Capital Bank: Ato Essien files defence; countersues recievers
The 1st defendant in the case brought against former Directors of Capital Bank by the receiver has denied claims of mis-governance and willful breach of banking regulation brought against him and 15 others.
William Ato Essien did not only deny the allegations but has countersued the receivers led by Vish Ashiabgor, and Eric Nana Nipah asking the court to declare that the conclusions arrived at in the Boulders Report which formed the basis of the suit against him were “arbitrary, unfair, prejudicial and against the rules of natural justice and offending due process.”
He is also asking the court to declare as null and void the decisions taken by the Bank of Ghana, to revoke the license of the Capital Bank.
The receivers filed a suit against the directors of Capital Bank and its shareholders, accusing them of “breaching their fiduciary duties under the Companies Code, 1963 (Act 179) and have caused serious financial loss to the bank’’.
They claim the defendants granted to themselves loans worth more than GH¢837 million, loans which remained unpaid.
The outstanding amounts allegedly owed by the defendants, as stated by the statement of claim, were: Essien, GH¢468,405,126; Osei-Akoto, GH¢36,664,299; Enchill, GH¢73,627,898; Atta Ghansah, GH¢36,664,299; Otabil & Associates /ICGC, GH¢51,629,319; Ayisi-Ahwireng, GH¢4,113,330; Kofi Mensah, GH¢15,713,271; Obeng Donkor, GH¢14,965,020, and Osah-Thompson-Mensah, GH¢24,692,283.
Apart from these outstanding amounts, the statement of claim said Mr Essien took a loan of about GH¢108 million for himself and the companies that he owned or in which he had vested interest.
The receivers in their statement of claim demanded payment of the loan amounts said to have been disbursed illegally to the former directors and stakeholders of the bank
But the head Pastor of ICGC Mensa Otabil has filed his defence denying the claims made against him by the plaintiffs.
Ato Essien has since done same. In his 34-point statement of defence, a copy of which has been intercepted by Myjoyonline.com the 1st defendant among other things challenged allegations he breached company policies, regulations and statuses.
He stated that the “plaintiff does not have the capacity it purports to assert herein and therefore ought not be entertained by the honourable court at all.”