Learning Nuggets CEO and GTUC debunks Cabinet’s forensic report allegations

Chief Executive of Learning Nuggets Company (LNC), a digital learning service provider and one of the companies cited in a Cabinet-sanctioned audit report has denied allegations of financial malfeasance.

According to Diana Dwamena,she was not contacted by SwQ Consults, the auditors contracted to look into the financials of Ghana Technology University College (GTUC).

“I am astonished that the Government of Ghana and the said consultants chose to put out a publication to the general public without taking any action to contact me personally or request information from me to confirm or refute these allegations. Is this the manner in which a supposedly respected group of seasoned professionals and politicians behave in bringing justice to citizens of the country?,” she stated in a reaction to a leaked report that alleged that six state institutions misappropriated over GHC 800 million.

The financial malfeasance that LNC was allegedly involved with was captured under the report on GTUC, one of the six state institutions audited.

The report on GTUC, for instance, stated that procurement irregularities that involved LNC were in excess of GH¢500,000 and £501, 124.

“Had a proper audit been conducted, the government would also have established that the relationship between the parties was purely formed on a commercial basis between two private entities and arose from the initial sale of LNC’s Campus Companion tablet PCs to the university in 2011,” Diana Dwamena said in her reaction to the audit report.

Read their full reaction below

Audit Report on LNC: Response by Diana Dwamena, CEO

I read an audit report from the Cabinet Committee Responsible for the Coordination of Investigations/Forensic Audits dated 31st August 2018 on 20th September 2018, in which it cited six institutions including Ghana Technology University College (GTUC), under which The Learning Nuggets Company Limited (LNC) was also named. This appeared on various social media and online news outlets. The report stated that my company and I specifically, have engaged in financial malfeasance and misappropriated government funds. An audit purported to have been conducted by CSW Consultants formed the basis of this allegation.

I am astonished that the Government of Ghana and the said consultants chose to put out a publication to the general public without taking any action to contact me personally or request information from me to confirm or refute these allegations. Is this the manner in which a supposedly respected group of seasoned professionals and politicians behave in bringing justice to citizens of the country?

It is claimed Prof. Osei Darkwa set up LNC, which is a fabrication. Where is the due diligence undertaken to establish the legitimacy of the company and the relationships between the parties? How did this allegation that Dr Osei Darkwa set up LNC arise? I am sure those on the international stage who have encountered LNC since its inception in 2005 in the UK, by me, will be much bemused by this ineptitude. Further, had a proper audit been conducted, the government would also have established that the relationship between the parties was purely formed on a commercial basis between two private entities and arose from the initial sale of LNC’s Campus Companion® tablet PCs to the university in 2011.

LNC is a digital learning service provider and in this capacity it delivered a series of products, consultancy and operational management services to GTUC’s management between 2011 and November 2017. The company was equipped to enact these engagements because it has the skills and expertise to do so. Internationally LNC and members of the organisation have advised companies as diverse as large telecommunications companies, international foundations and large NGOs and worked with bodies such as the UN Special Envoy For Education on the Global Education Platform (GEP), Global Business Coalition For Education and The Brookings Institute for learning and development and capacity building. LNC has developed proprietary technologies and processes and partnered with world-leading organisations to bring the best solutions to improve the skills and competencies of individuals, organisations and governments in its chosen markets in Sub-Saharan Africa and beyond.

I take great exception to the shoddy and unprofessional work and the accusations and lack of due diligence which could have adverse effects for our reputation with follow-on financial consequences for the company.

GTUC saw fit to benefit from LNC’s expertise and contracted legitimately in a number of commercial ventures, from acquiring products and consultancy services to subcontracting operations for Nigeria and IPMC. GTUC’s management team worked closely with LNC in the execution of the latter. As would be expected, regular management meetings were held to discuss the operations and market challenges and strategic decisions taken accordingly. Particularly in Nigeria, GTUC assisted with the setup of the infrastructure required to operate a learning centre, which was a precondition put forward by the Federal body, National University Services (NUS), before it would recognise the GTUC Nigeria operation as legitimate. The intent of the learning centre was to enable GTUC to deliver remote lectures, study clinics and student support from Ghana to Nigeria. Due to quality issues at GTUC, Coventry University (largest partner) decided to restrict all remote activities. Additionally, it reduced the number of courses under the programme from 18 to 7, a decision that took place after the initial investment, and which had a adverse impact on the entire operation and business proposition.

Furthermore, student travel which was scheduled to decrease from two trips a month to one remained at two and later increased to three. The student numbers dropped dramatically and throughout the entire programme GTUC was unable to generate the type of revenue anticipated when the initiative was conceived. Moreover, GTUC did not recoup the initial capital investments. LNC also lost money through direct loans to the GTUC programme and making up shortfalls for purchases and operational activities; amounts it intends to recoup from GTUC.

The losses made between commencement of business in Nigeria in May 2012 and 2014 were further compounded from 2015 onwards, firstly, due to the Nigerian elections, market recession and increase in oil prices. This saw prices escalate with exchange rate increases of 77% to 140%. Fees charged were paid in three tranches of 40% on acceptance, 40% after the 5th module (approximately 5 months after start) and 20% after 8 months. Students were not charged extra even when the length of their programmes extended into the subsequent year; and as such impacted by market price increases. Various price adjustments were made by GTUC which also impacted on student enrolment; resulting in lower intake e.g. September 2017, only 3.

Management’s decision to delay transfers to GTUC Accra was purely based on sustainability and the fact there was “nothing” to transfer as the initiative made a deficit throughout. GTUC’s seasoned management team took a long term view of the Nigerian market, regarding it as potentially a more lucrative market than Ghana on the basis of volumes alone. Coventry eventually agreed to increase the number of programmes, however, at the end of 2017 that objective had still not been achieved. LNC supplemented the GTUC operation at various points and is owed money, which it intends to recoup once the new GTUC management is confirmed and in situ. With regards other operational activities related to IPMC, LNC supported the initial setup and management of the programme. Again, this initiative was loss-making and LNC decided to withdraw from the venture.

It is unclear where the sums of monies quoted by the audit committee originate from. It is also absurd for the audit committee to take numbers at face value without understanding the market and operational context and the management decisions taken and to extrapolate this to mean “financial malfeasance and misappropriation of government monies”. As a subcontractor, you will also appreciate if we were working contrary to GTUC, its management would have terminated our contract.

More disturbing is the unprofessional action of broadcasting on the internet. Having worked for large international corporations in roles advising governments on the implications of not understanding the negative impact of the internet, I find it alarming to see how loosely some members of the government have chosen to engage in this manner.

If the audit committee needs further explanation of the operations and payments involved the decent thing to do is to ask and not concoct stories and present in this reckless manner for public consumption.

Finally, the newspaper article expressed that the companies listed were associated with the previous Mahamma government. This is quite ludicrous and I want to make it clear that I am not and have never been associated with any political party in Ghana and have never voted in Ghana.

I hope this matter can be resolved expediently.


EOCO’s Audit Report on GTUC: Response by Professor Robert Awuah-Baffour, former Vice President.

On September 20th, an audit report dated August 31st, 2018 of six institutions including the Ghana Technology University College (GTUC) from the cabinet committee responsible for the coordination of investigations/forensic audits surfaced in the Ghana media and on various social media platforms.

Apart from receiving phone calsl from Ghana, I got the gist of the report from various media reports on the internet including WhatsApp. The report stated that the former vice president of GTUC had misappropriated funds.

An audit that is supposed to check on my previous works did not ask me a single question about the work, did not check whether the signature on those documents (PVs, contracts, letters, etc.) that are purported to me mine are truly mine, that if my signature is on a document, it is in fact the right document with the right amounts.

None, I mean none of these basic auditing 101 procedures were adhered to. As a professor who teaches ethics and decision making, I find it bizarre and shameful to witness this callous and capricious act of plane disrespect for professional standards and ethics.

Even the name that is reported on the audit document is not how my name is and there will not be a single document at GTUC that I signed with my name written like that. I wonder if the auditor even bothered to check the role of the VP of the school especially when it came to financial matters and mandates.

I hope they ascertained that I could not sign checks by myself. Because of the intended impacts of such publications, it is simply fair that proper due diligence and professional standards are adhered to. This irresponsible, shameful, incompetence, and reckless work performance is what is plaquing the country. Ghana can and should do better than this.

During my entire stay at GTUC, all monies paid to me were approved by the signing authorities of the school including the president and the head of finance. As the head of academics and research and consultancy, my team and I wrote many proposals and I mean many. GTUC was involved in many research and consulting activities. All lecturers and staff including myself who worked on such consulting and research projects were paid. GTUC collaborated with external entities especially in areas that we lacked internal capacity to solicit and execute projects. All payments made to such agencies were approved by the school authorities. These are all standard university practices.

At some point between 2010 and 2015, GTUC had about six foreign university partners including Coventry University, UK, Aalborg university, Denmark, Anhalt University, Germany, Hertfordshire University, UK and Staffordshire University also in the United Kingdom. These partners had to be paid. Transfers made to them were mostly in Great Britain Pounds.

You might have seen lots of transfer to Coventry University, UK. Coventry University was the biggest partner and had many students in their program.

So, you simply cannot add those numbers up and proclaim to the whole world that such monies have been misappropriated and should be accounted for. As the vice president, I was not the spending officer and did not have the power to transfer funds nor pay myself any money.

I find the auditors one directional report completely bogus, fake and reckless. If you need explanation on a transaction, as an auditor, all you need to do is ask. Even if I was sitting on the moon, I could communicate with you through several means.

Now, let me take a moment to provide some account of what I know and also provide you with a summary of my journey at GTUC.

On August 3, 2018, I got an email from EOCO with an attached file inviting me to report to their office (letter of invitation shown). On the same day, I responded with the following email:



On August 6, I received an email from EOCO that my email has been forwarded to the executive director. More than one month after the initial communication, on September 12th I did a follow up email to check on what their plans were since I had not heard from them on my proposal on alternative communication plans.

I got a response on this email on September 17th. The content of the email was asking when next I will be in Ghana. I replied that I was in Ghana in February and currently looking at a few projects in Ghana and was waiting for the next opportunity to travel to Ghana, and that I will let them know of my future travel plans way in advance. I also noted that I could write written responses if that will be adequate. I have not received a response yet.

It turns out they have already sent their report to the cabinet committee while we were having these discussions. I find this shameful.

I joined GTUC on December 8, 2008 as the vice president. Sometime during the first quarter of 2009, I met with the then CFO of Vodafone, Mr. Randell Hato and the then HR director Mrs. Stella Appiah Nkansah to discuss issues pertaining to GTUC. GTUC was running under Vodafone then. In that meeting, I was told GTUC did not have the mandate to hire me since GTUC was not an employer and also Vodafone will not allow any new hires. We wanted to hire lecturers.

Their argument was that we should use Vodafone workers as adjunct lecturers. After 19 years studying and working outside Ghana, I came home to help build my nation only to be met with such negative attitude. I left the meeting broken and confused and it was very clear also from the meeting that Vodafone was not interested in GTUC.

In October 2009, Vodaphone retired all the 55 workers at GTUC and removed them from their payroll. We pleaded with Vodafone to give us a startup capital to move the school forward but Vodafone declined. From there, we had to fend for ourselves.

Absolutely no support from anywhere. No government support, no Vodaphone support. At some point, the then CEO of Vodafone David Venn and his CFO , Randell Hato registered GTUC as a private entity, GTUC LTD, and signed a 10 year lease with GTUC. Today, GTUC is accredited by the National Accreditation Board as a private institution.

From October 2009, we took all efforts to get the government involved in GTUC but they declined. Always citing a court case against the sale of GT to Vodafone by one professor Akossah, of the CPP.

Before the sale of GT to Vodafone, GTUC was on the list of GETFUND and received funding from them. After the sale, the new administration removed GTUC’s name from the GETFUND as it was seen as a private university. Throughout the period I was at GTUC, we did not receive any funding from the GETFUND.

For me, working around the clock to build a new institution whose mission I believed in, I did not see GTUC as a government intuition whatsoever. I saw the hand of the government on government supported schools like UPSA, GIMPA and even the polytechnics. I saw zero support at GTUC.

It is therefore ironic that the same government that failed to support GTUC due to its classification as a private institution is now turning around to audit it as a state institution.

I believe that the validity of the audit will hinge on the answers to these basic questions:

1. How did they verify my signatures on the documents that were supposed to have been signed by me?

2. Can you audit someone without talking to the person?

3. Is the name you published the same as the name you saw on the documents you audited that I signed?

4. How did they check a forged signature of mine if there was one?

5. I left GTUC over three years ago, If my signature showed up on document I know nothing about, how will they verify that?

6. Are they aware that GTUC is registered as a private entity at the registry general’s office as GTUC Ltd?

7. Did the government actually take ownership of GTUC and if so when?

8. If GTUC is a public school, what Act established it? There is one for GIMPA, UPSA, UDS, etc.

9. Are they aware that GTUC is accredited by the National Accreditation Board as a private university?

10. Are they aware that GTUC does not receive any subvention from the government?

11. Are they aware that all new structures, properties (the C block, the graduate school, the solar project, the Abeka Campus, the Kumasi campus, the Nungua campus) were acquired through creative financing and hard work of the workers of GTUC?

12. Are they aware that Vodafone signed a ten-year lease with GTUC?

13. How many university colleges (emphasis on the name college) are in Ghana that are public institutions?

14. During your audit, did you find any state funds and resources flowing through GTUC?

15. Will you find GTUC anywhere in the Accountant General’s books including their annual audit reports?

16. Is the public procurement Act not meant for state funds and resources?

17. If you have answers to all these questions above, do you think you will be auditing GTUC as a government institution and expect the administration of the school to use the public procurement Act?

After 6 and a half years at GTUC, I took a voluntary retirement to join my family oversees. When I joined GTUC, the student population was about 700 undergraduate students and 30 graduate students.

The total staff strength was 55. When I left we had about 5,000 undergraduate students, over 1,000 graduate students and more than 500 faculty and staff at 4 different campuses across the country.

From September 2010 to July 2015, we graduated over 1000 graduate students with assorted masters degrees through the Coventry University and other foreign programs.

I worked over 60 hours a week including Saturdays and Sundays throughout my entire 6 and a half years at GTUC. I had to do this to make sure my faculty and staff will be paid all without any support from the government.

Let me be emphatically clear: I am not against any audit whatsoever. That is part of our profession. But I want the audit to be fair, clean and free from prejudgment, emotions and politics. My recommendation is this.

Get a qualified and ethical auditor to assemble all documents that I need to be audited on( from December 8, 2008 to July 31st 2015), invite me with agreeable specific dates, I will come to Ghana, sit down with the team and go over document by document so that I can answer any questions that they may have. If you genuinely do this, I can guarantee that you will not find any financial misappropriation on my part.

GTUC has a very strong future with dedicated staff and faculty. If the government wants to own GTUC, then they should claim it, support it with the required infrastructure and resources. They can then legitimately audit what they put in.

My plead to Nana Addo, the president of Ghana. Nana, politics, mediocrity, fear of diaspora involvement, the status quo, fear of intellectual curiosity, plus others are killing Ghana. Ghana without Aid, will never be realized if our thinking capacity is not stretched beyond these phobias.

Let me end by saying that I do reject the findings of the audit report about me, and I want the auditors/EOCO or whoever is responsible for this to retract this information from the public domain.