Corporate lawyer Victoria Bright has urged the public to consider the evidence in the case involving Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah and the Economic and Organised Crime Office’s (EOCO) investigation into the SIC Life Savings and Loans transaction. She emphasized that the controversy should not be reduced to a simple choice between justice and political power play. According to Bright, there are two separate questions that need to be considered: whether EOCO had a legitimate basis to investigate the underlying transaction, and whether the office had exercised its investigative powers lawfully.
Victoria Bright noted that information already available in the public domain raises questions about the transaction that warrant investigation. She identified the settlement, the authorization for the movement of funds, and apparent anomalies in the documentation as areas requiring scrutiny. Bright emphasized that establishing a basis for an investigation is separate from examining how EOCO exercised its powers during that investigation. She added that the question is whether those powers are being exercised lawfully, proportionately, and fairly in pursuing their investigation.
A major issue that requires closer examination is the GH¢5 million settlement at the center of the controversy. Bright said key questions should include whether the amount represented a commercially defensible compromise of a difficult judgment debt and, importantly, whether the decision to accept the settlement had been properly authorized. She emphasized that establishing who had the authority to settle on behalf of SIC is particularly important. Bright asked, "Who authorised the settlement on behalf of SIC?"
Victoria Bright noted that questions have been raised about the authority of the SIC official allegedly involved in the transaction. However, she said the issue should ultimately be capable of being resolved through documents. Bright said investigators and the public should be looking for specific documents that could establish how the settlement decision was reached. Among the questions she raised was whether a board resolution existed and whether authority had been formally delegated.
Bright also questioned what instructions had been given to the lawyers representing SIC and what the engagement agreement between the company and its lawyers provided. She asked, "What instructions were given to the lawyers? Where is the lawyer’s engagement contract with SIC? What does it say?" Another important question, she said, was who approved the GH¢5 million figure and what legal advice had been received about continuing enforcement of the judgment debt.
According to Bright, the answers could establish whether the settlement was the result of a properly authorized commercial decision or whether someone acted without the necessary authority. She emphasized that if properly authorized management made a commercial decision after receiving advice, then that presents one factual picture. Conversely, if someone without authority surrendered a substantial judgment debt, then that presents a different matter altogether.
Victoria Bright cautioned against assuming that an unfavorable or unsuccessful commercial decision necessarily amounts to wrongdoing. She noted that businesses make difficult decisions every day, some of which may appear unwise when viewed later. Bright urged caution against drawing conclusions before all the relevant evidence has been properly examined. She emphasized that it's essential to follow the evidence rather than presume either guilt or political prosecution.
Key points
- Lawyer Victoria Bright urges the public to consider the evidence in the EOCO investigation into Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah and the SIC Life Savings and Loans transaction.
- The investigation centers around a GH¢5 million settlement and questions of authorization and legitimacy.
- Bright cautions against making assumptions and emphasizes the need to follow the evidence.
