The Bank of Ghana (BoG) and its former Governor, Dr. Ernest Addison, have been sued over significant exchange rate losses recorded by the Ghanaian cedi since 2017.
Balbir Violet Allan, an investor in government treasuries, claims that the cedi’s depreciation from 4.26 to the dollar in 2017 to 15.49 in 2025 has severely affected her purchasing power and resulted in notable investment losses.
The Plaintiff through her lawyers are seeking among other things a declaration that the Bank of Ghana has been grossly negligent in the management of the Ghana Cedi through Dr. Ernest Addison.
The action filed on March 17, 2025 is also asking the court to rule that the exchange rate losses are enforceable against the Bank of Ghana and Dr. Ernest Addison.
The Applicant who described herself as a private citizen in her writ stated that the Central Bank is mandated by law to ensure the stabilization of the value of the cedi. It was her case that, the cedi to Dollar exchange rate was 4.26 GHS to 1 USD when Dr. Addison took office in 2017.
But, the Exchange rate as at February 3, 2025 stood at 15.49 GHS to 1 USD when Dr. Ernest Addison proceeded on terminal leave.
Again, the Plaintiff observed that, the currency has become one of the worst performing currencies in the world under the former BoG boss.
This depreciation she said caused her to suffer exchange rate losses, erosion of purchasing power and remarkable investment capital losses.
Dr. Addison she believes failed to exercise care in his management of the currency.
“The 2nd Defendant have so controlled and conducted the affairs of the 1st Defendant in a manner that extensive damages and or harm has befallen people’s cedis” including that of the Plaintiff, as the dictates of justice would justify that the legal mandate of the 1st Defendant are made coterminous with the mandates of the 2nd Defendant who is not only the Governor but the Chairperson of the 1st Defendant’s Board and its Monetary Policy Committee.
“The Plaintiff posits, that the matter complained of are acts which the 2nd (Defendant) had control or power over, but failed to exercise the slightest of care ostensibly because the 1st Defendant whom the law holds primarily responsible for providing the Republic a stable currency is an artificial person clothed with a corporate veil.
“The Plaintiff on the 30 of May, 2024, notified the 2nd Defendant of her intent to sue if the Defendant makes no effort to bring about an appreciable restoration of the Cedi’s “soundness” and or value on the foreign markets.
Here, the Defendant failed to take or implement any restorative measures, the Plaintiff said.
“The Plaintiff pleads that this is a proper case for the honorable court to lift the veil of incorporation of the 1st Defendant, and hold the 2nd Defendant jointly and severally liable for the losses incurred by the Plaintiff in the interest of justice; accountable governance and responsible citizenship.
“The Plaintiff says that unless an order to recover her losses is granted by the honorable court, she would have no recourse of recovery or restitution of lost value of investment capital,” the Plaintiff stated.
