<<Print>>

But for the intervention by the Presidency (no agreement on its meaning in this case), Merchant Bank Ghana (Merbank) and Engineers and Planners would either still be in court or have had the court settle their loan/debt repayment by now. Alas, the issue is now in the court of social commentators and is being ballooned in several directions. Certain facts, however, have been accepted by both sides. Frustrated by the non-servicing of debts by its single largest debtor, Merchant Bank�s Board of Directors in June last year wrote a final letter to Ibrahim Mahama demanding repayment of a loan the company took from the bank but had failed to pay on the due dates. Failure to do so, the Board warned it was going to take legal action to recover the colossal debt that was contributing significantly to the bank�s descent into bankruptcy. This is the kind of letter bank�s write almost daily to those they regard as debt defaulters. It is therefore difficult to understand why instead of paying up and preparing to face the bank in court, Engineers and Planners came to the conclusion that the Presidency, instead of the courts, should hear the matter. Stranger still, the Presidency appears to agree with Engineers and Planners that Ghanaian courts are horrible places to settle commercial disputes so takes over the case and instructs Merchant Bank to respond to the petition by Engineers and Planners. �Who born dog?� to quote former President Jerry Rawlings. The Presidency is now made up of people fully immersed in commercial law and therefore ready to hear the two sides and take a decision. Well dutifully, the Board replies to the E & P petition. In its response to the Engineers and Planners petition, Merbank�s Board states simply that it was resolved to collect the $38 million borrowed by Engineers and Planners, a debt as constituting 30% of the bank�s 50% non-performing loan portfolio and threatening the survival of Merchant Bank. The Board also highlighted how the loan had been revised downwards from $38 million to $28 million to allow the company to pay up, and yet it failed to do so. The Board gently reminded �The Presidency� that the Engineers and Planners indebtedness was a purely commercial matter and it is �unfortunate that Lithur, Brew and Co have escalated this to the office of the President.� Despite the response by the Board, �The Presidency� or someone in that office still attempted to find a solution that the Chairperson of the Board, Marian Barnor, an accomplished lawyer and banker, believed would �compromise the firm principles of corporate and institutional governance,� as she indicated in her resignation letter. Now, no matter whether Merchant Bank or Engineers and Planners will win the battle of the airwaves, the biggest losers in the case are SSNIT contributors. SSNIT is the majority shareholder in Merchant Bank. After contributing mandatorily to their pension, the managers of the scheme enters into investments without any attempt to explain to contributors how and why they got involved in investment schemes apparently to provide better services to their contributors. When they lose, as they have clearly done in this case, they put a spin on it and say they are withdrawing from these investments in the interest of their contributors. So they enter in the interest of the contributors, gain nothing and leave after losing the people�s money, again in the interest of the people.