Source: newsthemegh.com
William Ato Essien, the founder of the defunct Capital Bank, was unsuccessful in his attempt to modify the payback terms for the remaining GH60 million of the GH90 million in stolen property that caused the business to fall and for which he pled guilty to theft.
On Thursday, May 11, 2023, his attorneys submitted an application and moved things in that direction.
On the same day, the state was scheduled to argue that Mr. Essien should be imprisoned for failing to pay the first of three GH$20 million installments that were required to cover the remaining GH$60 million of the GH$90 million in stolen property.
Prior to his hearing for a jail sentence today, it was revealed in court on Thursday that Mr. Essien had paid the state GH4 million and had another GH1 million check in the works.
It is a fifth of the GH20 million in payments he was supposed to have made by the end of April in accordance with the plea bargain agreement. Because he didn’t, the attorney general started legal actions to put him in jail.
However, that case was unable to be heard on Thursday because Mr. Essien’s attorney, Mr. Thaddeus Sory, had submitted a request to halt the proceedings as well as a motion to allow his client to alter the refund terms.
According to Mr. Sory, it would be ludicrous to use section 35(7) of the Courts Act against his client because, in his opinion, doing so would negate the goal of recovering the stolen property for the state.
This is a circumstance that section 35 of the Courts Act did not foresee. We are requesting the court to follow section 10(4) of the Interpretation Act, which mandates that the court consider the intent behind a statute when interpreting it. The state won’t deny that its goal is to aid in their recovery, according to Mr. Sory.
If his client received a prison sentence, he pondered what would happen to the money that had already been refunded.
The state responded by stating that it was unnecessary to interpret the terms of section 35(7) of the Courts Act. The phrase “the section is as clear as daylight, very clear, and admits of no ambiguity” was used by deputy attorney general Alfred Tuah Yeboah.
“We are arguing that the entire clause grants an accused person a particular grace, thus an accused person cannot stray from the terms that have been agreed upon. To put it another way, the defendant must uphold the integrity of his own agreement. The defendant in this instance broke his own commitment. He has reached his destination, Alfred Tuah-Yeboah declared.
Mr. Sory’s claim that the court might alter the terms of the reimbursement was rejected by Mr. Tuah-Yeboah as well.
“The court does not even have the authority to vary the agreement’s initial terms,” he claimed. Because there is no discretion, this court cannot add any new words to section 35(7). The word shall is employed here. Because it is required, the section is a mandatory requirement.
Mr. Essien’s application was denied by Justice Eric Kyei Baffour, who also postponed the case until May 17, 2023.