The Executive Director for African Centre for Energy Policy (ACEP), in the Republic of Ghana, Benjamin Boakye is accusing the government for deliberately refusing taking right decision regarding the controversial GNPC-Aker Energy deal.
According to him, “the CSOs who have been critical of the GNPC-Aker transaction are blunt in our position that the justifications provided by GNPC contain deliberate misrepresentations anchored on the guise of energy transition, stranded assets and operator capacity development to short-change the country.
“We are firm in our belief that the government is capable of making the right decisions but has been unwilling to do so in many high-value transactions in the public’s interest, and that raises questions about incentives,” Mr Benjamin Boakye said in a seven-page article he wrote to respond to proponents of the GNPC, Aker Energy deal.
The Government of Ghana, through the country’s national oil company, GNPC, is seeking parliamentary approval for a loan of US$1.65 billion to acquire 37 percent stake in the Deep Water Cape Three Point(DWT/CTP) oil block and 70 percent stake in the South Deep Water Tano (SDWT).
This move has, however, been met with stiff opposition by about 15 civil society groups working in the extractive sector, anti-corruption and good governance.
The group is of the view that the analysis being done by GNPC and Aker Energy was poor and deliberate for the benefit of few people in the government.
Angola: Electricity Network To Receive $600 Million Investment
The ACEP boss said GNPC and Aker started engaging CSOs before the transaction emerged in its current form.
“When they were asked to provide the specific details of the transaction, they did not show up again. Again, after the presentation by Lambert to CSOs, we requested a meeting with GNPC for a technical conversation on issues Lambert had no answers to. That has not been granted.
“I can conclude that it is not a mere coincidence that every high-value transaction is rushed through Parliament and requires the suspension of Order 80(1), the Standing Order which requires that a committee’s report is delayed for, at least, 48 hours to allow other MPs to take a closer look at a laid committee’s report before it is approved. Therefore, when a memo dated 30th July (Friday) is submitted to parliament, a committee meets on the Memo on Monday, 2nd of August and produces a report for approval on the 5th of August, CSOs cannot be less suspicious. Could it be that the processes in Parliament are so oiled like a relay race, that as soon as the Memo got to the desk of the Speaker, the Committee Chairman was on hand to pick it up and summon all his members to act the next working day while many parliamentarians were completely unaware? How can anybody argue that CSOs are not engaging when most parliamentarians do not have the opportunity to participate in debates on such high-value transactions?” Benjamin Boakye said.
Ben Boakye’s Responds to Prof and Gabby
