The University of Ghana has debunked claims that it has been slapped with a $165m judgment debt by a New York Court for erroneously cancelling the Africa Integras LLC Contract in 2018.

The school says the claims are “misrepresentations and falsehoods” and they are therefore discouraging and deploring the unfounded speculation on the matter.

According to the University, “the circumstances of the Project and its termination are being falsely represented. Further, the nature of the New York Petition has similarly wrongly been described.”

Their statement follows reports of a New York court handing Global insurer Chubb Limited a $165 million arbitration award against the country’s premier University for failing to honour its side of a flagship development partnership backed by the U.S. government.

The deal which was terminated in 2018 due to the University’s failure to procure a letter of credit, had appeared to go sour earlier, when a new Vice-chancellor took office and openly voiced his opposition to the contract in a series of inflammatory letters and statements to the press.
According to Africa Integras, its outfit had already poured tens of millions of dollars into the project expansion, which was only a year away from completion.

Setting the record straight, the Registrar of the University, Emelia Agyei-Mensah said, “Contrary to certain reports seen in the media the University can categorically confirm that no court judgment has been issued against the University in relation to the Project.

“The New York Petition does not in any way comprise a judgment. Rather, the New York Petition simply represents an initial step directed at commencing proceedings before the New York courts. Such courts will allow the University full opportunity to respond to and contest the contents of the Petition.”

“The New York Petition presents an inaccurate and one-sided account of the Project. Further, the Petition is ill-founded and fundamentally flawed,” she added.

The statement also said over the past three years; the university had repeatedly invited all entities which purport to assert claims against it in relation to the project yet they have refused to do so.

“The New York Petition now represents an attempt to avoid setting out and substantiating a proper claim against the University, and avoid the contractually-required arbitration process, by proceeding in an inappropriate forum – the New York Courts,” it said.

The University has declared its decision to vigorously defend its position and rights in relation to the Project and contest the New York Petition before all appropriate forums, including arbitration and the New York Courts.

“The University is confident that it will prevail and that the New York Petition will be dismissed,” it concluded.