The Court of Appeal's unanimous decision in the GN Bank case demonstrates that administrative bodies must act fairly and reasonably under Article 23 of Ghana's Constitution, and that financial institution license revocation requires proper procedural compliance and consideration of all relevant factors, including the institution's actual financial position and government obligations.
安装我们的扩展，即时搜索任意视频内容
GN Bank back: What about NDC's promise to pay victims? | Newsfile本站添加:
You're welcome back. This is News File, the most authoritative news analysis platform. And here on News File, we put Ghana first. My guest, uh Kletus Aregna, who is um lawyer, managing partner, S&A Law Consultancy, uh who led uh Dr. Papa Kwesi Nduom's um uh GN Savings and Loans Bank to the court. Uh I think at the beginning, uh Justice Srem-Sai, you know, uh whilst he was not at a Deputy Attorney General, and then Aregna uh took took over uh after that. Uh Sulemana Braimah, Executive Director, Media Foundation for West Africa, they have also issued their verdict on uh the repressive um repression of spe- free speech. Um those of you who think this is the first time they are doing it, you are not in town at all. They have been doing this for a very long time.
Um Bobby Banson is lawyer and lecturer, Ghana School of Law at Makola. And right here, Senyo Hosi, One Ghana Movement Finance and Economic Policy Analyst.
To my extreme uh left is uh Andrew Egyapa Mercer, who is um also a lawyer, former MP, Sekondi, former Minister of Tourism, um Arts and Culture. He was also in the Energy Ministry.
Um our behind after Senyo here is Inusah Fuseini, former MP, Tamale Central, and former Minister for Lands and Natural Resources. He was also the Minister for Roads at the time.
Dr. Nana Kwaku Nduom, President, Group Nduom, Ghana, also joins us. Gentlemen, good morning. Thank you very much for making time to join us here. Good morning.
>> Good morning. Right. Uh so, let's uh begin with um Kwaku. Kwaku, good morning. Thank you very much for making time to join us.
Good morning. Good morning from Elmina.
Great.
>> be Great. Great. Now, before we hear you, let's listen to um your dad, Dr. Papa Kwesi Nduom, and a couple of comments around the sweet victory that you just chalked in the court of appeal this week.
It's It's been a difficult very very hard seven years in another seven years.
We want to thank family and I want to thank all of our employees.
Uh we've had some very very very loyal uh hard-working employees who stood with us all these years.
Um and definitely we give thanks to almighty uh for giving us healthy enough to be where we are.
Of course, this has been a very very difficult very difficult time that we have gone through.
Uh it's just one of many Um there's a lot to say, but not today.
Um at the appropriate time press conference I can go through what we have experienced, the difficulties we've gone through.
Um what I want to say is that we are in a very good good political environment.
That environment uh has brought about a winds of change.
And we are expecting that two out of the licenses will be restored, that we will now play our part and continue to work that this country uh achieves the level of prosperity that is needed.
Uh There are just too many difficulties.
Some people have died.
Some have lost their jobs.
Assets have been destroyed.
Uh All right. So, that's uh Dr. Papa Kwesi Nduom. It's been 7 years of being in the courts, going through high court, Supreme Court, going to Court of Appeal, and now this is where you are. Kwesi, congratulations on this unanimous Court of Appeal victory.
The court described the Bank of Ghana's 2019 revocation of your license as unfair and reasonable.
Um from where you sit, your perspective, what specific facts or arguments finally convinced the appellate judges where the High Court previously fell short?
Okay, well, thank you very much. Good morning once again to to you, your panel, and all the listeners in Ghana and around the world. I'm really grateful to have the opportunity to be on this platform and obviously happy that it's under these circumstances. And as Dr. said, it's been an extremely difficult period for our employees, our families, our customers, and other stakeholders.
I'm glad that we have this opportunity to rebuild. Um our lawyer who's going to be on the or who is on the program will be better suited to give the legal explanation, but the crux of the matter in in in lay terms to me is that it was untrue that the institution was insolvent and unable to pay its obligations. Um you know, it was actually on the advice of the Bank of Ghana that we opted to reclassify as a savings and loan institution. And there are a number of requirements that we were obligated to fulfill when we reclassified. Uh we were very diligent in in uh meeting those requirements, and we had made significant progress within the 8 months between the reclassification and the revocation. So, it came as quite a shock to us when uh we heard that the license had been revoked after all the work that we had put in place. Um so, I believe the appellate court just recognized the situation for what it was and acted accordingly.
Mhm.
Well, so you are right. Um I'm glad to see you. He will speak to the legal question. But, you have consistently maintained that your financial struggles were directly caused by the government and its contractors who were owing you billions.
How does this ruling vindicate your stance on who actually owed uh whom?
Yes, um well, so this ruling definitely provides some level of vindication. Um and it was no secret that in 2017, lots of contracts were put on hold so that the government could review and conduct whatever investigations they wanted to uh to conduct. And that had a significant impact on not only the contractors, but the entities that financed them. But, you know, this practice is not a new thing. I mean, we've been financing contracts for several years. And you know, over over the past decade and a half or so, up to 10 billion CDs of contracts that we financed. And we've selected those contracts very very uh diligently and specifically. Uh we look for contracts that were sponsored by entities such as Cocobod that had a history of paying them on time. And you know, so every 4 years or every time there's a new administration, they do this process of reviewing contracts to make sure that things are okay. And normally what happens is that they pay after that review period, they resume payments. But, this time around, those contracts were reviewed and even though they weren't seemed to be or deemed to be fraudulent, they were not resumed for a lot of contractors, including many of our contractors. And that played a major role in the liquidity issues that that many financial institutions suffered from. I mean, if you look at us, we had over 3 million Ghana CD 300 million Ghana CDs in just IPCs. And that was just the face value. And as you may know, if IPCs aren't paid on time, they accrue statutory interest. So, if that money, just the IPCs, was paid, we wouldn't have we wouldn't be having the conversation that we're having now. Uh we wouldn't have had to reclassify to a savings and loan company in in the first place. Okay, so during this process, there were some deliberate lies put out there about the money that was was at stake. I mean, we had set up a team with the Ministry of Finance. We spent several hours, tens of hours, sitting down with the with the Ministry of Finance. We had an independent audit of our portfolio. And we delivered all of this information, and at the last minute, somehow they decided to write a letter to Bank of Ghana saying that it was only 30 million Ghana cedis that was due to us. A bold-faced lie. And that was one of the key pieces of evidence that was used against us in revoking the the license. Mhm.
I know one small micro, you know, finance institution.
Uh that's a different story. Uh that was said to be insolvent and the license revoked. But guess what?
It is its own resources, money that was sitting there, that was used to pay off all its customers.
Its assets remained untouched.
And it had a good balance still sitting in its accounts.
So, I ask myself, what happened? It looked like a clear mistake.
Well, let's come to you. You have described the, you know, last 7 years as incredibly painful. Uh can you talk us, you know, uh tell us about the human costs of this shutdown. Specifically, the thousands of jobs uh or job losses that we have heard Dr. Papa Kwesi Ndoum speak about and some members of your team also speak about the job losses across your branches, uh the impact it has had on everyday Ghanaian depositors who believed in G the GN brand.
Yes, so you know, at one point GN Bank had GN Bank and its affiliates had direct and indirect employment of employees of over 5,000 people.
Okay, and so up to around January 2019 before the reclassification, we had 3,000 employees working in and around GN GN Bank. So, when we reclassified, we had to go down to about 1,600.
Okay, and then when the license was was revoked, those 1,600 jobs, direct jobs, disappeared.
Then we had about 1,200 indirect jobs.
You had security We had four security personnel for each branch. We had a cleaner for each branch. Multiply that by 300 branches.
And you can see that's a very significant personal toll. And each of those individuals has people that they they support. So, when you multiply it out, you could see that the the total impact was quite quite significant. And then you also have within the group, we had a a lot of our institutions who banked Do do this multiplication and give us an idea. Give us a rough idea. What are we looking at?
Oh, I I mean, I I'd say about 4,500 direct and indirect jobs. Mhm.
And then it but then you also It's not even just the jobs that were lost, but the impact on the operations of the institutions, including our institutions who who banked at the at the bank because our our deposits were were not were basically leaned. So, the companies that that the group of companies that invested in or deposited with GN Savings had their money leaned for several years. And that also had an impact on their operations.
You fought through the human rights courts, the Supreme Courts, the High Courts, the Court of Appeal.
There were many moments where the door seemed firmly shut against you.
Tell us what kept you and your team fighting when many expected you to give up?
Um well, that's a very good question. I think a lot of when you look at the comments of the people who have who are looking at some of these articles that have come up, a lot of people mentioned the the strength and determination of of Dr. Endo. And I think that it was his his leadership and his energy and persistence that has really inspired and and amazed all of us. We we've heard a lot of people come to us and say that they were just they were just amazed at how we managed to keep our heads up through this whole period.
But yeah, the reality of it is that our heads weren't necessarily up the whole time. It was extremely difficult for him for for all of us. But I think it was just the belief that we had done something uh positive by building this institution and that it was built for the right reasons, that we had taken the right actions uh to try and grow that organization that kept us that kept us optimistic and and relentless in in pursuing justice.
The court has um ordered an immediate hand back of all your possession, management, and control of assets uh to your shareholders. Practically speaking, people are asking, "How do you expect this handover to work?"
Given that some assets may have been liquidated, transferred, or degraded over the last uh 6-7 years.
Yes, well, it's definitely true. And I think one of the things that we've tried to put out there over the over the years is the extent to which I mean, we haven't even need needed to do that much work. If you drive around the country, people can see. The branches are still there, the signs are still there, and they can see the condition of of those those branches.
We have pictures and videos of vehicles, generators, motorcycles that are rusting, that have just been exposed to the elements, and and a lot of them are no longer around. I mean, places where you would have seen 100 or 200 cars parked. If you go there today, you'll see four or five cars. So, a lot of a lot of the assets have been disposed of.
We We are waiting for the detailed instructions from the court. They did make some comments during [clears throat] the rulings that there were some third parties that would have acquired some of these assets, and that if those acquisitions were made in good faith, that you know, there's not much that can be done. But for those that that weren't, that some action could be taken to to recover them. But it's it's it's going to be a long and um complicated process to try and restore what what was had, just because so so much time has has passed. Right.
>> And so much has happened. Mhm.
You You have boldly pledged to restore the business and make it even better than the first time.
What are the first three tactical steps that you intend to take to physically reopen doors?
And what's your message to former customers whose funds have been tied up?
Um okay. So, in terms of the the first three steps, I mean, I think number one, you want to make sure that you have the right team in place. Well, obviously, you have We have to sit down with the stakeholder.
We have to sit down with Bank of Ghana.
We have to sit down with the receiver.
And I think So, that's a given. But we need to make sure that we have a competent, experienced team in place whose values are aligned with the values of the group. And and they will participate in in really planning and directing the way forward. So, I think that's number one is the right team.
Number two is going to be the right systems, both the physical infrastructure and the technology technological infrastructure. And I think we have most of those resources in place. Ghana isn't the only place where we've done banking. So, we we are aware of and have participated in the in the movement from brick and mortar banking to digital banking. So, making sure that we have all the tools in place would be number two technologically and and physically.
And then I think number three would be that that the um the surrounding infrastructure, the the corporate governance, the board of directors, and the relationship with regulators and other stakeholders needs to be in place and needs to be very strong. We need to make sure that people understand and believe that things are being done in the best interest of the the consumers.
In terms of the customers who have been affected by this whole thing, you know, we believe that vast majority of them have have been paid their money. We we we hope that that that is the case. What we've been told is that most of them have been paid. For those of them that haven't been paid or if there's anything that we need to do to help ensure that people are made whole in in case they aren't, we would obviously do what we can to um to accelerate that.
>> All right.
Everybody who was involved in it regrets what how how this thing went down and we hope we can we can restore everything for everyone, not just us. Okay. Thank you. My very final question perhaps to you is whether you recognize that this your victory reopens this intense national debate over the entire 2018-2019 banking sector clean up.
Whether you recognize the that it throws up about how the Bank of Ghana may have acted wrongly against many other victims of the shutdown. I just gave one example that a while ago.
Yes. Well, you know, this this whole cleanup was just it was very, very painful for a lot of people.
Um, I have friends who were caught up in this thing and and they were affected very personally and I think that there's a lot of uh anger by the people who felt that they were treated unfairly. I just hope that you know, it's good that these questions are being asked. I hope that the answers can be found in a way that is um that is with with a sense of urgency, but then also in an unbiased fashion. I think what we all want is the right thing to be done. We want the truth to come out. Um, some of the statements that were made against us and others have followed us for years. If you look at the statement that Bank of Ghana put against us, it canceled me lost deals.
We lost tens of millions of dollars in terms of deals that we could have had and time and time again people have pointed to those statements made against us. So, we are not the only ones who have suffered so greatly from some of the allegations and and and statements that were made. So, I just hope that we can that others will have a similar experience of being able to have the truth be put out there and in the cases where they were they were right that it should be recognized and and they should have their um their their due justice.
All right. Thank you very much, Koku, for making time to be with us. And as you said, as I understand, you are in Elmina and something nice is happening there because um your dad is supposed to be leading a graduation process, right?
That's right. Yeah, this is this will be the fourth or fifth graduation and matriculation at the um Indom School of Business and and Technology. So, we will be attending there to celebrate the the graduates and welcome the new matriculants. All right.
You do have a good day. Thank you very much. Now, let me return to the studio.
And uh but before I do that, let me show you this promise that President Muhammad made in the lead-up to the campaign about because we don't want it to be limited to the Indom Group only, but to the others who are now, you know, up in arms asking that they should be paid because the president promised them that they will be paid within 1 year if they voted the NDC back into power.
Listen to the president.
To hear government officials justify the huge amount it is spending to manage the impact of the collapse of Ghanaian financial institutions, which they now put at a whopping 21 billion Ghana cedis.
I weep for the many who have lost their jobs.
The many who have lost their jobs.
The many who have lost their businesses.
And the many who have lost their livelihoods as a result of these policies.
I pledge on behalf of the NDC that we shall within 1 year of being in office pay all funds that have been locked up with the collapsed financial institutions.
Within our first year in office, we shall pay to all the beneficiaries all funds locked up in the collapsed financial institutions. It is a promise.
We shall not put together any long-term payment plan that will further worsen the living conditions of the victims.
Right, what a sweet promise, Mr. President.
Within 1 year.
Um it was within the 1 year that Evans Mensah put this question to the finance minister. Let's hear him, Ato Forson.
Ask him about those whose funds are locked up. And this is from the the banking clean-up that happened. A lot of the banks went under. It appears from this message that there are a lot of people still whose funds are locked up.
They haven't received their funds. When are they going to get them?
So, >> [clears throat] >> Evans, I'm I'm Let me be blunt here.
I have fundamental problems with this particular issue.
First, government has no business in collapsing companies and taking liabilities and using 30 billion cedis of taxpayers' money to fund it.
It is so wrong.
So wrong. One government isn't a shareholder. So, I'm not talking of state-owned banks. I'm talking of private businesses that have collected people's deposit.
And for some interesting reason, they have failed to honor the terms of the agreement they had. And that all of a sudden the state should pay.
Granted that the state is paying another 20, 30 billion. You know what will happen? I will not be able to do these allocations that I'm doing for schools, for hospitals, and all.
So, what is the opportunity cost?
This is a country that is just coming from debt distress. Am I going to borrow another 10 billion and saddle the state with additional debt?
Whilst a businessman who has collected this money and has run away, no way.
No way.
I don't think I have to run state's resources like that. My view, if care is not taken and we go that route, business owners will collect depositors' money and go at large and the state would take that responsibility. In fact, we shouldn't have started that at all.
We should have gone after the assets.
Previously, they should have gone after those assets.
And they should have and that is why the the central bank and that is why you have some payment you have to put there.
When we were leaving office in 2015, we set up the depositors insurance scheme and all to provide a system. The state cannot be paying this. And the taxpayer cannot be used as punching bag all the time. That anytime somebody set up a microfinance or savings and loan company, they run it aground and they just go and and and the central bank moving and collapse it and transfer the debt to the Ministry of Finance to pay.
Am I going to stop paying school feeding?
Am I going to stop uh paying capitation grant? Cuz the money must come from somewhere.
The money must come from somewhere. Tell me, what am I cutting to pay the person who gave his investment to a private person to mismanage?
So, I have fundamental issues with that.
I think government has no business in going into that and be taking those responsibilities to pay. In fact, we do not even have the money to do that.
Yeah. So so basically for those who may have money so locked, any You see, so so so so I think for them the Central Bank who is the regulator must get involved and to recover those assets and to use those assets to settle them.
Right, so that's the Finance Minister against what the president has said. We don't want to limit the discussion only to the GN Bank because the groups have been asking in the course of the week what's happening to the promise to pay them all according to the president. And that we're not going to do the payment in some structured manner, one off just sort everybody out.
So let me begin with the GN Bank Mesa GN Bank celebrating a victory and then also those who lost their, you know, and got a promise from the government.
Thank you.
Let me say good morning to my colleagues who are with me on the panel this morning and our cherished viewers and listeners.
And even before I start to take opportunity of your platform to wish my boss, my good friend and brother Dr. Matthew Opoku Prempeh a very happy and glorious birthday.
He turns 58 today and only wish him the best of what he deserves. And our sincere condolences to you and your family as well.
>> Thank you. Thank you very much.
You see, something personally I felt a lot of empathy for the GN Bank and what befell them.
When the decision was delivered last couple of days I felt pretty much well, if the Court of appeal is minded to set aside the decision of the High Court, uh consistent with due process, why not?
Then I read the post on Facebook by the spokesperson or the deputy spokesperson to the president who posted I'm actually happy Who are you quoting?
Shamima Muslim.
I'm actually happy for the GN Group.
We should be supporting the growth of Ghanaian businesses, not collapsing them without recourse.
President Mahama is not a vindictive leader.
And I said, "Hold on a minute.
What is the spokesperson of the presidency telling Ghanaians?
That it was as a result of the non-vindictiveness of the president the reason for the outcome of the decision by the court of appeal."
So, I managed to find the High Court judgment.
And I read it.
And I feel sad that Kwaku Idum this morning is trying to play victim and suggesting that some falsehood was put out there as basis for revoking the license of GN Savings and Loans.
He says that they were not insolvent and that they were they were in a position to pay their debt as and when they fell due.
Essentially, painting a picture as if to say that it was some witch hunting that the government of Ghana had to take to as it were resolve these banks.
At least three judges at the court of appeal agree with him.
Same way three judges at the court of appeal agreed with the Obanfo case.
But the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision set the appeal aside and restored the High Court judgment.
I don't want to preempt what the outcome would be because I would be extremely surprised that the Bank of Ghana would not appeal this High Court decision.
You see, interestingly when I peruse the judgment and when I relate it to some of the things that You mean the High Court judge?
>> High Court judgment.
This is what the court said.
In reference to GN Bank's or Savings and Loans inability to pay its depositors when they visited the bank to withdraw their monies.
It said at page 39 a typical situation can be seen from exhibit Y A O 1 2 and 3 where third parties have petitioned the first respondent and the first respondent is the Bank of Ghana to intervene in retrieving their funds from the third respondent, which is GN Savings and Loans.
The applicants, which is Dr. Nduom and his group trivialized these exhibits by contending that they are insignificant in the conclusion by the first respondent and the third respondent was insolvent.
So, the evidence that was adduced before the court that even small small sums of money that were being demanded from GN Bank they could not pay.
The law is clear as to how you classify an agency or an entity that is insolvent.
That if it is unable to pay its debt as and when they fall due.
So the court concluded that even if if you could not even pay these small sums of money that were being sought by these depositors.
How are you then going to be in a position to pay the big obligations that you owed?
Indeed and in fact the court proceeded to indicate that assuming without admitting that the IPCs that Nduom's company claimed that its sister company held were all reconciled still it was not in a position to meet its obligations. IPCs are interim payment certificates. So it wasn't it wasn't as if Money is the state owed contractors.
>> Yes. And it it wasn't as if all these factors were not considered.
The court took pains to go through all of them and arrived at the conclusion that the Bank of Ghana had taken a decision consistent with the provisions of section 16 of the Banks and Special Deposit-Taking Institutions Act in closing down what you call it GN Savings.
Unfortunately due process >> Please.
the High Court's decision has gone to a court of appeal. I don't have a problem.
And three the three wise men And interestingly have shut it down.
Interestingly it turned out that the lawyers for Dr. Papa Kwesi Nduom and his group was Justice Srem-Sai.
The current Deputy Attorney General.
Now, I'm told that when and indeed and in fact Indum and his group sued the Bank of Ghana, the Attorney General and the GN Savings and Loans Company Limited, in this case, the receiver.
The Attorney General at the court of first instance filed a defense because the state had been sued to protect the state's interest.
Bank of Ghana filed a response to the application.
The receiver also filed an application.
You are referring to in the previous regime.
>> In the court of first instance.
>> In the previous regime.
>> Previous regime. Mhm.
It turns out, however, that on appeal, the Attorney General did not file even a single paper.
So, then I go back to Sammy Awuku's post and ask, is it the case that this is something that has been concocted to have the court of appeal set aside the high high high court decision? The reason why the Attorney General of the Republic failed to defend the interest of the Republic at the court of appeal.
>> court decision you are referring to is dated when? It's dated 24th January 2024.
At the time So, hold on. Hold on. Hold on.
It's okay. You have said that. You have said that.
January 2024.
>> Yes. You know that the appeal would have been filed in 2024, correct?
>> Yes.
So, who didn't defend the Republic? So, so, that's why I said I'm told.
So, let us see the decision, the full decision of the court of appeal, so that we can interrogate these things further because if what I'm being told, and this came from the lawyer of the Bank of Ghana, is indeed the the truth, then it will make sense why anybody will conclude that the president is not a vindictive leader.
Otherwise, how would it be the case that a court of competent jurisdiction has made a determination in a matter and it is being attributed to the non-vindictiveness of the president. I cannot understand.
But like I said, look, if the court is minded to set aside the High Court decision, I do not have a difficulty at all.
But to want to claim victim when the facts of the matter doesn't support it. Is he claiming victory or is he claiming victim or is he claiming victory?
Is he claiming victim or celebrating the victory they have secured from the court?
>> to construe his response And remember and remember that you you sought to impute again that the former the the Deputy Attorney General formerly of the law firm that had led this process. And so the Attorney General did not put up a defense. And my question to you is that if the decision was delivered in January of 2024, within 3 months, the appeal would have been lodged.
Not necessarily. You can seek leave for extension of time. So let's find out We'll come back. It's that one is true.
>> So so so so let's let's find out when indeed the appeal was filed. If the appeal was filed No, the appeal would not have been filed out of time. But you just hold on. The The lawyer is on the line. I'll get to him.
The appeal would have been filed within 2024.
And the Attorney General who should have defended it would be the Attorney General of your party in government. So how does that work the way you are seeking to Yeah.
>> So that's fine.
Like I said, I'm prepared to await the full reasoned decision of the Court of Appeal.
I indicated that I'm being told, okay, so if what I've put out is incorrect, then sounds reason that my source may be incorrect. But, where it came from, I'm inclined to believe that that is indeed what transpired. But, that's beside the point. I'm saying that >> No, no, but before that point, before the next point you make, you also know that in our courts >> Mhm.
even if the other party does not file their arguments, the courts don't take the one who filed his argument as sacrosanct.
Yes.
>> So, you have situations where somebody has filed a process before the court, and the other party didn't file, and they still lose.
I agree. Okay. Now, go on with your next point.
>> But, the coincidences is what is striking.
Okay? Mhm.
Now, the insolvency bit was not the only grounds on which the Bank of Ghana revoked the license of GN Bank. Okay.
In fact, the statement that the Bank of Ghana issued on 16th August, 2019, which announced the revocation of the license of not only GN Bank, but 22 others, it listed several other infractions that GN Bank had committed. Mhm.
None of those were challenged before the court.
None of them.
The related party transactions were not challenged.
83% of GN Bank's loan book had actually gone to related parties.
Mhm. It wasn't challenged.
The transfers of $62 million from GN Bank to International Business Solutions, another company owned by Group Nduom, which is based in the USA, for purposes of acquiring a bank in the state, was not challenged.
The structure of this balance sheet was not challenged.
It's capital negative capital adequacy ratio of 61.20% was not challenged.
When the prudential requirement is a 13% positive 13%. You had negative 61.20 capital adequacy ratio.
How was the Bank of Ghana in its right frame of mind to allow you to proceed to exist? frame of mind going to allow you to proceed to exist?
So why are we being told that Mr. Indomie and his group were victims under the circumstances under which the the licenses were issued?
>> So you disagree with the court. That's what you want to say. Like I said, I'm a lawyer.
To the extent that their decision has not been challenged, that's what is prevailing.
But then again, what the court said when it delivered its judgment was only a two paragraph uh statement which is to the effect that we hold that if the trial court had probably averted its mind to the burden of proof and the evidence adduced by the appellant, it would have arrived at a different conclusion.
Revocation was not justified and was unreasonable.
Appeal shall sit. That's what the court said.
The decision of first respondent before the first licenses of third respondent is hereby called up for purpose of being quashed and same is quashed. Restore licenses of third respondent. Receiver to immediately hand over control of assets and management of assets to the third respondent.
Assets of third respondent shall be handed over at the current state and not at the state when the receiver took over. This is essentially what the court said.
But the court cannot give this and leave it hanging. They will have to give a reasoned decision. Yeah. Which we don't know when it's going to come up, but if it certainly comes, it will afford us all the opportunity to interrogate to see whether indeed the court of first instance did not apply the evidential rules >> So, thank you. Let me go to Clatous.
Clatous, you have some questions to answer raised by Agyapong Mensah. And as you may also see, people are asking questions because Dr. Indoom has been has been applauding John Mahama, has been thanking him.
And in one of his recent comments, he said gratitude for to His Excellency John Dramani Mahama for the promise he made as a presidential candidate to return banks collapsed unjustly and for creating an enabling and positive social and economic environment in the country.
You will recall that when the decision was given as Dr. Indoom stepped out of court and journalists, you know, sought interviews with him.
One of the lines of his response was a good regime.
A praise for the government.
What do you say?
That this cannot be exactly, you know, divorced from as in the presidential temperature, cannot be divorced from what is happening in the courtroom.
Well, thank you very much Samson.
Um I Good morning to all the all the the panel in the in the studio.
Samson, when BOST was revoking the licenses of GCB Savings and Loans, they did it by a letter.
And so, if the government wanted to restore the license as promised, they wouldn't have to wait for the court to give his decision.
Upon assumption of office, the government could have issued a letter and then restored GCB Savings and Loans license and then they would have started operating by now.
That is not what happened.
We were in court and we have been in court since 2019, gone through all the processes until the court finally delivered its judgment on Thursday saying that the decision that was taken by the Bank of Ghana was wrong. And so, I don't think we can by any stretch of imagination link the deal to any promise made by any person prior to elections or thereafter. This is purely a legal battle which has ended where we ended on Thursday. All coincidence, you mean?
Pure coincidence.
Well, I wouldn't even call it coincidence because they they have the government has not done anything to restore the license. That was a promise, but that is not how that has been done.
What has happened is that the court has ordered BOG to restore the license.
That's a different That's They are two different things altogether. BOG could have on on their own restored the license if they wanted to, but that was not what has happened. In fact, BOG when we were in court as at the last minute, BOG still challenged and defended their decision that they were right in revoking their license, and the court of appeal disagreed with them. And so, it is not as if the government has restored the license. No, the court has ordered BOG to restore the license. That is what has happened. Okay. I think that needs to be very clear. You you just mentioned a defense tying tying that one properly to the as a response to uh John Mensah about what he says he's learning that the state by their by their attorney general appeared to have allowed you some, you know, uh free room to score.
I I I I don't think the state has allowed us any free room to score.
If if you if you look at what has what we took to court, our main claims were actually against the Bank of Ghana because it was a human rights action which was instituted that the decision taken by the Bank of Ghana was irrational and it it infringed of the applicant's right to administrative justice, their right to property, and other things.
Now, the Attorney General was just added as a nominal defendant. They were not the main purpose. They were not the main defendants of the case. Bank of Ghana at all material times was the main defendant. In fact receiver and also the receiver because In fact, in the human rights action by our rules I think that you may just be required to notify the Attorney General in this case and not to make them a party, right?
That that is correct. You can you can notify the Attorney General, but instead of notifying, you can also add Attorney General because once a human rights public is a public law action, the Attorney General has the right to intervene. And so, the practice has been the law the rule says you should notify them, but the practice for some people have been just to add them as a party. So, that if they want to defend, they defend. If they don't want to, they stay out and allow the actual parties to do their matter. So, as I was explaining, BOG was the main table because it's the BOG decision that we were seeking to quash. And so, the BOG was the main respondent to the action.
And BOG filed defenses up to the Court of Appeal, filed their written submissions. In fact, they were out of time. They had to come to the court to seek leave to file their written submissions out of time, which we did not even oppose. And then they filed their written submissions and the court and the court determined the matter on its merits. Mhm. And so, it's not as if somebody just sat somewhere and then allowed the process to go in one in one favor. So, so So, you are confirming that the Attorney General did not file any uh as it were arguments in this matter.
What what I can confirm is that in the Court of Appeal, the Attorney General did not file written submissions. That that is a that is a fact. When the BOG >> When was the appeal filed?
The appeal was filed on the 29th of January 2024.
Okay.
29th of January 2024. That was when the appeal was filed. The appeal was filed within time. It wasn't filed out of time. You didn't have to seek it to file that appeal. How do you have you respond How do you respond to the imputation that Justice Srem Sai was In Dum's lawyer? I mean, you guys worked together. How do you How do you respond to that? And that may have influenced why there was no Attorney General response, even though your last answer uh appears to be a good answer already.
Uh I mean, I I do not think that has any any consequence or any any impact on on the matters that were being tried in court. Even at the trial court, when the Attorney General filed submissions, we read them and you and you see that it's almost like a replica of the same thing that the BOG was saying. They were not saying anything different. Probably that's that's why they did they thought it wise not to waste resources to be repeating the same thing again. Because it's the same thing that the BOG was saying that was saying because And And Samson, do you know when you sue when you sue the AG about something that a state institution has done, the AG would go and see responses from They were able to be able to file their response. And so, what the AG was saying was in essence the information that Bank of Ghana has given them. And so, the the written submissions that two of them were filing their their defenses and submissions were basically the same.
They were They were not different. And so, probably that is why maybe they thought it wise not to waste resources when they when when we finished the matter at the High Court and then allowed the BOG, which was the main respondent, to defend to defend the action to its latter.
Okay. Uh but you can confirm to us that as we speak, you do not work from Justice Srem Sai's firm, right?
Samson, I'm the managing partner of S&A Law and Consultancy. I I do not I do not work in Justice Srem Sai's firm. Okay, thank you. Now, to to the substantive a bit of the substantive points, you are saying that the facts that uh Ace Ankomah sir, you know, speaks to in the high court decision where your your client's bank uh um What is the the balance sheet?
was not impugned. Uh sorry.
The balance sheet of your client, which was negative, and confirmed that they were insolvent and so on and so forth.
There was no evidence to counter it.
What do you say to that? That That's is the main thing. So, why is it that the court of appeal will overturn the decision?
So, so so something Let me Let me take it systematically.
There are two provisions under Act 930, under which the Bank of Ghana can revoke a license of a financial institution. One is Section 16.
Under Section 16, the Bank of Ghana will have to give the the supposed defaulter notice of the default and then require them to make amends. It's only when that is not done that the Bank of Ghana can revoke the license. The other section is Section 123. Under Section 123, the Bank of Ghana doesn't even have a choice. It It is It is titled mandatory revocation.
And the only grounds under which you can Bank of Ghana can revoke a license under 123 is insolvency.
It's either the the financial institution is insolvent or the financial institution will be insolvent in the in the next 60 days.
That is the only reason. And when that is happens, the Bank of Ghana doesn't have a choice. They have to revoke and they do not even give you notice. You just wake up in the morning and you hear the notice, which is what happened in this case. We woke up in the morning, the notice was on the media that the bank has the license has been revoked even before the management of GN Bank even became officially notified by it.
And so, I I I I think uh honorable Mensah said the Bank of Ghana was actually revoked under Section 16.
The revocation was not done under Section 16. It was done under Section 123. That is a very clear difference that we should we should make. Two, indeed he mentioned is that the Bank of Ghana mentioned mentioned so many factors under which they revoked the licenses. And I think that's part of the argument we made in court because the the the the right to administrative justice requires that when a decision maker is making a decision, he must take into consideration only relevant matters and leave out all irrelevant matters.
And so, once you come under section 1 2 3, the only thing you must consider is whether or not the bank is insolvent or not. Any other any other factors are irrelevant. If you want to go use those other factors to revoke the licenses, you will come under section 16, you will give the person a hearing, let the person give why A B C that has happened, and then you can make your decision. But once you come under section 1 2 3, all other matters are irrelevant. And indeed, all the all the things that the Bank of Ghana mentioned, which honorable Deputy Governor also repeated, the law actually provides a punishment for all of them. For example, if you look at section section 33, it provides a a a remedy for a breaching the capital adequacy ratio, which is an administrative fine.
If you if you look at section section 64, it provides a remedy for breaches of financial exposure to related parties, which is also an administrative fine.
If you if you look at section uh uh what do you call it? Section 9 Section 94, it provides a a penalty for failure to publish audited accounts, which is an administrative fine. So, all the things that Bank of Ghana were saying, the law the law actually provides a remedy for them. Mhm. So, that was not the relevant thing. And that's And that's what that's one of the things we pointed out to court. That's not the reason why they said we were revoking the licenses. So, all those matters were even irrelevant. What is the relevance of the matter? The relevance of the matter is that was the bank solvent at the time the licenses were revoked? And that is what we argue that the bank the institution was not was not was not insolvent. It And And it is because the the the Bank of Ghana failed to take into consideration all the assets owned by the by by the institution. Because what you're talking about insolvency, there are two ways. It's either the law itself defines it. It's either you are unable to meet your pay your liabilities when they fall due or your assets your liabilities exceed your assets.
None of the none of them were present.
The the the exhibits that Mr. mentioned mentioned that the court says if they had taken those exhibits into consideration, they would have come to the conclusion the bank was insolvent.
And that's actually the point that we had made from day one that all those eye pieces debt owed by government which had been admitted previously, all those ones were discounted. And the Bank of Ghana now came back to tell us that all what they could confirm was some 30 million Ghana cedis. And in this something, when they wrote to GN Bank GN Savings and Loans that they could confirm 30 million, GN responded and told them that we disagree with you because the money we are talking about is in excess of hundreds of millions. And so if anything at all, let us sit down and reconcile our accounts. Then let's move from there.
BOG did not respond to that letter. And in less than a week after that letter, their license was revoked. Okay.
>> So that was actually this actually what happened. So it's not it's not as if uh the the the Court of Appeal is doing anything is the evidence we put before the Court of Appeal that the the Court of Appeal looked and said that indeed if the bank had taken these matters into consideration, they would have come to the conclusion the bank was insolvent.
Let me respond to the exhibit you mentioned from the From the High Court ruling. Quickly. The exhibit 1A01, 2, and 3.
1A01 was Bank of Ghana's own letter that they had provided some support to the the the the savings and loans company and that they would require them to make payment later. It wasn't a it wasn't a demand that was not met because they were they were not required to make that payment. 1A02 and 1A03 uh petitions that the Bank of Ghana alleged they had received from some depositors who said they were going to sell their funds in the quality assets them.
These matters were never brought to the attention of the G bank for them to even respond whether indeed the people came and they didn't get their money or not.
And that's what we made in court. All right. Because when the bank of Ghana received it, they never brought it to the attention. Okay.
>> I mean, cannot pay, bring it to the attention and let's confirm that indeed we can pay. But that's not what happened.
All right.
Um thank you. Thank you very much. But perhaps a final question to you, Cleatus.
Um well, certainly I don't know, but you may have been a bit surprised that the decision was unanimous in your favor. Uh but practically, that's the question people are asking. Practically how's this going to happen? Because some of the assets have been liquidated, have been sold, and so on and so forth. Some of them they have changed, their character have changed. Um and so on. Yeah.
Yeah, something I think the I mean, first of all, I I wasn't surprised that the decision was unanimous. I wasn't surprised because we have believed in the arguments that we put before the court. And we were very convinced that the court of appeal will be convinced by the by the arguments. So, yes, we we were not surprised that the decision was unanimous.
Yeah, secondly, the court of appeal said took judicial notice of the fact that the the receiver has been in charge of the assets of the company for 7 years.
And some might have changed hands into third-party hands. So, the court of appeal actually made orders specifically in respect of that and said that for assets that are currently in the hands of third parties we need if the third parties acquired them in good faith then they should be entitled to them.
But if they did not acquire them in good faith, then they will be entitled to them. So, and so, essentially, what it means is that any any person who has acquired any interest in any of the assets of the of G Cravings and Loans has to take all of them on a case-by-case basis. And then look at So, so the the proceeds realized from those acquisitions will now be paid to your clients or you lose that.
So so the receiver will now have to tell us where those proceeds are because he he he is the one who was dealing with them. He has to tell us where those proceeds are. He has to tell us where those proceeds are. If those those proceeds are still available with him, he definitely it will definitely form part of the assets of the of the company which he will have to to return all of them back to the company. Okay.
Um Uh well, thank you very much. Is there something which is critical you want to say a word about before you take leave?
If you permit me to take leave of us.
Uh okay. Let us respond to this question from a gentleman. You see, this this assertion that the IPCs uh Bank of Ghana did not take them into consideration is not borne out by the facts as contained in the judgment of the High Court.
Indeed and in fact at page 41 of the decision, this is what the court said.
Further, the applicants per paragraph 30 of their supporting affidavit contend that the failure of the first respondent and the Minister of Finance to present the true position of government indebtedness to the third appellant applicant thereby leading to the revocation of the third respondent's license was actuated by malice.
The applicants particularize the said malice among others as follows. I will not bore you with the details.
I note that the applicants assertion in paragraph 30 A and B which relates to the 664 million and 900 million IPCs, right?
Were not substantiated by any form of evidence to those effect.
The applicants, however, chose to exhibit before this court exhibit PKN 11 in support of the third ground of allegation of malice.
According to the apple applicants per their PKN 11 the first respondent should be deemed to have conceded that the third applicant had some IPCs to its credit or that it had a right to say for which reason the first respondent ought to have affected same. This and the court proceeded to produce a letter which was addressed to GN Savings and Loans. Okay.
In response to a request by GN Savings and Loans for a proposed repayment of their obligation to Bank of Ghana in the sum of 197 million. Bank of Ghana rejected that. It turned out that at the time that this letter was and they made reference to a defunct bank.
GN Bank, GN Savings and Loans at the time was not defunct.
And the court addressed all of these things in in the decision. So, to suggest that you there were some IPCs which you did not provide any evidence to substantiate beats my mind. But what you are talking about now is what the three other judges in the court of appeal >> I don't have a problem. That's what I'm saying. That's what I'm saying. That's what I'm saying. That's what I'm saying.
>> But but of course, the court of first instance was seized with the evidence.
Now, that's what the court of >> court of appeal reviewed that evidence.
>> Prepared to await the recent decision of the court of appeal so we can interrogate the matter but at the court of first instance it was established that GN Bank did not provide any evidence to substantiate its claim.
>> Right. Try to try to say this in in in 30 seconds. Let's have your response in 30 seconds. So so so so I can understand because he's making reference to exhibits that he has not seen and and and I can understand when you read the judgment you you only make reference to exhibits but you won't see them. So, it is not it is not true that we did not provide evidence. Exhibit PKN2 series which alone formed one volume of the record of appeal IPCs that we attached. What what the what the court was saying was that the BoG and the and the Minister of Finance had disagreed or discounted those ones and said that for them the only thing they can confirm is 30 million. And and that is what the court rejected the evidence. It's not as if we did not provide the evidence. The court did not rather rejected the evidence that we put we put before it. And so it is not as if the the the the and then he made reference to the he made reference to exhibit PK11.
He made he made reference to exhibit PK11.
Exhibit PKN11 was selected by the Bank of Ghana to GN Savings and Loans to assign these some of these IPCs to the Bank of Ghana for in due payment of sums that owed to the Bank of Ghana. And so that is the argument we put before the court was that if the Bank of Ghana did not was disputing these IPCs, why would it be requesting the GN Savings and Loans to assign these same IPCs which they are now disputing to them in due payment for debts owed to the owed to the bank.
Okay. So that that that is that is the reference to the PK11.
>> the the Bank of Ghana wanted to assume the obligation of settling those debts for Oh, I see. Okay, thank you very much, Clatous. Thank you. And that is PK11, the letter from the Bank of Ghana he is referring >> Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. Interesting to know that the IPCs and Loans form one volume of the appeal records.
For those of you who understand, you know how this looks like. Right. So um Awuni and Others v Sani, what do you say? This is uh sweet victory.
Uh Clatous, are you there?
I I'm still here. Okay. I in another 30 seconds, finally, finally, finally.
There are those who are suggesting that this clearly would not be the end of the road for you.
Um and Adjapong just said a while ago that he would be surprised if this is not appealed.
Well, I mean I think as he himself has said, I think that may be a little prejudicial because he hasn't seen the judgment yet. Maybe when the Bank of Ghana when he reads the judgment itself, you might change his position on that.
So, of course, it is the Bank of Ghana's right if they want to go further to the Supreme Court. That is their right and which we can't we can't contend that.
But, Mommy, we are confident that probably when they read the judgment, they will come to the reasonable conclusion that there's no point there's no point going further on this matter and that they >> All right.
>> Thank you. They about this issue rather.
Thank you. Thank you very much for your time. Lawyer Tony Lithur is the lawyer for the GN Savings and Loans that have been successful at the Court of Appeal. Yes, Honorable Minister of State.
So, Samson, it's important to state that this action and I mean and to congratulate the lawyers because they fought a a battle to which they were committed.
And they fought it for 7 years. I mean, I mean, you must be you must believe in the case of your client to follow a case for 7 years. No, but this also tells you another story about our courts and the delays that are occasioned. Because it shouldn't take 7 years. These are important matters. They can be dealt with expeditiously.
Well, well, I'm not I'm I'm not Now that some of the properties are being >> that disputing that. All of this saying that you must believe in your your All right, I get that. I get that. to follow that case.
And two, to put it beyond doubt that our Attorney General was not part of this case.
This case is founded on Article 23 of the Constitution.
And for the benefit of my friend, let me read Article 23 and you will see exactly why the judge used the words unfairly and unreasonably.
Administrative bodies and administrative officials shall act fairly and reasonably and comply with the requirements imposed on them by law.
And persons aggrieved by the exercise of such acts and decisions shall have a the right to seek redress before a court or tribunal.
So, this was an administrative action by the Bank of Ghana.
And that's why the action Article 23 is part of Chapter 5 of the Constitution.
You know I'm laughing? No. You know I'm smiling?
You know I'm involved in some of these cases, right?
>> [laughter] >> And we have one situation where we have a counterclaim where we have raised all these issues. So, I'm excited. Please go on. Yes. So, so, so But on this discussion, I'm a disinterested party.
I'll be frank with you. So, so, so, you must understand that when the CC the what the judge says that the the decision was unfair and unreasonable. No.
He's reoccurring Article 23 of the Constitution.
Taking all the circumstances into consideration.
Now, so the Attorney General doesn't come in. Whatever you play, whether he filed or not filed, it's an a decision.
You have to treat that body as if it's a person. That body that takes the administrative decision as if it's a person.
That too Let's come back to it. I mean, I have a fundamental problem with the way NPP went about the [snorts] financial sector cleanup. I have a fundamental problem.
Fundamental.
And most people have that problem. So, these were Ghanaian businesses.
They were they obviously were suffering.
The financial system was crashing.
>> It was crashing.
But was that the best option?
How much was at stake?
When they did the I mean, mean, they did the audit, how much was at stake?
Was it not 9 billion?
That debate has come up over and again and uh Was it not 9 billion?
>> minister has debated me here to show any any report that that proves that point.
So, how did we get to the 9 billion?
How did we all come to accept that it was That's a propaganda that you guys No, it's not A PROPAGANDA. SHOW US THE DOCUMENT.
>> it's a propaganda that uh Kobina Adjepong also put out.
Kobina Adjepong put out what? 9 billion.
He he believes in that position. So, let's see the document. So, that instead of instead of spending 80 billion, so instead of 30 spending 30 billion to collapse the banks I don't have a document.
>> 9 billion to rather resuscitate them.
For for for 4 years, what what what was brought Nobody has seen that document.
Adjepong Yeah, that's a point of order, please. Let's see it. Now, Paul, it's okay. Thank you for your intervention.
Now, go on.
You see It's a legitimate question he raises. Please, go on. So, so That's a system.
So, the way they are the banks were impaired.
The government thought the Bank of Ghana thought that it had a duty, and it's rightly so in their law, to protect depositors' savings.
The impairment was 9 billion. Even if the impairment was 21 billion or 30 billion did you have to collapse those banks?
Was it the policy? Well, I mean, did it make sense to collapse Ghanaian businesses because of impairment and pay the money to depositors? So, the 9 billion is the figure of impairment.
>> Impairment.
>> Okay.
Okay?
But, they did that.
This This This to tell you the policy incoherence.
I mean, and it's not only in Ghana that banks have been impaired.
If you look across the world, and even in the United States of America the first major decision Obama had to take when he won election was how to ease the financial impairment of institutions because it has national security implications.
You're going to you're talking about the employment of jobs of people who will lost.
You were you were talking about the businesses of citizens which will collapse.
So, as a party, we never believed that that was the most appropriate decision to take.
That's the first thing.
The second one.
Do you know that and we're talking about GNIDOM Savings and Loans uh a microfinance Do you know that in discussions leading to the collapse of Group GNIDOM and especially the bank, the NPP itself had decided that the Savings and Loans should not go.
The the in negotiations with GNIDOM, they thought that they should save. They actually just reclassified them. The Savings and >> Downgraded them from a bank to That's what they That's what they did.
So, it was not again at that point a capital adequacy ratio.
Because they themselves had agreed that because of the the reach of GNIDOM, the financial inclusion that they were bringing to banking system the banking system in Ghana, which which furthers the policy of the Bank of Ghana, they thought that GNIDOM should continue to operate as a loan and savings. So, what was it that over the overnight they changed their decision.
When they had communicated that to them.
Was it bad faith?
Was it malice? What was it?
We still do not know.
Now, you've given the example of the microfinance, and I can give you many other examples.
We had a an MPP, was it an MP or someone like that, former MP, who also said his finance institution was not insolvent, but by mistake, they when they were doing the mass thing, it also suffered.
So, I can give you I mean, there are many examples.
So, what what were they pursuing? We still do not know.
And that is why this victory even though has got repercussions.
Because many people are now going to go back and interrogate, examine the steps that were taken to collapse their banks, whether they were fair and reasonable.
Many people are going to go back and look at them. Mhm.
And if this is a human rights reporter, and when they go, they will not be closed. They will have the banks will not I mean, the courts will not foreclose their will not have those >> No, human rights action, uh we did one recently. Human rights action, they can take other routes. But if they they want to take a human rights action, the date of revocation is what they have to use to count the timeline.
>> Timeline. Yes. And the timeline is long gone. There's no room.
The the court of appeal, supreme court have been emphatic on that. Once once the timeline runs out, there's no opening. There's no opening. So, you can you can find some other means, but not use a human rights action.
>> So, they will find other means of Okay.
challenging. Because now this opened the Pandora's Box. Mhm. That we know that that decision or some of the decisions they took were unreasonable and unfair. We now know the the court of appeal says that.
Now, then you find a Japan and a very senior lawyer referring copiously to judgments of the high courts.
The point as we sit here, you know, is a matter of fact that until the Supreme Court restores that judgment, that judgment has been reversed.
You can only use that judgment for academic purposes.
But it holds no water now.
So, whatever is contained in that judgment today cannot vindicate or I mean disapprove of what the court of appeal has said.
So, so let's look forward and see how how the going forward the a decision of this nature will cause the country and the banking sector.
Clearly, this introduces another unknown quantity in the financial sector. What do you mean?
Why?
The licenses have been granted.
You think that confidence will return to Group Nduom?
Who knows what a future government will do. They will definitely come in a different shape and name, not in the same name.
You understand? So, it it destroys the fundamental confidence that people have in the banking system.
But there's there's one small bit of this before I come to say you. You know that when these actions happen, the shareholders, the directors, they are all affected. And there's actually a ban on them from engaging in this business any further.
Does this decision Yeah.
automatically also reverse that?
>> That. Is that Is that your >> That's my Yes. And it means that they didn't do anything wrong.
But let's not run away from the fact. I had said it when the matter was still hot.
That yes, when bankers receive depositors, they owe us a fiduciary responsibility.
A duty to manage the funds in such a way that they do impair our our resources.
But because they are humans, that's why we have the Bank of Ghana to periodically look into the activities of the banks and ensure that they're not conducting their affairs in such a way as to disadvantage their their clients.
So, the the blame actually falls on the the doorstep of the Bank of Ghana. And then, like Prempeh is a K A H K Prempeh, that you find some regulatory volatility.
Depending on who is there, then depending on who is the Bank of Ghana, you I mean, the laws are being implemented in the way that is not consistent.
And lack of consistency destroys or breaches, I mean, the trust of people, citizens, and institutions like the Bank of Ghana, like the banks and all all that. So, for me, this is welcome news, but clearly, there's more work to be done. Let me hear from these two gentlemen quickly, and then we will take a break, and when we return, I will take your brief comments on the sweet sweet sweet campaign promise that the president made, and Akufo-Addo since complete uh What's What's that? They say we don't say 360 about 10. Yes, say all.
You know, this this story is a very difficult one, you know, um I really want to see the court's um decision. We all can't wait cuz it also has implications.
>> We know the bottom line of the decision.
Um no, but the reasoning is very important. It actually situates the conversation differently. I read the high court's um judgment.
And um for us for me as an economic policy analyst and a businessman and also uh an investor in the sector.
I own a fund management company.
Uh we followed all the things that were happening.
They were not healthy things.
Um I have respect for Group Nduom. If I lost any of it, it was because of the prudential activities I observed from their operations.
So, the legal issue is one for the lawyers to to to discuss, but the constitution is right what uh my big brother referred to is really critical. But we also have to situate the constitutional responsibility of the central bank. The central bank has a responsibility um not just to direct, but I not And that's not just a matter of discretion.
It has a clear responsibility to act independently to ensure the stability of our financial system. We were in dire times and something had to be done.
We may not have even had a country. It would have been a total chaos when your financial system goes down. It was a major national security risk. I think that the central bank had to definitely do something. Everybody knew it. You can't be a fair operator and objective operator in this conversation in the financial sector and say that that was not a reality.
People could not get their money.
People were going to banks. I mean, we're going to some of these institutions. They couldn't withdraw their cash.
We're going to these savings and loans companies. We're going to these uh what financial non-bank financial institutions, and people could just not get their money. People had made invest- investment could not withdraw it.
That was chaos being nurtured. It was DKM quadruple. It was whatever it is.
Please, let's not lose sight of the reality of the time.
You take the GN Bank situation. The prudential breaches were so depressing.
And respectfully, for it to be coming from somebody we held in so much high esteem as far as economics and and and finance is concerned. As somebody as part of what he was for me very depressing. I lost faith in names on the back of that.
I lost faith in in in pastors on the back of the things that that that happened at that time. And this is the honest fact.
How do you lend of to your to your own company comp- 80% of your loan book? You carry your depositors' funds, and you play God that you're the only one who has the best sense on how to use and turn money around. Lend money to yourself. You don't do that. It's not honest. Go and look for Adepa. Go and look for Look at what Adepa has done, which is which is business. When built this He built this business. Look at how organically it's grown.
For Adepa himself to borrow money, he goes to to another bank.
He's Look, you have to be responsible cuz you are carrying the deposits of other people.
They were not responsible. Fineto.
But, withdrawing licenses and all that and that process, I hear the lawyer.
Nobody, you know, honestly can say that it wasn't public information that you could not withdraw. You people were having problems with withdrawing cash from from GN Bank.
People were. They closed down 70 or so of their branches at a certain point in time.
People were genuinely struggling. If the Central Bank did not manage its case in court well, that one is a legal matter.
But we can't sit here and say honestly we did not know of stories of people struggling to withdraw money in any of these institutions. It was public fact.
What are the rules for insolvency?
Your negative net asset situation or you clearly have difficulty paying your depositors or honoring your liabilities when they fall due. I think it's a 60-day window also. It was It was It was stressful.
And it's not as though this Central Bank woke up one morning and decided that just get a hell out of here. They were going through a process. That's why they moved them from UT Bank to coming to uh uni um um uh uni bank as a service alone. Appointing an advisor to be with them and walk them through. You get to a point where you see that the thing, you know, it is the the going is not coming. And when the going is not coming, there must only be a stopping.
So, that's what happened. But the legal issues as to whether >> You're not suggesting that the Central Bank was infallible. And there have been issues that have been raised and I have I have had opportunity to question those as well.
That those in that institution that were complicit in some of the wrongdoing that were flagged. Have you heard of any single person who has taken a fall for it? You know, that is the problem. I'm going to the next one. So, you Yeah, yeah.
Let me go with me one by one. So, look, there was an action >> regulatory volatility I'm talking about.
The other key problem Before you even go to that point, you see, is there complicity of the Central Bank?
We had a crisis, agreed.
But did we have to regulate the industry to the point where we had to now trigger this kind of of issue?
Where was supervision? Yeah.
Because you should have flagged this problem way ahead.
You don't allow Group Nduom to get into this into this situation. You should have stopped them if you were supervising and looking into the abyss.
That is your role as a regulator.
It's not just to correct problems, it's actually to preempt and prevent them as well.
The Bank of Ghana must face and be honest about it. It failed.
And it's a cumulative thing because if you're talking about things happening in 2018, this whole problem did not just happen in 2017 and 2018. It's been growing. Because there will be some complicity in the way people You see, again, this is the problem with Alhaji.
This idea of Ghanaian people banks and want to just protect their business.
Please, we end up running this theory into destroying our governance and financial systems. When people are being irresponsible, you crack the whip. You take steps to prevent it. But when people are sustaining that irresponsibility in us, you deal with them.
Central Bank was seeing these problems.
It was not dealing with them. My my arguments and my issues on >> Actually giving them more money.
>> We're giving people money. I mean, look, look, guys, let's face it. I I agree with you. I agree with you. But there's a there's a difference between collapsing the banks and dealing with the people who are Again, I agree with you again on that one.
There's a difference. I mean, I don't think that the Central Bank's options in trying to correct problems itself was uh contributed to by failing to optimize its regulation.
>> Yeah.
That those options were not optimal.
Uh-huh.
You know, they were not optimal. They took some steps. They had some of them that were right, we're to merge some of the banks at the time so that we could actually maybe it was okay. Get the books back because still you have to pump money to clean up some part of the business.
>> Yeah, sure. I mean, I would approach it differently, but those again are policy choices. I want to believe that we we hopefully should have should have learned from it.
Now, with all this we come back and we say we spent 25 or 30 billion cedis, right?
>> 30 billion. All right, I wouldn't have spent 30 billion cedis to cure it for my policy options. You may think that that is the option, but those that spend what spend was also necessary to bring real relief to real lives. People's money's were in these institutions. I wouldn't do that because I want to face it. I don't want people taking their money out. I'd rather be looking at how to keep all the institutions back and deal with the actors.
You know, there was a need to separate the institution and its social exposure and social economic impact and relevance to society from the ill acts of the directors and staff of the institutions.
But in some instances, the central bank took that policy option. Others they took a different option. But whatever it is, the the the train has left the station.
So, we can I mean we can only learn from from from from from from that past. But this debate about the 9 billion and then the 30 billion 9 we gave 9 billion is impairment. It does not necessarily mean that you wouldn't take 30 billion to fix it. But we need to really audit the matter and then come to some clarity.
Maybe we have to request something from the central bank. Um what do you call that one? The rights that we have right to information anti- And then let them come clear so we can bury this matter.
But the problem definitely has to be solved. Okay.
>> I would be shocked if the central bank will ever pass Paa Kwesi Nduom or any of those directors of that time as fit and proper to run any bank or any financial institution in this country. This does not absolve them. If they are cleared No, this giving you your license No, no, no, no, you don't get it.
Fit and proper actions. Look at the prudential breaches. None of them were addressed just like Mensah said. The whole the core of the conversation really now is procedural. Mhm? It's really procedural. It's not really about the facts of the matter.
>> You get the point, yeah. It's procedural.
>> exactly procedural.
When the people were were were not getting their money, did you officially inform the people? Did you go through a certain process to establish the reasonableness which you are referring to? Right. All right, but materially, that was a reality.
So, you are using produce procedural uh what techniques and and and and and gimmicks to to establish a strong legal and I don't have a problem. That's you do your job. That's why you guys earn an income. So, as long as I don't have a problem. But, me as a policy person, as a businessman, we have to look at the reality and the substance of the matter.
Did we have that problem? We A man has been sentenced to as it were uh killing by euthanasia.
And then you decide to take a gun and shoot him before they take him to the Ah. Exactly. That is possibly your matter.
>> committed a wrong. The court will tell you that you have done a wrong.
That doesn't mean that he was not going to be killed. Exactly. He's not going to die right now. Exactly. So, that doesn't mean that the man had been committed a crime.
But, you didn't manage the process right because you were not authorized to actually shoot him. You did something different. So, something else happened, but it does not clean up the liabilities of those the the the what you call the governance liabilities of those directors and directing minds of that institution. You can't be doing a negative 61% uh what do you call it capital adequacy ratio. You can't be lending 84% to your own companies in breach of all the uh what Bank of Ghana Ghana prudential rules. And you know, the thing that pains me the most, we have used taxpayers' money to do this, and we still can't find people held properly liable for all this. That is a criminal case.
You see You know, I look, YOU SEE, I HAVE ISSUES with identity. Whether you That's it. And I don't have problem. You spent money.
30 billion.
Where are the people? Where are the people?
That's the problem.
Where are the people?
Then we GO AROUND >> [laughter] >> AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE THE PEOPLE ARE.
WHERE ARE THE PEOPLE?
HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN?
I haven't forgotten.
The people have all BEEN SET FREE.
ARE YOU ASKING ME?
AND GUYS, Japa is saying something that we need to pay attention to. We are told that the uh before group they were going to pay >> 60% 60% and so we should find a way to confirm that these payments or recoveries have actually happened.
After, you know, they were let go. Yeah, Sule. Let's bring it bring you in here.
>> Charlie, it's people's money, oh. It is the people of Ghana, our money. 30 billion of it.
And as if nothing happened in this country. This government took the NPP government to the flagstaff All of you you are inside. The two of you you are two parties. The reason the economic the economy's shock absorbers were not, you know, strong to help us.
And now look at where we are. Samson, let me start by saying that this whole banking sector clean up at some point or has always been a political issue.
Um with the NPP blaming the inadequacies of the NDC, the then John Mahama NDC regime for all the things that had happened under the uh in the banking sector.
And therefore, they needed to take the decisions that they they took.
Now, I think it's important to also point out that assuming that was the case that the recklessness and all that had happened under the previous regime um Governor Addison took over in April 2020 2017.
And if you look at the revocation letter that my brother here um Ajapa was reading it was um in August 2019.
>> Yeah, so what you are watching now is uh Dr. Papa Kwesi Nduom on his page on Facebook thanking a number of people.
He's titled it gratitude. This gratitude number one. You see number two, number three, number four. And Ajapa raises issues with some of them because they are direct, you know, thank you to like this one to Togbe Afede XIV and several other people, Archbishop Duncan Williams and other bishops. And then there's a one to the president and so on and so forth, you know. Anyway.
Yeah, so Samson, uh the point I was making is that um Governor Addison took over in April 2017.
And the closer, for example, this this uh letter that Ajapa was reading was dated um August 2019. So, we're talking about almost 2 years.
Within that 2-year period of let's say supervisory enhancement, you know, and all of that what happened? Was it that even under the NPP under Addison, a lot of the things that allowed for our banking sector to get to where it got to was allowed to continue? Because if this if it is a case, then obviously you cannot say that it is just because the previous regime was not doing the supervision um thing that we are talking about. So, I I am saying this to affirm and and support the idea that fundamentally there was a supervision problem. And there is a reason why there are regulators. There are reasons why your your your your law practice is regulated, education sector is regulated, health sector is regulated so that the regulator plays an oversight role to ensure that the right things are done. So, I agree fundamentally that the supervision didn't happen. And if we are talking about where are the people who didn't who who did not play the roles that they ought to have played, it is not just those in the banking sector or the the collapsed banks, but I think that even those at the Bank of Ghana who didn't do their work, we need to look at that. And be be that as as it may, 100% we were confronted with a situation similar to what as Lion of Judah talked about in the US, where the banking sector was in deep crisis.
People had behaved recklessly and all of that.
In the US, they chose to do a bailout.
We chose to do a shutdown or collapse after a period of bailouts. That's what we did. Yes, after a period liquidity support going to a number of these institutions. So, it had been procedural. No, but if there was if there was liquidity support, that support doesn't just go and say use it as It comes as an intervention and the intervention would come with procedures and restrictions You deal with the people If those liquidity [clears throat] interventions were were extended and and what happened continued to happen, then then that's even worse.
So, like the time when they were putting some of them into administration, then you give the money, take their people out and or you police those who are the policing started. That's why you give an advisor. It wasn't working. So, ideally, that's why I said I would take a different policy option. right.
>> Take out the directors. The directors and bring What about the the the shareholders because they have lost their capital from their own management.
And then make sure that social infrastructure, the socioeconomic infrastructure of banking is is still available to the Exactly. So so so that's that's another level of failure.
You know, and which is even a worse failure. Thank you. But I'm saying that in the US they chose a bailout versus our collapse it.
And if you look at the debates America collapsed.
>> They collapsed. Lehman Brothers had to go. Look, if if you if you if banks collapsed.
>> the debate in the UK, Northern Rock collapsed.
Those who could be bailed out. Yes, those who could Yes, of course, there are some that what you cannot just do anything about them. They collapsed. You know, but look at the I mean the the effects.
>> [laughter] >> IT IS NOT AS THOUGH IN THE US everybody supported that, you know, the bailout was the way out because people said, "Look, they are bank they are banking CEOs who who are living on fat bonuses and so on and so forth."
To bail their banks out is basically to incentivize whatever they had done.
But the counter argument was that to say that therefore you have to collapse the banks as we did would have serious would have serious ramifications in terms of access to credit in in terms of the mortgage market in terms of capital access and so on and so forth. And the consequences would be dire.
versus if you were to take the the the other route. And therefore they decided to do the bailout. And of course, the economy was rebuilt and all of that.
There were also questions in the US about what what is going to happen to those who supervised the recklessness or who supervised all this. They definitely were. Prosecutors eventually said in terms of criminal conduct they couldn't really find anything they can substantiate. What they found was that there was unethical conduct, there was recklessness, there was mismanagement, and so on and so forth. And that's why even in the US, you see you ask the same question, the people who led the banks and got them to the situation that they got to and Obama had to do the bailout, what happened to them? You couldn't find anybody going to jail. I'm not too sure about that. Well, I mean we can we can we can interrogate and and and and and look and look but you see something.
I think that Yeah. I do support the view that perhaps a better approach could have been used.
Because the ramifications of what happened, not just in terms of the economy, the impact on the economy because the NPP at the time would say, "Look, the toll that the the the the country had to to bear in terms of how much we had to invest to ensure that livelihoods are supported and all of that affected, you know, the the entire economy. And in terms of why we got to the economic crisis that we were in, the banking sector collapse is always often cited.
But could it have been done in such a way that we wouldn't have put ourselves in that situation? All right. Because you look at the number of people who lost their jobs.
The the the families who, you know, and eventually, as we even speak, there are people who haven't still gotten their monies. And that is what President Mahama had The panel talks about those who have died as a result And so many people who have Yes.
I mean Yes. All over the I I So I hear you.
I hear you.
Right.
So Yes, the Bank of Ghana failed.
Absolutely. I agree. And I hear you about the management, you know, imprudence on the part of the uni group and so on and so forth. I don't have basis to say that.
You know, but of course, as as as you rightly said, the the facts that were relied on by the high court to to come to that conclusion, as we speak, the appeals court basically has put that aside or maybe quashed it to say, "Look, the the evidence we have and reviewing whatever we reviewed, you know, does not support the conclusion that that was arrived But until we see the full judgment, even the point Sani makes about it being procedural, I don't think we can make a definitive conclusion until until until the benefit of all of that. But I think this decision also helps in in revealing a lot about what had happened in the banking sector and for us to even interrogate further. I am sure perhaps other other banks who were also collapsed may even be motivated by these decisions to say that, "Oh, yeah, we didn't take any action, but looking at what had happened in the legal processes on this, perhaps we should also begin to activate certain processes." So maybe we are That's that's why I pointed out that there are paths that you can take.
And some of them, the time is completely out. You will not be allowed.
All right? And particularly for a human rights action which Dr. Eduom took was parallel with the other actions that were going on, you are Nobody can take this kind of action anymore. Right? But but maybe finally I have I have a I have a question and a comment.
Because I heard the lawyer say that the appeal was filed in January 2024.
And so this point about the AG did not file any response and so on.
Um how how come between January to December 2024 when the NPP was in power, um Dame as AG did not Does it mean Dumi did not file anything? And if so I mean, actually actually actually he said it in a gist.
Because when you look at Article 23 of the of the Constitution you don't need the Attorney General. No, no, no, but I'm saying that that took the administrative decision. I get that, but Honorable Mensah here is is a lawyer and he has issue about Oh, he raised an issue about why the AG not, you know, filing any response and all of that.
Now, let me ask him.
What could have been the reason why between January 2024 when the appeal was filed to December 2024, Dumi and I mean, as AG did not Why Why was it that we didn't have anything from Dumi? So, as the explanation was given if we are not doing politics or the partisan politics there's absolutely nothing wrong.
Nothing. Because by the human rights actions you are actually just supposed to notify the Yes, Honorable Mensah and sometimes we include them.
No, he doesn't because that's the law.
Because if he doesn't we include them.
No, you know, in the High Court case the AG did did. Yes, but but what the lawyer was saying the AG simply repeated what the Bank of Ghana I don't think that's it. You know No, but but the point you were seeking to make earlier has been found not to be accurate.
Let's let's await the decision of the Court of Appeal.
Why the AG filed in the High Court was because the Indoom Group had extended their claim to the Minister of Finance not only the Bank of Ghana.
As it was important for the Attorney [clears throat] General to defend the Minister of Finance in the action that had been brought at the High Court. Okay, but you see, Samson the banking sector cost right?
I don't think that anybody in the Akufo-Addo administration just felt that they had to incur that cost.
>> Okay, so we are not going another round.
We need to take a break now. But but please before I go a little correction on the American situation.
I mean I'm taking this from the the national whistleblowers website. The website had criminal charges, 300 prison sentences Yeah. and 11 billion. And there's on the civil side there was there was a record a record payment made by by most of the banks recovering. The the big boys themselves most of them escaped.
All right, so Gentlemen, thank you. Gentlemen, thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. When we return briefly about the promise to sort out all the victims very briefly and then we'll go on to the question whether or not speech free speech, you know, whether there's freedom before speech and freedom after speech always. We'll right back.
And I will say to you that this year is going to be special for everybody associated with Group Nduom.
Many things >> [applause] >> Many things are happening and will happen, positive ones.
That even though for seven or so years we went into difficulty um there's a resilience, there's a courage within our family of companies that have continued all sorts of other things uh, so that and God has given us life, strength, so that we would be here to continue the good works.
So, as I look around this campus where it sits now, the state it is in now that's not where we had planned it to be.
We have a job that is not complete.
And so, from this year going forward we intend to complete THE JOB.
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS justify the huge amount it is spending to manage the impacts of the collapse of Ghanaian financial institutions, which they now put at a whopping 21 billion Ghana cedis.
I weep for the many who have lost their jobs.
The many who have lost their jobs.
The many who have lost their businesses.
And the many who have lost their livelihoods as a result of these policies.
I pledge on behalf of the NDC that we shall within 1 year of being in office pay all funds that have been locked up with the collapsed financial institutions.
Within our first year in office, we shall pay to all the beneficiaries all funds locked up in the collapsed financial institutions.
It is a promise.
We shall not put together any long-term payment plan that will further worsen the living conditions of the victims.
Right.
So, also, yes, you heard the president.
Uh 1 year, they will sort out everybody.
This is where we are.
The guys have been clamoring. They are threatening demonstrations and others.
Because the finance minister says I can do this. Uh the the the the finance minister is not lying. He hasn't got fiscal space for this. He actually is looking at creating maybe a 1% of GDP space for massive capital investments to to reset the the economy. Already, they've created stability and I've I've said what we've achieved now is stability. We need to move to The president didn't suggest this to him before he said it. So, you know there's this story. I'm sure you've heard about it already about this man who went to heaven. And then when he reached there, they said they have to show him heaven and hell at the same time. So, he would choose where he wants to go. He goes to heaven hell and then he sees that there's a whole party going on. Jamming is going on. He goes to heaven and they are just doing boring hymns. Then he said, "No, he prefers to rather go to hell." When he goes back to hell this time around, it was fire. It was not it was chaos and he was burning. Then he asked him, "But what happened to the jam?" He said, "Oh, when he came the first time, it was campaigning."
So, the campaign is over.
I beg you. The president has a reality he may not have known. And I'll like to force the You know when Kufuor Kufuor took office at that point, he said Yes, he said this, he said that, but he didn't know. He's sorry. About the size of government.
>> Yeah, about the size Not just about the size of government. Very Yes, that was the heart of it though at at time. I think that something should be done.
When you talk about the customers, there's a certain equity that's required. I mean, I've been at the forefront of this this fight for the investments that had gone into government securities.
I'm very happy and proud to say the defense we built for the people today, none of it has been breached. The commitment I had with the government signed with Dr. I mean and the former finance minister and Ken Ofori-Atta at the time has been honored to date, so that's done. But this other funds has to do with some institutions.
Not just not government directly. So it's also a bailout indirectly for these institutions that have have collapsed.
There's some engagement that should be done.
I think that some some fraction should be should be looked at because a lot of it also includes a lot of interest that's that's accrued over time. But a conversation should be had.
Okay. For for for the president's honor, it shouldn't reduce this to the campaign conversation. It shouldn't keep the people that much in in hell. But people say until they hear from him yes. They are not taking out to forcing until they hear from him.
He hasn't got the fiscal space for it.
So this conversation and especially at the time you were having that conversation, there was there was no space for it. The IMF is gone. We have the PIC. The president lied. No no he didn't lie. He lied to win power. He lied.
His information was inaccurate. He made that I can't speak for him but that that kind of conversation and trying to act as a pleasure at this time I mean it's neither here here nor there. The reality today Thank you. There's some negotiations to be had.
Thank you for your bouncing for your patience. I'll come to you shortly, particularly for a second discussion we have to have. Yes Japa.
This is what you politicians you do. I thought you were going to go to sweet talk us. My good friend. Yes, yes, knew let's let's hear from you.
>> [laughter] >> Yeah, the president never lied.
Our president is an honest president.
He says it when when he means it. He says what he means. So, I I I have tremendous confidence in the president that he will redeem his pledge. He said they would do it in the first year. That was That's I'm coming to that. That's the second leg.
>> The finance minister said they can't do it. That's the second leg. So, you're saying he will redeem what? The finance minister said no, no, so so when he gave a timeline, it was a statement of intent.
Clearly.
That we when we come into office, this is what we want to do within 1 year.
So, that's an intention.
Okay? To to meet the legitimate expect It's a firm pledge. Yes, a firm pledge.
That firm pledge has not been I mean has not been shifted away.
It's still a pledge.
But the time duration has been overtaken by events that he came into office to meet. You didn't listen to the finance minister.
Yes, because of the He said that will not happen.
That was not happening when the current because of the current There are some of them which will happen.
It's a government liability, direct.
Yes.
Yes.
has to be paid.
Because it's a commitment the state made at the time.
Because some of the banks are still undergoing restructuring.
And they are administrators, receivers, managing the funds, recovery. So, they will be paid.
But the statement that they would be paid within 1 year, in fact and indeed was a statement of intent.
The president had promised that he would pay them within 1 year.
But that promise has been overtaken by events that we came to meet.
And you cannot you But those events were there when he was making the promise.
>> not you were not managing the economy.
So you would not know the extent of the rot that you were coming to meet.
You would not know. I told you on your network here when you asked me whether our fear was Bawumia. You recall? And I told you that our fear was not Bawumia.
Our fear was the rot >> What to inherit.
>> What would would inherit.
Adwoa My my my my You see But you were in parliament. You followed this. But you should know all the facts. The the the the posture [laughter] by by my good friend Inusah He voted can can vote for that. takes me back to your your statement, right?
that you you delivered this morning before the start of the show.
What is he going to do about >> as politicians Yes. Okay.
uh are essentially destroying the fabric of our country.
We we are not honest with ourselves. We are not honest with the people of Ghana.
Cuz otherwise, I don't see why you would want to dance around statement of intent.
The president was not managing the economy.
He wasn't aware what he was saying. Please.
So he was aware of what he was saying, but he wasn't aware of the situation.
There are two things. Respect.
Every government makes choices.
Every government But they have consequences. Every choice has a consequence.
>> Yes.
Every choice you make Yes. has a consequence.
Akufo-Addo Yes. His Excellency the president could have opted when he was president that well Bank of Ghana has messed up.
These banks and their directorships have messed up. The banks on the on the verge of collapse. Let's allow them to collapse and whoever loses his money has to deal with those banks and their shareholders.
His Excellency Nana Akufo-Addo could have opted to do that. That's true. But he didn't.
He says no.
I can't sit and allow Ghanaians who have put their faith in the banking sector Yeah. with the view that there was some regulator who was overseeing the activities of these banks. Okay? And they have failed them.
I'm going to take the hit and pay and make sure that people do not lose their livelihoods. He had a choice.
You're right.
>> You guys turn around and call him all sorts of names.
Mr. Mahama in the opposition knew.
He'd been president before, for crying out loud.
HE KNEW THE STRUCTURE OF OUR ECONOMY.
He knew the difficulties that we're going through.
He knew the structure of our budget that we're not going to be able to meet those obligations.
Or that in fact, if you so minded to meet them, he can't.
So call him out.
CALL THE PRESIDENT OUT THAT MR. President >> I know your way. stick to your commitment and pay the people whose funds are locked up.
>> He will pay.
>> That's what I expect from within a year.
IT'S GONE PAST. WE will pay. Please, that everything was never possible.
>> let's not do this. You're right.
Silly. Um well, so the president >> is the president who had the benefit of the DKM situation and how that also became a political football, you know.
Well, the president made a promise. Um I I I doubt we can say that he lied. What we I believe we can say is that he has failed um to deliver that promise um in terms of the timeline that was given.
Um But he has the opportunity to correct that.
>> of course, of course.
Um he he certainly um still has the >> Do you know that they promised that they will pay the Menzgold people? Do you remember that?
>> Yes. Really? Um and so so >> And they didn't pay. I'm serious. Of course they did it. The point that I was coming to >> I don't remember that. We we you know you know manifesto is to also is also >> about your commentary not manifesto.
Okay. It's to it's to also re-echo um the the point you raised in your in your take and to and to say that my two brothers sitting here do know very well that during campaigning they do really say a lot of things that within in their hearts they know wouldn't be possible to implement but are things that are to be said basically for votes.
Um and that is why for example today the the NDC would not want us to you know say a lot about the galamsey menace. The MPP that was in in government that also failed to manage it today would want to push it so hard that it should be done.
Um And and I want to also re-echo um Es's point that look, every government has choices.
If the president thinks it is not it is not Yes, Ato Ato Forson Honorable Ato Forson is the finance minister and he's supposed to be the the day-to-day manager of our purse. But we do know that whatever decisions he makes or decisions he yeah he makes are decisions that should be in line with the priorities of the president.
If the president decides that I'm going to pay these people because I made a promise and therefore whatever is being allocated to 24-hour economy markets should be allocated to that, it will be done.
If the president decides that instead of building this hospital or that hospital and so on and so forth, my priority is to ensure that the people whose funds were locked up should be paid, I'm sure it will be done. Ato Ato may not have I may not only advise that Mr. Mr. President, if we do that, the implication will be this or that or that. But it will be the decision of the president.
>> So why should they be telling the people now? And in the course of this week I've heard groups, some of them on on the news saying they want to hear from the president. I think they are absolutely right.
Mr. President made a very bold promise.
And With his right hand on his chest. He gave a timeline.
A timeline has long passed, almost what, 6 months on. And I think that it is only fair to demand that the president comes back to tell them whether yes, I will still honor my promise, but please give me some little more time. By end of the year I'm going to do it. Or yes, I made a promise, but unfortunately for A, B, and C, I'm not able to do it now until perhaps when If he's unable to do it, it will constitute as come. Can you imagine? Well, but Can you imagine But it happens all the time. But but what do you imagine how many of those statements He said he will be making because there are too many things he promised. Cut him any slack, please. And he has to go and be telling everybody I promise you this is not happening. Yes, I beg you. No, but you know, this is a very this is a very sensitive matter, which was very public.
>> Yes. To be fair to the NPP, they took the heat. They made the out payments.
They paid depositors. The president now has made this promise. We can only ask Mr. President >> Exactly.
>> to honorably and I ate or at least speak to the people.
>> Yeah, he said he I think that there's a certain reality There has to be some negotiation or something.
>> [laughter] >> But it has to be done. Okay. And it cannot be it couldn't have been done in year one because of the fiscal constraints. Thank you. Year two, year three, they can But thank you even though we settled you for the next subject.
You want to make a some quick comment on this issue.
Particularly looking at the politicians and how they make their promises and then some of it I don't know. The people can tell that the things they are promising they can't do, but they still believe them.
Good good morning and good morning to senior your colleagues and very special good morning to my senior Santa and your partner, sir. I I I like you said the politicians in the heat of the campaign going by the analogy of senior they make promises.
I said well, but we the people enable these kind of promises because that >> We know the truth, but that is what we want to hear and we hear them and we vote for them. I think that the whole banking crisis I agree largely with the sentiments of almost every person that have have commented on this this morning. I I think that it could have been done. There was no no doubts that there was issues. There was no doubt that something had to be done.
But I think that we could have done it and then the impact would have been less than we experienced over the period. In any event the approach was less collapse the banks, less merge them and let's go after those that we think assisted. They have engaged in some illegality. The question is how far have we gone or what is the effect of this approach? Whether the other approach of let's bail them out, let's keep their jobs and let's see if we can go after those that we claim have engaged in any form of illegality.
Well, posterity did not give us the opportunity to test that because we didn't use that approach. All said and done the issue of the court of appeal decision the court of appeal decision does not end the matter. I believe that the Bank of Ghana if they get a copy of the judgment may exercise their rights to appeal against the decision. It is something that for the guidance of future You wanted to say it ends the matter until appealed, right? Yes, that is what I'm saying. That the Bank of Ghana, once they get a a copy of the judgment, it's a final judgment. So, they have a period of 3 months.
They have a period of 3 months to exercise their right to file an appeal against that decision, so that we can bring finality to rates if they so decide to because it will guide future regulatory practices by the Bank of Ghana, so that this cycle, if it is is indeed wrong, will not be repeated. If it was right, then it will be upheld.
So, those are my comments to what you've discussed so far. Mhm.
All right, thank you very much, Boye Banjcing. And this program is brought to you by the kind of sponsorship of Bank of Africa, strong as a group, close as a partner.
MTN, everywhere you go. Ashesi University, educating ethical and entrepreneurial leaders for Africa.
Robert and Sons Optical Services, your comprehensive IT care service provider for 33 plus years. My way Insurance, dial *165# on MTN to join My Way today.
>> [snorts] >> Sintax Tanks, it's strong, it's tough.
Safari Valley Eco Park, bringing you closer to nature. Gold Bolt Jewelry, pure, precious, proudly Ghanaian.
Melcom, your number one shopping destination.
Waylead, your trusted home builder.
Bethel Dental, the smile starts here.
St. Thomas Eye Hospital, producing and providing excellence in health care. Kal Charcoal Toothpaste, happy smile.
Okay, so now we want to check whether or not um what's it means uh when you are speaking.
Uh freedom before Uh freedom before, freedom after, where is the guarantee?
And is there a clampdown on free speech by the Muhammad administration?
We'll right back.
相关推荐
BREAKING: Judge Kathleen Issues Emergency Arrest Warrant After Trump Defies Order
Frontora
2K views•2026-05-29
8 Hidden Things About Mackenzie Shirilla Netflix's 'The Crash' Didn't Show You
MarvelousVideos
2K views•2026-05-28
MP Garnett Genuis warns Canada’s MAiD system has ‘gone too far’
WesternStandard
187 views•2026-05-28
THE STREISAND EFFECT AT BARBARA STREISAND’S HOUSE! - First Amendment Audit
KULTNEWS
1K views•2026-05-30
Trump Impeachment STORM IGNITES as 29 Judges Vote for Conviction!!
DanielBriefDaily
2K views•2026-06-02
EBK Jaaybo Won’t Be Going To Trial?! | Criminal Lawyer Reacts
floridadefenseteam
404 views•2026-05-29
OFFICE HOURS: The Theft of Black Brilliance... AI and Intellectual Property (w/ Lisa E. Davis)
marclamonthillnetwork
2K views•2026-05-29
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 5 जजों का शपथग्रहण समारोह #supremecourt #judges #oathceremony #shorts #ytshorts
Bharat24Liv
4K views•2026-06-02
