The IT Manager of the Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority (GPHA), David King Boison, has in a rejoinder denied playing any role in the award of procurement and usage of information technology (IT)-related projects of the Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority (GPHA), from 2014 to the early part of 2017.
He has thus denied the report by the Daily Graphic which was published by citifmonline.com, on September 22, 2017, suggesting that the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), has begun investigations into the matter, following the interdiction of David Boison, who is said to have been implicated in an investigative report conducted by the authority from April to August 2017.
According to him, he’s unaware of an investigation by any state institution, because he has not committed any crime to warrant that probe.
He however said he will readily avail himself to be probed to prove his innocence of need be.
“…That the publication is a package of inaccuracies and falsehoods about him and that claims about his alleged involvement in procurement are pure fabrication and that said publication ought to be disregarded in its entirety as far as the allegations are about his alleged act of wrongdoing” part of the rejoinder read.
Below is the full Rejoinder as sent to the Daily Graphic and copied to citifmonline.com.
Over alleged Project Cost Inflation GPHA IT Manager Under EOCO Investigation
We are instructed by David King Boison, IT Manager of the GPHA, to file and request publication of this brief but important rejoinder to your publication (print and online) of 22nd September 2017 under the above-mentioned heading.
This resort to a constitutional right to a rejoinder over your said publication is intended to afford him fair opportunity to state his side of the facts for the records, and it is hoped it will receive same prominence (print and online) as said publication.
Our client informs us, and wishes you and your esteemed readers to know and be guided by the following:
1) That the publication is a package of inaccuracies and falsehoods about him and that claims about his alleged involvement in procurement are pure fabrication and that said publication ought to be disregarded in its entirety as far as the allegations are about his alleged act of wrongdoing.
2) That he is unaware of any probe whatsoever by any investigative institution of State though such has become necessary and that he would give his fullest co-operation to any investigations because same will only affirm paragraph (1) above.
3) That he has since his elevation to that office in March 2015, executed his assigned duties and responsibilities conscientiously earning him two prestigious national and international awards in his field of expertise, and that these have not only significantly enhanced the image of the GPHA, but also the technology university where he teaches Supply Chain and IT related programs. He, as PhD candidate recently won an award in the category of World Review of Business Research as Best Paper at the 8th Global Business Research Conference in Italy for a paper on Berth Optimization.
4) That the thrust and gravamen of said publication being the allegation attributed to a five-member committee of the GPHA that he, David King Boison, overpriced IT solutions contracts and received unlawful benefits as a result can only be laughable as his assigned responsibilities as IT Manager do not even remotely extend to pricing of any procurement or payment for same.
5) That as IT Manager he does not belong to the GPHA procurement department which by law has the mandate and is responsible for each of the procurements referred to in said publication, and it is unthinkable how such an officer can be said to have overpriced or been involved in overpricing and by extension paying/authorizing/advising payment of said procurements.
6) That it is a proven fact that the email message referred to in said publication as the single paramount evidence of his alleged involvement is a product of hacking (the institution has been fighting hacking for a while now) traced to a named IP address, and that neither he nor the alleged intended recipients of the said email ever received same.
7) That as earlier stated, he believes in due process and is standing ready to prove his innocence and assert his rights in a lawful forum in due course.
We expect your kind co-operation in compliance with our client’s constitutional right to a rejoinder.