By Iddi Yire
Accra, July 28, GNA – Dr Dominic Akurutinga Ayine, the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, has explained his decision to enter a nolle prosequi in the case of Republic versus Kwabena Duffour and Seven Others.
This decision, the Attorney-General, said effectively brought an end to the criminal trial of Dr Kwabena Duffour, former Governor of the Bank of Ghana and former Minister for Finance.
Speaking at a Government Accountability Series press conference at the Presidency in Accra, Dr Ayine said he took that decision after a prolonged period of negotiations with his team of State Attorneys, including the Director of Public Prosecution and the Receiver of Unibank on one side.
While the team on the other side was made up of Dr Duffour, the shareholders, director and managers of UniBank Ghana Limited (in Receivership) (UNIBANK).
Dr Ayine said in March this year, the lawyers for the Unibank Directors and shareholders approached him with a proposal of their clients’ intention to settle their indebtedness to UNIBANK.
He said in response, he convened a meeting on 25th March 2025, with them, their legal representatives, and the Receiver of UNIBANK, Mr. Nii Amanor Dodoo.
He noted that at the meeting, it became obvious to both parties that a reconciliation of UNIBANK’s accounts with the Bank of Ghana be done.
He said, therefore, he authorized the Receiver to engage in a reconciliation exercise with them to determine the full scope of UNIBANK’s exposure.
The Attorney-General said he directed that the parties adopt a wholistic approach that combined liabilities under both the criminal proceedings and the ongoing civil cases to reach a unified resolution that would bring closure to all related matters.
He explained that the objective was to assess the feasibility of a comprehensive settlement.
He said the charges in the criminal case against the Accused Persons involved a total amount of GH¢1.2 billion, while the civil case involved a total exposure of GH¢ 5.7 billion.
Dr Ayine said it was important to state for the avoidance of doubt that the total exposure in the criminal case is a part of the total civil case exposure; declaring that in other words, the GH¢1.2 billion was not on top of GH¢ 5.7 billion.
He said the GH¢ 5.7 billion was made up of: GH¢2 billion being loans and advances which UNIBANK made to related and connected parties and GH¢3.7 billion being payments made on behalf of or on the instructions of the Accused Persons.
He said included in the two amounts above, however, was an amount of GH¢2.1 billion which were alleged to be fictitious loans and fictitious transactions booked by UNIBANK prior to its placement in official administration.
He said during the reconciliation exercise, the Accused Persons objected to the inclusion of this GH¢2.1 billion on grounds that the amount did not involve any direct cash outflows which could be recovered.
Dr Ayine said the Accused Persons also objected to the inclusion of placements of GH¢0.3 billion made to Unisecurities.
He said Unisecurities, however, was a SEC-regulated (not BoG-regulated) related company that had been placed in liquidation, and for which a claim had been filed with the Official Liquidator.
He said the recovery of this amount was being pursued independently through insolvency proceedings with the Official Liquidator of that entity.
Dr Ayine said, in summary, the above matters led to the revision of the previously reported exposure of GH¢ 5.7 billion down to GH¢ 3.3 billion, which comprised the following adjustments: “The exclusion of GH¢ 2.1 billion in an alleged fictitious amounts booked to the account of the shareholder, which did not involve cash outflows.
“And the exclusion of GH¢ 0.3 billion relating to uniBank’s placement with the SEC-regulated related company currently in receivership, which is being pursued separately through the insolvency process.”
He said after prolonged negotiations, the Accused Persons, by a letter dated 7th May 2025, made a proposal to settle the revised outstanding obligation of GH¢ 3.3 billion through a structured approach.
The Attorney-General said the Accused Persons offered to pay GH¢ 2 billion in full and final settlement of the outstanding obligation, through the following arrangements: “GH¢ 800 million worth of assets to be transferred directly to UNIBANK.
“And their active cooperation and participation to assist the Receiver to recover an additional GH¢ 1.2 billion from the direct beneficiaries, paid out on their instructions.”
He said out of the above arrangements, the Accused Persons had provided landed properties valued at GH¢ 824 million to UNIBANK.
He said further, the Accused Persons would also be responsible for any shortfall in the proceeds realised from the sale of the landed properties.
Dr Ayine said a total of GH¢ 0.5 billion had, to date, been recovered out of the GH¢ 1.2 billion being pursued from the direct beneficiaries.
He said recovery of the remaining balance of GH¢ 0.7 billion out of the GH¢ 1.2 billion, and realization of the landed properties provided were expected to be completed over a timeline of 18 months.
“Although the preference would have been for the Accused Persons to settle the proposed amount in cash, immediate settlement in cash was not, from my sense of what transpired at the negotiations, a realistic option,” he said.
Dr Ayine said in assessing the proposal submitted by the lawyers for the Accused Persons, he took into account certain factors, such as the Receiver of UNIBANK acknowledged that the fictitious amounts totaling GH¢ 2.1 billion did not result from cash outflows but related to accounting entries that overstated the asset base of the Bank, which predated uniBank’s placement in Official Administration.
A claim for the placement of GH¢ 0.3 billion with the SEC-regulated related entity was filed by the Receiver with the Official Liquidator in 2019 and its recovery is being pursued separately through that insolvency process.
He also cited that both the criminal and civil cases had persisted for over six years with no immediate resolution in sight.
He said the complex nature of the legal proceedings had significantly delayed any meaningful recovery, among others.
Dr Ayine said from the foregoing that he took a pragmatic, wholistic approach by engaging both the Receiver and the Accused Persons to broker a resolution that settles both the criminal and civil dimensions of the matter.
“This strategy recognizes that while criminal proceedings are punitive, the real economic value to the State lies in a non-conviction-based asset recovery approach,” he said.
He said the terms of the settlement were structured to ensure that the Attorney-General, the Bank of Ghana, and the Ministry of Finance exercise oversight over the recovery of the negotiated amount.
He said progress under the agreement would be subject to quarterly reviews to ensure that the Accused Persons fulfill their obligations as agreed.
Touching on distortion of the fact on social media, the Attorney-General said Dr Kwabena Duffour and the other persons standing trial were not charged with stealing or looting public funds.
He said they were charged with causing financial loss to the state, fraudulent breach of trust, falsification of accounts, dishonestly receiving and money laundering.
He said, however, that the facts and the evidence supporting these charges never alleged that those standing trial personally benefited from the banking transactions that gave rise to the charges.
Dr Ayine said secondly, the analogy assumes that these charges could be proven beyond reasonable doubt; stating that on the contrary, the record shows that the charges were contestable and there was a high likelihood that the defence could have raised sufficient doubt to procure an acquittal.
“And if that happened, as seen from the Beige Capital Case, I would not have been able to recover even GH¢1,” he stated.
In the BEIGE Case, Dr Ayine said the BEIGE Capital offered State GHS10 million settlement, which he rejected, and continued with the case, however, they were acquitted and discharged by the Court of Appeal.
He said: “They offered 10 million Ghana cedis in settlement, and I refused. Today, I can’t get 50 pesewas from BEIGE Capital. So, the dynamics are complex.”
GNA
Edited by Benjamin Mensah
![Daddy Lumba was an institution, not just a musician – Manager pays tribute [Video]](https://www.ghanamma.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/9ee472da1fcda90972889dc07979e0ab.jpeg "Daddy Lumba was an institution, not just a musician – Manager pays tribute [Video]")
