The Attorney General, Dr. Dominic Ayine’s recent announcement of a negotiated settlement with the owners of defunct Unibank Ghana, Dr. Kwabena Duffour, has continued to fuel public debate. Bright Simons has called the deal a significant loss to the nation and a potential cover-up for powerful elites.
On July 22, the Attorney General announced that his office had reached a negotiated settlement with the owners of Unibank – once one of the country’s most prominent banks – effectively dropping all criminal charges initiated under the previous administration.
In exchange, the Unibank owners are to repay 60% of what the AG now says is their revised liability, down from the GH¢5.7 billion previously estimated. Critics say even that figure is overly generous and unexplained.
READ ALSO:
Simons quizzed the AG on his decision to surrender the state’s leverage, noting that the criminal proceedings could have served as a pressure tool during negotiations.
What does this mean for you?
Public Loss, Minimal Recovery – Over $1.5 billion was lost in the Unibank collapse, mostly covered by taxpayers, yet the government is recovering less than 11% of that amount.
Justice for the Powerful – Criminal charges were dropped against politically connected individuals, raising concerns about selective accountability and unequal justice.
Lack of Transparency – Key institutions like the Bank of Ghana and the Receiver remain silent, leaving citizens in the dark about how decisions affecting national funds were made.
The main shareholder of Unibank is a former finance minister and a leading figure in the ruling party – the same political fold as the Attorney General.
That connection has fueled deep cynicism.
The deal also halts parallel civil proceedings aimed at recovering GHS 5.7 billion in alleged financial losses.
In what was initially viewed as a breakthrough moment of transparency, the Attorney General provided more details during a sectoral update on Monday, July 28, 2025. However, governance analyst Bright Simons, known for his watchdog activism, has since issued a scathing critique of the government’s position, arguing that the financial logic behind the deal is “totally misconceived.”
AG’s Financial Reckoning Under Fire
The Attorney General’s revised estimate now pegs Unibank’s liability at GH¢3.3 billion—down from the previous GH¢5.7 billion claimed by the state. Under the settlement, GH¢800 million is expected to be recouped through forfeited properties and another GH¢1.2 billion from debtor repayments.
But Simons says these figures are misleading, if not dangerously naive. According to him, in 2018, Unibank’s owners admitted to GH¢4.9 billion in direct liabilities in a letter dated just a day before their license was revoked. But how that magically shrinks to GH¢3.3 billion in 2025 is still unknown.
In addition, when KPMG was appointed by BoG in 2018 to validate liabilities, it estimated the bank’s obligations at nearly GH¢9.2 billion, more than double what the AG now suggests. Of that, BoG was owed GH¢2.8 billion, while ordinary depositors and other banks formed the remainder of the creditors.
According to Simons, the government’s current deal recovers roughly $160 million of an estimated $1.5 billion in national losses, which accounts for barely 10.6%. Even more worrying is that part of the “recovered” sum may merely involve debt owed to government contractors, raising questions about the actual net recovery.
By Simons’ analysis, at least $1.5 billion in liabilities remain unexplained – what he calls a “capital hole.” Nearly $400 million was loaned to companies linked to Unibank’s owners and never returned. A further $600 million, loaned to other firms, was mostly unrecoverable.
Silence from Key Institutions
Adding to the discomfort is the silence from the Bank of Ghana and the Receiver – both central to the post-collapse process. According to Simons, the BoG alone was owed over GH¢2.8 billion by Unibank, and the Receiver is legally mandated to protect depositor and creditor interests.
However, neither institution has issued a statement clarifying whether they were consulted on the settlement, or whether their claims will now go unmet.
Deal or Disgrace?
The Attorney General has defended the settlement as a pragmatic resolution that avoids protracted litigation with uncertain outcomes. He cited recent appellate decisions, including the Beige Bank case, as weakening the state’s legal position.
But Simons says this isn’t about winning or losing in court. It’s about truth, transparency, and justice.