CEO of defunct Beige Bank, Michael Nyinaku
The financial manager of the defunct Beige Bank, Stephen Duah Agyemang, has told the High Court in Accra that all transactions done were recorded in accordance with the bank’s procedures and policies.
According to him, his role was that, he reviewed all payments at the bank and as far as he was concerned all transactions followed the required standard procedure of the bank.
Mr Agyemang Duah, third Prosecution Witness, made this known to the High Court in Accra presided over by Justice Afia Serwah Asare-Botwe, a Justice of the Court of Appeal, sitting as an additional High Court judge, while facing Cross-Examination from defence lawyers led by Thaddeus Sory.
Michael Nyinaku, the founder and Chief Executive Officer of the defunct bank, has been accused of allegedly siphoning customers funds and has been charged for stealing GH¢2.1 billion of depositors’ money from the bank.
He has pleaded not guilty to 43 charges including stealing, fraudulent breach of trust and money laundering and has been granted bail.
Mr. Agyemang Duah, prior to facing cross-examination from Mr Sory, was led by Stella Ohene Appiah, a Principal State Attorney to have his witness statement given to the prosecution on December 9, 2022 adopted a his Evidence-in-Chief.
In his witness statement, Mr Duah Agyemang stated among other things that, he reviewed vouchers that led to payments, despite claiming he did not give the approvals.
But, asked by Mr Sory, if the Bank has any standard procedures or policies in accordance with which he prepared those payment vouchers, the witness answered in the affirmative.
He added that, “the bank has the procedures and the procedure is when we receive the request which has been approved, we prepare the payment voucher and send it back to the CEO to sign it before we post it into the books or accounting system of the bank.”
When counsel put it to him that, all the payment vouchers that he (witness) identified and which he approved were raised in accordance with the bank’s procedure and policy, the witness said, “yes it was raised with the bank’s procedures.”
He, however, said “I have an issue with the ‘approval’ because I did not approve.”
Payment vouchers
The witness was shown Exhibit – PW12 by Counsel which he (witness) had identified as a document for payment for property in favour of Kwabena Mensah Kufuor dated August 8, 2016, and “it was signed by me on August 9, 2016.”
He had told the court that, it was the payment vouchers that was prepared and he had a supporting document which was an email directing him to prepare the payment voucher for the payment.
He said, he had the contract document which was also attached to the payment.
He was asked by the counsel if that document bears his signature and what that payment voucher says by his name.
While identifying his signature, the witness, said “the payment is in respect of payment of property in favour of Kwabena Mensah Kufuor.”
Counsel pointed out to him that, at the place where his signature appeared, the payment voucher required the person who signed there to sign as having approved the payment voucher, but the witness in his response offered an explanation.
“We have two forms of payment. One is request which has been approved and the other one is the payment voucher that accost processes that we follow to make sure that the payment is done.
“The approval here does not mean that, I approved the request but this one is part of the accounting processes before any document is signed by CEO,” the witness stated.
The witness admitted that, the request process is also part of the accounting process and also confirmed that PW12 is a payment voucher and the voucher directs payments.
The counsel put it to him that, the approval there signed by him was an approval in terms of the payment voucher.
But, the witness said, “as I have indicated, we have a standard form which we go through to prepare for any payment."
He added that, “if you can see, ‘prepared by, checked by and approved by’, and this one does not mean that the request was approved by me.
“This one is an accounting preparation of payment vouchers,” the witness stated.
The counsel at this point said, the process which he had outlined to the court confirmed that, the procedure that is followed leading to the final step in the process that lead to payment is the approval indicated on the payment voucher.
But, the witness said, “Once the request is approved, what we do is that, we prepare the payment voucher and payment voucher demands that someone will prepare, review or approve it.
“This does not mean I approved it,” he added.
The counsel said his response meant that he was “not even relevant in this process, and that is what his answer meant to the court."
But, the witness said “I am relevant to the processes.”
The counsel then put to him that, if that was the case then, “your approval is a crucial aspect of the corporate governance procedure of the bank for purposes of all payments emanating from your department.”
In his response, the witness said, “Once the request is approved, the process of payment follow through, which the account officers will prepare, review and then I will sign to it.”
Projects
The Witness who was also confronted with questions on projects undertaken which saw the bank’s upgrade from a Savings and Loans to a Universal Bank offered contradictory responses.
At one point, the witness started by telling the court that, he was unaware of any projects being taken but later admitted knowledge of those projects.
The witness had told the court that, he started working for the bank when the bank was still a Savings and Loans Company.
And when the counsel asked him that, when the bank got approval to upgrade from the Savings and Loans Company to Universal Banking, the bank had to undertake a number of projects.
Counsel again said, the Bank retained the name Beige Capital Savings and Loans Company when it was upgraded from the Savings and loans Company to the Universal Bank.
The witness in his response denied knowledge of it.
But when counsel said, that required that, all signs, signboard, stationery and materials bearing Beige Capital Savings and loans Company (BCSL) ought to change to the Beige Bank, Mr Duah Agyemang agreed.
Asked by counsel if he was aware that “the Bank had to do a number of things following its transition,” the Witness again admitted knowledge, saying “Yes my lady.”
He, however, told the court that he had no idea, that the Bank also had to acquire new offices in addition to the offices that it had.
In another contrasting moment, the Witness said the Bank also had to acquire new furniture.
Approvals for payments
Asked if he identified that some approvals had been given for payments by way of what is contained in Exhibit A as PW12, 13 and 10 which confirmed approvals for advances to Directors and shareholders.
The witness said he does not recall such approvals whilst he was the Financial Manager at the Bank
Asked by counsel if he understood what it meant by “advances” as Financial Manager, the Witness asked for clarity on the question.
Counsel then explained that, they are postings into Directors’ accounts by way of payments to them, but the Witness said, “Once there was an approval.”
Contrary to claims that he was not aware of a number of projects, the witness admitted knowledge of email correspondence making references to those projects.
He also identified the email as coming from a certain Mike which made reference to Michael Nyineku, the accused dated April, 3, 2017.
The Witness has since been discharged and the case has been adjourned to May 26, for Prosecution to present its fourth Witness.
