Former Attorney-General, Godfred Dame, has become the latest high-profile voice to back calls for clemency for William Ato Essien, the embattled founder of the defunct Capital Bank.
Essien, who is currently serving a custodial sentence, is at the center of renewed public debate over fairness, restitution, and proportionality in the justice system.
Godfred Dame’s remarks echo sentiments circulating widely on social media about inconsistencies in the case; specifically that Essien was convicted for receiving a legal Finders Fee of 27.5 million cedis, whilst the MD who made the same payment of 27.5 million cedis was acquitted in court.
Similarly, other sentiments on social media have centered on the fact that even if Ato Essien was guilty of the crimes he was convicted for, he has made significant payments toward his debt to the state and should be considered for release.
Full Principal Paid — and Then Some
According to the official charge sheet, Ato Essien was required to refund GHS 27.5 million, the amount he was convicted of misappropriating. Under a plea agreement reached in 2022, Essien agreed to pay a total of GHS 90 million—including GHS 62.5 million in interest, representing more than 300% of the principal.
So far, Essien has paid GHS 30 million as an initial installment, followed by subsequent payments totaling GHS 13.75 million, bringing the total amount paid to GHS 43.75 million.
Despite this partial compliance, the state enforced a custodial sentence after Essien failed to meet the structured repayment schedule.
Argument for Mercy
Speaking on Facebook, Godfred Dame made a bold call for Ato Essien to be released immediately. This echoes narratives by KSM and John Apea who have suggested that Ato Essien’s conviction was inconsistent with the real facts of the case, together with the fact that he’s battling serious illness in prison.
Social Media Backs Essien’s Efforts
On social media, Ghanaians have rallied behind Essien, with many pointing out that the state has already recouped more than GHS 43 million from him. Supporters argue that jailing someone after recovering the entire sum he was charged with, and more, sends a troubling message about the state’s priorities.
“You can’t ask someone to pay back 27.5 million, receive the money, take an extra 16 million on top, and still jail him. That’s not justice, it’s vengeance,” one X user wrote.
Another widely circulated post added: “We say we want people to refund stolen funds. But if someone pays, and we still throw them in jail, who will ever cooperate in the future?”
One user on Facebook stated:
“If restitution was the core objective—and we now have full recovery of the principal plus over GHS 16 million in additional payments, then it may be time to reconsider continued imprisonment,”
