South Dayi MP sues government over Agenda 111

The attorney general was sued over the government’s decision to build 111 health facilities across the country.

South Dayi MP Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, in a High Court subpoena, said the government ignored Ghanaian public procurement laws when it awarded a building design contract to Adjaye and Associates.

He alleges that $ 6 million of public money has already been paid to the company as advisory fees. This, he argues, violates parts of Ghana’s constitution.

The MP also lists various government actions that he considers to be against the law. These are indicated in the summons issued on his behalf by his lawyer Nii Kpakpo Samoa Addo as follows

“The complainant says the government of Ghana has contracted iRisk Management Limited, a company run by a certain Dr Alolo as an insurance broker in charge of the project to build 111 district, specialist and regional hospitals across the country.

The claimant states that the government, iRisk Management Limited, is to handle correspondence with the insurance company and any claims that may arise and provide advisory services in risk management.

The claimant said the government also contracted Enterprise Insurance as the insurance company responsible for the insurance of the Agenda 111 project.

The plaintiff claims that the defendant, by contracting iRisk Management Limited and Enterprise Insurance, ignored the procurement processes provided for by law, in particular the Public Procurement Act of 2003 (Law 663).

The applicant states that the Ministry of Public Works and Housing, which was the entity responsible for purchasing the services of an insurance broker and an insurance company in relation to the Agenda 111 project, was mandated by the Public Procurement Law of 2003, Law 663 to do so in the tendering process, except in exceptional circumstances.

The applicant claims that the Department of Public Works and Housing has been mandated to go through a two-step procurement process by sending invitation documents inviting insurance brokers and the insurance company to submit initial offers containing the proposals of those interested, but did not do so.

The plaintiff claims that the way in which the defendant contracted iRisk Management Limited and Enterprise Insurance could not be considered to fall under the restricted tender as it did not meet the conditions and requirements provided for in Article 38 of the Law on public contracts of 2003 (law 663).

The claimant states that at the time of the supply contract for Agenda 111, iRisk Management Limited and Enterprise Insurance were not the only insurance brokers available in the insurance brokerage business and did not have any exclusive rights regarding insurance brokerage contracts for public building designs in Ghana.

The applicant claims that there are reasonable alternatives and that these insurance and similar insurance brokerage companies should have had the opportunity to bid and submit bids to work on Agenda 111 in order to ensure competition and optimization of resources.

The applicant asserts that the need for an insurance brokerage and insurance company for the Agenda 111 project could not be classified as an “urgent need for services” and, as such, could not be classified as an “urgent need for services”. not constitute a basis for a single supplier.

The Claimant further states that it was possible for the Respondent to engage in a tendering process or any other procurement method since no unforeseeable circumstances giving rise to an emergency had arisen. communicated.

The plaintiff claims that the defendant could only obtain services for a contract by soliciting a proposal or an estimate from a single supplier or contractor when the conditions of Article 40 of the Public Procurement Law of 2003 (Law 663 ) have been fulfilled.

The plaintiff claims that the defendant’s failure to advertise and call for tenders for the insurance brokerage contract and the insurance company constitutes a violation of Article 36 (2) (b) of the 1992 constitution.

The applicant states that the government has the duty to take all necessary measures to establish a healthy and healthy economy, in particular by providing ample opportunities for individual initiative and creativity in economic activities and by fostering an environment conducive to the pronounced role of the economy. private sector in the economy.

He therefore requests the following reliefs

1. A statement that the defendant’s failure to award the contract for the design of the hospitals forming Agenda 111 by competitive bidding was illegal and contrary to Articles 35 and 36 of the 2003 Public Procurement Act (Act 663 ).

• A statement that the defendant’s failure to comply with the procedure provided for in Articles 35 and 36 of the 2003 Public Procurement Act, Act 663 when awarding the contract to Adjaye and Associates renders the design contract void and void without effect.

• A statement that the defendant’s failure to comply with the procedure provided for in Articles 35 and 36 of the Public Procurement Act 2003, Act 663 when awarding the contract to Adjaye and Associates is in violation of Article 36 (2) (c) of the 1992 Constitution.

• An order to the government of Ghana to terminate the building design contract with Adjaye and Associates.

• An order directing the defendant to engage in a two-stage competitive bidding process in order to award the contract in accordance with Articles 35 and 36 of the 2003 Law on Public Procurement (Law 663).

• An order that the thirty-six million Ghanaian cedis (36,000,000.00 GHC) advanced to Adjaye and Associates in payment of consulting fees for the design. Project management and coordination under the building design contract will be reimbursed to the State.

• A statement that the defendant’s failure to award the Agenda 111 insurance brokerage contract by tender was illegal and contrary to Articles 35 and 36 of the 2003 Public Procurement Law (Law 663) .

• A statement that the defendant’s failure to comply with the procedure provided for in Articles 35 and 36 of the Public Procurement Act 2003, Act 663 when awarding the insurance brokerage contract to iRisk Management Limited renders the attribution null, void and of no effect.

1. A statement that the defendant’s failure to comply with the procedure provided for in Articles 35 and 36 of the Public Procurement Act 2003, Act 663 when awarding the insurance brokerage contract to iRisk Management Limited is contrary in Article 36, paragraph 2) (c) of the Constitution of 1992.

• An order addressed to the Government of Ghana to terminate the insurance brokerage contract with iRisk Management Limited.

• An ordinance directing the government of Ghana to engage in a two-stage competitive bidding process to award the insurance brokerage contract in accordance with sections 35 and 36 of the Public Procurement Act 2003 (law 663).

• An order that all monies advanced to iRisk Management Limited as payment of fees under the insurance brokerage contract be refunded to the State.

• An order directing the defendant to charge and prosecute the Minister of Health and all officials involved in the unlawful award of the insurance brokerage contract to iRisk Management Limited for causing financial loss to the State under Section 179A of the Criminal Offenses Act, 1960, Act 29.

• A statement that the defendant’s failure to award the Agenda 111 insurance contract by tender was illegal and contrary to Articles 35 and 36 of the 2003 Law on Public Procurement (Law 663).

• A statement that the defendant’s failure to comply with the procedure provided for in Articles 35 and 36 of the Public Procurement Act 2003, Act 663 when awarding the insurance contract to Enterprise Life Insurance Company renders the attribution null, void and of no effect.

• A statement that the defendant’s failure to comply with the procedure provided for in Articles 35 and 36 of the Public Procurement Act 2003, Act 663 when awarding the insurance contract to Enterprise Life Insurance Company is contrary to Article 36, paragraph 2) (c) of the 1992 Constitution.

• An order addressed to the Government of Ghana to terminate the insurance contract with Enterprise Life Insurance Company.

• An ordinance directing the government of Ghana to engage in a two-stage competitive bidding process to award the insurance contract in accordance with sections 35 and 36 of the Public Procurement Act 2003 (Act 663).

• An order that all monies advanced to Enterprise Life Insurance Company as payment for expenses under the insurance contract be refunded to the state.

• An order directing the defendant to charge and prosecute the Minister of Health and all officials involved in the unlawful award of the insurance contract to Enterprise Life Insurance Company for causing financial loss to the state under the Section 179A of the Criminal Offenses Act, 1960, Act 29.

• Fees including legal fees.