Wontumi takes High Court action to block EOCO's criminal prosecution over Exim Bank loan dispute

Bernard Antwi Boasiako, the former Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party, and his farming enterprise have escalated their dispute with Ghana Exim Bank by filing a High Court application to halt criminal proceedings against them. The move seeks to reframe what EOCO has prosecuted as a criminal matter—involving allegations of defrauding by false pretences, uttering forged documents, money laundering and intentionally causing financial loss to the state—as a straightforward contractual debt dispute.

The case centres on a loan exceeding GH¢18 million that was extended to Wontumi Farms to finance agricultural operations. According to the statement of claim filed by his lawyer Samuel Atta-Akyea, the parties had agreed on collateral arrangements and insurance cover that should have protected the bank's interests and resolved any repayment challenges.

The core dispute: Natural disaster or criminal negligence?

The plaintiffs contend that the farming project collapsed following severe flooding, when four rivers surrounding the 10,000-acre property overflowed their banks and inundated the farmland. They claim the bank was informed of the environmental disaster and that Ghana Exim Bank had allegedly promised to activate insurance coverage to settle the outstanding debt. The bank's failure to do so, they argue, transforms what should have been an insurable loss into a criminal matter.

Wontumi Farms and Chairman Wontumi deny all criminal allegations. They insist they did not obtain the facility through deception and did not engage in any unlawful conduct. Their position is that the bank has recourse through multiple mechanisms: the mortgage on the 10,000-acre property, Chairman Wontumi's personal guarantee of repayment, and the insurance arrangement that was purportedly agreed upon at the time of lending.

Why it matters for Ghana

This case raises important questions about how Ghana's law enforcement and financial institutions handle commercial disputes. The Economic and Organised Crime Office's involvement suggests the bank filed a complaint characterising the loan default as criminal activity rather than a contractual breach. However, the plaintiffs argue that EOCO has overstepped its mandate by acting as a debt collector when the matter is fundamentally about loan recovery—a function that should remain with the civil courts and existing collateral mechanisms.

For Ghana's business environment, the outcome could set a precedent about when loan disputes should be criminalised and at what point contractual obligations should be pursued through civil rather than criminal channels. Agricultural financing is critical to Ghana's economy, and lenders' willingness to extend credit depends partly on clarity about how courts treat defaults involving force majeure events like flooding.

The case also reflects broader concerns about access to justice and the appropriate use of criminal prosecutions in commercial matters. If environmental disasters render loans unrecoverable, criminalising borrowers who cannot pay raises questions about proportionality and whether criminal resources should be deployed in cases where civil remedies, insurance and collateral should be sufficient.

What the court is being asked to decide

The High Court is being asked to declare the dispute a civil debt matter and to order Ghana Exim Bank to provide a full accounting of the outstanding balance. The plaintiffs also want the court to direct the bank to pursue recovery through the available mechanisms: the mortgage on the farmland, the personal guarantee, or activation of the insurance cover they claim was part of the original lending agreement.

The case is expected to generate significant interest given Chairman Wontumi's political profile and the implications for how commercial disputes are managed in Ghana's formal economy.