Full text: AG reports on key legal matters at Government’s Accountability Series

Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Dominic Ayine, on Monday, July 28, used his turn at the Government’s Accountability Series to provide an update on how his office is managing the nation’s legal and justice affairs.

Delivering a wide-ranging address, Mr Ayine shed light on several high-profile cases, including the controversial dismissal of charges against Dr Kwabena Duffuour, the ongoing National Service Scheme (NSS) scandal, and the Sky Train project litigation.

Other critical matters involving the recovery of stolen state assets. His presentation offered insight into the government’s legal strategy, balancing asset recovery with judicial prosecution in a bid to safeguard the public purse.

Below is the full report by the Minister;

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ACCRA

July 28, 2025.

PRESS BRIEFING BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: UPDATE ON ORAL INVESTIGATIONS, PROSECUTIONS AND RELATED MATTERS

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Media

My Fellow countrymen and women

1. I am here this morning to account to the sovereign people of Ghana as has been my practice since assuming office as Attorney General. Today, I will do two things. Firstly, I will provide further details on my decision to enter a nolle prosequiin the case of Republic v. Kwabena Duffour & 7 Others; and secondly, give an update on the ongoing investigations and prosecutions that I initiated upon assuming office.

• On Tuesday the 22^ndday of July 2025, I took the decision to enter a nolle prosequi in the case of Republic v. Kwabena Duffour & 7 Others. This decision effectively brought an end to the criminal trial of Dr Kwabena Duffour – a former Governor of the Bank of Ghana and former Minister for Finance. I took that decision after a prolonged period of negotiations with my team of State Attorneys, including the Director of Public Prosecution, and the Receiver of Unibank on one side. The team on the other side was made up of Dr Duffour, the shareholders , director and managers of uniBank Ghana Limited (in Receivership) (UNIBANK).
• As part of my constitutional duty to account to you, my fellow citizens, I wish to provide further details of my decision for two reasons. First, I have always maintained that as your Attorney-General, I owe you a duty to act transparently. Second, I think it is important to dispel certain misimpressions that arose as a result of the rather terse press release that I issued following the filing of the nolle prosequi.

My Fellow countrymen and women

• In March this year, the lawyers for the Unibank directors and shareholders approached me with a proposal of their clients’ intention to settle their indebtedness to UNIBANK.
• In response, I convened a meeting on 25^thMarch 2025, with them, their legal representatives, and the Receiver of UNIBANK,  Nii Amanor Dodoo. At the meeting, it became obvious to both parties that a reconciliation of UNIBANK’s accounts with the Bank of Ghana be done. Therefore, I authorized the Receiver to engage in a reconciliation exercise with them to determine the full scope of UNIBANK’s exposure. I directed that the parties adopt a wholistic approach that combined liabilities under both the criminal proceedings and the ongoing civil cases in order to reach a unified resolution that would bring closure to all related matters. The objective was to assess the feasibility of a comprehensive settlement.
• 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. It is 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. In other words, the GH¢1.2 billion is not on top of GH¢ 5.7 billion.
• Now, the GH¢ 5.7 billionwas made up of the following:

1. GH¢2 billionbeing loans and advances which UNIBANK made to related and connected parties.

• GH¢3.7 billionbeing payments made on behalf of or on the instructions of the Accused Persons.
• Included in (a) and (b) above, however, was an amount of GH¢2.1 billion which are alleged to be fictitious loans and fictitious transactions booked by UNIBANK prior to its placement in official administration. During the reconciliation exercise, the Accused Persons objected to the inclusion of this GH¢2.1 billionon grounds that the amount did not involve any direct cash outflows which could be recovered. The Accused Persons also objected to the inclusion of placements of GH¢0.3 billion made to UNISECURITIES. UNISECURITIES, however, is 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. The recovery of this amount is being pursued independently through insolvency proceedings with the Official Liquidator of that entity.
• In summary, the above matters led to the revision of the previously reported exposure of GH¢ 5.7 billiondown to GH¢ 3.3 billion, which comprised the following adjustments:

2. The exclusion of GH¢ 2.1 billionin an alleged fictitious amounts booked to the account of the shareholder, which did not involve cash outflows; and

• The exclusion of GH¢ 0.3 billionrelating to uniBank’s placement with the SEC-regulated related company currently in receivership, which is being pursued separately through the insolvency process.

1. After prolonged negotiations, the Accused Persons, by a letter dated 7^thMay 2025, made a proposal to settle the revised outstanding obligation of GH¢ 3.3 billion through a structured approach. The Accused Persons offered to pay GH¢ 2 billion in full and final settlement of the outstanding obligation, through the following arrangements:
2. GH¢ 800 millionworth 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 billionfrom the direct beneficiaries, paid out on their instructions.

1. Out of the above arrangements, the Accused Persons have provided landed properties valued at GH¢ 824 millionto UNIBANK. Further, the Accused Persons will also be responsible for any shortfall in the proceeds realized from the sale of the landed properties.
2. A total of GH¢ 0.5 billionhas, to date, been recovered out of the GH¢ 1.2 billion being pursued from the direct beneficiaries. Recovery of the remaining balance of GH¢ 0.7 billion out of the GH¢ 1.2 billion, and realization of the landed properties provided are expected to be completed over a timeline of eighteen (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.
3. In assessing the proposal submitted by the lawyers for the Accused Persons, I took into account the following factors:
4. The Receiver of UNIBANK acknowledged that the fictitious amounts totaling GH¢ 2.1 billiondid 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 billionwith 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.
• Both the criminal and civil cases have persisted for over six years with no immediate resolution in sight. The complex nature of the legal proceedings has significantly delayed any meaningful recovery.
• While the criminal prosecution was intended to serve as a punitive and deterrent measure, it is through the civil process that actual recovery of funds is effectively pursued. The Accused Persons’ proposal fell within the Receiver’s mandate to maximize recoveries for uniBank in order to settle the Bank’s creditors, mainly Government of Ghana and some of its institutions.
• There is also a genuine risk that prolonged litigation could ultimately lead to a lower net recovery, especially when accounting for legal costs, procedural delays, the time value of money and the potential dissipation or concealment of assets. By contrast, the current arrangement secures the timely resolution of GH¢ 800 millionin assets and establishes a structured pathway for recovering an additional GH¢ 1.2 billion, with the active cooperation of the Accused Persons. On the other hand, should the matter continue in court, it will likely face prolonged delays, including multiple procedural applications, adjournments, and appeals. Even if judgment were eventually obtained in either the civil or criminal proceedings, enforcement and execution could take years, further deferring any meaningful recovery.

1. It is clear from the foregoing that I 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.
2. The terms of the settlement are 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. Progress under the agreement will be subject to quarterly reviews to ensure that the Accused Persons fulfill their obligations as agreed.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Media

My Fellow countrymen and women

1. It is important to correct certain misunderstanding or distortions that our team picked from the media space regarding this matter. Since my press release, it has been said that by setting a minimum threshold of 60% for the recovery of assets as a condition for filing the nolle prosequi, I have cut a deal which permits persons who have stolen or looted public funds to walk away with 40% of the loot. Indeed, one writer on Facebook compared my decision to the situation where someone who has stolen six goats is being told by the prosecutor to return four goats and keep two goats.
2. But, my fellow countrymen and women, the goat-thief analogy, intriguing though it may be, is an oversimplification of the matter. This is why:
   1. First, Dr. Kwabena Duffour and the other persons standing trial were not charged with stealing or looting of public funds. They were charged with causing financial loss to the state, fraudulent breach of trust, falsification of accounts, dishonestly receiving and money laundering. But 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.

• Second, the analogy assumes that these charges could be proven beyond reasonable doubt. 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¢
• Third, by the time I assumed office and was approached by lawyers for the accused persons, no asset tracing had been undertaken, and no freezing orders had been obtained by my predecessors who filed the criminal charges. In other words, if the goat-thief analogy is anything to go by, I could have been faced with a situation where the thief would have eaten four of the goats; thus, leaving me with one possibility – recover two goats. In other words, assets depreciate and may even disappear before a diligent prosecutor can lay hands on them.
• Lastly, in respect of the case at hand, 100% recovery was not possible, and a conviction was not guaranteed. In the circumstances, my team and I agreed to set a realistic threshold of 60% recovery. We recovered GH¢ 824 millionworth of assets which will be handed over to the State. AND established a structured pathway for recovering an additional GH¢ 1.2 billion

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Media

My Fellow countrymen and women

1. Having explained my decision to enter a nolle prosequiin the case of the Republic v. Kwabena & 7 Others, I wish to provide a brief update on the investigations and prosecutions that are currently underway.
2. Trials have commenced in the case of Republic v. Kwabena Adu-Boahene & 3 Othersand that of the Republic v. Solomon Asamoah & Another (“the Sky Train Case”). In the Kwabena Adu-Boahene case, we are calling only three Prosecution Witnesses. Our first Witness has concluded his testimony. But for the 3^rd Accused Person’s sudden withdrawal in open court of her Lawyer’s service, our first witness would have been discharged to give way to the Second Prosecution Witness to start testifying.  We expect our second witness to start testifying before the beginning of the legal vacation on July 31, 2025. In the Sky Train trial, we have concluded the case management conference. It is important to add that but for the change of solicitors and the multiple medical excuses of the 2^nd Accused Person, Prof Ameyaw-Akumfi, and, recently, of the lawyer for the 1^st Accused Person, we would have called two of the 6 Witnesses by now. That notwithstanding, the trial in the Sky Train case expected to start before the beginning of the legal vacation.

• The National Service Authority scandal case was due to be filed last week when we stumbled upon further evidence of malfeasance involving an account at the Bank of Ghana to which had been transferred an amount of One Hundred and Eighty-Nine Million Ghana Cedis (Ghs 189,000,000.00). Out of this amount, Eighty Million Ghana Cedis cannot be traced but we found two cheques bearing the name and account details of the former Director General, Mr. Osei Assibey, which had been used to withdraw funds totaling a little under Two Million Ghana Cedis (Ghs 2m)from the said account. We have therefore halted the filing of charges so as to await the receipt of the evidence from the relevant state agencies, including the Bank of Ghana, Ministry of Finance and the Controller and Accountant General. I am, however, happy to announce that at least 8 suspects in this in investigation have approached my office for plea negotiations, including three former officers of the NSA. Some officials have offered to testify against their colleagues and some vendors, and service providers are willing to come clean and testify as prosecution witnesses.
• A report on the dockets for the ORAL cases including the Mathematical Sets, the All Africa Games, and the DRIP scandals are being prepared by the National Intelligence Bureau (NIB) for my attention. I expect to receive that investigative report in a few weeks for work to begin on filing charges in court.
• The Economic and Organized Crime Office (EOCO) has completed investigations in respect of Wontumi and the former National Buffer Stock Company CEO, Mr. Abdul-Wahab Hannan and their accomplices. The results of both investigations will be announced very soon. The Police CID have also completed the docket on the Akonta Mining Case and submitted same to my office. We have prepared charges and sent them back to the Police CID for the suspects to be formally charged before their arraignment in court in the coming days.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Media

My Fellow countrymen and women

• In conclusion, I wish to remind you of the fact that when I announced the Kwabena Adu-Boahene investigation, I was blunt in stating the fact that I am open to engaging in plea bargaining with those who have been investigated and found to have looted or stolen state resources. I minced no words about my intentions and will therefore not shut the door to any accused person willing to enter into negotiations with my office for purposes of reaching a plea agreement. My approach is in consonance with the central plank of the ORAL, which is to recover the loot.
• Of course, recovering the loot and jailing the looters are not mutually exclusive. In other words, both can take place and that would be full-fledged accountability. But anyone familiar with plea-negotiations would agree that it is rare to go into the negotiation room and come out without giving up something in order to clinch a deal. Our plea-bargain statute captures that succinctly as it contemplates that the Attorney-General may even go to the extent of dropping charges in exchange for restitution. Also, under the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459), an accused may plead guilty to a charge or charges and pay restitution where the offence involves harm to the property of the Republic, including resources. In that case, the accused is to be handed a non-custodial sentence. That is a law we have operated for 32 years but which is rarely used. As Attorney General, I will not oppose the use of section 35 of the Courts Act to achieve the purposes of ORAL.
• Finally, make no mistake about my intentions- I want to jail persons who have looted state resources but at the same time, I am pragmatic enough to know that it is not in every instance that that is possible. In those circumstances, I will opt for non-conviction-based asset recovery.

Thank you and God bless you all.