The Bank of Ghana (BoG) is asking the Accra High Court to dismiss a suit filed against the former Governor of BoG, Dr Ernest Addison, and the bank over management of the Ghanaian Cedi.
The BoG is the first defendant in the case that want the court to throw out the suit because it failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action.
According to the BoG, the suit filed by a retiree, Balbir Violet Allan, a resident of Adabraka, Accra, constitutes an abuse of the court’s process and that same should not be entertained by the court.
The first defendant would move its motion seeking the dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit on Thursday, May 15.
In the substantive suit, the plaintiff argued that when the Governor assumed office in February 2017, the cedi-dollar exchange rate was GH¢4.26 to $1.
However, by February 3, this year — when the Governor proceeded on terminal leave — the rate had surged to GH¢15.49 to $1, representing a depreciation of approximately 264 per cent.
It is the case of the plaintiff that the significant decline in the value of the cedi had caused substantial losses in the value and purchasing power of her investments in government treasuries, particularly ESLA Bonds.
In the suit filed by lawyer for the plaintiff, John E. Baiden, the plaintiff argues that while the law mandated the Bank of Ghana, through its Governor, to provide
the state with a stable currency, the second defendant allegedly chose to allow the value of the cedi to be determined solely by market forces, including demand and supply on the foreign exchange (forex) markets, leading to its instability and volatility.
It is the case of the plaintiff that the former Governor allegedly failed to develop or implement any credible plan consistent with the law to stabilise the currency.
As Governor, Ms Balbir, said he also served as the Chairperson of the BoG’s Board and its Monetary Policy Committee, which was legally responsible for formulating and executing monetary policy measures, including efforts to stabilise the currency.
“The second defendant has so controlled and conducted the affairs of the first defendant in a manner that extensive harm has befallen the cedi, including that of the plaintiff’s, as the dictates of justice would justify the legal mandate of the 1st defendant are made coterminous with the mandate of the second defendant who is not only the Governor but Chairperson of the first defendant’s Board and its Monetary Policy Committee,” the writ stated.
Moreover, the plaintiff indicated that she formally notified the former Governor on May 30, 2024, of her intention to sue if no efforts were made to restore the cedi’s soundness and value.
However, no remedial action was taken, prompting the current legal action.
The plaintiff wanted the court to make an order directed at the court to recover her losses
BY MALIK SULLEMANA
