An Accra High Court has modified its place and accepted the GH¢90 million repayment terms on Ato Essien’s restitution deal.

The Court presided over by Justice Eric Kyei Baffour final week rejected the settlement deal between state prosecutors and the embattled founding father of now-defunct Capital Bank, Ato Essien.

Justice Eric Kyei Baffour, a Justice of Appeal, sitting as a further High Court Judge, rejected the settlement, indicating that the quantity agreed to be paid was not adequate, and adjourned the case to December 13 for the events to handle the court docket on the authorized foundation of the terms of the settlement.

Ato Essien and two others have been on trial for the previous three years for his or her involvement within the collapse of Capital Bank. The prosecution had additionally accused Mr. Essien of misappropriating GH¢620 million liquidity assist prolonged by the Bank of Ghana to assist hold the financial institution afloat.

The prosecution and the accused in arriving on the settlement informed the court docket they got here underneath part 35 of the Courts Act, 1993, Act 459 (as amended). The provision states as follows:

“(1) Where a person is charged with an offence before the High Court or a Regional Tribunal, the commission of which has caused economic loss, harm or damage to the State or any State agency, the accused may inform the prosecutor whether the accused admits the offence and is willing to offer compensation or make restitution and reparation for the loss, harm or damage caused.”

Justice Kyei Baffour was sceptical in regards to the software of part 35 of the Courts Act to the current case, as he famous that the monies concerned belonged to depositors and shareholders of the defunct financial institution and never the state per se.

By the proposed settlement, Mr. Essien agreed to pay GH₵90 million in complete: GH₵30 million as we speak and GH₵60 million by instalment to the state.

But the court docket was sad with the association.

The decide additionally thought that the timing for the announcement of the deal was not one of the best, as he was able to ship his judgement.

Background

Mr. Essien is standing trial along with the previous Managing Director of the Bank, Rev. Fitzgerald Odonkor, and a former Managing Director of MC Management Service, Tetteh Nettey, additionally owned by Mr. Ato Essien.

Together, they have been tried on 23 counts of criminality, together with conspiracy to steal and stealing in reference to the collapse of Capital Bank in 2017.

They nonetheless pleaded not responsible to the costs and maintained their innocence all all through the trial, with Mr. Ato Essien sustaining in any respect materials moments that he had Board approval for all actions he took.

Section 35 of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459)

(1) Where an individual is charged with an offence earlier than the High Court or a Regional Tribunal, the fee of which has prompted financial loss, hurt or harm to the State or any State company, the accused could inform the prosecutor whether or not the accused admits the offence and is prepared to supply compensation or make restitution and reparation for the loss, hurt or harm prompted.

(2) Where an accused makes a suggestion of compensation or restitution and reparation, the prosecutor shall contemplate if the provide is suitable to the prosecution.

(3) If the provide just isn’t acceptable to the prosecution the case earlier than the Court shall proceed.

(4) If the provide is suitable to the prosecution, the prosecutor shall within the presence of the accused, inform the Court which shall contemplate if the provide of compensation or restitution and reparation is passable.

(5) Where the Court considers the provide to be passable, the Court shall settle for a plea of responsible from the accused and convict the accused on his personal plea, and in lieu of passing sentence on the accused, make an order for the accused to pay compensation or make restitution and reparation.

(6) An order of the Court underneath subsection (5) shall be topic to such situations because the Court could direct.

(7) Where an individual convicted underneath this part defaults within the fee of any cash required of the individual underneath this part or fails to fulfil any situation imposed by the Court underneath subsection (6), any quantity excellent shall grow to be due and payable and upon failure to make the fee, the Court shall proceed to cross a custodial sentence on the accused. [As substituted by the Courts (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 620), s.4]

Source: citinewsroom.com