Bernard Antwi Boasiako, widely known as Chairman Wontumi, and his company, Wontumi Farms, have initiated legal action against the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), Ghana Exim Bank, and the Attorney General. They are asking the High Court to halt the criminal proceedings related to a loan dispute. The plaintiffs assert that the disagreement over a loan exceeding GHS 18 million is a civil matter. They argue it should be resolved through civil proceedings, not criminal charges.
The core of the dispute revolves around a loan granted to Wontumi Farms for a farming project. Wontumi and his company contend that EOCO is acting beyond its legal authority. They accuse EOCO of behaving like a debt collector rather than an investigative body. The plaintiffs insist that the issue is a contractual disagreement. They believe it should be handled as such, rather than through allegations of defrauding by false pretences or money laundering.
This case highlights ongoing concerns about the scope of EOCO's powers and its involvement in commercial disputes. Ghana's economic landscape often sees state institutions intervening in financial matters. However, the line between civil recovery and criminal prosecution can sometimes blur. This situation could set a precedent for how similar loan defaults are handled by state agencies. It also raises questions about the appropriate forum for resolving complex financial agreements involving state-backed institutions like Exim Bank.
The plaintiffs, through their lawyer Samuel Atta-Akyea, state that a 10,000-acre parcel of land belonging to Wontumi Farms served as collateral for the loan. Chairman Wontumi also provided a personal guarantee for repayment. They further claim that Ghana Exim Bank agreed to obtain insurance to cover the loan. This arrangement was intended to protect against unforeseen circumstances affecting the farming venture.
The farming project reportedly suffered significant losses due to severe flooding. Four rivers surrounding the property overflowed their banks, inundating the farmland. The plaintiffs informed the bank about this damage. They allege that Ghana Exim Bank then promised to activate the insurance arrangement. This activation was meant to address the outstanding debt. They deny any deceit or criminal conduct in obtaining the facility. They also deny any criminal intent in their inability to repay the loan.
The plaintiffs seek a court declaration that the dispute is a civil debt matter. They also want the court to order Ghana Exim Bank to provide a detailed account of the outstanding amount. Furthermore, they request the court to direct the bank to pursue recovery through the existing mortgage. Alternatively, they suggest using the personal guarantee or the alleged insurance cover. This legal challenge underscores the importance of clear contractual terms and the proper enforcement mechanisms for loan agreements. It also brings into focus the role of state agencies in commercial transactions. The outcome will be closely watched by businesses and financial institutions across Ghana.