Vish Ashiagbor, one of the Directors of Price Waterhouse Coopers (PwC) and a Receiver of failed nine financial institutions, says he does not know from which source the Bank of Ghana was accessing funds to pay them.

Thus, he does not know where the Central Bank is accessing funds from to make those payments to the Joint Receivers on one hand and the corporate institution on another hand.

He said this while testifying before an Accra High Court presided over a justice of Court of Appeal, Justice Eric Kyei Baffour on Thursday.

The PwC Director provided this response when questioned by William Ato Essien defence Counsel, lawyer Thaddeus Sory, as to whether he was aware that the service they are rendering as Joint Receivers was of public nature.

Mr Ashiagbor whom the lawyer said displayed astute financial and banking knowledge in his report of the failed banks, answered he did not know, since he does not understand what was meant by the service was of public nature.

The question was then clarified that any fund, which the Apex Bank use to make payments, is from the consolidated funds, hence it is from the public purse.   

But the Banking and Financial erudition responded: “My Lord, I don’t know that for a fact. The payment comes from Bank of Ghana, as to how Bank of Ghana funds those payments, I don’t know.”

When he was pushed further to answer whether payment also to PWC as a corporate institution by the Bank of Ghana, is made from public funds, he said “My Lord, as I said before, I cannot immediately agree to that, because I don’t know for sure where Bank of Ghana is accessing those funds.”

According to him, those funds being used by the BoG could also be grants and cannot only be coming from public coffers.

The question of whether the funds being used to pay the Joint Receivers and PwC rose when Mr Sory found serious breach of conflict of interest in their appointment.

 Mr Ashiagbor was testifying against Mr Ato Essien and cohorts – Tetteh Nettey, Fitzherald Odonkor and Kate Quartey-Papafio for allegedly stealing and misappropriating GH¢262 million from the defunct Capital Bank.

Part of how Thaddeus Sory questioned [Q] Mr Mr Ashiagbor and some answers [A] provided:

Q:  On the last adjourned, Mr. Ashiagbor, in an answer to a question that I asked you, regarding whether or not the Bank of Ghana had responded to a request made by you to appoint your own institution to carry out functions relating to your receivership, you would recall that you answered yes? 

A: Yes, my Lord.                                              

Q: And, you would recall also, that you also confirmed to the Court that you could share that letter with the Court? 

A: Yes, my lord. 

Q:  Now this morning, I received a copy of a letter dated July 4, 2017 from the Prosecution, pursuant to your confirmation that you could share that information with the Court. Take a look at it and confirm whether that is the document.

A: My Lord that is the correct document. .

Q: And, just by way of a background, the document is signed by Eric Nana Nipa, not so? 

A: Yes, my Lord.

Q: But the same document binds you; is that not so? 

A: Yes, my Lord. 

Q:  If you look at the last page of Exhibit 1, there is page 7 which is the last page of Exhibit 1. That is where the signature of somebody called the Deputy Governor appears? 

A: Yes, my Lord. 

Q: His name is not indicated there? 

A: No, my Lord. 

Q: But, he indicates that the Bank of Ghana accepts the terms of your engagement? 

A: Yes.  

Q: Now, if you look at page 2 under the heading “Scope of Work”, and which describes the pre-appointment services that you would render to the Bank of Ghana, it includes engaging other professionals; is that correct? 

A: Yes. 

Q: Now, in page 3, you also have the post-appointment services that the joint Receivers are required to execute under the terms of engagement? 

A: Yes. 

Q: Now, the report which you have attached to your witness statement, can you tell the Court, whether it was executed pre-appointment or post-appointment? 

A: It was executed post-appointment. 

Q: So, in other words, it was a post-appointment task executed by PWC and not the Joint Receivers? 

A: My Lord, the work was done post-appointment by PWC for the use of the Joint Receivers.

Q: Now, if you look at the pre-appointment services to be rendered, particularly those specified in clauses 2(a) V, VI and VII, those are the ones which contemplate the possibility of engaging other professionals. Is that correct? 

A: Yes, that is correct. 

Q: Now, the effect of this is that, all persons engaged by the Joint Receivers to provide services, must also be paid under clauses 2(a) V, VI and VII? 

A: Yes. 

Q: If you take a look at clause 2(a) VII specifically, it states that the Joint Receivers may require the recruitment of associate personnel to assist in the receivership process? 

A: Yes, my Lord. 

My Lord, this is a letter of engagement between PWC and the Bank of Ghana.

Q: The appointment of the Joint Receivers came under separate provisions under the Act, Act 930. So, this letter is giving PWC the mandate, at least in terms of this specific clause the one we are speaking about now, the authority to recruit associate personnel to assist in the receivership exercise. So in other words, what you are telling this Court is that, this letter confirms a direct engagement of PWC by the Bank of Ghana, separate from the appointment of the Joint Receivers. Is that correct?

 My Lord, this letter confirms that the Bank of Ghana has engaged PWC to support the Joint Receivers in the conduct of the receivership. And, in the execution of your responsibilities as Joint Receivers, you also get paid separately from PWC?

Q: My Lord, no. So are you telling this Court, that for the distinct services, in respect of which you have confirmed to the Court, that PWC as a corporate entity gets paid, as distinguished from two separate services rendered by the Joint Receivers, you all get paid under this contract tendered in evidence as Exhibit 1?

A: My Lord that is correct, as far as the services that PWC provides; yes.

Q: You will agree with me, that the services which PWC renders to the Bank of Ghana and to other members of the public, are services that can be rendered by some other institutions. Is that correct?

 A: Yes, other institutions can render the same services.

Q: And, I am putting it to you that if some other institution other than the PWC had rendered the same services to the Joint Receivers, the Joint Receivers and that entity could never have been paid with the same cheque?

 That is correct.

A: The last time I was here, I made mention of the fact that our appointment as Joint Receivers also made reference to the fact that we are both Directors of PWC. Because we are Directors of PWC, whatever earnings, fees we make, is channelled through PWC, partly to avoid the situation I understand you are concerned about, which is a potential conflict of interest. Payments had to go through PWC.

Q: And you will also recall in your last testimony to this Court, that the reference to PWC in the personal appointment of Eric Nana Nipa and yourself, was only a way of describing who you are. PWC was never appointed; that was your last testimony to this Court?

A: Yes

Q: So, this being a pre-appointment service, PWC was definitely not appointed under clause 2(a) VII. Is that correct?

A: Yes, my Lord.

Q:  And you will recall also, that in your last testimony to this Court, you confirmed to the Court, that the appointment of Eric Nana Nipa and yourself by the Bank of Ghana, was personal to you and Eric Nana Nipa as distinguished from PWC as a corporate institution?

A: Yes, my Lord.

Q:  And I am putting it to you that your testimony in this Court confirms that, the appointment of Eric Nana Nipa and yourself by the Bank of Ghana on the one hand, and PWC as a corporate institution on the other hand as evidenced by Exhibit 1, are two separate and distinct engagements?

A: Yes my Lord.

Q: I am therefore putting it to you that your testimony this morning, that for separate and distinct services rendered by Eric Nana Nipa and yourself on the one hand, and services rendered by PWC as a corporate institution on the other hand, are paid for as if they are one and the same service, is incorrect?

A: My Lord, I don’t agree with that.

Q: I am also putting it to you, that the signing of Exhibit 1 by Eric Nana Nipa in his capacity as Director of PWC, when he was appointed Joint Receiver by the Bank of Ghana, is a clear case of conflict of interest?

A: I disagree with that.

Q: Can you confirm to this Court, what process was undertaken by the Joint Receivers, for purposes of settling on their own institution, PWC to carry out services that other institutions could have rendered to the Joint Receivers?

A: So my Lord, pre-appointment of PWC and in fact, pre-appointment of the Joint Receivers, there was an engagement with the Bank of Ghana prior to the actual receivership of the bank. In the course of those discussions, which included what needed to be done, how it was to be done and who was going to do it, the role of the Joint Receivers and the role of PWC were all clarified and agreed upon, and that is what resulted in the appointment of the Joint Receivers and the engagement of PWC.

Q:  I am still putting it to you, that whatever the engagements were between the Bank of Ghana and the Joint Receivers in respect of services to be rendered to the Joint Receivers, the Joint Receivers, as evidenced by Exhibit 1, took a position to ensure that their own institution, PWC would be engaged?

A: We as Joint Receivers did propose to work with PWC and the Bank of Ghana accepted that.

Q: By virtue of the answer that you have just given to the Court, the Joint Receivers made that proposal to ensure that, whatever payment a third party institution would have gained from rendering services to the Joint Receivers, would still go to the very institution, in which they are Directors, and which they would benefit from? 

A: My Lord, no, that wasn’t the basis; because, as you highlighted yourself a few minutes ago, we as Joint Receivers would have been paid anyway. 

Q: So you would agree with me that, upon your appointment as Joint Receivers, the services you render to the Bank of Ghana are of a public nature? 

A: I don’t know, because I don’t know what you mean by ‘public nature’. 

Q: Specifically, what I mean is that, your payment as Joint Receivers would come from public purse? 

A: My Lord, I don’t know that for a fact. The payment comes from Bank of Ghana; as to how Bank of Ghana funds those payments, I don’t know? 

Q: In your wide experience, the reason for which Bank of Ghana would engage you as a Joint Receiver, are you aware of any fund from which the Bank of Ghana can make payment other than the consolidated fund? 

A: In my experience, the Bank of Ghana may have funding, for example, grants available for different purposes. That was why I responded the way I did previously. 

Q: And, I am putting it to you, that payment also to PWC as a corporate institution by the Bank of Ghana, is made from public funds?

A: My Lord, as I said before, I cannot immediately agree to that, because I don’t know for sure where Bank of Ghana is accessing those funds. 

Q: Apart from the engagements and discussions with the Bank of Ghana that resulted in the engagement of PWC, did the Bank of Ghana or yourselves to go through any procurement process for purposes of engaging PWC? 

A: Yes, we did. 

Q: Can you share with the Court, what the process was? 

A: So from our perspective, we provided proposals to Bank of Ghana, we were invited to the Bank of Ghana to give presentations around those proposals, and to enable them to clarify aspects of our proposal. And, to the best of my knowledge, that proposal was then evaluated, and then things evolved from there.

Q: So, when you say ‘we’, my understanding is that, it is Eric Nana Nipa and yourself in your capacity as Joint Receivers, and also now wearing the hat of Directors of PWC who presented that proposal to the Bank of Ghana. Is that correct? 

A: That is correct. We were invited there to discuss the potential receivership as potential Joint Receivers; and then in the course of the discussions and the proposals we submitted, we also addressed the other receivership activities that needed to be conducted and how they might be conducted. 

Q: In those your proposals, did you draw the Bank of Ghana’s attention to the fact that, other institutions could provide the same services? 

A: We did not do that in our proposal. 

Q: In addition to being Directors of PWC, are you partners?

A: No my Lord. PWC is a Company, so we are Directors of the Company, but loosely speaking, people sometimes refer to us as partners, but we are Directors.

By Akutu Dede Adimer