Nov 06, 2009 (Ghanaian Chronicle/All Africa Global Media via COMTEX News Network) --

Ongoing debate and pronouncement by the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) to re-engage Vodafone Plc in its acquisition of 70% shares in Ghana Telecom (GT) has sparked the reaction of the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) .

The minority is daring government to first consider investigations into the sale and purchase Agreement (SPA) of GT to Telecom Malaysia, before they can finally conclude on a deal that will be favorable to the whole nation.

Addressing journalists in parliament yesterday, minority leader, Osei Kyei Mensah Bonsu stated that in 1996, when NDC sold 30% shares of GT to Telecom Malaysia, the transaction never came to parliament, nor was it subjected to public debate. As such, for the NDC to turn around and criticize the Vodafone deal, is just throwing dirt into the eyes of the general public.

According to him, the interpretations that the committee gave with respect to article 6.1.6, which states that "There shall not be any injunction or order that prohibits or restrains the sale of the sole shares by Government Of Ghana (GOG) to the purchaser in particular or general," is different from how the minority sees it.

He added that their interpretation of that article is that the transaction could not close if the sales shares of 70% were encumbered in any way at the time of the transaction." This is, therefore, a condition precedent to the signing of the agreement," he stressed.

The minority leader observed that the government can, therefore, not interpret it to mean that the courts of Ghana are barred from examining any matter relating to the transaction after it has been signed. Touching on the indemnity clause, the minority said the report created the impression that the government cannot prosecute anyone who might have committed an offence involving GT/ Vodafone.

He contended that the sale and purchase agreement was done entirely within the laws of Ghana which run contrary to the assertion of the committee that the agreement went against many laws of Ghana, including the 1992 constitution, the NCA Act and Regulation and the Internal Revenue Act.

Mr. Kyei Mensah Bonsu, said the claim by the committee that the indemnity clause is not balanced as it seeks to protect the interest of the buyer and not the mutual interest of both parties is not conclusive. He argued that the nature of indemnity clause in the agreement is standard in such agreements; as such the committee should have given an indication as to which items the government should have sought indemnity on.

The minority, however, debunked the Committee's assertion that Vodafone PLC and Vodafone International BV were not the same company that the government of Ghana dealt with during the sale and purchase transaction between the two entities. He said Parliament in the discharge of its duties acted diligently in the said transaction adding "we were satisfied that Vodafone BV is a 100% owned subsidiary of Vodafone PLC".

 Continued...