Rejoinder: Dealing with Ghana Amalgamated Trust (GAT) albatross on two indigenous banks

By Ghana Amalgamated Trust PLC

Ghana Amalgamated Trust (GAT) has taken note of the article authored by Dr. Richmond Akwasi Atuahene titled “Dealing with Ghana Amalgamated Trust Albatross on Two Indigenous Banks,” published on page 12 of the Business & Financial Times (B&FT) on Wednesday, 4 March 2026.

GAT welcomes informed public discourse on financial sector stability. However, it is necessary to correct several material inaccuracies and provide factual clarification to stakeholders.

GAT Background

In 2017, following the Bank of Ghana’s introduction of a new minimum capital requirement for banks, certain indigenous banks formally requested support from the Government of Ghana to prevent licence revocations and preserve indigenous participation in the banking sector.

The Government constituted a committee comprising representatives from the Ministry of Finance, the Bank of Ghana, the affected indigenous banks, and the Office of the President to assess the situation and recommend an appropriate intervention framework.

The committee recommended the establishment of a special purpose vehicle to:

1. Mobilise capital to recapitalise selected indigenous banks.
2. Provide governance and business transformation support; and
3. To enable their long-term viability and competitiveness.

Pursuant to these recommendations, GAT was incorporated as a special purpose vehicle mandated to:

1. Raise capital to recapitalise selected banks, including Prudential Bank Limited, Universal Merchant Bank Limited, OmniBSIC Bank Limited, and Agricultural Development Bank (ADB); and
2. Implement governance and strategic reforms to create long-term shareholder value.

All beneficiary banks are private institutions, except ADB, which is publicly listed on the Ghana Stock Exchange. GAT is wholly owned by the Government of Ghana through NTHC, its nominee entity.

Beyond its core investment function, GAT also served as the Fund Secretariat for the Solvency Fund under the Ghana Financial Stability Fund (GFSF) a post-Domestic Debt Exchange Programme (DDEP) initiative established to address solvency challenges across the financial sector.

In this role, GAT managed the full investment lifecycle: conducting impact assessments, supporting institutional applications, reviewing proposals, coordinating with advisors and regulators, and submitting recommendations to the GFSF Investment Committee. GAT also oversaw investment execution and portfolio monitoring on behalf of the Fund.

In addition to its role as Secretariat, GAT also served as the Fund Manager for the capital allocated to the insurance sector and capital market operators under the GFSF, ensuring effective disbursement, performance tracking, and alignment with broader financial sector recovery objectives.

With a proven model and strong governance framework, GAT continues to evolve as a long-term investment and transformation partner, supporting financial sector resilience and Ghana’s broader economic development agenda.

1. Alleged Pension Fund Financing

Contrary to assertions made in the publication, GAT has not issued bonds to pension funds, nor has it mobilized private pension assets to fund its interventions.

GAT has no funding arrangement with pension funds in the manner described. Any reference to a GHS 2 billion pension-backed bond programme in relation to GAT is factually incorrect.

GAT was capitalised by the Government of Ghana with an amount of GHS 800 million, which was deployed toward the recapitalisation of the selected banks.

For the avoidance of doubt, GAT does not have funding exposure to private pension funds, nor are pension assets directly tied to the performance of GAT’s investee banks through any GAT-issued instrument. Assertions suggesting potential pension sector contagion arising from GAT’s structure are therefore misplaced.

2. Characterisation of Funding Cost as “19.1% Compounded.”

The portrayal of GAT’s capital support as a “19.1% compounding debt burden” misrepresents the structure of the instruments deployed.

GAT’s interventions in the banks were structured within a defined return framework, subject to a capped internal rate of return. These instruments were designed during a period of heightened systemic risk following the 2017–2018 banking sector clean-up and were calibrated to reflect prevailing market conditions at the time.

The instruments utilised included a mix of equity and preference share structures, not punitive compounding commercial loans. Returns are formula-based and contractually governed. They are not open-ended compounding debt obligations as has been suggested.

Government capital is not grant-funding nor a bailout. It must be deployed on a commercially responsible and sustainable basis. The suggestion that GAT operates a punitive compounding debt model does not reflect the actual structure of the programme.

3. On Majority Ownership and Indigenous Control

The article suggests that GAT’s structure threatens indigenous ownership and may result in shareholder loss of control. This assertion omits critical context.

GAT did not enter the programme to acquire controlling stakes. On the contrary, the initial structuring deliberately incorporated a mix of preference and ordinary shares to minimise dilution and avoid control concentration, with GAT taking minority shares in all of the banks.

Where subsequent conversions or structural adjustments occurred, these were undertaken to prevent value erosion, address governance gaps, and stabilise operations, not to expropriate ownership.

In the instance where GAT currently holds a majority stake in a beneficiary bank, this arose during a subsequent recapitalisation phase in which existing shareholders were unable to inject the required capital. GAT provided additional support to prevent further deterioration of the bank’s capital position and to safeguard depositors’ funds and systemic stability.

The long-term strategy remains to facilitate private capital participation and enable responsible exit where appropriate.

4. The Domestic Debt Exchange Programme (DDEP)

The Domestic Debt Exchange Programme (DDEP) was a sovereign macroeconomic intervention implemented in response to fiscal and debt sustainability challenges. It affected the entire banking sector and the broader financial ecosystem.

DDEP was not initiated by GAT, nor was it a function of GAT’s capital structure. Its balance sheet impact was systemic and economy wide.

It is also important to note that during the implementation of the Ghana Financial Stability Fund (GFSF), a mitigating measure introduced to cushion the financial sector against the impact of DDEP, GAT worked closely with the Ministry of Finance and relevant stakeholders to support stabilisation efforts across the financial sector.

Impacted investee banks benefited from this broader stabilisation framework. This underscores GAT’s continuous role as a partner in financial system resilience rather than a source of sectoral strain.

Attributing sector-wide pressures arising from DDEP to GAT’s intervention framework misrepresents the broader macroeconomic context within which banks operated.

5. Financial Sector Stability

GAT was established at a time of systemic stress in Ghana’s banking sector. Its intervention:

1. Preserved approximately 5,400 direct jobs and 20,000 indirect jobs.
2. Protected GHS 10.2 billion in customer deposits.
3. Enabled selected indigenous banks to meet regulatory capital thresholds.
4. Strengthened governance and operational oversight.

GAT functioned as a stabilising strategic investor during a period when alternative private capital was either unavailable or unwilling to assume comparable risk. Its intervention preserved indigenous participation in the banking sector at that critical juncture.

It is, therefore, inaccurate to characterise GAT’s intervention as fostering “dependency.” The programme was structured as transitional capital support combined with governance and operational reforms aimed at restoring standalone viability. Beneficiary banks were required to implement transformation initiatives designed to strengthen capital adequacy, risk management, and long-term competitiveness.

6. Concluding Statement on Recurrent Commentary and Engagement

GAT notes that similar assertions regarding its structure, funding framework, and ownership position have appeared in several previous commentaries authored by Dr. Atuahene and other persons.

While financial analysis is both legitimate and welcome, sustained commentary on complex financial structures without direct institutional engagement risks perpetuating incomplete or inaccurate narratives.

GAT remains fully accessible to analysts, researchers, and commentators who seek primary information or technical clarification. Our offices are open to constructive engagement grounded in verifiable data and structured dialogue.

Robust debate strengthens institutions. However, such debate must be anchored in factual accuracy, context, and a clear understanding of the legal and financial architecture of the intervention programme.

GAT remains focused on its mandate: safeguarding financial stability, preserving indigenous participation in the financial sector, and ensuring prudent stewardship of public capital.

Post Views: 14