Donkor's lawyer dismisses corruption liability over TOR boss Berko's alleged bribery scheme

Lawyer K.T. Hammond has strongly rejected any suggestion that former Power Minister Kwabena Donkor bears responsibility for corruption allegations levelled against Asante Berko, the former Managing Director of Tema Oil Refinery, saying his client's conduct during a controversial power project was entirely proper and lawful.

Appearing on JoyNews' Top Story on Monday, August 10, 2026, Mr Hammond addressed mounting questions about Donkor's involvement in a power agreement now at the centre of US criminal proceedings against Berko, a former Goldman Sachs banker. US authorities have accused Berko of orchestrating millions of dollars in bribes to Ghanaian officials in connection with the project.

The core defence: Separation of roles

Hammond's central argument is straightforward—that Berko's alleged misconduct cannot automatically implicate Donkor merely because the minister held office when the agreement was negotiated and signed. The lawyer emphasised that inspecting equipment quality before importation is standard engineering practice and falls within normal ministerial oversight, not corrupt conduct.

"It is standard procedure for engineers and technicians to inspect the quality of equipment before it is brought to the country," Hammond stated, implying that even if improper dealings occurred elsewhere in the transaction, Donkor's role in quality assurance was divorced from any bribery scheme.

Donkor has previously defended the power deal as legitimate, denying any fraudulent elements in the government's decision-making. The minister's legal position rests on distinguishing between his official duties—contract oversight and technical verification—and Berko's alleged covert bribery activities.

Why it matters for Ghana

This case touches on several critical issues facing Ghana's governance and international standing. First, it highlights how Ghana's state enterprises, particularly TOR, can become vehicles for corruption when leadership prioritises personal gain over institutional integrity. Berko's alleged scheme, if proven, suggests serious breaches in corporate governance at an entity central to Ghana's energy security.

Second, the involvement of US authorities signals the international scrutiny Ghana faces regarding corruption. American law enforcement actively pursues cases involving bribery of foreign officials, underscoring that Ghanaian public servants and private actors engaged in cross-border corruption cannot hide behind jurisdictional boundaries.

Third, the case raises questions about accountability and due process. Donkor's defence hinges on the principle that individual officials should not face liability for others' crimes simply because they held adjacent positions. This is legally sound but also creates a challenge: determining who in government structures bears responsibility when corruption occurs across multiple actors and institutions.

For ordinary Ghanaians, these proceedings matter because energy projects directly affect electricity costs and reliability. If procurement processes are compromised by bribery, Ghanaians ultimately pay through inflated project costs, poor service delivery, and damaged institutions.

Next steps and broader implications

The renewed scrutiny of the power agreement suggests that further investigations or disclosures may emerge as the US case against Berko develops. Hammond's public defence signals that Donkor's camp anticipates continued questions and is preparing to distinguish the minister's conduct from alleged criminal acts by others.

The outcome will likely set a precedent for how accountability is assigned in multi-party corruption schemes involving government officials, corporate executives, and foreign parties—a pattern that has recurred across Ghana's recent history.