Court of Appeal Judge, Justice Kyei Baffour who is presiding over the Capital Bank Case as an additional High Court judge has remarked that an agreement reached between the accused, Ato Essien, and the prosecution led by the Attorney-General allowing Ato Essien to pay GHC 90million as restitution to avoid jail has the potential of making stealing lucrative if the court accept it.
Justice Kyei Baffour was set to deliver his judgement on the capital bank case today December 1, 2022 but before he could do so, lawyers of both the accused and the prosecution told the Court that an agreement for a repayment of GHC 90 million to the state had been reached between them. Mr Ato Essien was to pay the amount in installments within one year. Some GHC 30 million had already been supposedly refunded to the state. But Justice Kyei Baffour would have none of it.
In his ruling, he noted that such an agreement smacks of Mr Essien outwitting the state after allegedly committing the crime. For him the agreement reached does not take into account the value of the money in the year 2015 and therefore could make crime attractive.
He asked that the lawyers go back and review their agreement as well as find a convincing legal basis for their agreement given that their recourse to Section 35 of the Court Act which talks about restitution to the state does not apply since the money purportedly stolen by Mr Essien belonged to depositors and not the state per se.
The Capital Bank Case
Upon the revocation of the license of Capital Bank in 2017, the founder and Managing Director Ato Essien and another were accused of stealing depositors funds and dissipating some GHC 620 million liquidity support the state had given the bank to enable it stay afloat.
Mr Ato Essien pleaded not guilty to the charges but before the Judge could deliver his final judgement on the matter, he and the prosecution reached an agreement for restitution to the state, which the judge has rejected.