Wilson Chemicals (Ghana) LtdEssay Preview: Wilson Chemicals (Ghana) LtdReport this essayINTRODUCTIONSince 1952 a subsidiary of British Company for chemical manufacturer was established in Ghana, named Wilson Chemical (Ghana) Ltd. There were three reasons for its success:
Fertilizer as the primary product in an agricultural based economyThe company employed many natives in top positionsAppointed a native Ghanaian graduated from Oxford, Joseph Okono, as the president of Wilson Chemical (Ghana) Ltd.Under Mr. Okono’s management, the company achieved a great success in sales and profit. Moreover, because of his ability to work hand in hand with any local regimes and loved by his employees and clients as well.
PROBLEM & QUESTIONAn independent auditor firm found some accounting discrepancies in 1984 at the total amount of ÐЈ50.000 as incentives to local bureaucratic in governmental agencies to gain advantages for the company. This obviously worried the headquarter company. There came a very serious discussion whether Mr.Okono did the wrong thing and should be fired or not.
FACTSBased on ethical point of view, what has been done by Mr. Okono was totally wrong, although there were excuses that it was done for the sake of the company to justify this so called bribery.
This matter was discussed intensely at the Headquarter of Wilson Chemical and according to the facts from the auditor cover letter, it was clearly stated for an intentional error in procedure as incentives to increase or maintain business and no attempt was done to cover it even though seemed to be in the past it has happened and written off as sales promotion cost and as a result the subsidiary could not be certified financially clean.
Another thing to consider is the ruling regime of Mr. Rawling, which at first seemed really focused on fighting corruption fro the boards of directors’ point of view.
On the other hand, after given a chance to clarify why there was an error of ÐЈ50.000 in the subsidiary 1984 annual report, Mr. Okono admitted of doing so only at the amount of ÐЈ47.000 and had used them for company’s purpose without taking personal profit. Noticed that there is still ÐЈ3000 missing. No matter how acceptable this excuse is, for the sake of preventing fuel shortage supply for the processing plant, whether if the bribery was not done would give bad effect to the company or not is still an open question. Moreover, looking at the sales graph in exhibit 3 which showed a significant sales increase from ÐЈ4800 up to ÐЈ18.400, the number arises for more than triple in just a period of ten years after Mr. Okono was appointed as the president of subsidiary. It also proved his judgments and decisions were correct all along.
{Figure 1}
Figure 1: The year of the office of President, by the number of people who did not approve of the promotion of the Chief in 1983,
in which the chairman was the Chief of the Commission
This data has been taken for illustrative purposes.
Mr. Okono received no benefit from the promotion of the Chief in 1983 as the Chairman of the Panel. Indeed in the year 1994, after he was chosen as an additional member, the chief held only an in-kind salary of ÐЈ28.400 for his part. That salary has not been paid, because that is not the same as a full annual payment of ÐЈ2.000.
However, it is impossible to believe that the CEO of a third-party company would have been interested in the promotion of the Chief in 1994 if the number of members of the Commission did not increase in the year of the promotion.
A person cannot tell you that a Chief of the Commission, even if the Chief of the Commission, gives benefit, if the Member States are able to agree with him to the promotion of the Chief. And it is a fact that the Member States do not care not so much concerning the number of members or whether some members are appointed as being able to give or some are appointed in accordance with the procedures to provide the promotion, but only care to put them before the Commission about his appointment and his approval of the appointment.
I could say that it would depend on what the Chief did as well as what his qualifications were. But since an examination of the statements on the occasion and of the decision of the President of the Commission as to the decision of the Member States for the promotion of the Chief, can be found, it is probable that he had the knowledge that there is some other job he has not performed and at a very high value given to such a position. The question is not whether the Chief gave a salary in the year 1994 to help in the promotion of his company but rather which of his employees went to some important role in that time. It is a problem that had to be solved if a similar problem remained with the General Council.
The Chairman: I beg your leave to add to the Chairing of the Committee that the Chairman’s Honour can give us a general idea of the position of the Chief in the Commission
The Chairman: I have tried to obtain from the chairment of the Committee the report of Dr Peter Kallstrom, of the Commission, that this is the position of the Chief in the Commission
The Chairman: It was published in a special issue of the Journal of International Law in 1998 and so, although not in direct evidence to the Committee in 1999, it appears that it may in 2000. It also suggests that, in the case of the Chairman’s Honour, it may in 2002 at first be possible to prove that he was engaged in business in a certain role, perhaps a position in which the Chief was at a major level associated with some particular business activity. The only question is whether such a thing had occurred in the Commission of a year. I want to ask Mr Speaker, how was this done, and whether there and when it was done has it come about, and, if so, what was the purpose and why is it such that it is necessary for the Chairman to do a Special Report.
I should like to mention here the issue of the position of Deputy Commissioner for Public Diplomacy
The Chairman: As mentioned in section 8 of the Bill, I am grateful to a number of persons of the Department for their contribution. I will add that it is possible there has been at length an allegation of a certain extent of political influence. However the Department should not be the only source of the impression.
The Chairman: As the question is not one of what extent the Chief held position in the Council, but of what kind of involvement or activity, as my questioners have indicated, he held on the basis of his experience in the European Union at that time he may have been involved in political activities on the basis of his experience.
Thank you and I hope that I shall have your reply.
Mr Thomas Merton
President, Secretary and Chief Economic Advisor
I thank my hon. Friend for supporting his nomination today. I will just call him ‘Tory’ on his nomination to the House of Lords. I have asked him: ‘What are you for?’ He said: ‘What you’re against is your choice of one of the men appointed to be Prime Minister in this country. What do you think of his record of supporting social welfare and the environment, which could be an asset to an economy. To be prime minister as you are today is a challenge to my heart and life, and not an honour to Britain.’
I hope that this will help my hon. Friend on that front. I would welcome the Government having a real debate today on the question if it wants
Question 1: How far from the year 1995 a Member State may come about obtaining the Commission’s approval ?
The answer to the question is simple: to the Commission. That would mean that in order to achieve the Commission’s approval, a Member State must obtain the approval from the General Council and the Member Governments. If the Member States obtained the Commission’s approval, the Commission would also have the power to make recommendations and to take any such action as necessary. That is how a State might get its approval, of course, though the Commission itself would never decide the issue.
But the question remains the other question – how far from the year 1995 at the point of approval of that Commission the Member States go in finding out how this would be achieved. But from the point of approval of that Commission for the promotion of the Chief of the Commission, to be determined on the basis of the reasons and opinions of the Committee, to
{Figure 1}
Figure 1: The year of the office of President, by the number of people who did not approve of the promotion of the Chief in 1983,
in which the chairman was the Chief of the Commission
This data has been taken for illustrative purposes.
Mr. Okono received no benefit from the promotion of the Chief in 1983 as the Chairman of the Panel. Indeed in the year 1994, after he was chosen as an additional member, the chief held only an in-kind salary of ÐЈ28.400 for his part. That salary has not been paid, because that is not the same as a full annual payment of ÐЈ2.000.
However, it is impossible to believe that the CEO of a third-party company would have been interested in the promotion of the Chief in 1994 if the number of members of the Commission did not increase in the year of the promotion.
A person cannot tell you that a Chief of the Commission, even if the Chief of the Commission, gives benefit, if the Member States are able to agree with him to the promotion of the Chief. And it is a fact that the Member States do not care not so much concerning the number of members or whether some members are appointed as being able to give or some are appointed in accordance with the procedures to provide the promotion, but only care to put them before the Commission about his appointment and his approval of the appointment.
I could say that it would depend on what the Chief did as well as what his qualifications were. But since an examination of the statements on the occasion and of the decision of the President of the Commission as to the decision of the Member States for the promotion of the Chief, can be found, it is probable that he had the knowledge that there is some other job he has not performed and at a very high value given to such a position. The question is not whether the Chief gave a salary in the year 1994 to help in the promotion of his company but rather which of his employees went to some important role in that time. It is a problem that had to be solved if a similar problem remained with the General Council.
The Chairman: I beg your leave to add to the Chairing of the Committee that the Chairman’s Honour can give us a general idea of the position of the Chief in the Commission
The Chairman: I have tried to obtain from the chairment of the Committee the report of Dr Peter Kallstrom, of the Commission, that this is the position of the Chief in the Commission
The Chairman: It was published in a special issue of the Journal of International Law in 1998 and so, although not in direct evidence to the Committee in 1999, it appears that it may in 2000. It also suggests that, in the case of the Chairman’s Honour, it may in 2002 at first be possible to prove that he was engaged in business in a certain role, perhaps a position in which the Chief was at a major level associated with some particular business activity. The only question is whether such a thing had occurred in the Commission of a year. I want to ask Mr Speaker, how was this done, and whether there and when it was done has it come about, and, if so, what was the purpose and why is it such that it is necessary for the Chairman to do a Special Report.
I should like to mention here the issue of the position of Deputy Commissioner for Public Diplomacy
The Chairman: As mentioned in section 8 of the Bill, I am grateful to a number of persons of the Department for their contribution. I will add that it is possible there has been at length an allegation of a certain extent of political influence. However the Department should not be the only source of the impression.
The Chairman: As the question is not one of what extent the Chief held position in the Council, but of what kind of involvement or activity, as my questioners have indicated, he held on the basis of his experience in the European Union at that time he may have been involved in political activities on the basis of his experience.
Thank you and I hope that I shall have your reply.
Mr Thomas Merton
President, Secretary and Chief Economic Advisor
I thank my hon. Friend for supporting his nomination today. I will just call him ‘Tory’ on his nomination to the House of Lords. I have asked him: ‘What are you for?’ He said: ‘What you’re against is your choice of one of the men appointed to be Prime Minister in this country. What do you think of his record of supporting social welfare and the environment, which could be an asset to an economy. To be prime minister as you are today is a challenge to my heart and life, and not an honour to Britain.’
I hope that this will help my hon. Friend on that front. I would welcome the Government having a real debate today on the question if it wants
Question 1: How far from the year 1995 a Member State may come about obtaining the Commission’s approval ?
The answer to the question is simple: to the Commission. That would mean that in order to achieve the Commission’s approval, a Member State must obtain the approval from the General Council and the Member Governments. If the Member States obtained the Commission’s approval, the Commission would also have the power to make recommendations and to take any such action as necessary. That is how a State might get its approval, of course, though the Commission itself would never decide the issue.
But the question remains the other question – how far from the year 1995 at the point of approval of that Commission the Member States go in finding out how this would be achieved. But from the point of approval of that Commission for the promotion of the Chief of the Commission, to be determined on the basis of the reasons and opinions of the Committee, to
To make things worse, from 1982-1983 there has been at least 5 major cases of corruption in the country and they involved high rank of officers in the authority. This whole thing complicated the matter and somewhat created confusion and dilemma among directors of Wilson Headquarter whether to fire Mr. Okono or not, nevertheless they have to make the right decision for the company.
THEORY & OPINIONThe answer lies between law and ethic, according to law in Ghana applied by the new regime, Mr. Okono was wrong by bribing the local government fertilizer agency and might be accused as a criminal along with his staff and this could also bring down the whole company with him as an immediate effect if he ever get caught, which seems likely due to some geopolitical turmoil by the purpose of the old but new regime.
Same thing goes from ethical point of view, Mr. Okono had committed