When a financial institution collapses, regulators typically concentrate on managing the fallout and recovering assets to settle outstanding debts. However, attention can sometimes turn toward the individuals who operated behind the scenes. This shift occurred with Nii Kotei Dzani, founder of Ideal Finance Ltd, who became the subject of criminal investigations, not by the Bank of Ghana, but by the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO). What followed was a fierce legal battle involving questions of procedure, power, and accountability.
The Background: Revocation of Operating Licence and EOCO Investigations
Following the revocation of Ideal Finance Ltd’s operating license in 2019, the Bank of Ghana appointed a Receiver to oversee the company’s official closure. During this process, the Receiver claimed to have uncovered serious financial issues involving Nii Kotei Dzani. These included unaccounted funds, personal enrichment, and misuse of company money, most notably using company cash to build what became known as “Camp Tsatser”, his private residence.
Instead of following the reporting procedure outlined in the banking law (Act 930), which requires the Receiver to notify the Bank of Ghana and then take legal action against the alleged wrongdoer, the Receiver went directly to EOCO. EOCO subsequently summoned Dzani for questioning.
Two days after receiving EOCO’s letter, Dzani appeared with his lawyer. What happened next was, he said, dramatic. He waited five hours before being attended to. He was cautioned, informed he was under arrest for theft, and released on bail with stringent conditions. On top of that, EOCO’s photos from the questioning and details of the case were leaked to the media. His image appeared widely across newspapers and social media, creating the impression he was already guilty before any court trial.
The Legal Challenge
Dzani challenged these developments in court, asking for the following remedies;
1. That EOCO’s invitation be completely set aside.
2. That EOCO be stopped from carrying out any further investigations into him.
3. That the Receiver’s referral to EOCO be declared illegal under Act 930.
4. That the court protects his constitutional rights, including his right to dignity, the presumption of innocence, and his privacy.
His main argument was that Act 930, which governs how failed banks are handled, requires the Receiver to notify the Bank of Ghana and then take defaulters to court. There is no provision for referring cases to EOCO or any criminal agency. He insisted EOCO’s involvement was an overreach and that the entire investigation should be dismissed.
The Court’s Ruling: EOCO Acted Unprofessionally, But the Challenge Must be Dismissed
The Court of Appeal did not hold back in its criticism of EOCO. It described parts of EOCO’s process as “unreasonable,” “threatening,” and “indecent.” The court questioned why EOCO did not simply reschedule when officers were unavailable but instead made Dzani wait for about five hours before attending to him, why they detained a man who came voluntarily, was not a flight risk, and held a senior public office, and why they imposed harsh bail conditions without cause. The court also condemned EOCO’s media leaks, saying such publicity violated the suspect’s right to be presumed innocent.
However, the court made an important distinction that these actions of EOCO were breaches of professionalism and not violations of the law. EOCO still had the legal authority to investigate regardless of whether the Receiver strictly followed the banking law. Even if the referral was flawed, EOCO could act on its own intelligence. Restraining EOCO, the court ruled, would be pointless and could set a dangerous precedent. As a result, Dzani’s challenge was dismissed.
Lessons From the Case
- EOCO Can Investigate You Even If The Process Is Flawed
The banking law says a Receiver should report wrongdoing to the Bank of Ghana and then go to court. In this case, the Receiver went straight to EOCO. The court did not like it but allowed it. Here is the hard truth. Even if a regulator skips a step, you may still be pulled in. If you get a letter from EOCO, take it seriously.
- Do Not Go Alone and Do Not Speak Without Advice
Dzani went with his lawyer. That was the smart move. If you are ever invited by an investigative body, speak to your lawyer first. Know what questions to expect and what you are not required to say. A simple answer can complicate your position.
- How You Are Treated May Feel Wrong but Still Be Legal
The court said EOCO acted unreasonably. Dzani was kept waiting for hours, his image ended up in the media, and he had to bargain over bail. Yet the court still allowed the investigation. That is the reality. You may be mistreated and still be lawfully investigated. The best defence is preparation, not outrage.
- An Invitation Alone Can Damage Your Reputation
This case shows how fast things can move in the public space. No formal charges. No court appearance. Just an invitation, and suddenly your name is in the news. That is a reality of public life. If you hold public office or manage a major business, be prepared for such situations. Speak with a lawyer early if things start to escalate. Silence is not always your friend.
- Don’t Always Rely on Technical Errors
The court agreed the Receiver did not follow the exact legal process. But it still refused to stop EOCO. Courts are slow to block public agencies from doing their work. If you are being investigated, do not focus only on how it started. Focus on how to respond.
