UNICOF petitions Supreme Court ADB's IPO

The Union of Industry Commerce and Finance, (UNICOF) has by filed a suit at the Supreme Court to challenge the commencement the bank's Initial Public Offer (IPO) against management of the Agricultural Development Bank (ADB).

UNICOF is asking the court to halt the IPO which it says it illegal because it has no parliamentary approval.

This comes after it emerged that the Member of Parliament for New Juaben South constituency, Dr. Mark Assibey-Yeboah, had withdrawn an earlier suit for the same reason.

UNICOF in its suit is seeking the following reliefs;

A declaration that the agreement signed by the 1st defendant ADB with two foreign companies namely Atlas Mara Limited and the Norwegian Investment fund for Developing Countries, for the sale and purchase of 25% and 15% respectively of the issued shares of ADB without parliamentary approval is unconstitutional and in violation of Article 181 clause 1 of the 1992 constitution.

UNICOF is also seeking a declaration that the government has not got the sole mandate to authorize ADb to sell shares to the public and trade on the stock exchange saying that the general oversight duties of Parliament under article 108 of the 1992 constitution, Article 181 clause 1 of the 1992 constitution and section 19 of the Act 286 requires the concurrent approval of parliament.

They are also seeking approval that the approval and authorization given to ADB to trade on the Ghana Stock Exchange by the Securities and Exchange Commission without first confirming whether Parliament has approved the decision of cabinet permitting the bank to issue shares to the public undermines the constitutional mandate of parliament as enshrined in article 181 clause 1 of the 1992 constitution and section 19 of the Act 286 among others.

The suit says the first and second defendants being Agricultural Development Bank (ADB) and the Attorney General and the Minister of Justice respectively will on receipt of the suit will have to file or cause to be filed a statement of defendant’s action at the suit of UNICOF.

The two defendants in the case are reported to have been served on Tuesday July 7.