The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) has formally concluded its investigation into the Airbus bribery scandal, which involved high-ranking Ghanaian officials and intermediaries including former President John Dramani Mahama.
The decision to close the case was based on several key observations made by the OSP during its thorough examination of the matter. The observations were contained in the document released today titled: Report of Investigation into Alleged Bribery of Ghanaian Officials by Airbus SE.
1. Lack of direct evidence
The OSP’s investigation, which relied heavily on mutual legal assistance requests from UK and US authorities, found no new evidence beyond what was already documented in the Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) and judicial decisions from those jurisdictions. Despite extensive efforts, the OSP’s findings largely mirrored those of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) in the UK and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the US. The investigation concluded that there was no direct evidence linking former President John Dramani Mahama or other Ghanaian officials to any corrupt practices in the Airbus transactions.
2. Legitimate procurement process
The OSP’s findings revealed that the acquisition of three C-295 military transport aircraft from Airbus by the Government of Ghana followed standard procurement procedures. The contracts, signed between 2011 and 2015, were approved by Parliament and adhered to the legal requirements for such transactions. The investigation found that the involvement of intermediaries, including Samuel Adam Mahama, was in line with Airbus’s common practice of using third-party agents to facilitate international sales, rather than an indication of bribery or corruption.
3. Familial relationships and conflict of interest
While the investigation did acknowledge the close familial relationship between former President Mahama and his brother, Samuel Adam Mahama, it found no evidence that this relationship influenced the procurement process.
However, the OSP did note that the involvement of family members in such high-stakes negotiations could raise suspicions of conflict of interest. The OSP emphasized that, although no wrongdoing was found, such situations should be avoided in future to prevent any appearance of impropriety.
“Such close proximity dealings by such elected high officials of the Republic and their kin and close associates on behalf of the Republic should neither be viewed favourably nor encouraged – as they give rise to reasonable suspicion of influence peddling and conflict of interest. Never mind any intended good faith,” the report stated.