The party said inferences it had made in the matter pointed in the direction of the former President as the man cited as ‘Elected Government Official’ and ‘Government Official 1’ (GO1).

“On the face of the evidence presented, GO1 appears to be no other person than former President Mahama, the presidential candidate of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) for the 2020 elections,” he said.

“We want to know if he is GO1 or the highly ranked elected government official being referred to in the document,” he added.

NDC resistance

The press conference by the NPP followed the brouhaha that greeted the revelation of the alleged bribery scandal.

The NDC had dismissed the  bribery allegation.

A statement signed by a former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice in the immediate past NDC administration, Mrs Marietta Brew Appiah-Opong, said the reports alleging that Airbus SE paid bribes during the administration of President John Evans Atta Mills and John Mahama were “false, misleading and do not reflect the approved judgement” by the UK court.

However, Mr Buaben Asamoah chastised the former Attorney-General for “jumping to the defence of Mr Mahama”, who he said was the culprit in the bribery scandal.

He said it was not the duty of Mrs Appiah-Opong to respond to issues that did not concern her.

President commended

The NPP Communications Director commended President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo for swiftly referring the matter to the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) for action to be taken.

“It is welcome and very necessary because this is an international issue and some other countries mentioned in the judgment have already started investigations. The eyes of the international community are on this one,” he said.

He said the serious nature of and the processes involved in the accusations required immediate action to remove any stains on the name and reputation of the country.

Mr Buaben Asamoah called on the OSP to live up to expectation by going into the facts of the bribery scandal to bring all government officials who were connected to it to book.

Corrupt practice in Ghana

Court documents published by the DOJ of the US and the SFO of the UK revealed how Airbus employed different tactics to bribe officials in many countries, including Ghana, in order to secure lucrative contracts.

In the case of Ghana, Airbus allegedly paid more than €3 million through a third party.

“In fact, Airbus and its vendors had paid, offered or agreed to pay political contributions, fees or commissions in connection with these sales in the amount of at least €3,596,523,” the facts, as presented by the DOJ to the District Court in the USA, stated.

According to the DOJ’s facts, a high ranking elected official, which the document referred to as “Individual 1” (who was in office from 2009 to 2016), made direct contact with the Airbus management about the purchase of the aircraft a few months after he had taken office.

“Individual 1 was influential in having the government of Ghana approve aircraft purchases and Individual 1 contacted Airbus senior executives during the government approval process. In 2011, during Individual 1’s time in office, the Ghanaian Parliament approved the purchase of C-295 aircraft,” the facts said.

As part of the sale of the aircraft to Ghana, the DOJ said, Airbus contracted the brother of “Individual 1”, who was named as “Consultant 4”, to act as the third-party agent of the company during the sale of the aircraft.

“Airbus purposefully sought to engage Consultant 4 due to his closeness to Individual 1, and the Airbus management included Consultant 4 in its communications with Individual 1. Airbus used Consultant 4 as a conduit for messages intended for Individual 1. Consultant 4 traded on his access to Individual 1,” the DOJ said.

Court documents further showed that another person, described as “Consultant 5”, a citizen of the UK, worked in conjunction with “Consultant 4” to assist with the sales.

Airbus agreed to pay “Consultant 4” €3,500,000 through a company owned by “Consultant 4” and “Consultant 5”.

According to the DOJ’s facts, in October 2011, Airbus’ compliance staff rejected the contract between the company and “Consultant 4” and “Consultant 5” because “Consultant 4 had a familiar relationship with Individual 1”.