CEO of Reroy Cables, Kate Quartey Papafio has been acquitted and discharged in a case brought against her by the state, The Commercial Court 7 Division of the High Court relieved her from the ongoing criminal prosecutions over the collapse of Capital Bank.

The businesswoman was charged alongside William Ato Essien, Tettey Nertey, and Fitzgerald Odorkor with conspiracy to steal, stealing and laundering of stolen money.

But the Judge, Eric Kyei Baffour in a ruling on a submission of no case on Thursday, described her role in the events leading up to the collapse of Capital Bank as childish rather than criminal.

In the opinion of the Judge, the businesswoman did not exercise her business acumen in relation to her dealings. He noted that the law only recognizes a person who acts in bad faith.

He subsequently ruled that the Republic had not made a sufficient case to warrant the court to invite the businesswoman to answer questions.

Meanwhile, the first accused person, William Ato Essien who is former CEO and Founder of the defunct Capital Bank, stands acquitted and discharged on counts 24, 25 and 26 of the charges, and as such will not be answering to them in his defence.


Madam Kate  Quartey-Papafio was alleged to be part of a scheme to dissipate some GH¢620 million liquidity support, of which Mr Essien had transferred GH¢ 70 million into Quartey-Papafio’s bank account at Cal Bank.

The AG accused Quartey-Papafio of trying to withdraw the money in 2017, even though she was aware that Capital Bank had collapsed and was in receivership. The withdrawal, however, was prevented by the receivers of Capital Bank.

During his application for bail, counsel for Quartey-Papafio, Dr Dominic Ayine, a former Deputy A-G, rebutted the facts presented by the A-G, and described the case as a ground-breaking one in the country’s jurisprudence, adding that “this is going to be the first case in the history of this country that stealing has occurred with the consent of the owner,”

Making his case, he argued that the GH¢620 million liquidity support was essentially a loan that was granted to Capital Bank by the BoG, which was supposed to be paid with interest, saying “essentially, this was money belonging to Capital Bank.”

Counsel further submitted that per Section 60 of the Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992), there was nothing wrong with a lending institution giving out loans for people to buy in that institution.