The Development Bank Ghana (DBG), established with ambitious goals to bolster the private sector, is engulfed in a severe governance and management crisis, according to a scathing exposé by the Vice President of IMANI Africa, Bright Simons.
Revelations by the whistleblower, based on a confidential Deloitte “progress report”, point to alleged financial mismanagement and deep-seated internal wrangling within the institution, forcing the government to involve state security agencies.
In a post on LinkedIn, Mr Simons said the controversy surfaced in November 2024, when IMANI Africa reportedly “got wind of a civil war inside DBG”, pitting internal compliance, risk, and audit functions against the dominant factions of the Board and management.
This internal strife escalated to the point where two directors resigned in protest over serious governance failings.
Mr Simons did not mince words, characterising the situation as one where “money was being spent as if it grew on trees”.
This accusation is particularly shocking given the DBG’s pedigree and the sophistication of its founding financial partners.
READ ALSO: OSP vs Ofori-Atta: Former Kufuor advisor shoots down political colourisation debate
The bank, launched in 2021 with an initial capitalisation of GH₵ 1.135 billion (approximately $200 million at the time), draws significant funding from highly reputable Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) such as the World Bank ($250 million), the European Investment Bank ($170 million), the German KfW ($46.5 million), and the African Development Bank ($40 million). These institutions typically impose stringent fiduciary and governance standards on their beneficiaries.
Rather than addressing the internal dissent and external concerns raised by activists, the DBG’s Board and management initially opted for a strategy of “gaslighting”, according to Mr Simons, attempting to deflect and discredit the allegations.
This resistance ultimately prompted the Board to commission an independent investigation by Deloitte in January 2025.
However, the path to a transparent report was reportedly fraught with obstacles.
Mr Simons claims that “initial Deloitte drafts caused pandemonium, forcing multiple revisions & rewrites.”
A final version, presented as a “progress report” dated May 21, 2025, was eventually shared with the new government and the DFIs, who had been exerting pressure for clarity.
Despite attempts by the report to “overcompensate for the seriously damning findings by including generous dollops of management rationalisations”, Mr Simons maintains that “facts are stubborn.”
The confidential nature of this progress report means the government may not release it immediately, especially as some of Deloitte’s submissions revealed limitations in its investigative capacity, signalling the need for more robust probes.
This has, according to Mr Simons, compelled the government to now “include the state security and investigative bodies”, indicating a potential shift towards criminal investigations into the alleged malpractices.
Bright Simons presented several damning extracts from the Deloitte report, highlighting critical areas of concern:
“You will see that board members who pushed for cost verification were overruled by the majority. Why would any serious fiduciary board do that?” Mr Simons questioned in his post, suggesting a systemic disregard for sound financial oversight.
“Consistent with the Board’s posture, DBG’s IT budget was set arbitrarily as a percentage of total assets, with no real connection to the needs of the Bank,” he added, raising red flags about prudent financial planning and resource allocation.
He pointed out that significant irregularities were found in the pricing of DBG’s Temenos core banking platform, a critical piece of banking infrastructure.
This led to “millions of $ in price variations”, which were not resolved by directly engaging the original suppliers.
Mr Simons noted a “biztech discrepancy alone amounted to $6m”, indicating substantial potential overpayments.
Additionally, he pointed out that “several contracts signed with vendors were not reviewed by legal counsel. When this was found out, attempts were then made to review contracts that had already been signed.”
This reveals a profound lapse in standard corporate governance procedures and exposes the bank to significant legal risks.
“There were wide-ranging gaps between status updates shared by AWC, another vendor, and the verified deliverables amounting potentially to millions of dollars.”
This points to a failure in contract management and vendor accountability, potentially leading to financial losses for the DBG.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
