Politics and the law: Justice, recovery, the case of Dr Kwabena Duffuor
The decision by the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Dr Dominic Ayine, to discontinue criminal proceedings against Dr Kwabena Duffuor and seven others has sparked significant public debate.
This decision relates to the widely published collapse of UniBank, during which approximately GH¢5.7 billion in depositors' funds was allegedly misappropriated.
The case formally known as The Republic vs Kwabena Duffuor & 7 Others (CR/0248/2020) was initiated under the previous government.
The allegations were serious, including stealing, wilfully causing loss to the state and money laundering.
These charges were brought to light following the Bank of Ghana's revocation of UniBank's banking licence in 2018, following claims of insolvency and serious regulatory breaches.
However, on Tuesday, July 22, 2025, the Attorney-General's office filed a nolle prosequi, which effectively brought an end to the case after approximately GH¢3.42 billion (60 per cent) of the misappropriated funds were recovered.
Litigation costs
The rationale provided by the Attorney-General's office was centred around the practicalities of avoiding protracted litigation and high administrative costs.
They maintained that the discontinuation of the case "does not imply an absence of wrongdoing nor a vindication of any conduct."
Nonetheless, this justification has occasioned widespread debate and suspicion.
The public is left to ponder crucial questions: If potential wrongdoing has occurred, why is the case being dropped?
Conversely, if no wrongdoing is found, why frame the connection with uncertainty?
This contradictory stance is at the heart of growing public dissatisfaction about the discontinuation of the case.
The State seems to acknowledge potential misconduct, yet it chooses to withdraw from pursuing legal accountability.
By opting to step back from the case without a definitive verdict, the government leaves room for public interpretations and scepticism among the populace.
Reflection
It is crucial to reflect on the emotional and social consequences arising from UniBank’s collapse.
The GH¢5.7 billion at stake represents the hard-earned savings of ordinary Ghanaians, depositors who placed their trust in a licensed and regulated financial institution.
Alarmingly, many individuals are believed to have suffered deep psychological trauma and financial ruin due to the bank’s failure.
This distress is well-documented by Yomboi et al. (2021) in their study “The Impact of the Collapsed Banks on Customers in Ghana,” which highlights the profound toll on affected customers and their families.
This situation prompts a deeply uncomfortable question: what message does the decision to prioritise financial recovery or political interest send to these grieving families?
That their pain and suffering are secondary, overlooked in favour of expediency and optics?
Moreover, this decision establishes a troubling precedent within Ghana's justice landscape.
Should we accept that politically exposed persons may mismanage or siphon billions, recover part of the funds, and escape consequences?
If recovery of 60 per cent is now considered sufficient grounds to cease prosecution, does this mean we are institutionalising a "partial refund-for-freedom" policy?
Unrecovered amount
The implications of this situation are alarming and far-reaching.
The remaining GH¢2.28 billion, the unrecovered amount, is no insignificant figure.
With proper planning and resource management, this amount could significantly enhance Ghana's development.
It could be allocated to constructing essential infrastructure such as roads and bridges, improving access to clean water and sanitation, upgrading healthcare services with better facilities and equipment, and expanding educational opportunities through new schools and teacher training programmes.
This unrecovered money has the potential to stimulate agricultural development with irrigation systems, leading to food security and job creation.
It could also facilitate the transition to renewable energy sources with investment in solar and wind technologies.
The absence of these funds represents not just a numerical shortfall but a significant hindrance to national progress and unmet human needs across the country.
Beneath the financial implications lies a deeper concern about the politicisation of justice in Ghana, as the abandonment of the case against Dr Duffuor by one administration raises the possibility that a future government could revive it, while the ongoing prosecutions of former New Patriotic Party (NPP) officials also call into question whether they would be dismissed if the NPP regains power, ultimately undermining public confidence in the independence and objectivity of the judicial system and raising doubts about its impartiality and long-term credibility.
Impartial outcomes
At its core, the justice system ought to remain free from political influence. It should inspire public trust, reassure victims, and deliver impartial outcomes.
When decisions, like this one, appear to favour the influential while neglecting the rights of the ordinary Ghanaians, confidence in the rule of law is severely eroded.
The credibility of governance itself begins to deteriorate when justice is perceived as selective, negotiable, or translational.
While this case may be officially closed by the State, it remains unresolved in the court of public opinion.
It compels Ghanaians to confront pressing questions about the kind of justice system they are striving to build.
Are we creating a system where justice is genuinely blind, or is it viewed through the lens of political interests? In a nation seeking democratic maturity and economic transformation, the answers to these questions are critical and urgent.
The writer is a political scientist.
