Former New Patriotic Party (NPP) Ashanti Regional Chairman Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, and Wontumi Farms have asked the High Court to declare that their loan dispute with Ghana Exim Bank should be resolved through civil proceedings rather than criminal prosecution.
The plaintiffs are challenging the involvement of the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) in the dispute, arguing that the controversy concerns the recovery of a loan exceeding GH¢18 million granted to finance an agricultural project.
They have sued Ghana Exim Bank, EOCO and the Attorney General, seeking court orders to prevent what they describe as the criminalisation of a contractual debt matter.
In their statement of claim, filed through their lawyer, Samuel Atta-Akyea, the plaintiffs contend that the bank has existing contractual and security arrangements through which it can pursue recovery of the outstanding loan without resorting to criminal proceedings.
The legal action follows criminal proceedings involving allegations of defrauding by false pretences, uttering a forged document, money laundering and intentionally causing financial loss to the state. The allegations remain subject to determination through the appropriate legal process.
Flood damage and loan security
According to the plaintiffs, the loan facility was secured by a 10,000-acre parcel of land belonging to Wontumi Farms, with Chairman Wontumi providing a personal guarantee to repay the facility in the event of default.
They further claim that Ghana Exim Bank agreed to obtain insurance coverage for the loan as part of the financing arrangement.
However, the plaintiffs say the farming venture suffered substantial losses after four rivers surrounding the property overflowed their banks, flooding the farmland and affecting the project’s operations.
They maintain that the bank was informed about the damage and allegedly indicated that it would activate the insurance arrangement to address the outstanding debt.
The plaintiffs deny securing the loan through deception or engaging in any criminal conduct in connection with the facility.
EOCO’s mandate questioned
A central argument in the suit is that EOCO has allegedly exceeded its mandate by becoming involved in what the plaintiffs consider a contractual debt-recovery dispute.
They argue that the existence of an outstanding loan does not, in itself, establish criminal wrongdoing and that the bank should pursue the remedies available under the loan agreement and related security arrangements.
They are consequently asking the High Court to declare the dispute a civil debt matter and direct Ghana Exim Bank to provide a detailed account of the outstanding amount.
The plaintiffs also want the bank to pursue recovery through the mortgaged property, Chairman Wontumi’s personal guarantee or the insurance cover they claim was arranged for the facility.
The court’s determination of the claims could clarify the parties’ contractual obligations and the extent to which the disputed loan arrangements may be relied upon in seeking recovery.
The allegations made by the plaintiffs have yet to be established by the court, and the filing of the suit does not, by itself, determine the legality of the criminal proceedings or the merits of the underlying allegations.
