On JoyNews’ Newsfile programme on Saturday, August 2, legal practitioner, Oliver Barker‑Vormawor strongly criticised the Attorney‑General’s strategy of prioritising asset recovery over prosecution in the uniBank collapse case.

Mr Barker-Vormawor insists that the recovery effort does not absolve alleged criminal conduct.

“Recovery approach doesn't excuse criminal conduct,” he declared, arguing that recovering funds is no substitute for accountability.

The controversy centres on the AG’s decision to file a nolle prosequi in exchange for an agreement securing a 60 per cent recovery of the bank’s estimated liabilities.

Critics, including governance analyst Bright Simons, have challenged the claim, stating that only 10.6 per cent of liabilities may actually have been recovered and victims remain substantially uncompensated.

Mr Barker‑Vormawor called the entire process a “sham” that undermines justice in cases involving senior individuals closely associated with power.

He emphasised that prosecutorial discretion should not be used as a substitute for court proceedings.

“Citizens expect wrongdoers to face criminal charges, not just pay a fraction of what they owe and walk free. That sets a dangerous precedent,” he argued.

According to reports, the alleged liabilities previously estimated at GHS 5.7 billion were later downgraded to GHS 3.3 billion, with only a portion being monetised through forfeiture and debt repayment.

As Dr Ayine’s decision continues to generate public debate, critics warn of a growing perception that financial crime prosecutions are being selectively dropped—especially when they involve the politically powerful.

Civil society voices have called for transparency and proportional justice, demanding that the AG clarify how this approach aligns with the rule of law.

Mr Barker‑Vormawor reaffirmed that asset recovery cannot grant impunity and urged far-reaching reform to ensure ethical accountability in state financial interventions.