Bank in Judge-Shopping Scandal

…after forging Letter to Steal Client’s Millions, First Atlantic Bank Now Wants a New Referee for Its Appeal.

Front Desk Report

In a bold maneuver following a multimillion-cedi fraud judgment against it, Ghana’s First Atlantic Bank Ltd. is attempting an extraordinary end-run around the judicial process. The private commercial bank, having lost a case in which a judge found it committed fraud against a client, is now seeking to use administrative channels to discredit the trial judge and secure a more favorable forum for its appeal.

The case, Vihama Energy Company Ltd. & Anor v. First Atlantic Bank, centers on the bank’s actions during the government’s 2022 Domestic Debt Exchange Programme (DDEP). According to a High Court judgment delivered by Justice Sedina Agbemava, First Atlantic Bank fraudulently tendered bonds belonging to its client, Vihama Energy and its CEO Sebastian Klenam Asem, without their knowledge or consent, causing significant financial loss.

Justice Agbemava ordered the bank to pay over Ghc10.5 million to the plaintiffs Ghc8.44 million for the actual losses incurred, Ghc2 million in exemplary damages, and Ghc100,000 in costs. The judge found that the bank, after being refused permission to submit the bonds, fabricated a letter to the Central Securities Depository, forging the client’s instructions to release the bonds. The letter, court documents show, listed the client as a copied recipient but was never sent to him.

Rather than proceed directly through the standard appellate process, First Atlantic Bank has written to Chief Justice Paul Baffoe Bonnie, attacking Justice Agbemava’s fairness and impartiality. In the letter, reviewed by Whatsup News, the bank claims the trial judge was biased and seeks the Chief Justice’s intervention to effectively nullify the verdict by assigning a new judge for the appeal a move legal observers describe as a blatant attempt at “forum-shopping.”

“This is an attempt to use administrative backdoors to relitigate a matter that has been settled by the court,” said a source familiar with the proceedings. “Every single relief sought by the bank at trial was dismissed for lack of merit. Now, they are trying to attack the judge personally.”

The controversy stems from the bank’s role in the DDEP, a government program to restructure domestic debt. While corporate entities were pressured to participate, individual bondholders were not. To shield their nearly Ghc48 million in bonds from the program, the bond which was used as a security for a facility secured under contract by Vihama Energy was transferred into the name of Sabastian Asem  CEO of Vihama and placed under First Atlantic’s management as collateral for a separate loan facility.

Despite clear, repeated refusals from Asem to tender the bonds under the DDEP and his offers to substitute the collateral with substantial landed property or cash accounts the bank proceeded. Internal bank communications presented in court show senior officers, including Chris Kan Dapaah, son of former National Security Minister Albert Kan Dapaah, and Executive Director Dan Marfo, were involved in discussions about alternative collateral.

Nonetheless, on February 7, 2023, while Asem was in a meeting with Kan Dapaah, the bank dispatched a letter to the securities depository, falsely stating that Asem had instructed the release of his bonds. The fraudulent tender under the DDEP, which offered significantly lower yields, locked up the bonds for months before they were restored, resulting in millions in lost returns.

In her judgment, Justice Agbemava detailed the bank’s actions, noting the “surreptitious” creation of the fraudulent letter and the resulting breach of trust. The Ghc2 million exemplary damages award was intended to punish the bank’s “high-handed” conduct and deter similar behavior.

The bank’s response to directly petition the head of the judiciary to undermine the trial judge has raised alarms about the pressures on judicial independence and the tactics wealthy institutions may employ to avoid accountability.

On Thursday, January 15, 2026, the bank filed for a stay of execution on the judgment, pending its appeal. Its parallel campaign for administrative reassignment of the case, however, suggests a strategy that extends beyond the courtroom’s four walls.

The Office of the Chief Justice has not yet indicated how it will respond to the bank’s request.