NSA trial: Witness says ADB commissions were lawfully earned

The first prosecution witness in the trial of former Deputy Executive Director of the National Service Authority (NSA), Gifty Oware-Mensah, has told the High Court in Accra that commissions earned by the bank under the National Service Authority (NSA)-ADB hire purchase transaction were lawful.

During the continuation of his cross-examination yesterday, Gilbert Serbeh-Yeboah, Head of Consumer Finance at ADB, told the court that the transaction was authorised. He was being cross-examined by Gary Nimako Marfo, counsel for former Deputy Executive Director of the NSA, Gifty Oware-Mensah, who is standing trial over her alleged role in the transaction.

The witness also told the court that, as far as he was concerned, commissions earned by ADB under the NSA-ADB hire purchase arrangement were lawful earnings of the bank.

Commissions

Responding to questions from defence counsel, Gary Nimako Marfo, the witness confirmed that Exhibit C showed ADB earned GH¢6.62 million in commissions from the transaction.
Counsel subsequently asked the witness to confirm that the commissions were earned regularly, lawfully and in accordance with the agreement between ADB and the NSA.

"Yes," the witness answered.

Counsel further asked whether the commissions amounting to GH¢6.6 million or about GH¢8 million constituted lawful earnings of the bank; the witness maintained that they were legitimate earnings.

He explained that while Exhibit C reflected commissions of about GH¢6.6 million, the total commissions earned from the transaction were higher because part of the business had been shared with other banks.

"The total commission earned for that whole transaction is not only found here. From the total amount disbursed here, we reversed some of the business to some of our non-performing bankers.

The total commission earned is around GH¢8 million," Mr Serbeh-Yeboah said.

No complaint

The witness also told the court that he was unaware of any complaint from the NSA challenging the commissions earned by ADB.

When counsel suggested that no official of the NSA had officially complained to the bank that the commissions were unlawfully earned, Mr Serbeh-Yeboah replied: "Not that I know of."

The defence further suggested that because of his position and involvement in the transaction, he would have known if such a complaint had been lodged.

Witness disagrees

"Not so. Not all matters. As I'm speaking, if there's a petition, how will I know?" he said.

Asked whether officials appointed to head the NSA after the January 2025 change of government had complained to ADB about the transaction, the witness said he could not confirm whether any such petition existed.

"To the best of my knowledge, as of now, I can't confirm that there is or there is not," he told the court.

The defence also questioned the witness on an Exhibit, a document used to authorise the transfer of an additional GH¢1.9 million to Blocks of Life Consult Limited.

Counsel pointed out that the document was addressed to the Manager, ADB Bank, Accra, although the witness had testified that the hire purchase facility was handled by the bank's headquarters.

The witness, however, maintained that the document was authored by the accused person.

According to him, the instruction followed a telephone conversation during which Mrs Oware-Mensah informed him that additional supplies had been undertaken by the vendor and that an overpayment under the facility should, therefore, be transferred to the company.

"The accused drew my attention to the fact that because the facility was delayed, the vendor had done additional supplies and, therefore, this amount was supposed to be paid to the vendor," he said.

Signature

Counsel subsequently suggested that the signature on Exhibit J differed from those on Exhibits A and D, and therefore the document was not authored by the accused. The witness disagreed.

Defence counsel thereafter prayed the court to submit Exhibits A, D and J for forensic examination of the signatures.

The prosecution opposed the request, arguing that disclosure had long been completed and the defence had ample opportunity to examine the documents. The court upheld the objection.

The case has been adjourned to June 22, 2026.