Ex-Kotoko boss fires back

Former Executive Chairman of Kumasi Asante Kotoko, Dr K.K. Sarpong, has fired back at his former employers with a more revealing defence, introducing another dimension to their raging legal battle.

In a 49-point reply to Kotoko’s statement of defence and counter-claim filed by Agyabeng G.Akrasi, Esq. at the Commercial Division of Kumasi High Court on May 12, 2015, Dr Sarpong contended that the club was technically bankrupt, hence the decision by the Board of Directors to lend money to the club, ‘particularly as the sole owner had charged him to do everything lawful as a competent manager to salvage the club from the doldrums’.

To support his argument, Dr Sarpong referred to Kotoko’s own audited financial statements for the year ending June 30, 2010, which indicated that the club had current liabilities of GHC2, 834,973.00 and a negative working capital of GHC2,137,619.00 and net equity of GHC1,300,261.00.

He said in utmost transparency he could not keep the sole owner of the club, Otumfuo Osei Tutu II, in the dark and therefore briefed him regularly on the direction and focus of his administration on such issues as the precarious financial situation of the club, the need to settle outstanding lawful debts, major FIFA fines in respect of Shilla Illiasu’s transfer and Coach Hans Dieter Schmidt, training tours and international friendlies, key protocol payments and development projects at Adako Jachie, among others. 

He maintained that he had been and still is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants (Ghana) for the past 32 years and remains in good standing, and that his status as a business executive is not in doubt, having held very senior positions in private and public sector institutions in Ghana and abroad such as Ghana Cocoa Board, Tema Oil Refinery and the International Cocoa Organisation.

“Paragraph 16 of the statement of defence and counter-claim is vehemently denied, to the extent that defendant alleges that Plaintiff has disabled it from finalising and filing its audited accounts or at all, when he has had no role to play to inhibit the defendant. 

Dr Sarpong described Kotoko’s attribution of its alleged inability to complete auditing of accounts to him as false and very mischievous, since ‘in his resignation letter to the sole owner of the defendant dated July 22, 2013, he assured that he “would be available to assist the auditors in the event that they require explanation pertaining to any financial transaction” while in his handing over notes to the owner and copied to the acting Chairman of the Board of Directors of the defendant dated August 5, 2013, he confirmed his “availability to provide further insights into any issue, if the need arises.”