Story: Atta Kwaku Boadi 

The Global Chairman of Groupe Nduom, Dr. Papa Kwesi Nduom had on 26th January 2024 served notice through the Court of Appeal   in the case, Suit No. HR/094/2019 that “…he is dissatisfied and aggrieved by the entire judgment of the High Court (Human Rights Division), Accra given by and under the hand of Her Ladyship, the Judge, Mrs. Justice Gifty Agyei Addo, J.A.”

The case, originally filed in 2019, according to our sources  has  traveled back and forth from one ruling after another – to the High Court (Human Rights Division) to the Court of Appeal  and to the Supreme Court and back to the Hight Court these four years.

On 19th July 2023 when the Supreme Court ruled that the case should be returned to the High Court, Dr. Nduom in an interview with Today remarked, “the battle has not ended.  We want our licence back and our task is clear.  To rebuild “the People’s Bank” and take formal and safe banking to the doorstep of every person living anywhere in Ghana.  It took us nearly 20 years to build our bank only for it to be pulled down in one day.  We have a national duty to build it back step by step.  The end result will be an even better bank than what was pulled down.”  

His objective, he indicated remains the same.  

He  further indicated his  resolve to take the case to the highest local and international courts until justice is served.

“Once again, as we have written before, we sense a long legal battle ahead.  Justice Agyei Addo did not end anything.  She has only signaled the beginning of something that if not checked will dent the credibility government further and starve the system of much capital needed for development”, the renowned entrepreneur and businessman said. 

 According to the Founder of  Groupe Nduom, the “GROUNDS of Appeal are:

(a) That the learned trial Judge erred at law in holding that the Applicants/Appellants could not prove that the 1st Respondent/Respondent and the 2nd Respondent/Respondent acted unreasonably in revoking the 3rd Respondent/Respondent’s licence.

(b)

That the judgement is manifestly against the weight of the affidavit evidence on record, and

(c) That further or additional grounds of appeal may be filed upon the publication of the written judgement.

4. THE RELIEFS sought from the Court of Appeal are:

(a)To set aside the judgement of the High Court (Human Rights Division), Accra, dated January 24, 2024, and

(b) To grant all the reliefs endorsed on the amended originating motion onnotice dated November 15, 2023.”

He noted that Justice Agyei Addo set the stage for the continuing legal battle by extending it to the doorstep of the Ministry of Finance when she whipped the management and directors of GN Savings for their alleged inability to pay “paltry” sums of money to depositors; while ignoring the fact that the Ministry of Finance could not pay even the GHS30 million the Ministry claimed the company was entitled to. 

That money if paid , Dr Nduom said could have been used to pay the depositors’ “paltry” monies back to them. 

 He also noted that the judge introduced the GHS2.2 billion value placed on the Groupe Nduom receivables from government agencies by a reputable independent accounting firm; but dismissed it with the unbelievable statement that the Bank of Ghana as an “independent” government agency was not obligated to review or accept any such value.  

“Why then did the Ministry of Finance recommend the appointment of an independent auditor?  Also, why did the central bank accept the paltry sum of GHS30 million from the Ministry of Finance as the truth and use it to declare the bank insolvent”, he quizzed?

The Today Newspaper has had cause to write earlier that, ““Illiquidity leads to insolvency” This was volunteered by the 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 the question is, “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. Make an order of mandamus to issue, 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.”