Airbus Scandal: OSP Exonerates Mahama and his Brother

The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) will not be opening a criminal prosecution against former President John Dramani Mahama, his brother, Foster Mahama Adam and three other associates after finding their hands clean following investigations into the deal between the government of Ghana and Airbus SE for three military aircrafts.

The Office has therefore rescinded its arrest warrant for Samuel and his three associates as well as withdrawn its notices to Interpol for the four.

According to Special Prosecutor Kissi Agyebeng, though Airbus circumvented payment to Foster and his associates- for their intermediary services in the purchase of three aircrafts by Ghana were wrong- it does not amount to payment of bribe in the reckoning of Ghanaian law.

Additionally, there exists no evidence that Samuel Mahama and his associates acted as conduits of bribery between the employees of Airbus and former President Mahama, neither did they receive payments from Airbus with the intention of bribing the former President or any other public official.

It also found no evidence that Mahama was paid bribes by Samuel in respect of military transport aircraft from Airbus nor did any evidence point to the claims that the Former President was induced to favour Airbus in respect of the purchase.

“The OSP found no evidence circumstantial or direct which suggest that Foster and his associates were actually paid bribes and which bribes were to be transmitted to the former President Mahama and that the bribes were actually paid to former President Mahama,” he stated at a press conference on August 8, 2024.

Mr Agyebeng believes there was nothing remarkable about the transaction and only gained the wide attention of the UK and US authorities due to the blood relations between the former President and Samuel- a member of the intermediary.

Due Process
Per the Office’s findings, Airbus completed two sale campaigns in Ghana for the sale of C295 aircraft manufactured in Spain.

“The first contract between Ghana and Airbus was signed on 3rd August 2011 for the sale of two of the aircrafts and the second contract signed on 5th March 2015 for one C295. The three aircrafts were delivered to Ghana on 17th November 2011, 19th March 2012 and 4th December 2015 respectively.”

All purchases were found to have followed due process.

The Mahamas Involvement
To the OSP, former President Mahama’s direct communications and meetings with officials of Airbus to close the deal appears to have been actuated by good intentions on the part of the former President.

Samuel and his associates on the other hand, are said to have gotten involved as intermediaries in the Airbus-Ghana deal after the decision by the government of Ghana in preference of the C295 aircraft.

However, the two entities were business partners prior.

“It also appears to the OSP that the relationship between Airbus and Foster and his associates was neither one-off or peculiar to the Airbus-Ghana deal. Airbus had in place similar business partnership modules with Foster and his Associates in respect of business promotion in other African countries before the Airbus-Ghana transaction.”

The OSP therefore characterized Samuel’s Airbus intermediary role at the time his brother served as the Vice President of Ghana as a case of “luckless coincidence that attracted the disapproval of the UK and US authorities”.

Commission not Bribes
The Office said it did not find any trace of evidence either circumstantial or direct which suggested that Foster and his associates were actually paid bribes.

“Indeed, to all intents and purposes objectively viewed, an agency relationship existed between Airbus and Foster and his associates by which Foster and Associates acted as business partners of Airbus in respect of the Airbus Ghana deal for which Foster and his associates were to be remunerated success-based commission payment. This was a typical arrangement instituted by Airbus by which it contracted third parties as business partners to increase its international footprint and to assist it in wining sales contracts in numerous jurisdictions.”

“In this concept, Airbus took the full benefit of the agency agreement to Foster and his associates and the services they provided to Airbus for a considerable length of time. This was so because the contract for the first C295 between Airbus and Ghana which was clearly secured by Foster and his associates was signed almost two month before Airbus issued its due diligence report on 30th September 2011 which led to the abrogation of the arrangement between Airbus and Foster and his Associates. It was only when Airbus through due diligence mechanism discovered the relationship between former President Mahama and Foster that it abrogated the relationship.

“The abrogation by Airbus of the agency arrangements portended to work and did in fact work grave unfairness against foster and his associates therefore a concoction of a plan by senior leadership in SMO International and the defence and space division of Airbus to deliberately circumvent Airbus compliance rules by substituting company D or the company owned by Consultant 4 and 5 with the Spanish intermediary 8 or Organisation 1 to ensure payment to Foster and his associates was probably a well-intentioned adventure though apparently misguided as it rendered the payments seemingly of doubtful Providence.”

UK and US Prosecution Flaw
The OSP faulted the verdict of both prosecutions in the US and the UK which implicated the former President and his brother and associates as it stated that it did not cover the referenced individuals.

“The agreed settlement was reached by the UK and US authorities with Airbus only and it appears that Airbus accepted culpability for bribery for itself and also on behalf of the reference individuals including its employees, agents, business partners and Ghanaian public officials and that the reference individuals appear not to have been direct subjects of the investigation by the UK and US authorities and were not afforded the opportunity to explain their actions to present evidence of any.”

He noted that Ghana has no framework by which an entity would accept wholesale criminal responsibility on behalf of another especially where that other was not a direct subject of the investigation and was available to answer for himself but was not afforded the opportunity to do so.

“The conclusion by the UK and US authorities appears to be solely from the perspective of Airbus and what Airbus perceived as the real intentions of its employees in the dealings with their intermediaries and the government of Ghana.”

He added that Airbus entered that testament to save its image and pay fines to save it from prosecution.