EVA LOKKO WINS CASE AGAINST NMC AND GBC

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 2^nd 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’“.

(Ms. Eva Lokko, was represented by Ace Annan Ankoma and Gloria Cofie of Bentsi-Enchill-Letsa and Ankoma).