied the national team for a friendly game with Australia on 4th July, 2008.

The obvious question then is what work did those officials do to be paid appearance fees? Indeed it will be interesting to find out the reasons the FA for making those payments.

To their credit, some members of the FA have retired the imprest they were given for various duties since 2007 and 2008 but the questions linger as to why they did not do the right thing a long time ago.

Furthermore, the report also states that the paying officer of the FA failed to produce receipts to authenticate payments of over $1 million dollars and over Gh¢ 8 million for goods and services procured by the FA.

The most blatant payment in the accounts had to do with the “alleged” payment of Gh¢ 8, 032, 250 into the accounts of Krypton Ghana Limited for the production of backdrop. For the uninitiated, backdrops are used to adorn rooms and the environment for special occasions and usually have written on them the name of the occasion, plus the theme and date for the programme are properly advertised on it. The more than eight million cedi paid out for that is yet to be properly accounted for.

It is mind boggling that the FA does not demand receipts for such a huge expenditure amount to authenticate the payment. For now it cannot be ascertained whether indeed the payment was made to Krypton Ghana Limited or not, but for a fact the money is no more in the accounts.

The obvious question that popped up in my mind was: why has the system not clamped down on the apparent weak financial controls at the country’s football governing body all these years?

The Management letter on the accounts of the FA also points out the fact that such weaknesses were noticed in an earlier audit of the FA.

That Sword of Damocles hangs heavily on the Internal Auditor of the FA.

The Auditor notes that the internal auditor (IA) failed to submit regular reports on the financial state of the administration but was strangely allowed to remain in his post all this while.

The IA is apparently not aware of provisions of sections of the Ghana Audit Act!! The obvious implication is that the competence of the IA is in doubt.

It’s been interesting the path the FA has chosen to address the issues raised by the management letter on the accounts and also the Glo Sponsorship deals.

From its initial reluctance to give out information on the issues, to the separate revelations of the purported roles Mid Sea Company Limited and Afrisat International played in securing the deal, and the court action by an Executive Committee Member of the FA, George Afriyie to prevent the SFO from investigating the FA President Kwesi Nyantakyi. We still await the final audit report on the accounts of the FA to draw a final conclusion on the relevant matters and I pray Nyantakyi comes clean. The FA has been reluctant to share the responses they gave to the Auditor General pursuant to the draft audit. Clearly, the behaviour of Kwesi Nyantakyi and his administration can best be likened to “fish on top of a tree”.

With elections due next year, Nyantakyi is under pressure both from within football circles and the media to explain the key issues and it is shameful that some supporters of his have now resorted to intimidation to stop the few crusading journalists in the country.

Patrick Osei Agyeman of Asempa Fm was assaulted by some known “macho men” at the Baba Yara stadium on 10th October, 2010 minutes after the Black Stars trained on the ground amidst threats to clamp down on other people like him.

You might want to ask, what crime those journalists have committed. Since the Graphic Sports broke this story in August, a cursory observation at the Ghanaian media landscape reveals that not too many journalists have been keen to look at the various issues of accountability that have been raised. The excuse most give is that the issue is politically motivated.

Well, there is no denying the fact that the negative stories might play into the hands of the opponents of the current regime, i.e. some top people in government and the other prospective candidates for the FA presidency.

However that is not sufficient reason for the media to keep mute on the issues of such national importance that are cloaked in mystery and possible corruption. After all we, journalists, are supposed to comprise the Fourth Estate and our duty primarily is to talk about the true state of affairs.

I don’t have any personal agenda against the FA, I am just doing my job in the way I was trained to do it. I am not the problem!



http://www.ghanabusinessnews.com/2010/10/19/questionable-payments-deals-possible-corruption-stare-ghana-football/

Questionable payments, deals, possible corruption stare Ghana football

President of the Ghana Football Association Kwesi Nyantakyi is gradually sinking in the quagmire of “Mid Sea” following revelations from a recent audit of his outfit.

The audit reports followed dark clouds hanging around a purported sponsorship package signed between Nigerian mobile telecommunications giant, Glo and the private company, Mid-Sea.

The latter, according to reports, signed on behalf of the FA but allegations about malfeasance have surfaced, raising doubts about the credibility of a man whose administration has led Ghana to two successful World Cup tournaments.

The issue of how Afrisat International acting through its local agent Mid Sea Limited brokered the $15 million Glo sponsorship deal for the Ghana Premier League in December 2008 has become a thorny issue in the flesh of the FA boss and some members of his administration.

The inconsistencies in statements from the members of the FA, as well as revelations by a director of Mid Sea, Professor Marian Ewurama Addy, that her outfit has never received monies for any service has only led to more questions, instead of answers.

For instance, the solicitor of Afrisat International and Mid Sea Estates Limited, Dominick Ayine, in a desperate attempt to put the matter to rest, stated in a press release that the Board of Directors of Mid Sea knew in general terms about the deal between their outfit and the FA.

However, Professor Addy rebutted that claim in a subsequent rejoinder stating emphatically that the directors only got to know about the deal after the story broke in the media.

“Management must have dealt with, and received money from the GFA for the role it played in the deal, but the directors neither dealt with nor received money from GFA, neither does the account of Midsea show any inflows from GFA,” Professor Addy said.

Professor Addy went even further to explain that she had raised serious objections about the press release by the solicitor of the Management of Mid Sea, Dominick Ayine, concerning the specific time she and the other director actually got to know about the deal.

Again the revelations by Professor Addy contradicted what the FA boss Nyantakyi had said at its earlier press conference that $450,000 less tax had been paid into the accounts of Mid Sea which represents 10% of $4.5 million of the total amount of money paid out to the FA by Glo so far. According to Professor Addy, no such monies reflected in Mid Sea’s account.

Despite all the emotive language and talk of plots, conspiracies and swindles, the central legal question here is this: did the GFA pay Mid Sea the reported 10% of the total sponsorship money?

It is instructive to note that Mid Sea Estates Limited is duly registered under the Companies Act as a business entity with its authorized business including real estate, import and export and manufacturers’ representation.

Therefore the deal the company entered into with the GFA and Afrisat International is illegal under the company’s code since section 25 states: A company shall not carry on any business not authorised by its regulations and shall not exceed the powers conferred on it by this code.

This is in spite of the fact that elsewhere in the code specific steps are given as to how a company can amend its regulations in order to venture into other businesses.

Subsequent investigations by this writer have led to the fact that the FA has dealt previously with the Managing Director of Mid Sea, Anthony Cole making two questionable payments to him; on April 1, 2008 ($181,687.50) and on February 7, 2009 ($142,500.00).

However, the Auditor General has queried the FA on those payments, because there were no receipts to validate the payments.

Clearly, the GFA and the managing director of Mid Sea Anthony Cole have transacted business prior to October, 2008, the point in time in which the purported deal between Afrisat International/GFA on one hand and Afrisat International/Mid Sea on the other were signed.

Therefore, the earlier argument by the solicitor of Mid Sea and Afrisat International that Mid Sea took advantage of the deal to enhance its earnings and diversify its business in the face of a slump in the real estate market due to the global recession is untenable.

Mr. Cole later wrote a press release admitting he had acted without the consent of the Board of Directors of his company and begged for forgiveness, but he failed to address the relevant issues about how much money he made on the various deals he is purported to have signed with the FA.

It appears some people at the FA took advantage of the naivety of Mr. Cole who was only paid “pea nuts” while the other key actors in the deal took the chunk of the so-called agency fee.

In her earlier press release, Professor Ewurama Addy a director of Mid Sea wondered, “Let me state also that the manager of Midsea, Mr. Anthony Cole, has been a very hardworking and trustworthy individual. I am at a loss as to how he got introduced to Afrisat Company in the first place. Only Afrisat, who has been an earlier agent of GFA – as stated in the article – and GFA would know.”

There are further contradictions on another deal involving Glo’s sponsorship of the senior national team, the Black Stars. At its press conference in August, FA President Kwesi Nyantakyi said that the sponsorship for the Ghana Premier League and the Black Stars both involved agents (seemingly the same agents).

But doubts still surround the whole deal following revelations by former Deputy Minister of Youth and Sports, O. B. Amoah that Glo’s sponsorship of the Black Stars never involved an agent during the reign of the previous government up to December, 2008.

Contrary to O. B. Amoah’s assertion that he was fully knowledgeable that there was no agent on the football team deal because he was himself at the table, the Glo sponsorship for the national team was somehow eventually signed in February, 2009 with Afrisat International as the agents.

It has also emerged that Glo Ambassador Abraham Boakye introduced officials of Globacom Nigeria to the GFA in 2008. The Nigerians expressed interest in sponsoring both the league and the Black Stars but were told the FA had existing sponsorship deals with the then One-touch and MTN.

Mr. Boakye alleges that he was kicked out of the deal by the FA President on the excuse that the league clubs wanted to deal directly with Glo and not through an agent due to the cost implications.

So again, the question that arises is why the FA contracted Afrisat International as agents to secure the deal, when the deal had already been offered to them on a silver platter?

After all, this was not the first time that the FA was going to negotiate a multimillion dollar deal.

Ghana’s company law prohibits companies from engaging in business not authorized by their regulations: Companies Act 25.

But a cursory look at the Management Letter on the Accounts of the GFA, covering the period between July 1, 2007 and June 30, 2009, raises serious queries about the financial controls at the football governing body. Perhaps there are more “Mid Sea style deals” hidden in the accounts.

In summary, some officials of the FA have failed to account for monies given to them as imprest for various assignments while monies paid out to individuals and business entities for services totaling about $6 million in all have not been receipted.

As at now, the queries do not legally implicate any FA official in any financial embezzlement or malfeasance but there are several relevant questions which border on questionable financial controls, morality and to some extent potentially illegal payments.

It’s puzzling to notice that $316,301 and GH¢165,696 worth of imprest which was paid out to 23 officials is yet to be accounted for despite the fact that the programmes they were intended for had been completed at the time the letter was written.

By convention, the officials were supposed to have accounted for their stewardship once the programmes for which the monies were assigned for had been completed.

Therefore there is uncertainty surrounding the use of the imprest, as to whether the monies were indeed used for their intended purposes or not.

In one instance, $69, 600 was paid out to a top official of the FA as appearance fees to officials who accompanied the national team for a friendly game with Australia on July 4, 2008.

The obvious question then is what work did those officials do to be paid appearance fees? Indeed it will be interesting to find out the reasons the FA gave for making those payments.

To their credit, some members of the FA have retired the imprest they were given for various duties since 2007 and 2008 but the questions linger as to why they did not do the right thing a long time ago.

Furthermore, the report also states that the paying officer of the FA failed to produce receipts to authenticate payments of over $1million dollars and over GH¢8 million for goods and services procured by the FA.

The most blatant payment in the accounts had to do with the “alleged” payment of GH¢8, 032, 250 into the accounts of Krypton Ghana Limited for the production of backdrop.

For the uninitiated, backdrops are used to adorn rooms and the environment for special occasions and usually have written on them the name of the occasion, plus the theme and date for the programme are properly advertised on it. The more than eight million cedi paid out for that is yet to be properly accounted for.

It is mind boggling that the FA does not demand receipts for such a huge expenditure to authenticate the payment. For now it cannot be ascertained whether indeed the payment was made to Krypton Ghana Limited or not, but for a fact the money is no more in the accounts.

The obvious question that popped up in my mind was: why has the system not clamped down on the apparent weak financial controls at the country’s football governing body for all these years?

The Management Letter on the accounts of the FA also points out the fact that such weaknesses were noticed in an earlier audit of the FA.

That Sword of Damocles hangs heavily on the Internal Auditor of the FA.

The Auditor notes that the internal auditor (IA) failed to submit regular reports on the financial state of the administration but was strangely allowed to remain in his post all this while.

The IA is apparently not aware of provisions of sections of the Ghana Audit Act!! The obvious implication is that the competence of the IA is in doubt.

The manner in which the FA has chosen to address the issues raised by the management letter on the accounts and also the Glo Sponsorship deals is very interesting indeed.

From its initial reluctance to give out information on the issues, to the separate revelations of the purported roles Mid Sea Company Limited and Afrisat International played in securing the deal, and the court action by an Executive Committee Member of the FA, George Afriyie to prevent the SFO from investigating the FA President Kwesi Nyantakyi.

We still await the final audit report on the accounts of the FA to draw a final conclusion on the relevant matters and I pray Nyantakyi comes clean. The FA has been reluctant to share the responses they gave to the Auditor General pursuant to the draft audit.

Clearly, the behaviour of Kwesi Nyantakyi and his administration can best be likened to “fish on top of a tree”.

With elections due next year, Nyantakyi is under pressure both from within football circles and the media to explain the key issues and it is shameful that some of his supporters have now resorted to intimidation to stop the few crusading journalists in the country from pursuing the matter.

Patrick Osei Agyeman of Asempa FM was assaulted by some known “macho men” at the Baba Yara Stadium on October 10, 2010 minutes after the Black Stars trained on the ground amidst threats to clamp down on other people like him.

You might want to ask, what crime those journalists have committed. Since the Graphic Sports broke the story in August, a cursory observation at the Ghanaian media landscape reveals that not too many journalists have been keen to look at the various issues of accountability that have been raised. The excuse most give is that the issue is politically motivated.

Well, there is no denying the fact that the negative stories might play into the hands of the opponents of the current regime, i.e. some top people in government and the other prospective candidates for the FA presidency.

However that is not sufficient reason for the media to keep mute on the issues of such national importance that are cloaked in mystery and possible corruption. After all we, journalists, are supposed to comprise the Fourth Estate of the Realm, and our duty primarily is to talk about the true state of affairs.

I don’t have any personal agenda against the FA, I am just doing my job in the way I was trained to do it. I am not the problem!

By Erasmus Kwao

http://www.ghanabusinessnews.com/2010/10/19/questionable-payments-deals-possible-corruption-stare-ghana-football/

MID SEA IS JUST A TIP OF THE ICE BERG?

President of the Ghana Football Association Kwesi Nyantakyi is gradually sinking in the quagmire of “Mid Sea” following revelations from a recent audit of his outfit.

The audit reports followed dark clouds hanging around a purported sponsorship package signed between Nigerian mobile telecommunication giant, Glo and the private company, Mid-Sea.

The latter, according to reports, signed on behalf of the FA but allegations about malfeasance have surfaced, raising doubts about the credibility of a man whose administration has led Ghana to two successful world cups.

The issue of how Afrisat International acting through its local agent Mid Sea Limited brokered the $15 million Glo sponsorship deal for the Ghana Premier league in December 2008 has become a thorny issue in the flesh of the FA boss and some members of his administration.

The inconsistencies in statements from the members of the FA, as well as revelations by a director of Mid Sea, Professor Marian Ewurama Addy, that her outfit has never received monies for any service has only led to more questions, instead of answers.

For instance, the solicitor of Afrisat International and Mid Sea Estates Limited, Dominick Ayine, in a desperate attempt to put the matter to rest, stated in a press release that the Board of Directors of Mid Sea knew in general terms about the deal between their outfit and the FA.

However, a director of the company, Professor Marian Ewurama, rebutted that claim in a subsequent rejoinder stating emphatically that the directors only got to know about the deal after the story broke in the media.

“Management must have dealt with, and received money from, the GFA from for the role it played in the deal, but the directors neither dealt with nor received money from GFA;, neither does the account of Midsea show any inflows from GFA,” Professor Ewurama Addy said.

Professor Ewurama Addy went even further to explain that she had raised serious objections about the press release by the solicitor of the Management of Mid Sea Dominick Ayine, concerning the specific time she and the other director actually got to know about the deal.

Again the revelations by Professor Addy contradicted what the FA boss Nyantakyi had said at its earlier press conference that $450,000 less tax had been paid into the accounts of Mid Sea which represents 10% of $4.5 million of the total amount of money paid out to the FA by Glo so far. According to Professor Addy, no such monies reflected in Mid Sea’s account.

Despite all the emotive language and talk of plots, conspiracies and swindles, the central legal question here is this: did the GFA pay Mid Sea the reported 10% of the total sponsorship money?

It is instructive to note that Mid Sea Estates Limited is duly registered under the Companies Act as a business entity with its authorized business including real estate, import and export and manufacturers’ representation.

Therefore the deal the company entered into with the GFA and Afrisat International is illegal under the company’s code since section 25 states: A company shall not carry on any business not authorised by its regulations and shall not exceed the powers conferred on it by this code.

This is the despite the fact that elsewhere in the code specific steps are given as to how a company can amend its regulations in order to venture into other business.
Subsequent investigations by this writer have led to the fact that the FA has dealt previously with the Managing Director of Mid Sea Anthony Cole on at least two suspicious deals; on 1st April, 2008($181,687.50) and on 7th February, 2009 ($142,500.00).

However, the Auditor General has queried the FA on those payments, because there were no receipts to validate the payments.

Clearly, the GFA and the managing director of Mid Sea Anthony Cole have transacted business prior to October, 2008, the point in time in which the purported deal between Afrisat International-GFA on one hand and Afrisat International-Mid Sea on the other were signed.

Therefore, the earlier argument by the solicitor of Mid Sea and Afrisat International that Mid Sea took advantage of the deal to enhance its earnings and diversify its business in the face of a slump in the real estate market due to the global recession is untenable.

Mr. Cole later wrote a press release admitting he had acted without the consent of the Board of Directors of his company and begged for forgiveness, but he failed to address the relevant issues about how much money he made on the various deals he is purported to have signed with the FA.

It appears some people at the FA took advantage of the naivety of Mr. Cole who was only paid “pea nuts” while the other key actors in the deal took the chunk of the so- called agency fee.

In her earlier press release, Professor Ewurama Addy a director of Mid Sea wondered “Let me state also that the manager of Midsea, Mr. Anthony Cole, has been a very hardworking and trustworthy individual. I am at a loss as to how he got introduced to Afrisat Company in the first place. Only Afrisat, who has been an earlier agent of GFA – as stated in the article - and GFA would know.”

There are further contradictions on another deal which involving Glo’s sponsorship of the senior national team, the Black Stars. At its press conference in August, FA President Kwesi Nyantakyi said that the sponsorship for the Ghana Premier League and the Black Stars both involved agents (seemingly the same agents).

But doubts still surround the whole deal following revelations by former Deputy Minister of Youth and Sports O. B. Amoah that Glo’s sponsorship of the Black Stars never involved an agent during the reign of the previous government up to December, 2008.

Contrary to O. B. Amoah’s assertion that he was fully knowledgeable that there was no agent on the football team deal because he was himself at the table, the Glo sponsorship for the national team was somehow eventually signed in February, 2009 with Afrisat International as the agents.

It has also emerged that Glo Ambassador Abraham Boakye introduced officials of Globacom Nigeria to the GFA in 2008. The Nigerians expressed interest in sponsoring both the league and the Black Stars but were told the FA had existing sponsorship deals with the then One-touch and MTN.

Mr. Boakye alleges that he was kicked out of the deal by the FA President on the excuse that the league clubs wanted to deal directly with Glo and not through an agent due to the cost implications.

So again, the question that arises is why the FA contracted Afrisat International as agents to secure the deal, when the deal had already been offered to them on a silver platter?

After all, this was not the first time that the FA was going to negotiate a multimillion dollar deal.

Our company law prohibits companies from engaging in business not authorized by their regulations: Companies Act 25.

But a cursory look at the Management Letter on the Accounts of the GFA, covering the period between 1st July, 2007 and 30th June, 2009, raises serious queries about the financial controls at the football governing body. Perhaps there are more “Mid Sea style deals” hidden in the accounts.

In summary, some officials of the FA have failed to account for monies given to them as imprest for various assignments while monies paid out to individuals and business entities for services totaling about $6million in all have not been receipted.

As at now, the queries do not legally implicate any FA official in any financial embezzlement or malfeasance but there are several relevant questions which border on questionable financial controls, morality and to some extent potentially illegal payments.

It’s puzzling to notice that $316, 301 and GH 165,696 worth of imprest which was paid out to 23 officials is yet to be accounted for despite the fact that the programmes they were intended for had been completed at the time the letter was written.

By convention, the officials were supposed to have accounted for their stewardship once the programmes for which the monies were assigned for had been completed.
Therefore there is uncertainty surrounding the use of the imprest, as to whether the monies were indeed used for their intended purposes or not.

In one instance, $69, 600 was paid out to a top official of the FA as appearance fees to officials who accompanied the national team for a friendly game with Australia on 4th July, 2008.

The obvious question then is what work did those officials do to be paid appearance fees? Indeed it will be interesting to find out the reasons the FA gave out for making those payments.

To their credit, some members of the FA have retired the imprest they were given for various duties since 2007 and 2008 but the questions linger as to why they did not do the right thing a long time ago.

Furthermore, the report also states that the paying officer of the FA failed to produce receipts to authenticate payments of over $1 million dollars and over Gh 8 million for goods and services procured by the FA.

The most blatant payment in the accounts had to do with the “alleged” payment of GH 8, 032, 250 into the accounts of Krypton Ghana Limited for the production of backdrop.

For the uninitiated, backdrops are used to adorn rooms and the environment for special occasions and usually have written on them the name of the occasion, plus the theme and date for the programme are properly advertised on it.

The more than eight million cedi paid out for that is yet to be properly accounted for. It is mind boggling that the FA does not demand receipts for such a huge expenditure amount to authenticate the payment. For now it cannot be ascertained whether indeed the payment was made to Krypton Ghana Limited or not, but for a fact the money is no more in the accounts.

The obvious question that popped up in my mind was: why has the system not clamped down on the apparent weak financial controls at the country’s football governing body for all these years?

The Management letter on the accounts of the FA also points out the fact that such weaknesses were noticed in an earlier audit of the FA.

That Sword of Damocles hangs heavily on the Internal Auditor of the FA.
The Auditor notes that the internal auditor (IA) failed to submit regular reports on the financial state of the administration but was strangely allowed to remain in his post all this while.


The IA is apparently not aware of provisions of sections of the Ghana Audit Act!! The obvious implication is that the competence of the IA is in doubt.

It’s been interesting the path the FA has chosen to address the issues raised by the management letter on the accounts and also the Glo Sponsorship deals.

From its initial reluctance to give out information on the issues, to the separate revelations of the purported roles Mid Sea Company Limited and Afrisat International played in securing the deal, and the court action by an Executive Committee Member of the FA, George Afriyie to prevent the SFO from investigating the FA President Kwesi Nyantakyi.

We still await the final audit report on the accounts of the FA to draw a final conclusion on the relevant matters and I pray Nyantakyi comes clean. The FA has been reluctant to share the responses they gave to the Auditor General pursuant to the draft audit.

Clearly, the behaviour of Kwesi Nyantakyi and his administration can best be likened to “fish on top of a tree”.

With elections due next year, Nyantakyi is under pressure both from within football circles and the media to explain the key issues and it is shameful that some supporters of his have now resulted to intimidation to stop the few crusading journalist in the country.

Patrick Osei Agyeman of Asempa Fm was assaulted by some known “macho men” at the Baba Yara stadium on 10th October, 2010 minutes after the Black Stars trained on the ground amidst threats to clamp down on other people like him.

You might want to ask, what crime those journalist have committed. Since the Graphic Sports broke this story in August, a cursory observation at the Ghanaian media landscape reveals that not too many journalists have been keen to look at the various issues of accountability that have been raised. The excuse most give is that the issue is politically motivated.

Well, there is no denying the fact that the negative stories might play into the hands of the opponents of the current regime, i.e. some top people in government and the other prospective candidates for the FA presidency.

However that is not sufficient reason for the media to keep mute on the issues of such national importance that are cloaked in mystery and possible corruption. After all we, journalists, are supposed to comprise the Fourth Estate and our duty primarily is to talk about the true state of affairs.

I don’t have any personal agenda against the FA, I am just doing my job in the way I was trained to do it. I am not the problem!