The controversy swirling around Bernard Antwi Boasiako, the Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) better known as Chairman Wontumi, centers on allegations of a GH₵50 million payment received from the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) in the waning days of the Akufo-Addo administration. Wontumi vehemently denies these accusations, characterizing media reports linking the payment to his company, Hallmark Engineering, as entirely fabricated and baseless. The reports allege that the payment violated a directive from the incoming Chief of Staff, Julius Debrah, who had ordered a freeze on contract payments during the transition period. Wontumi’s rebuttal focuses on standard government contracting procedures, asserting that payments are made only after project completion and verification, not as upfront disbursements.
Wontumi’s defense hinges on the established practice of contractors pre-financing government projects. He explains that contractors typically utilize their own resources to execute projects and are reimbursed only after the work is completed and rigorously assessed. He uses the analogy of road construction, emphasizing that the government does not provide upfront funding; rather, the contractor bears the initial financial burden. This, he argues, is the standard operating procedure in government contracting, and his company, Hallmark Engineering, followed the same protocol. He insists that the payment received was not an advance but rather a long-overdue settlement for a completed project.
The crux of Wontumi’s argument rests on the timeline of the project and the subsequent payment. He maintains that Hallmark Engineering executed the project entrusted to them by COCOBOD entirely with their own capital. Upon completion, the project underwent a thorough evaluation and certification process involving engineers from both the Ghana Highways Authority and COCOBOD. This assessment determined the value of the completed work based on pre-agreed rates. Only after this comprehensive evaluation was the payment processed. Wontumi stresses that this payment was not an irregular disbursement but a legitimate reimbursement for services rendered.
Furthermore, Wontumi points to the contractual terms agreed upon with COCOBOD, which stipulated payment within 28 days of project completion. He alleges that COCOBOD significantly delayed the payment, exceeding the stipulated timeframe by almost three years. This delay, he argues, further strengthens his claim that the payment was not an illicit transaction made during the transition period but rather a rightful settlement of a long-standing debt. He contends that COCOBOD’s delayed payment underscores their acknowledgment of the debt owed to Hallmark Engineering.
Wontumi’s denial, therefore, is based on several key points. First, he refutes the claim of an upfront payment, emphasizing that government contractors pre-finance projects and are reimbursed only after completion and verification. Second, he highlights the standard procedure of project evaluation and certification by relevant authorities before any payment is made. Third, he points to the contractual agreement that stipulated a payment timeframe of 28 days after project completion, a deadline COCOBOD allegedly missed by a significant margin. These factors, he argues, demonstrate that the payment was a legitimate settlement of an outstanding debt, not an irregular transaction made during a sensitive transition period.
In summary, Wontumi categorically rejects the allegations, portraying them as a misrepresentation of standard government contracting procedures. He insists that the payment received by Hallmark Engineering was not an illicit pre-election disbursement but rather a legitimate and long-overdue settlement for a completed project. His defense hinges on the established practice of pre-financing by contractors, the rigorous post-completion evaluation process, and the contractual terms that stipulated payment within 28 days. He maintains that COCOBOD’s delay in payment further validates his claim, underscoring their acknowledgment of the debt. He portrays the allegations as a deliberate attempt to tarnish his reputation and create a false narrative.
