?PPP Smirks At NCA, Government
The Progressive Peoples Party (PPP) has appealed to the President of the ruling NDC, John Dramani Mahama to instruct GRA, NCA, the Ministries of Finance and Economic Planning, and Communications as well as SUBAH to provide answers to the high ambiguity characterized in the GRA-SUBAH Contract.
PPP have taken a stance on the questionable deals involving Ghana Revenue Authority and SUBAH Infosolutions which the latter was paid in excess of Gh74.3million for no work done.
According to PPP, SUBAH contract was fatally fraudulent when a contract signed in June 2010 and payment made, received its legal mandate in 2013 to operate.
PPP Communications Member and Lecturer at Ashesi University, Mr. Fredrick Anyan expressed worry over the height of corruption which has taken a nose dive under the regime of this NDC government is unfathomable.
According to him, SUBAH when contracted to examine and ascertain the exactitude of total volume of call traffic declared by mobile network operators in order to enable the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) to charge the correct taxes on call traffic volume payable by mobile network operators to GRA.
He noted to fully execute the contract terms, SUBAH needed to attach monitoring equipment to the to the physical network nodes of the mobile network operators.
However, it was in October 2013, that the Communication Service Tax Act, 2008 (Act 754) was amended {Communication Service Tax (Amendment) Act, 2013 (Act 864)} to give legal mandate to electronic monitoring of the operations of mobile network operators by government or an agent of government.
According to the PPP Communication member, did the government (or GRA) not know that the existing law at the time of signing the contract, Communication Service Tax Act, 2008 (Act 754) in whose spirit the contract was conceived,? made no provision for the mobile network operators to allow access to electronic monitoring of their operations by government or an agent of government?.
He added why did government sign a contract when there was no legal mandate upon which the contracted party could execute the contract terms and yet waited for 40 clear months before amending the Communication Service Tax Act, 2008 (Act 754) meanwhile on the other hand monies were paid to SUBAH to commence work.
In a letter sighted and signed by Kwaku Sakyi Addo, CEO of Ghana Chamber of Telecommunications, the mobile networks ascertain operators assert emphatically that SUBAH was never introduced to them until October 28, 2013 by a letter from GRA; and SUBAH, even though, had been contracted since June 2010 had never approached any member of the mobile network operators to install monitoring equipment until November 2013.
Mr. Anyan said meanwhile, government spokespersons, the information and media relations minister to rationalize the inefficiencies of SUBAH to have been able to attach their electronic monitoring equipment, that, SUBAH was denied access by the mobile network operators.
In a rebuttal, another letter referenced GCT/MOF/14/246 by the GCT, categorically rubbished that SUBAH was denied access for such interconnection.
According to document, it is undeniable that SUBAH never made contact with any member of the mobile network operators, so how could SUBAH have been denied access to the respective physical network nodes of the mobile network operators when there was no contact between SUBAH and the mobile network operators.
PPP has indicated they also notice with incredulous dismay at some facts of the report by the Ministerial Committee which was set up to review and renegotiate the contract and also consider the legal implications to set the contract aside.
According to the PPP communication Member, the reported pointed out that SUBAH quickly obtained call data records (CDRs) from the National Communication Authority (NCA) supplied by the mobile network operators to carry out monitoring relating to verification of the application of the correct CST rate to the volume of call traffic declared by the mobile network operators which is not possible.
He stated SUBAH was contracted to obtain CDRs of domestic call volume and tariff from the mobile network operators and not from the NCA.
The same report noted SUBAH failed in the execution of the contract because it is only through the acquisition of domestic CDRs with CST from the mobile network operators that SUBAH could have assessed the number of calls and duration as well as the application of tariffs related to domestic calls which could also enable GRA charge the correct taxes on call traffic volume payable by mobile network operators.
The same report on the contrary is making the claim that among other things SUBAH deserves the 74.3 million paid for work done between 2010 and 2013.
Mr. Anyan said the ambiguities in the GRA-SUBAH contract is turning into a devil?s rampage which needs to be investigated again with an independent body.
Source:?Abubakari Seidu Ajarfor, Punch Newspaper
