#BringBackGNBank national tour: Street campaign hits day 3 as Ghanaians appeal to Akufo-Addo to restore the bank’s licence 

Story: Atta Kwaku Boadi 

The GN Bank street campaign demanding the restoration of the bank’s  licence has entered its 3rd day. The campaign, Today Newspaper understands is  part of  the  upcoming  nationwide tour  of all the 300 branches and locations  of the bank. 

The Chairman and Founder of Groupe Nduom, a multinational conglomerate, Dr Papa Kwesi Nduom on April 30, announced on his Facebook page  that, “Soon, we will embark on a nationwide tour of all 300+ GN Bank locations.  We will tell our story directly to the people and let them be the judges on whether the People’s Bank should come back or not”.  

The ongoing  campaign which is  taking place in all the 16 regional capitals,  Today can confirm  has gingered Ghanaians who are demanding the immediate restoration of the bank’s licence.   Majority of Ghanaians still don’t know the crime the bank committed for its licence to be revoked by the central bank.

However, they have appealed  to President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo  to reconsider its decision and bring the bank back. 

According to some former customers and employees of the bank, the return of the bank would  help revive the country’s ailing economy. This, they said would bring back jobs, and as a result boost Ghana’s economy.

For example, in  Western North region    some market women who joined the campaign were seen  in a video calling on President Akufo-Addo to do the needful. In fact,  they were happy in the video to hear that Dr Nduom and his team would  soon be  visiting  the area to tour the branches of the bank.

In Kumasi also in the Ashanti region, a young man  was heard  in a video  begging President Akufo-Addo to  restore the licence of GN Bank. According to him, the bank, if allowed to work again, would offer jobs  to the  teeming unemployed youth in the region.

  “ President Nana Addo, please I beg you,  we want  GN Bank back. I know you are a listening president,  that’s why I am appealing to you to restore the bank’s  licence  so that we the youth  can get some jobs to do”, he  said. 

 Many independent observers Today also talked to, consider the withdrawal of the GN Bank license as something that happened under very dubious and deliberate circumstances.   According to them,  political considerations played a very high role in the decision.  

Today’s investigations have uncovered  a  Cabinet paper which was  submitted by former Minister of Finance, Mr. Ken Ofori-Atta asking for the endorsement of his recommendation to revoke the license of GN Bank.

The Today Newspaper has had cause to write earlier that, ““Illiquidity leads to insolvency.”  This was volunteered by the former Minister of Finance Ken Ofori-Atta during a discussion about the impact of COVID-19 on government finances and why the administration had appealed to the IMF and the World Bank for financial support.  This means that the Minister and the administration understand what happens when an organization through no fault of theirs is forced to become illiquid.  So we may ask, was the decision to freeze government contracts and payment for work done prior to 2017 a deliberate act to force insolvency and cause contractors to suffer and financial institutions to collapse?”

Also, for the education of the general public, we reproduce the original statement of case presented in August 2019:

“This statement of case is on behalf of the Applicants herein, praying this honourable Court for an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Respondents, their agents, assigns, workmen, privies, howsoever described from interfering with the rights of the Applicant to administrative justice, to property and to equality or non-discrimination, pending the determination of the originating motion (number HR/094/2019) on notice filed in this honourable Court on August 30, 2019. Particularly, the Applicants pray this honourable Court to exercise its discretion to make orders:

a. directing the 1st Respondent or its agents, privies, assigns or workmen howsoever described (and including the said Messrs Eric Nana Nipah, Receiver) to, forth with, restore the 4th Respondent to its specialised deposit-taking license pending the determination of the originating motion; and

b. restraining the 1st Respondent or its agents, privies, assigns or workmen howsoever described (and including the said Messrs Eric Nana Nipah, Receiver), from further interfering, directly or indirectly, with the rights of the 4th Respondent’s shareholders, directors and management to possession, management and control of the 4th Respondent’s business activities pending the determination of the claim in the originating motion.

The Applicant also prays your Lordship to give any such orders that may be necessary to give full effect to the order expressly prayed for.

II. FACTS

2. The details of the facts are sufficiently stated in the Affidavit in support of the originating motion filed on August 30, 2019. The summary of facts, however, is as follows: On August 16, 2019, the 1st Respondent revoked the specialised deposit-taking licence of the 4th Respondent company. The reason for the revocation, as given by the 1st Respondent in its notice dated the same day is that the 4th Respondent has become insolvent. In the same notice, the 1st Respondent appointed Messrs Nana Nipa, accountant, as the receiver of the 4th Respondent company.

On the same day, the 1st Respondent and the said Receiver or their agents, workmen or assigns, ostensibly consequent upon the 1st Respondent decision in the revocation notice, moved in and took possession, control and management of the 4th Respondent company. By the tenure of the law – Section 127 and 128 of Banks and Specialised Deposit-Taking Institutions Act, 2016 (Act 930) on the powers of the receiver and effect of the receivership – the powers, rights and privileges of the 4th Respondent’s shareholders, directors and management are extinguished, thereby, empowering the Receiver to take steps to liquidate or dissolve the 4th Respondent. The Receiver has begun this process in earnest.

3. The Applicant is aggrieved by the decision and actions of the 1st Respondents, hence the originating motion on notice. The Applicant’s case is that the decision and actions of the 1st Respondent were unreasonable to the extent:

a. That it did not take into account the indebtedness of the Government of Ghana and its ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs) to the 4th Respondent in deciding that the 4th Respondent has become insolvent; or

b. That, if it ever took that fact (of the Government’s indebtedness) into consideration in reaching that decision, the 1st Respondent misinformed itself or allowed itself to be, either by malice or negligence, misled by the 2nd Respondent on the extent of such indebtedness.

4. Therefore, on August 30, 2019, the Applicant caused an application to issue seeking this honourable Court to:

a. Adjudge and declare that by failing to take into account the indebtedness of the Government of Ghana, its Ministries Departments or Agencies to the 3rd Applicant group, Gold Coast Advisors Limited or the 4th Respondent company before concluding that the 4th Respondent was insolvent and, consequently, revoking its specialised deposit-taking licence, the 1st Respondent has violated, is violating or is likely to violate the rights of the Applicants and the 4th Respondent to administrative justice, to property and to equality or non-discrimination;

b. Adjudge and declare that by relating to the 1st Respondent that the total indebtedness of the Government of Ghana, its Ministries Departments or Agencies to the 3rd Applicant group, Gold Coast Advisors Limited or the 4th Respondent company was Thirty Million and Three Hundred and Twenty-nine Thousand, Four Hundred and Eighty-three Ghana cedis and Eighty-four Pesewas (GH¢ 30,329,483.84) when he (the 2nd Respondent) knew or ought to have known that that amount was woefully inaccurate;

and the 1st Respondent subsequently relying on such communication in arriving at its decision to revoke the specialised deposit-taking license of the 4th Respondent, the 1st Respondent and the 2nd Respondent have violated, are violating or are likely to violate the rights of the Applicants and the 4th Respondent to administrative justice, to property and to equality or non- discrimination;

c. Make an order of certiorari, quashing the decision in the notice issued by the 1st Respondent dated August 16, 2019, which declared the 4th Respondent insolvent and, consequently, revoked its license to operate as a specialised deposit-taking institution;

d. Makeanorderofmandamustoissue,compelling:

i. the 1st Respondent to restore to the 4th Respondent company its license to enable it to continue operating as a specialised deposit-taking institution;

ii. Messrs Eric Nana Nipah as receiver of the 4th Respondent to submit the possession, management or control of the assets, operations and other activities of the 4th Respondent company to its shareholders or persons who, immediately before August 16, 2019, were in possession, management or control of such assets, operations and activities.

e. Make an order of injunction, restraining the other Respondents, their agents, assigns, privies and workmen howsoever called or described from interfering with the possession, management or control of the assets, operations and other activities of the 4th Respondent company; and

f. Provide any other remedies that the honourable Court may deem fit under the circumstances.

In the light of all these, the present application is praying the honourable Court to order some interim measures which will ensure that the success of the Applicants’ claims in the originating motion does not become meaningless or otiose.”

The campaign, according to the management of the bank is expected to end on Tuesday, May 21, 2024.

Related Post

No more posts to show

Post Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *