GIIF’s Investment Committee supported SkyTrain Project but never recommended approval – Witness
The second prosecution witness in the trial of Solomon Asamoah and Prof. Christopher Ameyaw-Akumfi, former CEO and Board Chairman of the Ghana Infrastructure Investment Fund (GIIF), has told the Accra High Court that the fund’s investment committee expressed support for the SkyTrain project but never recommended it for approval.
The witness, former Board Secretary of GIIF, Kofi Boakye, said the investment committee was established by the board to consider the project for further deliberation and approval.
However, he emphasised that the committee did not formally recommend the project to the board.
Asamoah and Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi are accused by the state of conspiring to cause financial loss of $2 million intended for building the SkyTrain system, which was never constructed. The prosecution’s case is anchored on the allegation that the project did not receive approval from GIIF’s board, the principal body responsible for the fund’s actions, omissions, and liabilities.
The defence, however, has maintained through cross-examinations that the board did approve the project.
In his evidence-in-chief, Boakye testified that while the SkyTrain project was discussed at several board meetings, it was never approved.
Cross-examination
Under cross-examination by counsel for Asamoah, Victoria Barth, an email was presented in which her client informed investment committee members about meetings scheduled for Friday, September 28, 2018, and a subsequent meeting on October 22, 2018. The email included attachments, including the agenda for the meetings.
One agenda item, titled “Projects for approval,” listed the SkyTrain project development contribution as item A. Boakye confirmed the agenda’s existence but clarified the committee’s position, stating:
“Although several meetings and documents had been held and documents made available at both the investment committee and the board, no approval of this project had been made by the investment committee and no recommendation had been made by investment committee to the board and the board had not considered and approved project as at 2020.”
He further explained that while records from July 31 to December 31, 2018, showed a sum of money had been ring-fenced for the project, “finding provision in the budget for a SkyTrain project did not automatically mean that the project had been approved.”
Boakye added: “If the court looks at the minutes of July 31, 2018, members of the investment committee expressed support for the project, but that was never an approval by the investment committee.”
He also testified that following the committee’s last meeting on July 31, 2018, up to the board meeting of October 24, 2018, the investment committee never met again to consider or approve recommending the SkyTrain project to the full board.
“To end, the SkyTrain and the Roof Fill project were not approved throughout the period that I served on the board either at investment committee or at the board,” the witness concluded.
The case has been adjourned to Thursday, February 19, 2026.
