The court affirmed that the central bank was fulfilling its lawful mandate in the best interests of the shareholders and, by extension, the public, and therefore, no criticisms could be raised against it.
Once the court established that the applicants had the necessary capacity and had appropriately invoked the court’s jurisdiction, the judge then delved into the substantive aspects of the case, addressing issues such as discrimination, unreasonableness, unfairness, and the violation of the applicants’ administrative rights.
Concerning the alleged violation of administrative rights, the applicant argued that a fair evaluation by the BoG would have demonstrated the solvency of GN savings and loans, contradicting the Bank of Ghana’s claim that the entity was insolvent.
The plaintiffs asserted that settling the government debt would have resulted in the fulfilment of the capital adequacy ratio.
“If the Bank of Ghana had taken into consideration the financial circumstances of the company, and the fact that government owed us, they would have seen that the company was solvent,” the lawyer said.
The applicant’s dissatisfaction is based on miscalculation, and they claim that this amounted to a violation.
“The bank, as an administrative body, was unfair, unreasonable and irrational in its administrative functions, the lawyer for the applicant averred. No reasonable person faced with the same set of facts would have arrived at the decision taken by the Bank of Ghana to revoke its license.”
The petitioner claims that many measures to get money from the government had failed, and that it was inappropriate for the BoG to withdraw their licence given their circumstances.
The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim, stating that as an administrative body fortified by the Bank of Ghana Act, it was incumbent on the Bank of Ghana to ensure a strict supervision regime, and that once the applicants did not meet the threshold and were not solvent at the time of revocation, their duty was to make the decision it did.
According to the court, the plaintiffs can file a complaint with the Finance Ministry on the government’s debt to them.
“It’s manifestly clear that the BoG took a reasonable decision to protect the public interest,“ the judge said.
On the issue of discrimination, the court determined that the applicants were not discriminated against because other entities experienced the same fate as the applicants.
The court ruled that the petitioner was not discriminated against, and their concerns were baseless and without merit.
About The Author
