Here is the rewritten article, structured in clean HTML, optimized for SEO, and written in a clear, pedagogical style. It adheres to the requested word count and formatting constraints.

Chairman Wontumi Accused of Forgery: The GH₵24 Million Exim Bank Scandal Explained

Introduction

The Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Dr. Dominic Ayine, has leveled serious allegations against Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi. The controversy centers on accusations that the regional politician utilized a falsified receipt to secure a mortgage facility from the Ghana Export-Import Bank (Exim Bank) for the acquisition of agricultural and earth-moving machinery valued at GH₵4 million. In a detailed media briefing held in Accra on December 22, 2025, Dr. Ayine outlined a complex case of alleged financial malfeasance, forgery, and deception that has resulted in a massive financial loss to the state. This article provides a comprehensive breakdown of the allegations, the investigative findings by the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), and the legal ramifications facing Wontumi Farms Limited and its directors.

Key Points

Background

To understand the gravity of the current allegations, it is necessary to look at the relationship between Wontumi Farms Limited and the Ghana Exim Bank. The bank was established to support and promote export trade, industrialization, and the development of the Ghanaian economy through financial assistance to businesses.

Wontumi Farms Limited, owned by the Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), sought financial assistance to acquire specific farming and earth-moving equipment. The procurement process required verifiable proof of transaction or intent to purchase to release funds. The crux of the state’s case is that the documentation provided to the bank to satisfy these requirements was not genuine.

Analysis

The Nature of the Alleged Forgery

At the heart of the prosecution’s case is the specific manipulation of financial documents. According to Dr. Dominic Ayine, Wontumi Farms Limited submitted a document to Exim Bank claiming to be a receipt. This document was presented as proof that the company had paid for machinery from Kas-Sama Enterprise.

However, forensic analysis by EOCO revealed that the document was originally an invoice. An invoice is a bill requesting payment, whereas a receipt is proof that payment has been made. The Attorney-General stated that Wontumi “forged the invoice by removing the word ‘invoice’ and replacing it with ‘receipt’.” This semantic switch is legally significant because it transformed a document of debt into a document of settlement.

The “50 Days to Supply” Clause

A critical piece of evidence that unraveled the alleged scheme was the content of the document itself. Even after the alleged alteration, the document reportedly retained phrases such as “50 days to supply.” This terminology is standard in proforma invoices or standard invoices, which outline the terms of a future delivery, not a completed transaction.

Dr. Ayine emphasized this point, noting that the presence of such terms clearly indicated that the document was not proof of payment. This suggests that the equipment had not been procured at the time the funds were accessed, or that the funds were accessed under false pretenses regarding the status of the purchase.

The Role of the Vendor (Kas-Sama Enterprise)

Investigators also interviewed the owner of Kas-Sama Enterprise, the company from which the equipment was allegedly purchased. The vendor reportedly confirmed that no payment was received from Wontumi Farms. This testimony corroborates the assertion that the “receipt” submitted to the bank was fabricated. If the vendor never received payment, then the receipt claiming payment was made constitutes a false representation.

Financial Implications and State Loss

The financial scale of this alleged fraud is substantial. The principal amount involved is GH₵4 million. However, the Attorney-General revealed that the total financial loss to the state has ballooned to GH₵24,225,735. This figure includes the original mortgage sum plus accumulated interest.

Dr. Ayine characterized these actions not merely as breaches of contract—which are civil matters—but as “acts of criminality.” The specific charges anticipated include:

• Defrauding by False Pretenses: Obtaining money or property by misrepresentation of fact.
• Forgery: Making a false document with intent to deceive.
• Causing Financial Loss to the State: An offense under Ghanaian law when a public officer or individual causes loss to the state through unlawful acts.

Practical Advice

While this case involves specific individuals and entities, it highlights broader issues in corporate governance and banking compliance. Here are key takeaways for businesses and financial institutions:

For Financial Institutions

Enhanced Due Diligence on Disbursement Documents: Banks should implement robust verification processes for loan disbursements tied to asset purchases. This includes:

• Direct verification with vendors regarding payment status.
• Checking documents for signs of digital or physical alteration (e.g., font inconsistencies, missing headers).
• Understanding the legal difference between a proforma invoice, a commercial invoice, and a receipt.

For Business Owners

Maintain Document Integrity: The alteration of financial documents is a criminal offense. Businesses should:

• Keep original financial documents unaltered.
• Ensure that all representations made to lenders are accurate and verifiable.
• Understand that using altered documents to secure financing can lead to criminal prosecution, not just civil recovery.

FAQ

Conclusion

The allegations against Chairman Wontumi represent one of the most high-profile financial scandals involving a political figure in recent Ghanaian history. The Attorney-General’s Office has taken a firm stance, moving beyond administrative sanctions to criminal prosecution. The claim that a GH₵4 million invoice was altered to deceive Exim Bank, resulting in a GH₵24 million loss to the taxpayer, strikes at the heart of public trust in financial institutions and political accountability. As the legal process unfolds, the case will likely serve as a precedent for how the state handles financial crimes involving politically exposed persons.