God delivers the hapless from the tyranny of the wicked: Failed prosecution of Dr. Asiama

It is quite amusing to consider former Attorney-General Godfred Dame’s response and rebuttal to the reasons the Attorney-General, Hon Dr Dominic Ayine, put forth for his well-reasoned decision to withdraw the criminal charges made against Dr Asiama, a former Second Deputy Governor and presently the Governor of the Bank of Ghana (BOG).

The press conference by the former Attorney General was nothing but a face-saving exercise aimed at giving a pinch of credibility to his malicious prosecution of Dr Asiama and others induced by nothing but ego and vendetta for the sake of politics.

Surprisingly, Mr Dame is unable to appreciate the cogent reasons put forth by Hon. Dr Ayine. In summary, in the UniBank case, it has been confirmed that UMB had paid GH¢300 million to the BOG. In addition, GH¢150 million in Government bonds owed by CBG to UMB was tendered through the Central Security Depository (CSD) to the BoG in settlement of the difference, thereby rendering moot the Republic’s case against Dr Asiama.

It is the submission of Mr Dame that in criminal jurisprudence, the recovery of the subject of criminality does not preclude the suspect or accused from prosecution. True as this assertion may be, what was lost on Mr Dame is that the thrust of combatting corruption is to make it unprofitable by denying the perpetrators from profiting from their illicit proceeds.

In the instant case, what did Dr Asiama gain from using his office to rescue Ghanaian-owned banks which were losing their bearing in troubled waters? Did anyone care to know what Dr Asiama did wasn’t peculiar? Didn’t Dr Asiama’s immediate boss at the time, the late Malison Narh (First Deputy Governor), approve similar facilities? Meanwhile, didn’t the beneficiary bank, UMB, acknowledge the support the BOG gave it and take measures to pay?

It paid the cash and tendered the bonds through the CSD to the BOG and thereby rendered the case against Dr Asiama indeed moot as the Prosecution Department rightly advised Mr Dame.

It must be made clear that, at the time Dr Asiama approved the Emergency Liquidity Assistance (ELA) for UMB for the benefit of UniBank, the BOG did not have any guidelines or Board-approved standard procedures for the grant of ELA. How does one breach a policy that did not have guidelines or procedures and incredibly be held criminally liable?

The overarching objective of the protracted malicious prosecution was to torment Dr Asiama, tarnish his reputation, and destroy any likelihood that he would become the Governor of the BOG. But as said, once the patriarch Joseph was destined to become a Prime Minister of Egypt, every orchestration of the wicked only helped in accelerating his accession to the glorified destiny.

Here are a few questions that begged for answers from Mr Dame, which, if he had considered with professional diligence and not inclined to pursue an agenda that was incubated and hatched in the corridors of the powers of darkness, he would have done himself and the state a great deal of good:

Was there a policy document on ELA that clearly indicates the circumstances, guidelines, processes, and procedures for granting ELA from the BOG?

Did Mr Dame request the ELA policy document?

Was Mr Dame aware that the late First Deputy Governor, Mr Millison Narh, approved ELA for GCB just as Dr Asiama did for UMB?

Did Mr Dame seek a formal (written) statement from the Governor at the time to confirm whether Dr Asiama did infract any guideline, rule, or procedure?

Did Mr Dame enquire from the former Governor and the late First Deputy Governor whether they were in the know post factum of Dr Asiama’s granting or guaranteeing of the facility to UMB, and if any of them objected or approved of it?

And if any or both of them did not object and therefore approved or ratified Dr Asiama’s action, who ought to bear the responsibility?

Again, throughout the unending years of prosecution, did Mr Dame call the Governor or any Board Member to appear in court to contradict the evidence of Dr Asiama?

Has PW2, Mr Alex Taah, ever occupied the position of a Governor or Deputy Governor?

Was Mr Alex Taah a Board member of BOG?

If no to the immediate above questions on PW2, Mr Alex Taah, was he then competent to speak authoritatively to the mandate of a Deputy Governor in the grant or guarantee of a facility to a bank?

Did Mr Alex Taah, PW2, confirm to Mr. Dame that what Dr Asiama did was wrong because he, PW2, has never participated in Management or Board deliberations and, therefore, seized with the basis for which decisions on ELA were made?

Did Mr Dame enquire from Mr Alex Taah (PW2) whether, apart from the Governors Morning Meetings (GMM) and Top Management Meetings, the Governor or any of the Deputies could take decisions in respect of memos affecting any subject and notify the others?

Was it the case that the Dame-led prosecution was working in concert with some other persons to use every unorthodox means to achieve a guilty verdict against Dr Asiama?

If not, why was it that when UMB settled the GHS150 million in government bonds through the CSD, the BOG purportedly directed that the transaction be reversed on the grounds that the value of the bonds couldn’t fully satisfy the amount in full because of the DDEP effect?

Meanwhile, was it not the Government of Ghana which unilaterally issued those structured bonds to pay its domestic creditors, including pensioners who invested their life-long earnings in the pre-DDEP bonds?

It was also interesting listening to the former Attorney General, Mr Godfred Dame, attempt to distinguish the UT Bank case from the UMB (UniBank) case. However, a more thorough examination suggests that the two cases were inextricably linked.

Hon. Dr Ayine initially presented the UMB and UT Bank cases together, suggesting they shared fundamental similarities. However, Mr Dame did not allow this connection to remain intact but rather exposed the unjust pursuit of Dr Asiama.

The UT case and the quest to place Dr Asiama behind bars was so frivolous and bizarre. Mr Dame may be excused because he was not receiving the right briefs after court sittings. Or was it also the case that he was receiving regular briefings except that he was overwhelmed by the high turnover briefings delivered to him from the weekly court attendance by Dr Asiama, causing him to lose track, so he could not advise himself properly? Otherwise, the prosecution’s handling of the UT Bank matter raises further questions:

Was Mr Dame aware or informed that the ELA that Dr Asiama granted to UT Bank, a wholly-owned Ghanaian bank, for a 6-month term was ratified by the Board of the Bank of Ghana?

Did Mr Dame know that the Board extended the tenure of the ELA from the 6 months granted by Dr Asiama to 3 years?

Subsequent to the ratification of the ELA to UT Bank by the Board of the BOG,

Who granted the said facility?

Who assumed the ultimate responsibility for the grant- Dr Asiama or the Board?

If the ultimate responsibility rested on the Board, why was Dr Asiama targeted/hounded?

Did the Prosecution Department inform Mr Dame that when it came to the attention of PW2 (Mr Taah) that the ELA granted to UT Bank was ratified by the Board with new terms of payment and extended tenure, PW2 informed the BOG and the state prosecutors about his unwillingness to give further evidence in that case against Dr Asiama?

Was Mr Dame aware or informed by the Prosecution Department that following the refusal of PW2 (Mr Taah) to represent the BOG as a prosecution witness, the BOG was unable to secure a replacement witness?

Was Mr Dame aware or informed by the Prosecution Department, in the desperate adventure, amidst threats and intimidation, to procure a witness to replace PW2, Governor Dr Ernest Addison, without regard to proper counsel, was said to have coercively directed a Head of Department (HOD) in writing to report to the DPP as the witness?

Though the said HOD obliged and reported to the DPP, he opposed and vehemently declined to assume the witness role. The question is, does Mr Dame consider Dr Addison’s alleged coercion of the HOD to serve as a witness lawful?

Did Mr Dame or any of his officers peruse the witness statement of PW2 in respect of the UT Bank case?

Did Mr Dame or any of his officers find that the last three or so paragraphs of PW 2’s witness statement could only be made by a Governor or a Board member, as a matter of fact?

Can Mr Dame explain why whoever smuggled those last three paragraphs into the witness statement of PW2 rendered those statements in speculative or conditional phraseology to embarrass the witness?

In conclusion, let all the noisy cymbals herald the announcement of the appointment of Dr Johnson Pundit Asiama as the Governor of the BOG keep quiet to enable him to remain focused and do the work that destiny has bestowed on him for our dear country.

Finally, we wish to identify Dr Asiama with what God said of King David in Psalm 91:14-15: Because he has set his love upon me, therefore I will deliver him; I will set him on high because he has known My name. He will call on Me, and I will answer him; I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him and honour him.

akwasibreseh@gmail.com