Probe sale of ‘scrap’ vessel - GPHA workers

Some Union Members of the Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority (GPHA) have called for a full scale investigation to unravel the circumstance under which a vessel considered as scrap was fraudulently sold out, without recourse to tender procedure.

The Union members, who are based in Takoradi, believe that the process leading to the sale of the MV Askelad as exposed by The Chronicle in its Tuesday, November 1, 2016 edition, indeed calls for a thorough investigation into the alleged fraudulent sale.

This comes at the time the Economic and Organized Crime Office (EOCO), for reasons best known to the Office, failed to investigate the matter when a petition regarding the sale of the vessel was sent to it.

Speaking in separate interviews with this reporter, days after the story broke, the GPHA workers expressed diverse opinion on the issue.

The MV Askelad, according to sources, berthed at the Takoradi Port in 2012 and accumulated a debt of $85,992.02 consequently.

Following the inability of the vessel to pay the above debt, management of GPHA sought refuge at a Sekondi High Court to detain the vessel to compel its management to defray the debt, which the court upheld and ordered the owners to cough up the sum owed the Authority.

This was after the agents of the Vessel, Acquatic Diving Services Limited had filed an appearance notice, arguing that it was only an agent and so could not be held liable for the Vessel’s debt.

But, before the vessel could attempt to clear the debt, the Director General (DG) of GPHA, Richard Anamoo, without following tendering process and financial advice had ordered that, as much as $60,992.02 should be written off the debt owed by MV Askelad.

Strangely, GPHA went ahead and declare MV Askelad as scrap and sold it a cost of $25,000 to the same agents (Acquatic Diving Services Limited), which had refused to defray the debts on the grounds that it was not the owner of the Vessel.

In a letter dated July 31, 2015, Captain James Owusu-Koranteng, the then Director of the Takoradi Ports, wrote on behalf of the DG of GPHA, indicating that “GPHA accepts the offer of US$25,000 for the vessel, MV Askelad and agrees to write off the indebtedness of the vessel to GHPA.”

Another letter confirming the sale of the vessel between GPHA and the agent/buyer was also circulated to heads of departments of the GPHA, Takoradi Ports.

Auditor of the Takoradi Port, Ms. Gifty Adzanklu who was one of the departmental heads who were copied or informed about the sale of the vessel has questioned why the ship was sold at such a low price compared to the debt owed GPHA.

The worries of the Auditor were similarly shared by a courageous worker who wrote a petition to question the deal. But before the whistle blower, Fortune Agboza could avail himself before a five member committee set up to look into his petition; he was interdicted and consequently fired from work.

Though management of GPHA had come out to confirm the sale of the Vessel, they (GPHA management) argued that it was a scrap.

This is because it was sinking at the time it was on the anchorage, hence the decision to sell the vessel.

Checks by this reporter indicate that the vessel, which was not towed, moved on its own and is currently in active working service at the Tema Port. Answering questions on why the GPHA through its DG decided to write off the $60,992.02 as bad debt, the Authority responded through its General Manager in-charge of Legal, Edward J. Mettle-Nunoo that: “The debt of Vessel Askelad cannot be said to have been written off.

GPHA was only able to recover US$25,000 out of a total outstanding debt of $79,684.94. The balance is still due”.

Interestingly, though on paper, the MV Askelad was sold to Acquatic Diving Services Limited, after which it sailed off to the Tema Harbour in the name of Star Maritime

Agency Limited, documents in the hands of The Chronicle point to the fact that the Vessel now belongs to Star Maritime Agency Ltd and is currently in active working service in the name of Star Maritime Agency Ltd.

It is as a result of the story exposing the fraudulent sale of the vessel disguised as a scrap that the union and workers of GPHA have called for a thorough investigation to unravel the circumstances leading to the shocking sale of the vessel at that low cost and the consequent writing off the debt owed by the vessel.

Information available to this reporter indicates that though the Economic and Organized Crime (EOCO) office was petitioned and the necessary document giving it to investigate the sale, the office surprisingly chose the option to sleep over the investigation.

Below are answers provided by management of GPHA in a response to a questionnaire sent by this paper when it begun investigating the story.

1) The Vessel MV Askelad was berthed at the Port of Takoradi. Its agent was Aquatic Diving Services Limited. The Vessel was registered in St. Vincent and Grenadines

2) The Vessel during its stay at the Takoradi Port incurred marine charges totaling $79,684.94. This debt remained unpaid for a long time despite several demand notices and reminders

3) Following the failure on the part of the vessel/agents to pay the accumulated debt of $79,684.94, the GPHA instituted action at the High Court Sekondi on the 5th of November 2014 for the recovery of the debt, together with interest and legal costs.

4) The vessel MV Askelad was subsequently arrested by an order of the High Court, Sekondi on the 13th of November 2014 upon an application by GPHA on the strength of section 66 of the GPHA Act, 1986 (PNDCL 160) which gives GPHA the right to detain a vessel for failure to pay its fees and charges.

5) On receipt of the writ and statement of claim, Aquatec Diving Services Limited, the agents of the vessel on 18th November, 2014 responded by filing an appearance and a defense to the action. By the said defense, Aquatec were basically saying that they were only agents of the vessel and not the owners and therefore were not liable for the indebtedness of the vessel.

6) There was no response by way of appearance nor statement of defense filed on behalf of the Vessel.

7) The Vessel having failed to respond to the Court processes as required by the rules of Court, upon an application by GPHA, the High Court, Sekondi on 22nd January 2015 entered final judgment in favor of GPHA for the recovery of a debt of $79,687.94 together with interest and cost against it.

8) Judgment having been entered in favor of GPHA against the vessel, it followed up with the necessary processes to enforce and recover the Judgment debt by attaching the vessel under a writ of fifa.

9) The attached Vessel it must be noted, had been left unattended with no crew on board for a long while and was in deplorable state. Surveyors engaged to conduct a valuation of the vessel before its sale could not undertake the valuation as it was under lock, denying them aces.

10) The Maritime Operations Department of GPHA advised that the Vessel had started listing, that is, it had tilted to one side and was in danger of sinking in the Port of Takoradi.

11) GPHA therefore had to an operational decision to move the Vessel MV Askelad immediately out of the Port to avoid the danger of sinking inside the Port, with it attendant consequences

12) The Agents, o behalf of the Owners of the Vessel, offered to pay GPHA $25,000.00 which was accepted in part satisfaction of the judgment debt, and also to move the Vessel from the Port of Takoradi to prevent it from sinking in the Harbour Basin. In the event that the Vessel sinks in the Port, GPHA would be saddled with a cost of $100,000.00 to raise it from the bed of the Harbor Basin

13) Being part of the execution process to recover the Judgment Debt, the Registrar of the High Court, Sekondi was duly notified

14) The sale of the Vessel being a judicial sale, GPHA did not have to go through competitive tender for its sale

15) The debt of Vessel Askelad cannot be said to have been written off. GPHA was only able to recover $25,000.00 out of the outstanding debt of $79,687.94. The balance is still due and owing. However, there is no property of the vessel owners available to attach in further execution and recovery of the debt. 16) GPHA did not receive a petition from a worker on the attachment and subsequent sale of the vessel.

17) No committee was set up to investigate the sale of the Vessel.