|

JA Plant Pool Rejects A-G’s Overpayment Claims: Full Statement and Implications

Screenshot

In the wake of statements by the Dr. Dominic Ayine, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, regarding alleged irregularities in the District Roads Improvement Programme (DRIP), the contractor JAP Pool has issued a blunt rebuttal, denying any wrongdoing and demanding full transparency of the audit process.

The Allegations

On 23 October 2025, Dr. Ayine told the public that the DRIP audit uncovered significant financial irregularities, including:

  • An over-payment of US$2 million to JAP Pool, above the contract value.  
  • Alleged tax evasion of GH¢38.7 million in duties related to the importation of heavy road-machinery under DRIP.  
  • The direction for JAP Pool to refund the excess payment to the state.  

JAP Pool’s Rebuttal

In a public statement released late [Date], JAP Pool refutes the claims outright, stating:

  • The contract was properly awarded following competitive procurement, and payment sums were “in accordance with the agreed scope and mobilisation schedule”.
  • No “over-payment” as claimed: the contract sum cited in the audit differs from the actual signed agreement and includes authorised contingencies.
  • All import duties and taxes were handled in line with Ghana Revenue Authority regulations, and any deviations were fully documented with customs and finance authorities.
  • JAP Pool expressed regret that the allegations were made publicly before full audit disclosure and opportunity for procedural response — raising concerns about reputational damage and fairness in the investigation process.

Legal & Procedural Questions

Legal practitioners say JAP Pool’s sharp rebuttal raises key questions:

  • Has the audit-report been formally published, allowing JAP Pool sufficient response time?
  • Under Ghanaian procurement law and the Public Financial Management Act, what constitutes “over-payment” and who bears the burden of proof?
  • Given JAP Pool’s status as contractor, does the state’s direction to “refund” constitute a presumption of liability prior to adjudication — and is that consistent with due process?

Stakeholder Reactions

  • The District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF), the funding source for DRIP, has already issued a statement saying the procurement was “competitive, transparent and tailored for Ghanaian needs”.  
  • Civil society organisations like the Ghana Integrity Initiative (GII) are calling for the full audit report to be made public and for JAP Pool to be given “adequate time to respond” before any enforcement action.
  • Political opponents warn that hastily drawing conclusions could erode investor confidence in Ghana’s infrastructure procurement process.

What’s Next?

The Attorney-General’s office has indicated that the audit findings will be forwarded for further investigation and potential prosecution.  JAP Pool, meanwhile, is preparing its legal team and has formally requested a copy of the full audit report, clarifications on the accountant-general’s review and a timeline for any supposed refund or litigation action.

Conclusion

This dispute places the spotlight on key issues: transparency in government procurement, the importance of contractors’ right of reply, and how Ghana balances anti-corruption efforts with fair treatment of commercial partners. As JAP Pool disputes the Attorney-General’s claims, the public awaits the full audit release — and asks whether accountability can be pursued without undermining due process.

Source: Nsemgh.com | Business • Accountability • Infrastructure

Follow us for updates on this developing story.

Leave a comment