Accra: Former Deputy Attorney General and former Deputy Managing Director of the Bulk Oil Storage and Transportation Company Limited (BOST), Joseph Kpemka, has spoken after being invited by the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) for questioning over alleged financial irregularities linked to a fuel supply contract during his time at the company. The former Deputy Attorney General and former Deputy Managing Director of BOST was invited by EOCO officials on September 10, 2026.
According to Ghana Web, Kpemka, who served at BOST from June 2024 under the Akufo-Addo-led government, said the investigation centers on a demurrage claim of over US$800,000 arising from the delayed delivery of products by a United Arab Emirates-based trading company, Poly Pro Trading DMCC. Speaking to media personality Blakk Rasta, he maintained that neither he nor the previous BOST management was responsible for the demurrage, arguing that the delay was caused by the supplier and a court order that prevented BOST from receiving the products.
Kpemka stated that the contract was entered into in February 2024, months before he joined BOST in June. He explained that the products were delivered late and, at the time, a court order was also in place restraining BOST from receiving them. BOST Energies posts GHS684 million profit, declares GHS34.2 million dividend.
'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. It was entered into in February and then I joined BOST in June. So when the contract was entered into in February, it had provisions for delivery time and it also had provisions for receipts. Now the product was delivered at the time I was not still at BOST and there was a delay on the part of the ship owners in delivering the product. So when the delay occasioned on the part of the ship owners in delivering the product, there was also another court order by a court restraining BOST from receiving the product,' he said.
Kpemka explained that Poly Pro Trading DMCC later wrote to BOST seeking assistance to have the products released for clearing. BOST, however, informed the company that it could not intervene because of the late delivery and the court order. The products were eventually released and delivered to BOST after the court order had been lifted. However, the delay resulted in a demurrage claim by the supplier.
Kpemka said the previous BOST management rejected the claim, insisting that the company was not liable because the delay was not caused by BOST. He also explained why he signed one of three contracts several months after the transaction had been completed. He said the remaining contract was brought to him for signature in August 2024, after he had joined BOST. He said he made enquiries and was informed that the contract had already been consummated, with the fuel delivered, received and sold. He therefore signed the document after being assured that it was only required to formalise the transaction.
Following a change in government and a new management at BOST, Poly Pro Trading DMCC subsequently initiated arbitration proceedings against the company, seeking payment of the demurrage. Kpemka said the new management of BOST took the view that the previous administration had failed to include adequate protective clauses in the contract, thereby exposing BOST to potential financial loss. He said this position led to the matter being referred to EOCO. He stressed that no money had actually been lost by the state. 'Mind you, no GHS1 has been lost so far. Not GHS1 has been lost,' he said, explaining that the alleged loss remains anticipated because BOST has not paid the demurrage.
Kpemka said the claim stood at about US$800,000 when the previous management left office, although investigators could not give him the current amount when he appeared before EOCO. He insisted that BOST should fully contest the claim rather than negotiate a settlement with Poly Pro, arguing that the demurrage resulted from the supplier's late delivery and the court order.
Kpemka also denied having any relationship with the owners or directors of Poly Pro Trading DMCC and said he had never met them. He further challenged investigators to produce evidence 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. He maintained that he had no criminal intent when he signed the contract and described his action as part of the normal process of formalising a transaction that had already been completed.