A Human Rights Court in Accra denied an application made by Dr Papa Kwesi Nduom, GN Savings and Loans, and another for human rights violations committed by the Bank of Ghana (BoG) in terminating the entity’s licence.
It was the view of the court that the central bank was carrying out its lawful mandate in the interest of the shareholders and by extension the public, and could not be faulted.
The court ruled that the applicants had the necessary capacity and jurisdiction, and addressed issues of discrimination, unreasonableness, unfairness, and violation of administrative rights substantively.
Addressing the issue of administrative rights violation, the applicant asserted that an honest assessment by the BoG would have proved that the GN savings and loans were solvent contrary to the Bank of Ghana’s assertion that the entity was not solvent.
The plaintiffs contended that if the debt owed by the government was paid, the capital adequacy ratio would have been met.
“If the Bank of Ghana had taken into consideration the financial circumstances of the company, and the fact that the government owed us, they would have seen that the company was solvent,” the lawyer said.
The applicant’s dissatisfaction is based on miscalculation, and they claim that this amounted to a violation.
“The bank, as an administrative body, was unfair, unreasonable and irrational in its administrative functions, the lawyer for the applicant averred. No reasonable person faced with the same set of facts would have arrived at the decision taken by the Bank of Ghana to revoke its license.”
The applicant maintains that several actions to demand their money from the government had failed and so it was unreasonable for the BoG to have revoked their license considering their circumstances.
However, the court dismissed the claim by the plaintiffs indicating that as an administrative body fortified by the Bank of Ghana Act, it was incumbent on the Bank of Ghana to ensure a strict supervision regime and once the applicants did not meet the threshold, and were not solvent at the time of revocation, their duty was to take the decision it took.
The court then declared that the plaintiffs could take the matter of debt owed them by the government with the Finance Ministry.
“It’s manifestly clear that the BoG took a reasonable decision to protect the public interest,“ the judge ruled.
On the issue of discrimination, the court determined that the applicants were not discriminated against because other entities experienced the same fate as the applicants.
The court determined that the petitioner was not discriminated against, and their allegations were unfounded and without merit.
By: Rainbowradioonline.com/Ghana
