The escalating tension between Evatex Logistics Limited and the Ghana Airports Company Limited (GACL) has reached a critical juncture, with Evatex issuing a seven-day ultimatum demanding the reversal of its terminated revenue assurance contract. The dispute, centered around the contract’s termination and allegations of unjustified actions, has the potential to unravel into a complex legal battle with significant financial implications for both parties. The core issue lies in GACL’s claim of a lack of demonstrable revenue recovery or concealment since Evatex commenced operations, a justification that Evatex vehemently refutes. This disagreement highlights a fundamental difference in the interpretation of contractual obligations and performance metrics.
Evatex, through its legal representatives, K-Archy, contends that it has not only initiated operations and submitted the required reports but also made substantial investments in infrastructure specifically tailored to the contract’s requirements. The company has quantified these investments at a staggering US$64.6 million, a figure that underscores the potential financial repercussions of the contract termination. Evatex’s characterization of GACL’s actions as “actuated by bad faith and unreasonableness” reflects the company’s strong belief that the termination is unjustified and potentially driven by ulterior motives. The ultimatum, demanding the withdrawal of the termination letter within seven days or facing legal action, sets the stage for a potentially protracted legal battle.
The GACL’s decision to terminate the contract, as conveyed in a letter dated August 1, 2025, directed Evatex to vacate the Kotoka International Airport (KIA) cargo premises by August 27, 2025. The rationale provided by GACL, focusing on the absence of tangible evidence of revenue recovery or concealment, directly contradicts Evatex’s claims of active operations and report submissions. This discrepancy raises questions about the transparency and communication between the two parties and the effectiveness of the performance monitoring mechanisms outlined in the contract. The GACL’s silence in the face of Evatex’s ultimatum further adds to the growing uncertainty surrounding the dispute.
Adding another layer of complexity to the situation is the ongoing investigation by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) into Evatex’s links with Strategic Mobilisation Ghana Limited (SML). SML has been the subject of controversy involving high-value revenue assurance deals with the Ministry of Finance and the Ghana Revenue Authority. This investigation casts a shadow over the Evatex-GACL contract, raising questions about potential irregularities and the broader context within which the contract was awarded and subsequently terminated. The OSP’s investigation adds an element of public scrutiny to the dispute, potentially influencing public perception and increasing pressure on both parties to resolve the matter transparently.
The detention of former GACL Board Chairman, Paul Adom-Otchere, by the OSP in connection with contracts awarded during his tenure, including the one with Evatex, further intensifies the scrutiny surrounding the contract. This development highlights the potential for broader implications related to governance and procurement processes within GACL. The detention of a former high-ranking official underscores the seriousness of the allegations and the potential for further investigations and legal proceedings. This adds pressure on GACL to address the concerns raised by Evatex and to demonstrate transparency in its dealings.
The outcome of this dispute will likely have significant legal and financial ramifications for both Evatex and GACL. For Evatex, the potential loss of the contract and the substantial investments made represent a significant financial risk. For GACL, the legal challenge and the ongoing investigations could damage its reputation and create uncertainty around its future operations. The broader implications of the dispute extend to public procurement practices and revenue assurance agreements in Ghana, as increased scrutiny on these types of contracts could lead to greater transparency and accountability. The ongoing investigation by the OSP and the involvement of high-profile individuals add further weight to the situation, making the resolution of this dispute a matter of public interest.
