Counsel for UT Bank, A.A Ackuaku Jnr, is accusing Deputy Attorney-General, Godfred Yeboah Dame of breaching the ethics of the legal profession.

This he says was done after the Deputy Attorney-General granted interviews to some radio stations, on the bank's claim of ownership of some properties belonging to businessman Alfred Agbesi Woyome.

He says the Deputy A-G is whipping up public interest in a manner that affects the integrity of the Receiver, Eric Nana Nipah, who is simply doing his work.

Mr. Dame in response to the accusation advised lawyer for the defunct bank to address the court appropriately with the relevant transcript of the interview if he feels aggrieved.

He argues, he owes it a duty to educate the public on the matter which he did without exceeding his boundaries.

The receiver of defunct UT Bank, Eric Nana Nipah has fought off claims the bank is colluding with businessman Alfred Woyome.

Related: UT Bank receiver frustrating Woyome's ₵51.2m judgment debt retrieval- AG

Mr. Dame had alleged the Receiver is frustrating government's quest to satisfy a ¢51.2 million debt owed the state, by claiming ownership of residential facilities it has earmarked for sale.  

He also suggested on Monday, to the Receiver that one year after the bank had bought the properties from Mr. Woyome, it granted him a loan using the same properties as collateral.

Mr. Nipah who was shown documents backing the loan agreement disagreed.

He explained the loan document made "a vague reference" to two properties at Trassaco Valley Estates which in his opinion could not be the same as what the bank acquired.

The Deputy A-G pressed further and questioned whether the Receiver was aware of any other property beyond the two the bank claimed to own as belonging to him at Trassaco Estates.

Related: UT Group lost its vision- Amoabeng opens up on collapse

Mr. Nipah responded that they were still investigating the matter and were yet to conclusively identify any.

But the presiding judge Justice A. A Benin agreed with the Deputy A-G that such a concern must be appropriately raised.

He however advised that lawyers in the case refrain from such commentary as much as possible and allow the court to handle the matter.

He added that his decision will certainly not be influenced by such public commentary.

Background

Last year, the banking sector shook following news that Capital Bank and UT Bank’s liabilities overwhelmed their assets and the Bank of Ghana (BoG) assumed the responsibility of their assets and revoked their licences.

The collapsed banks were “unable to develop an acceptable plan”, according to the BoG, which indicated in a statement that it made efforts to help UT Bank and Capital Bank recover via private alternatives.

The Central Bank said there were “repeated agreements between the Bank of Ghana and UT Bank and Capital Bank to implement an action plan to address these significant shortfalls.”

However, the owners and managers of UT Bank and Capital Bank were unable to increase the capital of the banks to address the insolvency.

Purchase and Assumption agreement allowed GCB Bank to take over all deposit liabilities and selected assets of both UT Bank and Capital Bank, per section 123 of the Banks and Specialised Deposit-Taking Institutions (SDIs) Act, 2016 (Act 930).

The BoG in its statement said the GCB Bank took over UT Bank and Capital Bank “as part of efforts to extend their reach and grow their balance sheet to position them to support large transactions in a fast-growing economy.”