Ghanaian legal academic and governance commentator Kwaku Azar has welcomed a response purportedly issued by Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah to seven questions raised by his civic platform, GOGO, over transactions involving SIC Life, Equity Savings & Loans and Eco Swiss.
In a detailed assessment of the response, Mr Azar said GOGO had been unable to independently verify its source but believed the document engaged meaningfully with the issues raised.
He said the platform therefore welcomed the response and examined the explanations provided without drawing conclusions on the guilt or innocence of any individual.
A major issue raised by GOGO concerns the decision to settle a GH¢14.85 million judgment for GH¢5 million.
The response reportedly argued that settlement decisions belonged to the client and that SIC Life, being financially distressed, could reasonably have preferred immediate cash to uncertain future recovery.
Mr Azar agreed that settlement decisions ordinarily belong to the client but said this did not establish whether the particular settlement had been validly authorised.
He noted that the Republic alleges there was no prior board approval, shareholder approval, subsequent ratification or approval from the Finance Minister.
According to him, the key unanswered questions are who authorised the settlement and under what authority.
He also questioned what financial analysis supported accepting GH¢5 million in satisfaction of a GH¢14.85 million judgment, arguing that financial distress could explain consideration of a discounted settlement but did not, by itself, establish that the agreement was commercially reasonable or properly authorised.
Mr Azar also examined the decision to abandon an attachment and auction of property.
The response reportedly explained that auctions were uncertain, litigation could take years and SIC Life required immediate liquidity.
While accepting those points, Mr Azar questioned why Eco Swiss allegedly agreed to pay GH¢1 million in auctioneer’s fees if the auction was subsequently abandoned.
He asked what services justified the payment, whether the auctioneer had earned the fee and whether it was actually paid.
He further questioned what analysis demonstrated that abandoning the execution process was commercially preferable.
On the interest claimed by Eco Swiss in the attached property, the response reportedly stated that the company’s claim was before the court in interpleader proceedings and that its ownership interest had not been determined.
Mr Azar said this explained why ownership was disputed but did not address the underlying transaction.
He pointed to the Republic’s allegation that Equity entered into a GH¢21.76 million sale transaction with Eco Swiss involving the attached property and questioned what interest Equity purported to convey, when Eco Swiss acquired its claimed interest and the legal basis for that interest.
The response also attributed the increase in legal fees—from approximately GH¢945,000 to GH¢2.2 million—to two separate engagements involving the original debt recovery and subsequent interpleader proceedings.
Mr Azar described that distinction as reasonable but said it did not resolve questions over whether the GH¢2.2 million fee was properly agreed and authorised.
He noted that the Republic’s brief facts indicate that SIC Life had already paid GH¢284,000 towards the original professional fee.
He therefore asked whether the GH¢2.2 million represented a new fee for the interpleader, who approved it, what services it covered and how the amount was calculated.
On why Eco Swiss was allegedly paying SIC Life’s lawyer, the response reportedly argued that settlement agreements can sometimes require one party to pay another party’s legal costs and that such arrangements are not inherently unlawful.
Mr Azar agreed with that general principle but said the relevant issue was whether the particular arrangement was authorised and whether SIC Life was aware of and agreed to it.
He also questioned whether the payment was intended to discharge SIC Life’s legal-fee obligation and what safeguards existed to protect the lawyer’s duties to SIC Life, particularly when Eco Swiss was challenging the company’s attachment.
The response reportedly maintained that SIC Life’s managing director had authority to bind the company and that missing internal approvals would not automatically make an external lawyer criminally liable.
Mr Azar agreed that an internal governance breach does not automatically establish criminal liability.
However, he said the Republic’s allegations raise questions about whether the managing director had actual or apparent authority to compromise the judgment, whether board, shareholder or ministerial approvals were legally required and what the lawyer knew about any restrictions.
He stressed the distinction between a company being bound by an agreement and its officers complying with the company’s internal approval procedures.
The seventh issue concerned an alleged GH¢1 million payment to SIC Life’s former managing director.
The response reportedly cautioned that suspicion was not proof and argued that the purpose of the payment should be established at trial.
Mr Azar agreed that suspicion alone could not establish wrongdoing but said the central question remained what the payment was for.
He questioned whether it represented compensation, a refund, payment for services or another legitimate transaction.
According to him, the existence of a documentary trail neither establishes legitimacy nor criminality and the purpose of the payment remains a factual matter to be determined.
GOGO says key questions remain unanswered
In its conclusion, GOGO said it had not independently verified the source of the response and therefore could not confirm its authorship.
Nevertheless, Mr Azar said the response had raised useful considerations regarding settlement discretion, commercial uncertainty, corporate authority, legal fees and the distinction between irregularity and criminality.
He maintained, however, that several specific factual questions remained unresolved.
He said explanations about who ordinarily has authority to settle do not necessarily establish that a particular settlement was authorised, just as general explanations about auction uncertainty do not answer why a specific auction was abandoned.
Similarly, the possibility of separate legal fees does not establish that a particular GH¢2.2 million fee was properly agreed, while caution against assuming wrongdoing does not explain the purpose of a specific payment.
Mr Azar stressed that the accused is under no obligation to answer questions from GOGO or prove his innocence, and that the Republic bears the burden of proving every element of the offences charged.
He said GOGO’s role was neither to prosecute nor defend anyone but to examine the allegations before the court, consider the explanations offered and identify issues that remain unclear.
