FBN Bank Directors, Legal Officer Cited for Contempt of Court

The High Court in Kumasi has granted an application for an order of substituted service for contempt proceedings against the directors of FBN Bank Ghana Limited, for interfering with the administration of justice in a case of foreign exchange transaction before the court.

The court, presided over by Justice Franklin Titus-Glover, ordered that the application for contempt be served by posting it at the High Court’s notice board in Kumasi, at the place of business of FBN Bank Ghana Limited, and through a publication in the Daily Graphic. The notice is to remain valid for 10 days. In compliance with the court’s directive, the publication was made in the Daily Graphic on February 24, 2026.

The application for committal for contempt was filed by Kwame Owusu Boateng and Kessben Travels and Tours Limited, who are seeking an order to commit the respondents, including the legal officer of the bank, Michael Gyan Owusu, to prison for misleading the court by presenting forged documents during the trial.

The contempt application stems from a substantive case pending before the High Court, presided over by Justice Anokye Gyimah.

According to the affidavit in support of the application, FBN Bank was engaged to facilitate the transfer of funds for the applicants by purchasing dollars from the account of Gadinesto Enterprise, with the bank acting as an intermediary. Although the bank received the funds from the applicants, it failed to execute the transfer.

The affidavit further states that during the trial, while the 15th respondent, Paul Senyo Zeloh, was being cross-examined as a witness for the bank, he testified that one Kwame Nkrumah, trading as Gadinesto Enterprise, was an importer of the goods in question and not a customer of the applicants. This testimony was deemed material to the issues before the trial court.

Counsel for the applicants challenged this assertion, arguing that the SWIFT copies confirming the successful transfer were issued to the applicants, and not to Kwame Nkrumah trading as Gadinesto Enterprise.

The affidavit added: “Pursuant to that, the applicants’ lawyer prayed the High Court to order the 15th respondent to produce the import documents in his possession relating to the account of the said customer.

“The High Court ordered the 15th respondent to produce the documents involving BA Ben Harris, PBA Construction, Emmanuel Asare 78 and Gadinesto Enterprise that he could endeavour to produce in the possession of the first respondent, and further directed him to report to the court any difficulties he encounters in complying with the court’s order.

“That on the 9th of May, 2024, the 1st respondent, through the 15th respondent, complied with the court’s order but could not produce the documents as required by the Foreign Exchange Act 723 but brought to court seven documents allegedly presented by Kwame Nkrumah trading as Gadinesto Enterprise.”

According to the applicants, after the parties had closed their cases and the court had directed them to file their written addresses on May 9, 2024, they identified several discrepancies in the documents presented by the 15th respondent during cross-examination. This prompted them to verify the authenticity of the Bill of Entry series from the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA).

The affidavit indicates that a verification conducted by the GRA on its ICUMS platform revealed that the Bill of Entry series ( marked as Exhibit X series) did not exist on the platform and, therefore, could not have originated from the GRA, contrary to the 15th respondent’s testimony in court.

“The GRA also confirmed that Kwame Nkrumah was not assigned to any tax office, and as such, the Exhibit X series was fraudulently generated to deceive and mislead the High Court,” the affidavit concluded.

Regarding the bank’s legal officer, the affidavit said that as an officer of the court, he owed a continued obligation to present only factual and accurate information, particularly on the true status of Gadinesto Enterprise. It argued that he should not have presented misleading information for the court to rely on in determining the merits of the matter.

In addition, the affidavit stated that he should have been mindful of the GRA’s letter exposing the Bill of Entry series as not authentic and should have advised the respondents accordingly, instead of defending the position that Gadinesto Enterprise was an importer.

Furthermore, the affidavit noted that as a lawyer and an officer of the court, he was aware of the required import documentation as stipulated in the Foreign Exchange Act 2006 (Act 723), which differs from the Bill of Entry series presented by the 15th respondent.

Consequently, the applicants prayed the court to commit the respondents to prison for contempt of court by bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.