Lawyer and businessman Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah has rejected allegations that he personally pocketed millions of Ghana cedis from a GH¢5 million settlement involving a land dispute between SIC Life Savings and Loans and other parties.

According to him, the claims against him are inconsistent with the documented facts of the case and risk damaging his reputation.

When someone peddles falsehoods, the proper legal forum to test and prove the truth is a court of law.

Speaking  on Accra FM, Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah said he resorted to the courts because the allegations against him should be tested through evidence, not a media campaign.

He explained that his decision to sue was not intended to gag or intimidate his accuser, stressing that he could have sought an injunction to prevent further public comments if that had been his objective.

“When someone peddles falsehoods, the proper legal forum to test and prove the truth is a court of law,” he said.

“My reputation is important to me.”

The lawyer said his primary concern was protecting his reputation and integrity, which he described as a person’s most valuable legacy.

“In this world, a person’s good name is paramount. You can acquire wealth or properties, but a good reputation is the legacy you leave on this earth for your children,” he stated.

He specifically disputed claims reportedly made on TV3 that he had settled the land matter for GH¢5 million and personally pocketed GH¢2.2 million of it.

He also rejected a separate claim that he had “made away with GH¢6 million” in connection with the disputed property.

Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah explained that, as legal counsel, he did not have the authority to make the final decision on whether his client accepted or rejected a settlement offer.

He said his role was to advise the client on the legal implications of available options, while the ultimate business decision remained with the client.

“When a settlement proposal is tabled, counsel takes the offer to the client. The client decides whether to accept or reject it,” he explained.

He said this was precisely what happened in the dispute involving SIC Life Savings and Loans.

According to Awuah, the matter originated in litigation involving a Notice of Claim, which later became an independent interpleader action over ownership of property attached under execution.

He said he successfully obtained judgment for SIC and spent about two years pursuing enforcement of that judgment. However, he said the situation became complicated when a third-party interest in the property emerged involving developers, Ecoswiss.

According to him, Eco Swiss became involved because continued litigation over the land threatened its development interests, prompting it to propose a settlement after it had already paid Equity Savings and Loans.

Awuah said SIC Life eventually accepted the settlement as a business decision after considering the risks of continuing the litigation.

He explained that if the matter had proceeded to its conclusion and the court had ruled that Ecoswiss were bona fide purchasers for value without notice, SIC could have risked losing its security after years of litigation.

The lawyer insisted that the settlement was properly documented and approved by the appropriate authorities at SIC Life.

He said he dealt directly with the Managing Director of SIC Life Savings and Loans through written email correspondence and that, after the settlement terms were finalized, the Managing Director confirmed that she had obtained board approval before signing the Terms of Settlement.

He said his role was to witness the execution of the agreement. He added that he still has copies of the signed Terms of Settlement.

Awuah further disputed the suggestion that SIC was owed GHS6 million but simply accepted GHS5 million as a settlement. He said GHS1.4 million had already been recovered from Equity Savings and Loans before the GHS5 million settlement was reached.

According to him, GH¢400,000 was recovered after the company’s bank account was attached, while a further GHS1 million was obtained following an application for the oral examination of the company’s directors under oath.

He therefore argued that any account of the transaction that ignores the earlier GH¢1.4 million recovery presents an incomplete picture of the case.

Addressing the allegation surrounding the GH¢2.2 million legal fee, Hon. Awua said the amount arose from the agreed legal retainer and the terms under which the settlement was concluded.

He said SIC’s agreed retainer was 15%, but he insisted that the legal fees should not be deducted from SIC’s settlement recovery.

According to him, the settling party therefore undertook to pay the agreed legal fees separately.

Awuah maintained that the circumstances surrounding the transaction are documented and can be verified through the relevant legal and settlement records.

He said he would rather allow the court to determine the disputed claims on the basis of evidence than engage in what he described as a media war.