Covid-19 dealt Ghana Football another devastating blow just as the game was gaining momentum post the fallout of the Anas #12 expose.
The pandemic may has come with a lot of negative effects but one positive, stakeholders of the game who believe in transparency and accountability would be excited about was the release of the debt status of the Ghana Football Association (GFA) a document titled “legacy debt” a description that is alient to accounting.
As the GFA sought to justify their decision to hold on to the huge financial windfall coming their way from FIFA, they ended up opening a can of worms that has left stakeholders with more questions than answers.
Rather than show leadership and deal with the issues raised to clear any shred of doubt, the Kurt Okraku led FA has resorted to the using its apparatchiks to appeal to emotions of the stakeholders and Ghanaians at large by describing legitimate concerns raised as “harsh and factually incorrect” and also paint the picture of the GFA being unfairly criticized thus playing victim in the process.
No one asked the Kurt Okraku led FA and its cohorts to give an itemized list of money received from GLO was expended. But thankfully, a list of same was published by the quasi accountant of the FA, Ameenu Shadow interestingly legal fees for Sory @law and Beyou Beyou and company were conspicuously missing giving credence my questions.
An outstanding amount of $75,000 was published in the so called “legacy debt” document representing money owed for legal services when the GLO sponsorship deal fell through .Sory @Law Mr Thaddeus Sory and Arbitatrator Beyou Beyou and company are owed $40,000 and $70,000(35,000 settled) respectively.
Why would the GFA receive $1,000,000 from the GLO expend as much as they can on other what they deemed necessary but fail to pay lawyers who worked for the FA to receive those funds?
Did the GFA act in good faith following their failure to pay for a service they had received payment for?
Did the GFA act in good faith when they added the legitimate $75,000 to budget line items on the so called “legacy debt” document as outstanding debt.
How did that outstanding amount end up as debt when money was actually received?
I ask, was another lawyer hired without disengaging the services of both law firms mentioned above receive money because of a 10% agreement signed with normalization committee for the collection of the money owed by GLO?
Was there a meeting to approve the appointment of the said lawyer if there was, are there minutes of the meeting to that effect?
Would the partner of Kizito Beyou, Naa Odofoley Nortey of Beyou Beyou and Company who were the arbitrators have agreed to such an arrangement?
If the Kurt Okraku led FA paid any other lawyer other than the two mentioned above did they do due diligence prior to advancing payment?
These are harmlessly question the GFA seek to answer without feeling they are being unfairly criticized.
By Raymond Nyamador
