The saga of the debt-ridden Merchant Bank appears so complex that it is difficult to decipher the issues, not to mention how best the national interest is being served. Unfortunately, political factors seem to have overshadowed everything else.
One thing is clear though, the sale of the bank collapsed by a mountain of bad debts continues to generate discontent. Even now calls for transparency are coming from different segments of the society, including the Trades Union Congress and the Christian Council of Ghana.
Some are questioning not only the necessity of the sale, but also the value at which it was eventually sold and the qualification of the buyer.
A factor cited as central to the bank’s distressed situation was the indebtedness of a company owned by Mr. Ibrahim Mahama, a junior brother of President John Mahama. Engineers & Planners Ltd allegedly topped the list of the bank’s debtors and owed it GH¢58 million, outstanding since 2007 when the New Patriotic Party was in power. However, the debt has now been reportedly settled – on January 14; after the sale.
Earlier this month, despite the mounting controversy over the proposed sale, the bank had announced on January 2, that it had been bought by a private Ghanaian company, Fortiz Equity Fund Ltd, which now owns 90 per cent shares.
The remaining 10 per cent are jointly owned by the Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT), with 8.96 per cent, and the State Insurance Company with 1.04 per cent.
Easily the lead campaigner against the sale is Mr Andrew Awuni, Executive Director of the Centre for Freedom and Accuracy. With admirable tenacity, Mr. Awuni took the case to court, challenging its validity.
He alleged a lack of value for money in the GH¢90 million paid by Fortiz and a lack of transparency in the transaction. Prior to his court action, Mr Awuni had petitioned President Mahama to take action to stop the sale.
On December 18, the Commercial Division of the High Court dismissed the Awuni case. The court, presided over by Justice Sophia Bernasko Essah, ruled that even though Mr. Awuni is a SSNIT contributor, he has no capacity to take such an action, thus upholding the opposing application by the lawyer for Fortiz, Mr Tony Lithur.
Mr Lithur had argued that according to the statutes of SSNIT, the main shareholder, it was only a trustee who could pursue a legal action against the trust. Also, he said, the Social Security Act had made SSNIT a corporate body and it was only answerable to Parliament.
However, on January 6, the Speaker of Parliament, Mr. Edward Doe Adjaho, dismissed a private member’s motion filed by Mr. Dominic Nitiwul, Deputy Minority Leader and MP for Bimbilla, “requesting the Parliament to investigate the offer and acquisition of Merchant Bank by Fortiz Equity Fund Limited and other matters,” the Daily Graphic reported.
In his 15-minute ruling, he said since the case was currently before a court any discussion in the House would prejudice the case. He therefore ruled the motion filed by Mr. Nitiwul “out of order.”
Critics have expressed the view that the Speaker’s interpretation of the regulations on matters in court was too narrow, that Parliament could still have looked into the matter.
Undoubtedly, some of us were relieved when it was announced that Parliament was being recalled from its Christmas recess to debate the matter. The expectation had been that the facts would then come out and help settle the dust.
The debate would show why the bank had to be sold and why Fortiz was the best offer; or, it would be made manifestly clear to all why it was a bad decision to sell and to sell to Fortiz rather than to any other bidder.
Either way, the hope was that there would be a better understanding, perhaps even some closure to the acrimony, or an agreement to disagree – once the facts had come out in Parliament and had been recorded in the Parliamentary record, the Hansard, for posterity to judge.
The Speaker may have ruled against the motion out of a desire to bring closure to the matter. However, unfortunately it is clear that he has only succeeded in causing more suspicions and adding fuel to the conspiracy theories.
Interestingly, some of those who support the sale – including Mr. Johnson Asiedu Nketia, the General Secretary of the ruling National Democratic Congress – are now arguing that how and when the bank got into that state necessitating the sale needs to be addressed.
However, no matter under whose watch the loans were given, shouldn’t the main concern be how best to solve the problem? That being so, surely, the question is: was the sale to Fortiz the best option?
And Parliament could have helped the public to understand the pros and cons better as it involved a SSNIT property.
For, there is every reason to have confidence in the power of a legislature doing its work. As Henry Herbert, 2nd Earl of Pembroke put it so aptly hundreds of years ago: “Parliament can do any thing (sic) but make a man a woman, and a woman a man.”
For me the reverence with which parliament is held in some countries was vividly illustrated years ago in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, when I was part of the Commonwealth Secretariat’s staff at the Commonwealth Education Ministers Meeting for year 2000. I recall that during a visit to their Legislature, I mentioned casually to my guide that my father had been a member of the Gold Coast Legislative Assembly and later an MP.
To my astonishment, my guide made sure that my presence in the House was announced and the focus of the announcement was that I was the daughter of a former MP upon which the House warmly welcomed me. Clearly to them even the daughter of a late, former MP from a far away country in Africa deserved their recognition, no doubt because of the esteem the Legislature commands there.
To my mind, that is how our Parliament, too, should be regarded.
Regrettably, one can only conclude that at the very least the image of our Parliament has been dented in the eyes of many, especially the membership of all the bodies that had rested their hopes on Parliament helping to unravel the Merchant Bank maze.
It is a common belief that there is only one truth in any matter. So, if the two sides of the argument are looking at the same set of facts or documents, why is each presenting such a strong, opposing stand? One is even tempted to think the unthinkable, that the Majority and the Minority have different sets of the sale documents!
Or, on the other hand, could it be perhaps precisely the fear of all the information, all those involved, being made public that informed the strategy of those on the side of the dismissal of the Nitiwul motion?
It’s a pity that the speaker’s ruling denied Parliament the opportunity to demonstrate that in such controversies it is the one place where the buck stops; where questions about the national interest are answered.
