Former Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame has cast doubt on his successor, Dr. Dominic Ayine’s approach to recovering stolen public funds, especially in the high-profile uniBank case.

According to Mr. Dame, the assets Dr Ayine now claims to be recovering had already been identified by the Bank of Ghana-appointed Receivers. He questioned whether any new assets had been discovered and demanded public disclosure of agreements or valuations made before the discontinuation of cases via nolle prosequi.

“Dr. Ayine ought not mislead the public into thinking that through some unprecedented genius, he has recovered assets or money for the State. The record will reflect the fact that, to date, Dr. Ayine has not recovered a single Cedi in the Unibank matter,” he wrote in a Facebook post on July 29.

The former Attorney-General asserted that what Dr Ayine proposes to do, and for which he has already entered nolle prosequi, is to, in the future, use some of the assets already identified by the Receiver to defray what he has unilaterally determined to be owed by the accused persons. Mr Godfred Dame noted that this arrangement is not pursued under any law.

Mr Dame therefore cautioned Dr Ayine that he cannot lay claim to recovering any more assets than what the Receiver already has. He also cannot claim to have recovered for the Republic any money from the accused persons this year.

The Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Dr. Dominic Ayine has revealed that the threshold of 60% recovery in the uniBank legal case has led to the recovery of GH¢ 824 million worth of assets, which will be handed over to the State.

Also, a structured pathway for recovering an additional GH¢ 1.2 billion has been established. Dr Dominic Ayine made this known to the public on July 28, when he engaged the press as part of the Government Accountability Series.

In his submission on Monday, he revealed that “100% recovery was not possible, and a conviction was not guaranteed.”

In an earlier statement, the Office of the Attorney General noted that it established a threshold of 60% recovery of the alleged losses to the state as a condition for reconsidering prosecution in specific cases in collaboration with other relevant state agencies.

This remark was compared to a situation where someone who has stolen six goats is being told by the prosecutor to return four goats and keep two goats by a critic on social media, according to the Attorney-General.

In his clarification, the Attorney-General explained that such an oversimplification of the matter is erroneous, as Dr. Kwabena Duffour and the other persons standing trial were not charged with stealing or looting 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,” he explained.

Kwabena Duffuor, the 1st accused person, is a shareholder of uniBank Ghana Limited (uniBank) and the ultimate beneficial owner of HODA Holdings Company Limited (HODA). HODA, the 2nd accused person, is a holding company and the majority shareholder of uniBank.

Johnson Pandit Asiama, the 3rd accused person, was the 2nd Deputy Governor of the Bank of Ghana (BOG) between April 2016 and January 2018. The 4th accused person, Kwabena Duffuor II, formerly a Chief Operating Officer (COO) of uniBank subsequently became the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of uniBank between June 2017 and March 2018.

The 5th accused person, Ekow Nyarko Dadzie-Dennis, who was a COO of uniBank is a member of the Board of Directors of WAICA Reinsurance Corporation Plc (WAICA-Re), Sierra Leone. The 6th accused person, Elsie Dansoa Kyereh, was an Executive Head of Corporate Banking at uniBank.

The 7th accused person, Jeffrey Amon, was a Senior Relationship Manager of Corporate Banking at uniBank. The 8th accused person, Benjamin Ofori, was the Executive Head of Credit Risk at uniBank. The 9th accused person, Kwadwo Opoku Okoh, was a financial control manager of uniBank and is Head of Finance of HODA.

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¢5.7billion.

“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¢5.7billion,” he said.

The GH¢ 5.7 billion was made up of the following: GH¢2 billion being loans and advances which UNIBANK made to related and connected parties. GH¢3.7 billion being payments made on behalf of or on the instructions of the accused persons.

Then Attorney-General revealed that 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 that could be recovered. The accused persons also objected to the inclusion of placements of GH¢0.3 billion made to UNISECURITIES. UNISECURITIES, however, is an 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.

This led to the revision of the previously reported exposure of GH¢ 5.7 billion down to GH¢ 3.3 billion. The adjustment comprised the following: the exclusion of GH¢ 2.1 billion in 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.

The recovery of this amount is being pursued independently through insolvency proceedings with the Official Liquidator of that entity,” the Minister 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 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.

Out of the above arrangements, the accused persons have provided landed properties valued at GH¢ 824 million to UNIBANK. Further, the accused persons will also be responsible for any shortfall in the proceeds realized from the sale of the landed properties.

A total of GH¢ 0.5 billion has, 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.

Dr Dominic Ayien revealed that 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 added that in assessing the proposal submitted by the lawyers for the accused persons, he took into account the following factors:

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.

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 million in 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.

The terms of the settlement, he said, 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,” he added.