Africa's Public Procurement & Entrepreneurship Research Initiative – APPERI



Ghana: Kufuor Govt Disregarded Public Procurement Law – Waterville


By Tawiah, Benjamin Kwame

March 13, 2012

In a press statement issued today, Waterville says it has become necessary to address the statements being circulated about the alleged wrongdoing by Waterville Holdings (BVI) Limited (“Waterville”) in the contracts awarded by the Government of the Republic of Ghana (“GoG”) for the rehabilitation of the Ohene Djan, El Wak and Baba Yara sports stadia for the hosting of the 26th Cup of African Nations tournament in Ghana in the year 2008 (“CAN 2008”).

It is our aim to lay before the public in a clear and succinct manner the full facts as follows:

1. Waterville, through an open, fair and international bidding process and in compliance with Ghana’s public procurement law won a contract to construct two (2) new stadia, rehabilitate two (2) more. The construction of a third stadium was added to the scope.

2. In spite of Waterville being given approval for the award of all five (5) stadia the government decided to award two out of the five stadia already awarded to Waterville to Shanghai Construction (Group) General Corporation. The procurement process for the two (2) stadia awarded to Shanghai Construction (Group) General Corporation was not done in compliance with Ghana’s public procurement law.

3. On the strength of MoU’s signed with the government in November 2005 and subsequent contracts signed on 26th April 2006, and given the very tight time frames to complete the stadia in time for the CAN 2008 Football games, Waterville proceeded to prefinance and start the rehabilitation of the three stadia.

4. After the majority of the procurement process of materials and equipment was completed by Waterville and substantial progress made by Waterville in progressing the rehabilitation of the three stadia, the government decided to cancel its contract obligations with Waterville, on August 2006.

5. As a consequence of expenditures already made by Waterville at the time of the government’s cancellation of the contract, Waterville made an immediate claim for reimbursement of the amounts it had already spent towards its execution of the contract. It has to be noted that the Government’s Consultant verified and certified the value of works provided by Waterville to be a total of Euros 21,569,946.71.

6. Waterville asked the Government to advance some funds from its certified certificates of works so to pay the subcontractors and allowing them to continue the works to achieve the target of October 2007 with no delay.

7. It was only through a mediation process, referenced within the contract that Waterville got paid after several years by the government an amount of Euros 25,000,000 to cover the balance of reimbursement owed, late payment interest and penalties against losses incurred by Waterville.

On the issue of the double payment which is being alleged by all sorts of people, note that, part payment of Waterville certificate was paid directly to the sub-contractors to enable them continue with the contract to achieve the target of October 2007 with no delay., Waterville has pursued the government of the Republic of Ghana since 2006 for the outstanding balance which had remained unpaid…Read more.

Related articles

Ghana: You Were Not Vigilant in Woyome Case – Court Tells AG

By Ivy Benson

March 2012

An Accra Commercial Court, yesterday, indicted the Attorney General’s Department in the Woyome judgment debt saga, when it noted that the State Legal Advisor was not vigilant in handling the case at the initial stages.

The court, presided over by Justice Barbara Ackah-Yensu, noted that if the state’s legal department had drawn the attention of a constitutional breaches in the agreement between thegovernment and Vamed/Waterville earlier on, upon which the GH¢51 million judgment debt was paid, the issue would have been dealt with.

The court, therefore, indicated that if it should deal with the constitutional arguments raised by the Senior State Attorney, in respect with the agreement, it would be delving into the merits of the case.

The court was giving its ruling in an application filed before it by the Attorney-General, seeking to amend an amended writ of summons against businessman Alfred Agbesi Woyome, where issues of fraud and constitutionality were raised, in respect of the payment of the consent judgment and the award of a contract for the renovation of the Ohene Djan and El-Wak stadia.

However, the court granted the application seeking leave to amend the amended writ of summons, to ensure that issues of fraud raised would effectively be dealt with in accordance with law…Read more.

Blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: