In November
2005, Ms. Eva Lokko, the then Director-General of the Ghana Broadcasting
Corporation was asked by the NMC through the then GBC Board, to proceed
immediately on her accumulated leave, without any specified reason. Ms. Lokko
therefore took the NMC and the GBC (Board)
to court, for disguised dismissal without cause, after they barricaded her
office. And she won her case.
In November
2012, His Lordship Justice E. F. Dzakpasu presiding over the case made his
judgment on the case after seven (7) years of evidence from the parties. In
pronouncing judgement in a 27-page document, here is a summary his statements:
“We should be growing away from authoritarianism, misuse of power entrusted in our care on behalf of the people and [from] destroying the very few competent professionals we have within our social and administrative politics. That the atmosphere in GBC during this period was permitted to fruit into such lawless removal of the plaintiff definitely would cast some shadow unto all other Boards. Should other Board members elsewhere court and insist on competence in the organisations where they are serving as Board members or should they work according to the dictates of some few misguided tops if they are not to be embarrassed and sacked?” “Probably it is the duty of the courts to frustrate such delinquent behaviours and give protection to government appointees like the plaintiff. The delinquent will say, ‘let’s sack him. He can go to court. Before the case in court ends it would not be possible for him to go back to office’. I think the courts should find a better way of responding to this way of thinking than using state coffers to compensate the victim.”
“The GBC is one of the ailing
government bodies such that its finances cannot be spared in such fruitless
battles. The Media Commission is funded from the taxes collected from all of
us. Should a few commit all of us financially in such offensive manner? Why
can’t the perpetrators of the wrong pay the damages that courts award in such
cases and in this case in particular? I have not lost sight of [the] collective responsibility of the
Board members but in certain cases, it should be possible for members to be
identified individually for effective court orders to be made. But for these
difficulties, I was minded to make the award in damages, which the plaintiff is
entitled to against the perpetrators of the wrong committed against the
plaintiff instead of payment from the public purse. I am aware that such an
order, by and large, would be a novel order not too common to make in our
judicial set up. But it is an order worth making, inviting the apex courts to
give practical meaning to the constitutional protection given public servants
as well as protecting the public purse draining, to bail out appointees of the
like we have encountered in this case.”
“I was minded also to
give the plaintiff (Ms.
Lokko) back her seat but for the fact that
her contract period had also expired.”
[At the time she was asked to go on leave]
“she was not under any investigations, charged with any offence or received any query from any disciplinary authority”. “There was no financial maladministration that could be put at the door step” [of Ms. Lokko].”
“Considering the fact that the plaintiff has had the opportunity to clear her name, in my view, in an admirably valiant manner, of the dirt intended to be smeared on her and the fact that she has joined the crusade in the headship of a national political party - I take judicial notice of this fact, for the good governance of this country, which included protecting these very same state institutions from financial collapse, amongst others, I am minded to give her GHȻ 5,000 (Ȼ50,000,000), general damages against each defendant. Cost of GHȻ 5,000 (Ȼ50,000,000) should suffice for this case against each defendant.” [i.e.: Total damages and cost of GHȻ 20,000 i.e.: Ȼ200,000,000.00].
“The evidence offered by the 2nd
defendant [GBC] during the trial was
merely cosmetic.” “I must say without any hesitation that his [Louis Darko’s] evidence exudes nothing but bias
against the plaintiff”. “What was more surprising of the witness’s evidence is
his further admission that they demonstrated against the plaintiff because she
interdicted their three colleagues who were implicated in the fraud.” “…he
admitted that the corporation went through the correct procedure for
interdicting his three colleagues who were arrested by the police in relation
to the fraud committed on the Corporation."
“Their [witnesses for
NMC/GBC],
evidence I find in total, in no way
implicated the plaintiff of any wrong doing in the financial administration of
the corporation.”
“[Kobena Adjei Johnson – the Director of Finance] abandoned his evidence midway in cross examination”. “What then could be the reason or motive for the case the defendants ought to fight in this court?”
“Was it just a
collection of baseless allegations hurriedly gathered together just to meet the
plaintiff’s case in court? Surely I have no hesitation simply dismissing the
counterclaims of the defendants as it relates to the allegation of financial
maladministration and mismanagement of the 2nd defendants corporation by the
plaintiff….”
“I will now deal with the issue of the legality of the order that she proceed on leave, which she has rightly interpreted was a dismissal. I say rightfully, because of the manner of sending her off the office and also the defendants refusing to respond to her request to come back to office after the expiration of her leave period. And when the refusal to call her back to work provoked the plaintiff to go to court, her choice of the court for resolving the matter, was given as the reason for not responding to her letter notifying the defendants of the end of her leave …”
“The letter from the NMC stated
‘general developments and the current atmosphere at GBC’ as the reason for the
plaintiff proceeding on leave. What these meant is not clear and was not
explained during the trial. From the evidence put before me none of these
reasons for her to go on leave was supportable or justifiable. I have found
that there was no financial maladministration that could be put to the doorstep
of the plaintiff.”
“What the board should
have known and supported was the gradual inroads the plaintiff was making at
solving the long standing financial malaise of the corporation and give her the
support rather than what appears to be a directive to proceed on leave
arising out of fright of workers agitation.”
“And there is correspondence from the Auditor General that the plaintiff and other top management staff should be at post for the audit. Clearly the Auditor General’s impending audit could not be reason for her to go on leave, because the Auditor General himself has written requesting that plaintiff stays at the post for the audit. As for the workers agitation, it appears to me that from the evidence of Louis Darko, the defendants could not be serious when they asked plaintiff to go on leave because of the ill-informed and self-centred workers agitation. For the Board should have known that the group of workers on rampage had no justifiable reason for the demonstration than self preservation.”
“They (NMC/GBC) chose not this mode but forced her out of her office after
shockingly asking her to proceed on leave with immediate effect. And when she
exhausted her leave, the defendants refused to allow her back in office”
“Section 27 of the labour Act, … demands that ‘as much as may be possible, a
worker shall be given 30 days notice before date he is to commence leave’.”
“The circumstances of
this case show that the defendants clearly breached this provision in the
manner they compelled the plaintiff to go on leave. I will grant the plaintiff her claim that the defendants acted
unlawfully when they directed she proceed on leave and within the circumstances
of this case, I will find her removal tantamount to a dismissal.”
“If meetings could be held without
her knowledge by the Board then there was something simply wrong.”
“All the counter
claims of the defendants are dismissed. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration
that the act of the defendants asking that she proceed on leave is wrongful in
the circumstances as I have discussed (above). It is a clear violation of the conditions
of her appointment and the Labour Act 651.”
“Pitching the plaintiff’s evidence against that presented by the defendants, I am convinced and accept the plaintiff’s evidence as regards the problems and difficulties she inherited in relation to management and finance of the corporation”. “I also find that her performance, despite the problems and difficulties she inherited, was indeed a strong indicator that the GBC was making a head way towards building a viable corporate body.”
“The defendants have
failed abysmally in establishing any of the several serious allegations they
made against the plaintiff. No
evidence and no attempt was made at proving any of these wild allegations which
had the potential of damaging whatever reputation the plaintiff had built for
herself”.
[His Lordship quoting from the performance appraisal of the GBC Board of 2004 chaired by Prof Stephen Addae]: “’The Board has taken recognizance of the situation at GBC at the time of her [Ms. Lokko’s] appointment. The corporation [GBC] had been weakened by unusual instability in leadership, policy and projects and by widespread financial irregularities: e.g.: blank cheques were being issued for certain transactions; the Director of Finance was the sole signatory to one account; subventions were misapplied; debt to ECG alone stood at ¢2 billion and to others ¢7 billion; statutory VAT and SSNIT deductions were not being paid; advertisers owed GBC ¢11 billion; medical claims were excessive; 206 staff members were receiving no salary at the end of the month because of deductions paid to mostly outside creditors; pervasive conflict of interest among staff and management was the norm rather than the exception; shortage of manpower in management, production and technical areas had reached critical levels; poor state of buildings, equipment and general logistics; and critical contracts to improve the situation were not concluded for five years.’”
“’The Board noted the following
achievements of the Director- General (Ms.
Lokko) during her probationary period: she has worked
assiduously to minimize the above financial irregularities. These absolutely
necessary actions have incurred the displeasure of some staff. There has been a
positive change in the financial management of the corporation, which has
resulted in better adherence to financial regulations. For example, internally
generated funds increased in 2003 by 32%, arrears to VAT Service, ECG and IRS
are being cleared. Overall, the finances of the corporation have been improved
significantly under her leadership. GBC now has a better and effective
framework for negotiating with its clients. Advertising revenue is increasing;
unacceptable discounts of up to 65% on spot adverts have been stopped. A new
contractual framework is in place (e.g. under the new GBC/AdMedia/Unilever
agreement, revenue accruing to GBC has increased from 1.7 billion cedis in 2002
to 8 billion cedis a year from 2004. She has been instrumental in prioritizing,
renegotiating and signing contracts that have brought significant saving and
much benefit to the Corporation (e.g. Rhode & Schwarz, SONY,
GBC/AdMedia/Unilever agreements). She has greatly contributed to teamwork in
the Corporation. Significant and commendable improvement is taking place in
such areas as programme, technical production, engineering and procurement. Her
handling of relations with political parties in an election year has been
balanced and satisfactory as evidenced by the signing of the MOU between GBC
and registered political Parties on political broadcasts’“.
