The witness told an Accra Fast Track High Court, where Mr. Wereko-Brobbey aka Tarzan has sued the VRA over GH¢200,000.00 separation benefits and a Volvo Saloon car, that his former boss had already been given GH¢39,000, leaving an amount of only GH¢7,500.

He however admitted that no letter was written to the former CEO by the VRA Board about the outstanding amount.

Mr. Odoom said this under cross-examination by Mr. Akoto Ampaw, counsel for Tarzan, at the court presided over by Justice Richard Aquaye.

The Director was of the opinion that the outstanding amount would be given to Tarzan after he returned the Volvo Saloon car and the fixtures he took from his official residence.

When Mr. Ampaw suggested to him that the Board was aware of the fact that the plaintiff took away furniture and household items from his residence at the time he was vacating but did not object to that, Mr. Odoom said the Board was only aware that he took out the fixtures but not that he took them away.

The witness further explained that there were laid-down procedures for carting away fixtures by VRA’s retiring officers or resigning staff which Tarzan did not follow.

When counsel for Tarzan put it to the Director that the Board Chairman wrote to the Minister of Energy on June 16, 2005 about the separation benefits of his client and it was based on that letter that the Minister wrote back to him on February 10, 2006 and the Board endorsed the Minister’s recommendation, witness noted that the said letter was withdrawn.

Explaining further, the Internal Auditor said the initial decision of the Board to pay Tarzan five years’ salary was inconsistent with the conditions of service at VRA, as he had not worked with the Authority for five years. So the decision to pay his former boss just like any senior staff was not the norm.

The witness said every decision by the Board was not an end in itself, adding that the Board would be alerted if the decision did not fall in line with the conditions of the Authority.

He nonetheless failed to say how the letter had been withdrawn, but said it was found to be inconsistent with the conditions of service of the Authority, claiming the Board was confusing ex-gratia awards with gifts and separation benefits.

Mr. Odoom answered Mr. Ampaw that it was the Board that decides the separation benefits of a resigning chief executive.

In addition, he said ex-gratia awards were only to be paid to retirees of the VRA and not resigning officers, adding that the circumstances under which one left the organization were also taken note of before giving such awards.

Counsel for Tarzan then put it to him that the resignation of his client was induced, but witness said there was no information to that effect except that Tarzan had resigned from the Authority.

The Auditor denied that his position did not reflect the position of the VRA Board, noting that the Board had not been consistent in its dealing on the issue.

On the counter-claims that the plaintiff should pay nine months’ rent for overstaying in his residence, Mr. Ampaw showed him a letter from the Board stating that it would not be fair for him to vacate his residence since he had not been fully paid his separation benefits.

Under re-examination by counsel for VRA, Mr. F. K. Yeboah, the witness said the circumstances surrounding the separation benefits of Mr. Kalitsi, the former Chief Executive of the Authority, whose separation benefits were also discussed in the case, were different from that of the plaintiff.

The defendant then closed its case and the Judge adjourned the case to May 5, for presentation of addresses.