Lawyer Kwame Adofo has intensified his campaign for the removal of Professor Otchere Addai-Mensah, the Chief Executive Officer of the Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital (KATH), by methodically dissecting the CEO’s rebuttal and questioning its validity. He insists that the response cannot be representative of KATH management.
Adofo’s reaction came in response to a rebuttal of his petition to the President, seeking the dismissal of the KATH CEO for alleged financial malfeasance and breaches of procurement laws, as published in the previous edition of this publication.
“This petition has not been discussed at any management meeting, and the response is solely from the Chief Executive Officer. The response fails to address the detailed explanations and documentation in my petition,” Adofo stated.
He argued that the CEO’s response is filled with falsehoods and attempts to obscure the allegations. According to Adofo, Professor Addai-Mensah has not accounted for 300,000 Ghana cedis, as demanded by the Board over three meetings. He challenged the CEO to specify how the funds were used.
“Since these are public funds, the CEO should provide specifics on the activities for which the 300k was used, as presented to the Board. They should clarify whether the procurement vouchers accurately reflect the actual activities because my petition indicates that no such activities took place,” Adofo asserted.
Regarding procurement infractions, Adofo questioned why the hospital’s management did not subject Mr. Ankomah Kissi to disciplinary proceedings after detecting his conflict of interest. He argued that the hospital failed to investigate further after identifying the conflict, as confirmed in their response. Adofo also inquired whether a value-for-money audit was conducted on the transactions before payment, emphasizing that over 300,000 Ghana cedis in procurement transactions cannot be dismissed as trivial. He cited section 7.0 (g) of the hospital’s code of conduct, which explicitly defines ‘engaging in any activity likely to result in a conflict of interest’ as misconduct or indiscipline. He accused the hospital of breaching the disciplinary procedure outlined in section 9.1 and violating the spirit and letter of section 5.0 of KATH’s Code of Conduct.
Adofo maintained that the facts presented in his petition are not privileged information but actions commissioned solely by the CEO, who must answer for them.
Regarding the Dubai trip, Adofo challenged the hospital to provide documentation on the trip, including the invitation letter, sponsorship letter, travel notice to management, the Board, the Minister, and the Chief of Staff, and a letter informing the Board of the CEO’s 6,090-dollar withdrawal. He questioned the motives behind the partial sponsorship of the trip by a private individual, as indicated in KATH’s response.
“The KATH response states that a private person paid for the CEO’s ticket. Who is this private person? What is their motive? What do they stand to gain from sponsoring such a trip?” Adofo demanded.
About The Author
