Freddie Blay faces charges of contempt for 275 bus



[ad_1]

General News on Friday, June 7, 2019

Source: citinewsroom.com

2019-06-07

Freddie Blay NPP MPN Freddie Blay, National President of the NPP

President of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Freddie Blay, is expected to be prosecuted today for contempt of court before a high court in Accra. [Friday].

The procedure concerns the lack of response to several requests from the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) concerning the 275 buses he offered to his party's constituency before the NPP delegates' conference. in 2018.

According to the motion, on July 6, 2018, the CHRAJ received a complaint from the Coalition for Social Justice, asking the commission to investigate Mr. Blay's corruption because of his role in the purchase bus.
The letter showed that Mr. Blay had received the application but had failed, refused or neglected to compel the commission to make submissions, as requested.

The claims first appeared in July 2018 when Mr. Blay was charged with purchasing votes after receiving 100 of the 275 buses he purchased for the constituency office day at the party's delegate conference. where he presented himself to presume.

Mr. Blay facilitated the purchase of the minibuses with party support and reportedly made a down payment of $ 3 million, representing 30% of the total cost of $ 11.4 million of the 275 cars.

He allegedly took out a loan from Universal Merchant Bank (UMB) to acquire the 275 buses.

After winning the elections, Mr. Blay explained that the NPP was only putting in place measures to strengthen its campaigns.

He denied claims that buying cars gave him an unfair advantage in the elections.

The special prosecutor, Martin Amidu, is also interested in the case.

Mr. Blay is a public officer as chairman of the board of directors of the National Petroleum Corporation of Ghana (GNPC) and is also a national leader of the ruling party that exercises influence, noted the prosecutor's office. special.

The office argued that it was under the Criminal Offenses Act (1960) Act 29 and needed to be questioned about its source of funding.

[ad_2]
Source link