Former Deputy Executive Director of the National Service Authority (NSA), Gifty Oware-Mensah, has challenged claims by Agricultural Development Bank (ADB) that transfers made from an NSA hire purchase suspense account to Blocks of Life Consult Limited were duly authorised.
The issue emerged during proceedings at the Criminal Division of the High Court in Accra on Wednesday before Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay, where Oware-Mensah is standing trial over allegations linked to the National Service ghost names scandal and accused of causing a financial loss of about GH¢38 million to the state.
During the continued cross-examination of the prosecution’s first witness, Gilbert Sebe-Yeboah, Head of Commercial Banking at ADB, defence counsel, Gary Nimako Marfo questioned the bank’s basis for transferring funds from the NSA Hire Purchase Suspense Account to Blocks of Life Consult Limited.
Mr Sebe-Yeboah maintained that the bank acted on what he described as an “omnibus” or standing instruction from Oware-Mensah authorising transfers under a hire purchase facility arrangement involving National Service personnel.
However, the defence challenged the witness on the absence of documentary evidence specifically authorising the first transfer of GH¢148,841 made on February 22, 2023.
Asked whether the bank had produced any written authorisation for that transaction, the witness admitted that there was no separate instruction for the transfer, insisting instead that the bank relied on a broader instruction and telephone communications with Oware-Mensah.
“We had authorisation,” Mr. Sebe-Yeboah told the court, explaining that ADB had been assured that transfer instructions would be provided and that the accused had been contacted before the transaction was processed.
But Mr. Nimako Marfo put it to the witness that the transfer was made without any authorisation from Oware-Mensah and that, in normal banking practice, no bank would transfer funds without formal written approval. The witness disagreed, stating that the bank had “express instructions” contained in a document tendered as Exhibit D.
The defence further questioned the validity of Exhibit D as a standing instruction, noting that the document was received by the bank on March 2, 2023—several days after the first transfer had already been made.
Counsel argued that the contents of the exhibit did not indicate that it authorised past, present or future transfers from the suspense account to Blocks of Life Consult Limited.
In response, Mr. Sebe-Yeboah said the instruction was clear and unambiguous.
“The instruction was clear: transfer funds disbursed under this arrangement to Blocks of Life Consult Limited,” he told the court.
He added that although no specific amount was stated in the document, the bank interpreted it as sufficient authority to process subsequent transfers.
The defence also challenged the witness’s claim that Oware-Mensah was contacted before every transfer, pointing out that no emails, WhatsApp messages, letters or telephone records had been produced in court to support that assertion.
Mr. Sebe-Yeboah maintained that communication had taken place and that telephone conversations were used to confirm transfers.
The witness further testified that Exhibit C, the NSA Hire Purchase Suspense Account statement, was created by ADB to manage the hire purchase facility and was governed by a master agreement between the bank and the NSA.
According to him, the account was not an operational account and could not be directly operated by either Oware-Mensah or Blocks of Life Consult Limited.
The defence also questioned numerous cash deposits made into the account by ADB staff members, including Christian Abotchie and Nana Serwah Osei-Agyemang.
Mr. Sebe-Yeboah explained that the deposits represented portions of loan repayments received through the e-zwich system, which required a percentage of the funds to be withdrawn and re-deposited as cash before being credited to the suspense account.
Throughout the cross-examination, the defence suggested that Exhibit C was merely a product of ADB’s internal activities and lacked independent corroboration because the bank had not tendered the corresponding loan account or the account records of Blocks of Life Consult Limited.
The witness denied any deliberate omission, stating that the account details of Blocks of Life Consult Limited had been submitted to investigators.
Defence counsel further argued that Exhibit C, standing alone, did not prove that any funds had actually been paid to or received by Blocks of Life Consult Limited on behalf of National Service personnel.
Mr. Sebe-Yeboah responded that his role was limited to managing the suspense account and that records relating to Blocks of Life Consult Limited were maintained by another branch of the bank. Proceedings have been adjourned to June 11, 2026, for the continuation of the trial.
Cross examination
Q:Take a look at Exhibit 3 and confirm to this court, whether the accused person is
named as a director, shareholder or a beneficial owner on Blocks of Life Consult
Limited?
A: My lady, on the face of this document, No.
Q: You have told this court that Exhibit C, which is NSS Hire purchase Suspense
Account, was created by ADB that is your bank, for the purpose of the Hire Purchase
agreement, correct?
A: M lady, Wrong, For the purpose of the Hire purchase facility and not agreement.
Q: So, you are saying that, Exhibit C, which is covered by Exhibit B, was created for
the purpose of the Hire Purchase facility, correct?
A: My lady, yes.
Q: And Exhibit C was operated solely by ADB, correct?
A: My lady, No.
Q: Was Exhibit C operated by Blocks of Life Consult Limited?
A: My lady, No.
Q:Was Exhibit C operated by the Accused person?
A: My lady, the transfers from that Suspense Account to Blocks of Life Consult Limited
were at the instruction of the Accused person.
You have told the court that, transfers from Exhibit C, were made on the instructions of the Accused person.
Q: Tell the court when the first transfer was made on Exhibit C to Blocks of Life Consult Limited.
A: My lady, the first transfer to Blocks of Life Consult Limited was done on 22nd
February, 2023.
Q: When was the second transfer made?
A: The second transfer from this Suspense Account to Blocks of Life Consult Limited, was done on the 2nd March, 2023.
Q: The first transfer dated 22nd February,2023, was it authorised by the Accused person?
A: Yes, my lady.
Q: Did you bring the letter of authorization of the transaction dated 22nd February, 2023, to Blocks of Life Consult Limited to this court?
A: My lady, we have authorisation to that effect. So under this whole arrangement, we were dealing with about 10,000 NSPs and I had already said that we had engagement with the Accused and from that, it was clear the Accused told us she would not be available all the time to give us instructions for transfers. So, one omnibus instruction was issued under the 10,000 arrangements. However, the Accused was always contacted on phone before transfers and that instruction is in the possession of this court.
Q: The instructions to pay the first transaction dated 22nd February, 2023, do you have it before this court?
A: My lady, I have answered that there is no specific instruction for these transfers. There is only one omnibus instruction and I have said that before the transfers are
made, the Accused was always contacted on phone.
Q: I am putting it to you that the transfer to Blocks of Life Consult Limited made on
22nd February, 2023 was done without any authorisation from the accused person.
A: My lady, No.
Q: I am further putting it to you that in your 21 years banking experience, a bank cannot transfer any money without a formal authorisation to do so in writing.
A: As stated we had an express instructions.
Q: By your express instruction that you are referring to, are you referring to Exhibit D?
A: Yes, my lady
Q: Tell the court the date on which Exhibit D was written.
A: My lady, I cannot find the date on Exhibit D.
Q: Tell the court the date on which Exhibit D was received by your bank.
A: My lady, 2nd March, 2023.
Q: Before 2nd March, 2023, your bank had already made an initial transfer on 22nd February,2023 to Blocks of Life Consult Limited for an amount of GH¢148,841.00, not so?
A: Yes. This account is not a normal current account operated by customers. This is a
suspense account temporarily held for the purpose of this employer-based facility.
At the time of this disbursement, we had delayed this facility. If I would have to
draw the court’s mind to this, the whole thing started in October,2022.
We got the first loan disbursed on 22nd February,2023 and if you check the amount there, it is GH¢193,300.00. It was just a fraction of the amount we should have disbursed. This
was so because the Accused threatened to abandon this whole loan arrangement.
And for fear of loosing this whole request, which to us was profitable, we submitted
GH¢193,300.00 which was within the limit approval of the Head of Risk, Retail. The
Accused was quickly informed that the facility is going to go through because we
have secured partial approval and to secure the deal. We requested for transfer
instructions, which she promised was going to come that same day and based on
that trust, that paltry GH¢148,841.00 was transferred with the assurance of transfer
instructions. My lady, figures don’t lie. The next day, we had approval of the bank’s
credit committee for an amount GH¢6,685,200.00 and the transfer instructions that
was supposed to have come on the 2nd,arrived on the 3rd.That explains why you
don’t see a specific letter of 22nd February, 2023.
Q: I am putting it to you that your bank transferred GH¢148,841.00 to Blocks of Life
Consult Limited without any authorisation.
A: My lady, we had authorisation.
Q:I am putting it to you that the contents of your Exhibit D, does not suggest even
remotely that the said exhibit was in your words “standing instruction of the
Accused person” to enable the bank move money from the Suspense Account to
Blocks of Life Consult Limited.
A: Witness reads Exhibit D. My lady to us this instruction is unambiguous and it was carried as such.
Q: In your 21 years’ experience as a banker, you consider this Exhibit D as a standing
instruction to effect all future payments on behalf of NSA?
A: My lady, the contents of this instruction should be noted that no specific amount
was mentioned and the instruction was clear, ‘transfer funds disbursed under this
arrangement all funds to Blocks of Life Consult Limited’. And I have already said that
with this even in place, the Accused was contacted in every transfer.
Q: I am putting it to you that there is no evidence before this court that the accused
person was contacted by the bank before transfers were made to Blocks of Life
Consult Limited.
A: I had stated earlier and it is in my witness statement, how we communicated with
the Accused through emails, WhatsApp messages, letter, and via telephone. And
with the transfers, I had said that the Accused was contacted via telephone.
Q: I am putting it to you that because no such emails, WhatsApp messages, telephone
records exist between you, your bank and the Accused person, you have been
unable to provide any such evidence before this court.
A: My lady my answer was, aside this omnibus authorisation, I had contacted the
Accused via telephone.
Q: I am further putting it to you that in normal banking practice such as the instant
one, if Exhibit D was a standing authorisation to affect past, present and future
transactions, the said authorisation ought to have specifically stated so.
A: My lady, I had explained very well the circumstances for not having the transfer
dated 22nd February, 2023.I had already said this is omnibus. In banking, if even
this was wrongly credited to the account, it is for NSA and here, the employer acting
on behalf of the NSPs to have rejected liability for that transfer. It will interest the
court to note that under this whole arrangement, the bank received every dime
disbursed under this facility. So it is not an issue of whether there was a
retrospective instruction or future instruction
Q: You agree with me that post 2nd March,2023,the bank made further
disbursements, correct?
A: My lady, yes.
Q: I am putting it to you that apart from the payment of the 22nd February,2023 to
Blocks of Life Consult Limited, which the bank made without express authorization,
all the future payments were also made without express authorisation from NSS or
the Accused persons.
A: My lady, No.
Q: You have described Exhibit C as not a ‘normal current account to be operated by a
Customer correct?
A: My lady, yes.
Q: Explain to this court how the bank set up this NSS Hire purchase account and how
the bank run the said account.
A: My lady, permit me to make reference to Exhibit B, clause 5.2.My lady, this is the
agreement that governed the transaction and if I may read “the bank shall set up a
Global account into which the monthly loan repayments shall be credited”. This is
the same account to receive the disbursement for repayments and for
disbursements. So the account is set up to manage the facility from disbursement
to repayments.
Q: So in effect, Exhibit C does not involve any third party other than the bank itself,
correct?
A: My lady, Exhibit C derives its source of authority from Exhibit B.
Q: By the nature of Exhibit C, neither the Accused person nor any other person can
withdraw money from the said Exhibit C, not so?
A: My lady, yes. Because it is not an operational account. I had said that it is a Suspense Account.
Q: By the nature of Exhibit C the Accused person cannot make a deposit into the said
Account not so?
A: My lady, yes and here cash deposit.
Q: Who is Christian Abotchie?
A:My lady, Christian Abotchie was the Relationship Officer that managed the NSA
employee transactions.
Q: Who is Nana Serwah Osei-Agyemang?
A: She is a staff of the Consumer Finance Department, where I was the Head.
Q: Christian Abotchie deposited cash in this NSS Hire Purchase account 34 times totalling GH¢3,600,730.67, correct?
A: My lady, I cannot confirm the total. What I can confirm is that Christian Abotchie
made cash deposits into the Suspense Account. Let me provide explanation to this.
And this is not anything extraordinary. My lady this was an employer-based scheme.
Repayments to the bank was to come from NSA through e-zwich because that is
how the service personnel are being paid, so we received repayments through e-
zwich. I want to refresh our minds. We tendered in an exhibit on the e-zwich.
Because the mode of repayment was through e-zwich, we created an e-zwich
account accordingly and the e-zwich account created was managed by Christian
Abotchie, the Relationship Officer. The rule on withdrawals regarding e-zwich was
That you cannot do a transfer 100%,there would be a 10% that is left on the card
that you must withdraw by cash. So, to back what I am saying with the data from
the records before this court, if you total all the cash deposits, you would get 10%
of the amount received as loan repayments and that explains why Christian Abotchie
was paying cash into that suspense account.
Q: Exhibit B, you have told this court that the mode of repayments was to be made by
e-zwich or a bulk cheque from NSS, not so?
A: Yes, my lady.
Q: You said you cannot confirm the total amount of GH¢3,600,730.67.Please look at
your own Exhibit C and confirm to the court the total cash payments made by
Christian Abotchie into the NSS Hire purchase account.
A: My lady, I will need a calculator or a spreadsheet. I had indicated that all the loan
repayments from the employer came through e-zwich. How that is gotten from the
e-zwich to the loan repayments does not have any material effect on the facility.
The bottom line is loan repayments. So, whether we move all in cash or by transfer,
the aim is to repay the facility.
Q: I am putting it to you that in the arrangement between the bank and NSS, there
was no room for cash payments.
A: My lady there was no room for cash payments by the Accused. And this no room
for cash repayments is the bank’s requirements for the Accused not to make cash
payments, because it is not an operational account.
Q:Tell the court if the bank makes payments on behalf of NSA, is it treated as a debit
on the Suspense Account or a credit.
A: Yes my lady
Q: If NSA makes repayments of the facility to the bank is it treated on the Suspense
Account as a debit or credit.
A: My lady credit.
Q: Look at Exhibit C and the transaction dated 14th April,2023 and the narration here
is repayments for NSS Hire purchase and the amount stated is GH4334,552.73.This
transaction has been treated as a debit, not so?
A: My lady, yes.
Q: Look at 11th July,2023,the narration,NSS Hire purchase loan repayments of an
amount of GH¢265,074.55 ,it’s been treated as a debit, correct.
A: My lady, yes.
Q: On the same date,11th July,2023,NSS Hire purchase repayment of an amount of
GH¢272,740.91 is also been treated as a debit, correct?
A: My lady, correct.
Q: 23rd August,2023 transaction, with the narration NSS Hire purchase loan repayment
of an amount of GH4265,074.55 also treated as a debit, correct?
A: My lady, yes.
Q: 16th October,2023 NSS Hire purchase loan repayment of an amount of
GH¢265,074.55 also treated as a debit, not so?
A:.My lady, yes
Q: 31st October,2023 NSS Hire Purchase loan repayment of an amount of
GH¢265,074.55,correct?
A: My lady, yes
Q: I am putting it to you that all other repayments were treated in the same manner
as I have already indicated in the debit column.
A: My lady, I need to provide clarity because of the use of the word ‘all other
repayments: Exhibit C is the bank’s statement and I want to provide some clarity.
To provide clarity, I am going to explain the repayments. Funds received from the
employer, NSA through e-zwich is credited to this account and to the employer, it is
loan repayment, they are said to have paid us. This account is not the loan account,
so when funds are received, the bank debits this account and credits the loan
account. So, all the debits counsel identified were transferred by the bank to the
loan account. So, the word ‘repayment’ must be used in context so that I will know
whether it is the employer’s credit he is referring to or the banks transfer to the loan
account.
Q: The so-called loan account that you just referred to, did you bring it to this court?
My lady, No.
Q: You can see from Exhibit C that all the cash deposits made on the account by a
staff of your bank in the person of Christian Abotchie were treated as credits on
Exhibit C, not so?
A: My lady, yes.
Q: Nana Serwah Osei-Agyemang also made three cash deposits into Exhibit C totalling
GH¢244,897.26,correct?
A: My lady, I cannot confirm the total. However, Nana Serwah made cash deposits
from the e-zwich’s remaining balance after transfer from NSA to the Suspense
Account.
Q: These cash deposits identified on Exhibit C, were not treated as debits on the said
Exhibit C, but rather as credits, not so?
A: My lady, it is so because funds received from NSA are treated as credit and if I
should point an example from Exhibit C on the 27th March,2023,there is a narration
called “e-zwich240323″and the corresponding amount is GHe863,883.81.This is
funds received from the employer through e-zwich and it is a credit and it goes for
all funds received from the employer. So every fund received from the employer is
treated as credit. I laid a background to the cash deposit to the effect that transfer
can only happen on 90% of the funds and the remaining 10%must be withdrawn
by cash. Even though it is withdrawn by cash, it is part of the funds received from
the employer and it is treated as credit.
Q: I am putting it to you that your Exhibit C, which is a creation of the bank’s own
internal activities is not credible and same is a product of your own internal activities.
A: My lady this exhibit did not just come. It was out of the creation of something. It
was the creation of the relationship established between ADB PLC and NSA, acting
for and on behalf of its NSPs. My lady that relationship was governed by Exhibit B,
Master Agreement. So rightly said by counsel that this was ADB’s internal activities with the employer NSA resulting from the established relationship and I have
submitted all evidence to this court to that effect.
Q: I am putting it to you that your decision not to file the loan account between ADB
and National Service Authority to corroborate Exhibit C was deliberate.
A: My lady, humbly no.
Q:I am also putting it to you that your decision not to file the bank account of Blocks
of Life Consult Limited to corroborate the payments made from Exhibit C was also
deliberate.
A: My lady, no. However with respect to the account of Blocks of Life Consult Limited,
it was submitted to the investigators. I do not know whether it was filed or not.
Q: I am putting it to you that Exhibit C stand alone, does not confirm that indeed any
money was indeed paid on behalf of the NSPs to Blocks of Life Consult Limited and
same actually received by the said company.
A: My lady, earlier in this court, I have stated my role in these whole arrangements.
Exhibit C is in my control, I did not manage the Blocks of Life Consult Limited
account. So I tendered in what I was involved and that is how come my lady we
have Exhibit C. Blocks of Life Consult Limited account was managed by the Gulf
House Branch. However, I know that the investigators requested the bank to submit
it to them and they did.
For more news, join The Chronicle Newspaper channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbBSs55E50UqNPvSOm2z
