Sputnik V vaccine: Sheikh Maktoum agrees to refund $2.4m to Ghana

The middleman at the centre of the unsuccessful attempt by the government to procure 300,000 doses of the Sputnik-V COVID-19 vaccine has decided to refund $2.47 million (about GH¢14.4 million) to the country.

The amount represents the 50 per cent advance payment of $2.85 million made by the government, minus the cost of 20,000 doses ($380,000) supplied by the businessman.

Sheikh Ahmed Dalmook Al Maktoum, a businessman and member of the ruling royal family of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), decided to refund the money after a request from the Minister of Health, Mr Kwaku Agyeman-Manu.

The supply of the vaccines being facilitated by the businessman hit a snag, leading to the termination of the agreement between the businessman and the Ministry of Health in July this year.

Efforts by the government to retrieve the money come on the heels of public outcry over the deal, which was the subject of a parliamentary probe.

After the probe, Parliament made a recommendation to the Ministry of Finance to take all measures to recover the $2.85 million (GH¢16.3 million) advance payment made to Sheikh Al Maktoum by the Ministry of Health.

Request for refund

On August 2, this year, Mr Agyeman-Manu wrote to Sheikh Al Maktoum requesting a refund of the amount paid for the doses which the businessman failed to supply to the country.

“I wish to finally accept your termination of our agreement dated 9th March, 2021 for the supply of the Sputnik-V vaccine as per your letter No. ADM/LT/GHA/00/21/101, dated 14th July, 2021.

“By this letter, I also wish to formally request for the refund of the remaining amount for the non-supplied doses, which should be the total amount paid to your office minus the amount due for the 20,000 doses you already supplied, in line with your earlier e-mail dated 25th July, 2021 in which it was affirmed that on 13th April, 2021, funds were transferred into your account as 50 per cent advance for the initial batch of 300,000 doses,” Mr Agyeman-Manu wrote.

Businessman’s reply

In a response, dated August 5, 2021 and addressed to the Minister of Health, Sheikh Al Maktoum agreed to the request and asked for bank details for the effective transfer of the refund.

"We acknowledge receipt of your letter, Ref No. MOH/OM/LU/7/21, dated 2nd August, 2021, with a formal request to refund the remaining amount of the non-supplied doses from the 50 per cent advance transferred to our account.

“We hereby request to kindly acknowledge and confirm the above-mentioned amounts to be refunded, further to which we shall initiate the refund process to your bank account.

“Please share with us the bank details where the refund needs to be processed,” the letter from the businessman read.

Bank details

Following the letter from the businessman, the Ministry of Health last Monday wrote to the Ministry of Finance, asking for the bank details into which Sheikh Al Maktoum would make the refund.

“The Ministry of Health hereby requests your outfit to provide the bank details for the transfer of the amount of $2.47 million to the government of Ghana,” the letter, signed by the Chief Director of the Ministry of Health, Mr Kwabena Boadu Oku-Afari, stated.

The agreement signed by Mr Agyeman-Manu for the Emirates businessman to facilitate the supply of the vaccine received massive public backlash, even after it had been terminated.

Civil society organisations and pressure groups criticised the minister for signing a bad deal for Ghana, describing the price as outrageous.

A probe by an ad-hoc committee of Parliament revealed that the deal did not receive parliamentary ratification, as required by the 1992 Constitution.

Per the report of the committee, the procurement and supply of the Sputnik-V COVID-19 vaccine was an international agreement, which required prior parliamentary approval to come into operation, in accordance with Article 181(5) of the 1992 Constitution.

It said the MoH, however, did not seek approval from the board of the Public Procurement Authority (PPA), under sections 40 and 41 of Act 663, before signing the agreements.

It noted that the ministry, however, applied for ratification under Section 90(3) (c) of the act, which had still not been granted.