BoG can’t be faulted for revoking GN Bank’s license –Court

The application filed by Dr. Papa Kwesi Nduom, GN Savings and Loans, and another regarding human rights violations by the Bank of Ghana (BoG) in revoking their license has been dismissed by the Human Rights Court in Accra.

The court determined that the central bank was acting within its legal authority and in the best interests of the shareholders and the public, and therefore cannot be blamed for any wrongdoing.

Following confirmation that the applicants had the necessary qualifications and had properly approached the court, the judge proceeded to address the issues of discrimination, unreasonableness, unfairness, and infringement of the applicants’ administrative rights in-depth.

In relation to the violation of administrative rights, the applicants argued that a fair assessment by the BoG would have proven that GN Savings and Loans were financially stable, contrary to the central bank’s claim that they were not.

The applicants claimed that if the government debt owed to them was paid, they would have met the required capital adequacy ratio.

“The Bank of Ghana would have realized that our company was financially stable if they had considered the circumstances and the fact that the government owed us,” stated the lawyer.

The dissatisfaction expressed by the applicants is based on a miscalculation, and they argue that this constitutes a violation.

“The bank, as an administrative body, acted unfairly, unreasonably, and irrationally in its duties,” asserted the applicants’ lawyer. “No reasonable person faced with the same facts would have made the decision to revoke the license, as the Bank of Ghana did.”

The applicants maintain that they made several attempts to recover their money from the government which were unsuccessful, therefore it was unreasonable for the BoG to revoke their license considering these circumstances.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ claim, stating that as an administrative body empowered by the Bank of Ghana Act, it was the responsibility of the BoG to enforce a strict supervision regime. Since the applicants did not meet the required standards and were financially unstable at the time of license revocation, the BoG was obligated to make the decision it did.

According to the court, the plaintiffs can pursue the issue of the debt owed to them by the government with the Finance Ministry.

“It is evident that the BoG made a reasonable decision in order to protect the public interest,” declared the judge.

Regarding the discrimination allegation, the court determined that the applicants were not unfairly treated, as other entities experienced a similar outcome.

The court declared that the applicants’ claim of discrimination has no basis and lacks merit.