Former Deputy Attorney General and former Deputy Managing Director of the Bulk Oil Storage and Transportation Company Limited (BOST), Joseph Kpemka, has denied any wrongdoing in connection with an alleged US$800,000 financial liability being investigated by the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO).
Kpemka was invited by EOCO on September 10, 2026, for questioning over alleged financial irregularities linked to a fuel supply contract during his time at BOST.
Speaking to media personality Blakk Rasta, he said the investigation centres on a demurrage claim submitted by UAE-based trading company Poly Pro Trading DMCC over delays in the delivery of petroleum products.
Kpemka, who joined BOST in June 2024 under the Akufo-Addo administration, stressed that the contract in question had been signed several months before he assumed office.
According to him, the agreement was entered into in February 2024 and contained provisions covering the delivery and receipt of the products.
He said the shipment was delayed by the supplier and that, by the time the products were delivered, a court order was also preventing BOST from receiving them.
“Sometime in 2024, a ship or three ships delivered some products to BOST. They delivered some products to BOST and actually what happened was that the contract was entered into before I got to BOST,” he explained.
Kpemka said Poly Pro later wrote to BOST seeking assistance to have the products released for clearing, but the company was informed that BOST could not intervene because of both the delayed delivery and the court order.
The products were eventually released and delivered to BOST after the court order was lifted.
However, the delay resulted in Poly Pro submitting a demurrage claim against BOST.
Kpemka said the previous management rejected the claim because it did not believe the company was responsible for the circumstances that caused the delay.
He maintained that the supplier’s late delivery and the court order were the key factors behind the demurrage and should therefore not be attributed to BOST.
Kpemka also explained why he signed one of three contracts several months after the transaction had already been completed.
He said the document was presented to him for signature in August 2024, after he had joined BOST. After making enquiries, he was told that the transaction had already been completed, with the fuel delivered, received and sold.
According to him, he was assured that the document was only needed to formalise the completed transaction, leading him to sign it.
Following the change in government and a change of management at BOST, Poly Pro Trading DMCC initiated arbitration proceedings against the company to recover the demurrage.
Kpemka said the new BOST management took the position that the previous administration had failed to include sufficient protective clauses in the contract, potentially exposing the company to financial loss.
He said that position ultimately resulted in the matter being referred to EOCO for investigation.
However, Kpemka strongly disputed any suggestion that the state had already suffered a financial loss.
“Mind you, no GH¢1 has been lost so far. Not GH¢1 has been lost,” he said.
He explained that the alleged loss remains a potential liability because BOST has not paid the demurrage being claimed by Poly Pro.
According to Kpemka, the claim was worth about US$800,000 when the previous BOST management left office. He said investigators were unable to provide him with the current value of the claim when he appeared before EOCO.
He further argued that BOST should vigorously contest the claim rather than seek a settlement with Poly Pro, insisting that the circumstances leading to the demurrage did not result from any action by BOST.
Kpemka also denied having any personal relationship with the owners or directors of Poly Pro Trading DMCC.
He said he had never met the company’s owners or directors and challenged investigators to produce evidence showing that he personally benefited from the transaction.
“If anybody gets one piece of evidence against me that I stole, I committed fraud. I defrauded. I deliberately made the government to lose money so that I benefit. If you get that piece of evidence against me, I don’t deserve to live,” he said.
The former Deputy Attorney General maintained that he had no criminal intent when he signed the contract and described his decision as part of the administrative process of formalising a transaction that had already been completed.
His comments come as EOCO continues its examination of the disputed transaction and the circumstances surrounding the demurrage claim.
