Abuga Pele lawyer ends cross examination on MCE
Mr Thadeus Sory, Counsel for Abuga Pele, on Tuesday concluded his cross examination of Mr Nuru Hamidan, Municipal Chief Executive (MCE) for Asokore Mampong in the ongoing GYEEDA trial.
The short cross examination of Mr Hamidan focused mainly on his understanding of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) and the agreement between GYEEDA and the Goodwill International Group (GIG).
Abuga Pele, former National Coordinator of the Ghana Youth Employment and Entrepreneurial Development Agency (GYEEDA) and Philip Akpeena Assibit, Chief Executive Officer of Goodwill International Group (GIG) are standing trial for criminal related offences.
The two accused persons have been charged with 19 counts of causing financial loss to the state, defrauding by false pretence, abetting crime, intentionally misapplying public property and dishonestly causing loss to public property.
They have pleaded not guilty to the charges. The court admitted Pele to self- recognisance bail, while Assibit was granted bail in the sum of GH¢ 2 million with four sureties, two to be justified.
Mr Sory asked the prosecution witness to describe the organizational structure of GYEEDA and his role in that institution, which he did.
When asked again by Mr Sory whether he understood the MOU between GYEEDA and Goodwill International Group (GIG) before signing it as a witness, Mr Hamidan said at the time of reading the document his understanding was that the MOU was not proper agreement and that the main agreement would follow later.
However, he said, he later got to know that some of the MOUs could be deemed as proper agreement.
When asked yet again by Mr Sory whether he could differentiate between the MOU and the agreement signed, Mr Hamidan replied that he would not be in a position to differentiate between the MOU and the agreement.
He denied claims by Defence Counsel that he was in-charge of the World Bank project, saying that the project was given to a desk officer to handle.
He said the World Bank was proving difficult because they were making several demands, which the accused persons had no control over.
When asked by Mr Sory how he got involved in the matter as the prosecution witness, Mr Hamidan explained that he sometime ago received an invitation letter from EOCO and when he got to their office, he was asked to write his statements concerning what he knew about the GYEEDA issue.
He said he was later sent to the Attorney General’s Department, where he met some lawyers who informed him about the matter and his assistance in the trial.
The court subsequently adjourned the case to May 5, 2014.