RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT BY MD OF GUINNESS GHANA TO THE GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL
JOE ABOAGYE DEBRAH LLM (Lond.)
BARRISTER-AT-LAW
1st Law Tel: 00-233-21-253751
#28/1 Castle Rd., Adabraka 00-233-20-8157566
P. O. Box AD233 00-233-24-4293270
Adabraka, Accra E-mail: joe_debrah@yahoo.co.uk
March 20, 2006
The Chairman
General Legal Council
Accra.
Attn: Mr. E. Bart-Plange Brew, Secretary
Dear Sir,
RE: COMPLAINT OF DEVLIN HAINSWORTH (GHANA BREWERIES LIMITED) AGAINST JOSEPH ABOAGYE DEBRAH – COMMENTS
Further to your letter dated March 15, 2006 in respect of the above-captioned matter, please find my comments as follows:
1. The matters complained of are sub judice, being matters that are currently pending before the High Courts in the cases of John Ofori vrs. Guinness Ghana Breweries Limited (Suit No. AC16/2006), The Republic vrs. Ghana Breweries Limited, ex parte National Labour Commission (Joe Aboagye Debrah, Interested Party), (Suit No. AP3/2006) and the Republic vrs. The Securities and Exchange Commission, ex parte ThinkGhana (Suit No. AP22/2006).
2. Being matters that are pending before the courts, I wish to stress that the response herein is given out of respect to the General Legal Council (GLC), such that the GLC will be in a better position to fully appreciate the issues and to dismiss the complaint accordingly as being without any merit, unproven and tainted with falsehood and also a matter that the GLC cannot lawfully intervene until the Courts have fully dealt with the issues.
3. The petition does not state what confidential information is being complained of. This must be clearly elaborated to enable me respond appropriately.
4. It is also unclear from the petition on behalf of what entity the complaint is being filed. The Complainant claims to be the Managing Director of Guinness Ghana Breweries Group (GGBG), an entity which does not exist in law and was not even registered in compliance with the Registration of Business Names Act, 1962 (Act 151). Mr. Hainsworth is also the Managing Director of Guinness Ghana Breweries Limited (GGBL). Interestingly, he still styles himself as the Managing Director of Ghana Breweries Limited, an entity that would have been moribund if the complainant’s own public statements that GGL and GBL have merged were true, the subject matter of the application before the High Court on breaches of securities laws.
5. The GLC would have to distinguish between GGBG, GGBL, GGL and GBL in order to fully comprehend the matters raised herein.
6. That I have never worked with nor been employed by GGBL. I was the Legal Adviser of GBL until June 30, 2005.
7. Together with other young professionals who are passionate about making a change in our dear nation, I established ThinkGhana, which is a company limited by guarantee established and dedicated to inter alia, upholding the best practices and principles of corporate governance and securities regulation in Ghana.
8. That ThinkGhana filed a complaint against GGBL for breaches of Ghana’s securities laws with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) which has chosen to abdicate its legal duty by refusing to investigate the complaint as provided by law.
9. ThinkGhana has therefore filed an application before the High Court for an order of mandamus to issue against the SEC in respect of the matters raised in our complaint.
10. I am solicitor for a client in a pending matter against GGBL in the High Court, to wit, John Ofori vrs. GGBL.
11. That GGBL and GBL are different and separate legal entities and the complaint of the petitioner has rather strengthened the case of ThinkGhana that there is a concerted attempt by the regulatory authorities to abide breaches and continuing breaches of Ghana’s securities laws, which situation an august body like the GLC should insulate itself from.
12. That the issues raised in the complaint form the subject matter of actions pending before the High Courts and the petitioner has ample opportunity to argue its case before the law courts.
13. That I have taken a solemn oath as a barrister to uphold the law and the interests of my clients at all times, which I have endeavoured to and will continue to do.
14. That the exhibits tendered by the petitioner are irrelevant to the issues raised and indicate matters concerning GGBL and not GBL. I encourage the GLC to request the petitioner to tender all the memoranda I sent to the MD of GBL after the takeover from December 10, 2004 till I exited the company on June 30, 2005 which will afford the GLC a more objective analysis of the activities of the petitioner pertaining to the systematic and deliberate abuse of Ghanaian workers rights.
15. That even if I were involved in suits involving GBL, I would be within my rights as Counsel so long as I am not using confidential information or acting against them in matters in which I had already appeared as Counsel.
16. That the case referred to is a matter in which Bentsi-Enchill & Co acted as solicitors for GBL and I appeared in court in my capacity as the Legal Adviser of GBL and the petitioner has not shown anywhere in his petition that I have appeared in any matter against GBL in respect of the same matters. It is obvious from the provisions of rules 5(3) and (10) of LI 613 that it is not applicable to me and I have not breached any of its provisions.
17. After 49 years of independence, in a world where development-oriented nations are making strides in securities regulation and sanctions are being applied to breaches of law, it is utterly baffling that in Ghana, it seems that there is no law and that anyone with the right connections or enough influence cannot only break the law but also seek to annex national institutions and hold them to ransom and make them do their bidding, when in their own countries, the law will take its course regardless of personality or clout.
18. The complainant heads GGBL which is in serious breach of Ghana’s securities laws and its hands are so unclean that to say the least, it is a brazen effort to seek equity at the highest disciplinary body of the legal profession in respect of undefined offences and unsubstantiated allegations against a barrister who has had the nerve to stand up to a multinational that is in breach of Ghana’s laws.
19. Rules 5(3) and 5(10) of LI 613 are inapplicable to the matter as the petitioner has not shown which client he refers to. If it is GBL, in respect of which matter(s) is he complaining? If it is in respect of GGBL, why is he making the complaint on GBL letterhead? Which case (s) and which confidential information is being referred to?
20. Rule 42 of the Code of Ethics of the Bar is also totally inapplicable to the issues raised as I have never acted against GBL in the same matter or in any matter related thereto.
21. Assuming without admitting that the matters complained of even affected and concerned GBL as an entity, public policy demands that where crimes have been committed, or are reasonably suspected to have been committed as in the present matter before the High Court, the fact or probability of wrongdoing will at law, negative any argument of confidentiality that is raised. The GLC cannot be seen as a body that encourages lawyers to condone securities crimes on the unsubstantiated allegation of confidentiality. What confidential information has been breached and what confidentiality agreement has also been breached?
22. Lawyers in Ghana, including myself, have to make the solemn oaths we have taken as professionals enure to the benefit of this country and our clients and make truth and standing up for law and order fashionable again in Ghana.
23. The GLC should respectfully, throw out this matter as being completely unmeritorious and an attempt to find a ‘soft forum’ to articulate matters that are pending in court.
24. That the petition is an attempt to intimidate me and also to set a cloud on my hard-earned achievements and reputation as a lawyer and that those who breach Ghana’s laws should not under any circumstances be allowed to use an august body such as the GLC to achieve their own selfish, illegal ends, something that can never happen in their own home countries, which effort, falls flat on its face.
As a lawyer, I fully appreciate and respect the role of the GLC. However, as a young professional, I am amazed at the inability of people in high places who are fully aware that wrongs have been done, to completely look the other way and rather lend credence to wrongdoers in the course of their unlawful activities. The GLC should therefore not entertain this matter at all as it is sub judice and also completely unmeritorious. I therefore submit that in the light of the foregoing, the GLC should reflect soberly on the provisions of section 18 of the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32) and make a determination that this is a matter where it should not appear to the Disciplinary Committee that an inquiry ought to be held into the complaint and so should not proceed to hold any such inquiry.
Please be advised accordingly.
JOE ABOAGYE DEBRAH Esq.
1stLaw, Accra
BARRISTER-AT-LAW
1st Law Tel: 00-233-21-253751
#28/1 Castle Rd., Adabraka 00-233-20-8157566
P. O. Box AD233 00-233-24-4293270
Adabraka, Accra E-mail: joe_debrah@yahoo.co.uk
March 20, 2006
The Chairman
General Legal Council
Accra.
Attn: Mr. E. Bart-Plange Brew, Secretary
Dear Sir,
RE: COMPLAINT OF DEVLIN HAINSWORTH (GHANA BREWERIES LIMITED) AGAINST JOSEPH ABOAGYE DEBRAH – COMMENTS
Further to your letter dated March 15, 2006 in respect of the above-captioned matter, please find my comments as follows:
1. The matters complained of are sub judice, being matters that are currently pending before the High Courts in the cases of John Ofori vrs. Guinness Ghana Breweries Limited (Suit No. AC16/2006), The Republic vrs. Ghana Breweries Limited, ex parte National Labour Commission (Joe Aboagye Debrah, Interested Party), (Suit No. AP3/2006) and the Republic vrs. The Securities and Exchange Commission, ex parte ThinkGhana (Suit No. AP22/2006).
2. Being matters that are pending before the courts, I wish to stress that the response herein is given out of respect to the General Legal Council (GLC), such that the GLC will be in a better position to fully appreciate the issues and to dismiss the complaint accordingly as being without any merit, unproven and tainted with falsehood and also a matter that the GLC cannot lawfully intervene until the Courts have fully dealt with the issues.
3. The petition does not state what confidential information is being complained of. This must be clearly elaborated to enable me respond appropriately.
4. It is also unclear from the petition on behalf of what entity the complaint is being filed. The Complainant claims to be the Managing Director of Guinness Ghana Breweries Group (GGBG), an entity which does not exist in law and was not even registered in compliance with the Registration of Business Names Act, 1962 (Act 151). Mr. Hainsworth is also the Managing Director of Guinness Ghana Breweries Limited (GGBL). Interestingly, he still styles himself as the Managing Director of Ghana Breweries Limited, an entity that would have been moribund if the complainant’s own public statements that GGL and GBL have merged were true, the subject matter of the application before the High Court on breaches of securities laws.
5. The GLC would have to distinguish between GGBG, GGBL, GGL and GBL in order to fully comprehend the matters raised herein.
6. That I have never worked with nor been employed by GGBL. I was the Legal Adviser of GBL until June 30, 2005.
7. Together with other young professionals who are passionate about making a change in our dear nation, I established ThinkGhana, which is a company limited by guarantee established and dedicated to inter alia, upholding the best practices and principles of corporate governance and securities regulation in Ghana.
8. That ThinkGhana filed a complaint against GGBL for breaches of Ghana’s securities laws with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) which has chosen to abdicate its legal duty by refusing to investigate the complaint as provided by law.
9. ThinkGhana has therefore filed an application before the High Court for an order of mandamus to issue against the SEC in respect of the matters raised in our complaint.
10. I am solicitor for a client in a pending matter against GGBL in the High Court, to wit, John Ofori vrs. GGBL.
11. That GGBL and GBL are different and separate legal entities and the complaint of the petitioner has rather strengthened the case of ThinkGhana that there is a concerted attempt by the regulatory authorities to abide breaches and continuing breaches of Ghana’s securities laws, which situation an august body like the GLC should insulate itself from.
12. That the issues raised in the complaint form the subject matter of actions pending before the High Courts and the petitioner has ample opportunity to argue its case before the law courts.
13. That I have taken a solemn oath as a barrister to uphold the law and the interests of my clients at all times, which I have endeavoured to and will continue to do.
14. That the exhibits tendered by the petitioner are irrelevant to the issues raised and indicate matters concerning GGBL and not GBL. I encourage the GLC to request the petitioner to tender all the memoranda I sent to the MD of GBL after the takeover from December 10, 2004 till I exited the company on June 30, 2005 which will afford the GLC a more objective analysis of the activities of the petitioner pertaining to the systematic and deliberate abuse of Ghanaian workers rights.
15. That even if I were involved in suits involving GBL, I would be within my rights as Counsel so long as I am not using confidential information or acting against them in matters in which I had already appeared as Counsel.
16. That the case referred to is a matter in which Bentsi-Enchill & Co acted as solicitors for GBL and I appeared in court in my capacity as the Legal Adviser of GBL and the petitioner has not shown anywhere in his petition that I have appeared in any matter against GBL in respect of the same matters. It is obvious from the provisions of rules 5(3) and (10) of LI 613 that it is not applicable to me and I have not breached any of its provisions.
17. After 49 years of independence, in a world where development-oriented nations are making strides in securities regulation and sanctions are being applied to breaches of law, it is utterly baffling that in Ghana, it seems that there is no law and that anyone with the right connections or enough influence cannot only break the law but also seek to annex national institutions and hold them to ransom and make them do their bidding, when in their own countries, the law will take its course regardless of personality or clout.
18. The complainant heads GGBL which is in serious breach of Ghana’s securities laws and its hands are so unclean that to say the least, it is a brazen effort to seek equity at the highest disciplinary body of the legal profession in respect of undefined offences and unsubstantiated allegations against a barrister who has had the nerve to stand up to a multinational that is in breach of Ghana’s laws.
19. Rules 5(3) and 5(10) of LI 613 are inapplicable to the matter as the petitioner has not shown which client he refers to. If it is GBL, in respect of which matter(s) is he complaining? If it is in respect of GGBL, why is he making the complaint on GBL letterhead? Which case (s) and which confidential information is being referred to?
20. Rule 42 of the Code of Ethics of the Bar is also totally inapplicable to the issues raised as I have never acted against GBL in the same matter or in any matter related thereto.
21. Assuming without admitting that the matters complained of even affected and concerned GBL as an entity, public policy demands that where crimes have been committed, or are reasonably suspected to have been committed as in the present matter before the High Court, the fact or probability of wrongdoing will at law, negative any argument of confidentiality that is raised. The GLC cannot be seen as a body that encourages lawyers to condone securities crimes on the unsubstantiated allegation of confidentiality. What confidential information has been breached and what confidentiality agreement has also been breached?
22. Lawyers in Ghana, including myself, have to make the solemn oaths we have taken as professionals enure to the benefit of this country and our clients and make truth and standing up for law and order fashionable again in Ghana.
23. The GLC should respectfully, throw out this matter as being completely unmeritorious and an attempt to find a ‘soft forum’ to articulate matters that are pending in court.
24. That the petition is an attempt to intimidate me and also to set a cloud on my hard-earned achievements and reputation as a lawyer and that those who breach Ghana’s laws should not under any circumstances be allowed to use an august body such as the GLC to achieve their own selfish, illegal ends, something that can never happen in their own home countries, which effort, falls flat on its face.
As a lawyer, I fully appreciate and respect the role of the GLC. However, as a young professional, I am amazed at the inability of people in high places who are fully aware that wrongs have been done, to completely look the other way and rather lend credence to wrongdoers in the course of their unlawful activities. The GLC should therefore not entertain this matter at all as it is sub judice and also completely unmeritorious. I therefore submit that in the light of the foregoing, the GLC should reflect soberly on the provisions of section 18 of the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32) and make a determination that this is a matter where it should not appear to the Disciplinary Committee that an inquiry ought to be held into the complaint and so should not proceed to hold any such inquiry.
Please be advised accordingly.
JOE ABOAGYE DEBRAH Esq.
1stLaw, Accra
posted by JOEDEE at 11:22 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home