High court sets February 18 to rule on NPA versus T-Tekpor case

Lawyers for the National Petroleum Authority (NPA) led by lawyer Akoto Ampaw, has asked an Accra High Court presided over by Justice Ackaah T. Boafo to dismiss a suit filed by lawyers for T-Tekpor Gas filling station at Afariwa against NPA, for closing down the station.

Management of the gas station has taken the downstream petroleum regulator to court for closing down the facility over claims that the presence of the station poses high risk to two adjoining schools namely, Tema International School and Ridge School.

At the court, lead counsel for T-Tekpor Gas station, Benjamin Baffoe Bonnie told the court that the respondent (NPA), in a letter to the plaintiff, did not specify a particular risk that had been identified by the technical expert whose professional activity was captured or came under Act 691, which governs the Authority.

He continued that "in our statement of case, we have stated that in a situation like that, the closure must focus on technical advice."

He said the gas station had been operating for years, stating that "the Ghana Standards Authority (GSA), Ghana Atomic Energy Commission (GAEC), Ghana National Fire Service (GNFS) and others have been carrying out checks at the facility and none of them had raised issue of significant risk as the regulator claims."

Lawyer Baffoe Bonnie indicated that the decision to close down a gas station is a determination by the Board of NPA per section 18, 19, and 20 of Act 2005, Act 691 and not a unilateral decision of the CEO, as it had happened in the case of T-Tekpor Gas Station.

"We're saying that the CEO cannot usurp the powers of the board and take a unilateral decision, which is unlawful," he argued.

"It is against this background that the decision of the respondent is not lawful, therefore, we call on the court to deliver justice by ordering the CEO of NPA to lift the suspension and also order that an independent expert ordered by the board to carry out a detailed report of the facility" he asserted.

However, mounting a strong defence for the NPA's decision, lead counsel Mr Akoto Ampaw described claims by the applicant counsel as unfounded and one that seeks to mislead the court.

He stated: "The allegation is made in bad faith because he knows very well that the decision was founded on specific findings made by competent persons. So, it is a bogus argument he is making."

He told the court that NPA constituted a Multi-Stakeholders Committee comprising officials of the Ghana National Fire Services (GNFS), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Land Use and Spatial Planning Authority and NPA.

He said the committee was constituted in accordance with Section 2 sub-section (2) (f)(e)(g) of the NPA Act 691 and given these explanations, lawyer Ampaw rejected the call by the plaintiff's lead counsel that the authority ought to have constituted an independent body of experts.

He said: "The statutes of the authority does not require in the Act 691 that there should be an independent body. It is a very strange request and we ask the court to ignore it.

"It is our respectful view that considering the issue, we couldn't have put together an appropriate body than the Multi Stakeholders Committee (MSC). It is our submission that on the combined effect of section 2(2) of Act 691, the authority had more than abundant legal authority to set up the MSC," he added.

Touching on the report of the committee, lawyer Akoto Ampaw said the committee made damning findings and that it would be highly irresponsible for NPA to ignore them for an explosion to occur and consume the two schools.

He told the court that contrary to the impression being created by the plaintiff's lawyers that the T-Tekpor's licence had been revoked, he said that is not true.

"The authority says you can go to your other business place and refill the cylinders and bring them there for distribution to your customers. My lord, this is sensible and reasonable," he explained.

Concluding his submission, Lawyer Akoto Ampaw prayed the presiding judge that on the basis of section 2 sub-section (2)(f)(g)(h)(u), the application should be thrown out completely because its unmeritorious.

Meanwhile, the court has set February 18, 2019 to rule on the case.