Eland International Ghana Limited, an Indian owned commodity company, is pursuing some Ghanaian businessmen, including a former Managing Director of the National Investment Bank (NIB), Daniel Gyimah and his son, Stephen Yaw Opoku Gyimah, for sums running into almost US$600million.

Several documents cited by The Herald, mentioned others such as Prosper Adabla, Sam Adabla and Edward Boahene, as partners of the two men, who went into rice trading business, with Eland International Ghana Limited and Eland Thailand Company Limited, but were unable to properly account for the supplies given them and sold here in Ghana.

It is a transaction in which NIB, is said to have acted in some unethical manner, leading to access to the company’s goods and bank accounts with money taken away by some of the individuals in a bizarre manner.

The company was incorporated in Ghana in 1997. They had acquired properties, including building, lands and trucks among others, which were also hijacked and sold off under strange circumstance.

The Indian investors, who have offices and other business interests in Dubai, London and other countries, have through their lawyers; Dadzie, Asiedu & Associates, since 2017, filed several legal processes and mounted political pressure towards having their monies paid them.

The Herald is also informed about near-death encounters between some officials of the company and their Ghanaian counterparts.

Other reports have also claimed that there were attempts not to allow other officers of Eland International Ghana Limited and Eland Thailand Company Limited, come to Ghana to fight for their money.

Other aspects of the same case are in Arbitration in London. The case paints a bad image of the country by revealing how foreign investors are treated and the funds mismanaged when they finally arrive in Ghana.

According to one of the documents, “in 2017, the lawyers of NIB, invited us through our lawyers trying to settle the matter in an amicable manner out of court and we suspended the arbitration proceedings and have been trying to come to some amicable solution, but again NIB has gone into a silent mode”.

“Therefore, under extreme pressure from our lenders, financiers, banks and partners, the investors of Eland, have restarted the process of arbitration and are in the process of presenting the PNs of 207.5 Million, plus claim the amounts paid to NIB by our lenders with interest”.

According to the investors “though we have no proof but during the trial of Dominion Capital Trust Vs NIB, we can see that NIB has been engaging in the game of “ROBBING PETER TO PAY PAUL” and by fraudulent raising of funds from the markets to hide its losses/defalcate huge amounts. From market sources and the trial one can see that NIB repaid its own PNs of 24 Million $ raised in 2005 and yet a sum of 45.8M-(16+2.5+24 M) =3.3 Million has again been defalcated by the then MD/Management of NIB”.

The company insisted that “since we were still not paid fully, we threatened legal action in 2008, but were told that NIB cannot raise more funds till they pay of the PNs of 60 Million in 2009. Since we could not wait for that long, NIB issued/guaranteed us 40 PNs of 5 Million $ each totaling 200 Million $ payable in May 2013 inclusive of advance interest up to 2013. These PNs have not been presented by us till date”.

But “upon pressure from our lenders and suppliers and non-payment to the fund managers, Eland sued NIB for 107$ in a fast Track High court in Accra in 2014 inclusive of interest up to only April 2011 and ONLY FOR CIF VALUE OF THE GOODS SUPPLIED TO NIB UNDER THE CMA under suit no OCC/28/2014. Eland Ghana, the local distributor of the goods did not claim its 62% of the duties, taxes and expenses in the said suit which together would exceed 200 Million $ in this case till NIB moved repeated failed applications to enjoin EIGL as a co-defendant. NIB finally succeeded in getting EIGL joined in the said suit as a third party”.

“Thereupon EIGL moved and application in the court to claim its 62% expenses plus 30% assured returns and succeeded in getting the matter being referred to Arbitration in London in 2016”, adding “notices for arbitration starting in London were issued but NIB, has consistently maintained either silence or given contradictory replies and theories in reply to various legal notices from London lawyers of ours.”