Rockshell Judgement Debt Bombshell

Rockshell Judgement aebt Bombshell (part 1 of many)
HIGH COURT NAILS
NANA ADDO
OVER JUDGEMENT
DEBT BRIBERY

Says there was a demand for 50% bribe as precondition to pay Rockshell
Kwadwo Mpiani, Dan Mrrkin, Baah Wiredu also named

STANLEY ASSOR JNR
The meticulous re- branding of Nana Addo Danquah Akufo-Addo from a legal martyr to now a incorruptible man with an envious public service devoid of a single accusation of corruption now hangs in the balance with a newly discovered damning court judgement that names him as the ring leader of a four member gang who demanded a whopping 50% bribe as precondition for paying Rockshell International’s judgement debt.
An Accra High Court, long before WOYOMAGTE ruled in a damning July 15, 2010 judgement that an agreement between Rockshell International Ltd and Uniex Ghana Ltd in 2004 and 2006 in which Rockshell was to pay a whopping 50% of its judgement debt to Uniex Ghana Ltd cannot be enforced because it was meant to bribe public office holders such as former Attorney General Nana Addo Dankwah Akuffo Addo, Former Chief Of Staff ,Kwadwo Mpiani and late Finance and Economic Planning Minister , Kwadwo Baah Wiredu.
The judge noted that the court was convinced with evidence submitted by promoters of Rockshell International that the agreement entered between Uniex Ghana Ltd, a phony Financial Brokerage company and Rockshell International was nothing but a proxy arrangement to siphon bribe money to the aforementioned public officials.
As a result of the court finding, the court ruled that agreement was thus unenforceable because it violates public policy and the Directive Principles Of State Policy.
“One of the political objectives of the Directive Principles of State policy in Article 35 (8) of the 1992 Constitution provides that ‘The State shall take steps to eradicate corrupt practices and abuse of power” The judge stated.
The court further noted that “I do not think there is the need to belabour the incontestable fact that public policy considers the offer to or the acceptance of gifts by public officers to perform their legal duties as illegal”
The presiding judge in his ruling noted that “At common law, contracts void on grounds of public policy include contracts leading to corruption in public life. The law is settled that no action can be brought on promise the consideration for which is wholly or part illegal or against public policy. Nor can an action be brought on a promise to do an illegal act, or to do an act with illegal objects”
GENESIS
In the year of our Lord 2010, when the NDC in fulfilment of a court order paid Rockshell International Ltd, a negotiated settlement of a judgement debt, Uniex Ghana limited, represented by Dan Markin sued Rockshell to pay them 50% of the total amount which had been paid to them.
It is this case which led to the damning revelations.
It all began in the year 2004, when the quiet unassuming businessman who works part-time as a priest called Dan Markin, Chairman of Ghana Railway Authority entered into an agreement with Rockshell International to ensure that he used his political connections in the NPP government to ensure that a judgement debt in favour Rockshell International is paid.
In consideration for this job, Uniex demanded 20% of the total amount. An agreement was signed to that effect.
“Sometime in late 2005, during another unsolicited call at the residence of dr. Tei Rockshell, Mr. Markin again told Dr. Tei that top Ministers of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) government had agreed to help him retrieve the money owed to the defendant but that the amount they were demanding as their share was so high that he would need to be paid 50% of the claim in order to enable him take care of the demands of the said government ministers.” Court testimonies noted.
Dr. Tei Rockshell, Chairman of the Rockshell International told the High Court presided over by Her Ladyship Mrs. Cecilia H. Sowah J. during the hearing that Dan Markin told him that he “ negotiated the payment of the claim with the then Chief of Staff, Kwadwo Mpiani and the then former Attorney General/ Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nana Auffo Addo as well as the then Minister of Finance and Economic Planning, the late Kwadwo Baah Wiredu, and that payment will be made once they see that there was a written agreement between Uniex and Rockshell for the payment o 50% of the claim to Uniex”
Court documents noted that even though Dan Markin denied the claim and referred to it as scandalous and complete fabrications, the court noted that the allegation that “Mr. Markin promised to get the government to pay the claim by the use of political connections run through the testimony of Dr. Tei who said that is what induced him to enter into Exhibit C (the second agreement to up the figure from 20% to 50%)
The court observed that it was strange that the 2004 and 2006 agreement with Uniex was not different and did not impose extra responsibilities on Uniex, so it found it difficult understand why Rockshell would agree to increase the percentage by a margin larger than the original amount claimed by UNiex in the 2004 agreement.
The court was of the opinion that “when one considers that the fee payable to the plaintiff for the loosely described financial consultancy service was related to a clam in excess of US $35 million was significantly raised from 20% to 50%, the conclusion is that there must have been a very god reason for enhancing the fee.
“I cannot accept Plaintiff (Dan Markins) explanations that this fee was increased from 20% to 50% merely to withdraw a letter written to the then Attorney General by Mr. Hall, a manager of Rockshell International who had written to the then Attorney General to accept a lower amount of US$ 2 milion if the then NPP government were willing to pay the debt quickly.
“The sum of what he did in that respect is what is contained in his instructions in Exhibit D copied verbatim by Mr. Hall in Exhibit E and forwarded to the Attorney General. Interestingly, the agreement exhibit C and Exhibits D and E were all made on the same day” the court observed.
What is worse is that, even though all the agreement were signed based on claims that Uniex Ghana Ltd was a financial brokerage company, it emerged during cross examination of Dan Markin’s Uniex was not even registered to operate a financial brokerage service, deepening suspicion that the company was just being used as a proxy the group siphon corrupt payments.
The judge noted that “Apart from the oral testimony, the agreement itself could have given the necessary insights. However as I have shown earlier, Mr Markin who drafted exhibit C (50% agreement in 2006) failed to state adequate details of the services he was required to provide.
“In my candid view, this was deliberately done in order to shroud the real motive for the increasing the fee payable to him from 20% to 50% as the parties were all well aware of the illegal nature of what Mr. Markin intended doing with the enhanced fee” the court said.
During the trial, the judge said that “I do recognise that Dr. Tei could have a motive for misrepresenting the facts. I therefore assessed his credibility carefully in the three days that he was in the witness box, and have carefully considered the evidence. I have found him to be an honest witness and I am convinced of the truth of his testimony and find as fact that Mr. Markin made representations to Dr. Tei about “using “political connections and paying government officials to push through defendants (Rockshell International) claim, representations which induced the defendant to enter into the agreement Exhibit C (which was to give Uniex 50% o Rockshell’s judgement debt”
The judge after citing several decided cases concluded that “ I hold that the agreement Exhibit C was induced by a promise to do an illegal act, namely to corrupt public officials. I hold that the agreement is against public policy and void ab initio. It is an agreement for which the court cannot lend its aid to enforce. I accordingly hold that plaintiff is not entitled to its claim which is herby accordingly dismissed.”