A commercial dispute involving Mr. Amar Deep Singh Hari, Chairman of IPMC and co-founder of Gold Crest Refinery, and his former business partners, Ms. Niharika Handa and her son, Mr. Punar Vasu Handa, has escalated into a legal battle, drawing public attention.

Mr. Hari, who says he has lived and worked in Ghana for more than three decades, issued a statement through his office expressing concern about what he described as unfounded allegations against him in ongoing proceedings.

He said he remains confident in the Ghanaian justice system and has submitted petitions and documents to the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) in support of his position.

“For more than 30 years, I have lived and worked in Ghana, building businesses, creating jobs, and supporting social and charitable causes. I continue to place my trust in the institutions of this country and remain resolute to the rule of law and due process,” Mr. Hari noted.

The dispute relates to operations at Gold Crest Refinery, which the parties co-founded. Mr. Hari’s statement alleged financial impropriety by the Handas, claims which are being investigated by authorities. He pledged to pursue justice while maintaining respect for the courts.

Lawyers for Ms. Niharika Handa and Mr. Punar Vasu Handa have, however, strongly rejected the allegations, maintaining that their clients have conducted themselves lawfully and transparently in all their dealings.

They described the claims against them as misleading and harmful, and said they were confident that the courts would resolve the matter based on facts and evidence. They also challenge Mr. Amar Deep Singh Hari title of being the chairman of IPMC.

Both sides have indicated their willingness to present their cases through the proper legal channels. Observers say the outcome of the matter will depend on the judicial process and the findings of ongoing investigations.

In a related development, lawyers for Ms. Niharika Handa and Mr. Punar Vasu Handa have requested a number of Ghanaian media outlets to retract and apologise for what they say are malicious publications against their clients.

The 24-hour ultimatum asks the outlets to comply with specific demands or face lawsuits.

“In view of the facts to which your attention has been drawn by virtue of this letter, we hereby demand, based on our client's instructions to us that you:

1. retract the said publication,
2. pulldown the publication from all your platforms, and
3. render an unqualified apology to our client for the false statements made of and concerning our client.

“Please take notice that our client's demands that you begin and carry out the demands above listed within twenty four [24] hours from the date of this letter failing which we have our client's instructions to take immediate action against you and all the various media institutions which either published or republished the information the subject of our present letter to you without any notice to you.”