Capital Bank case: No statement imputing misconduct by state officials was made by court – Judicial Secretary

The Office of the Judicial Secretary has dismissed reports stating that the trial judge in the Capital Bank case had said during proceedings last Thursday that the state was compromised in the matter of the settlement reached between them and the 1st accused person, William Ato Essien. 

In a press release signed by the Judicial Secretary, Justice Cynthia Pamela Addo, it explained that His Lordship Justice Eric Kyei Baffour had instead enquired from one of the defence lawyers whose client has been charged with offences of abetment and conspiracy, whether the terms of the agreement entered between the State and the 1st accused would not compromise the position of the other accused persons.

“No statement in the nature of the media reports referred to or imputing misconduct on the part of officials of the State, was made by the court either on 1st December 2022 or throughout the trial of the case,” the statement said. 

Background

On December 1, 2022, the Accra High Court presided over by Justice Eric Kyei Baffour, was ready to deliver its judgment in the three-year trial on the case involving the founder of defunct Capital Bank, Ato Essien, and two others, who have been accused of the bank’s collapse by illegally withdrawing depositors’ monies.

However, the Court was informed that the first accused person, William Ato Essien, had agreed with the AG’s department to pay an amount of Ghc 90 million as restitution to the state.

In its ruling, the court rejected the terms of the settlement, noting that the accused person should be made to refund the money at the current exchange rate, since at the time Ato Essien took the money in 2015, the cedis to dollar exchange rate was at Ghc3.79 pesewas. 

Justice Kyei Baffour added that if the agreement was to be accepted in its current form, it would mean people who had committed crimes would be made to profit from it.

“It should not be made to appear that he has outwitted the state in the commission of a crime,” he said. 

He also ruled that the case did not fall under Section 35 of Act 459, as parties had argued, because the money the accused persons are alleged to have stolen, does not belong to the state, but rather to the bank and depositors of the bank. 

“It is my candid opinion that section 35 is not applicable to the case for the first accused person to enter into a settlement with the prosecution,” he said.

He, therefore, adjourned the trial to December 13, 2022, to allow the parties to discuss the exact amount to be paid and to address the court on whether section 35 is applicable in this case.