GAT’s Silent Operations: A Growing Concern for Transparency and Accountability
Introduction: Unanswered Questions and Lingering Doubts
When the Ghana Amalgamated Trust (GAT) was introduced in 2018, it was meant to be a timely intervention to save local banks from collapsing under new capital requirements set by the Bank of Ghana (BoG).
However, five years on, a troubling question looms over Ghana’s financial landscape: is GAT still fulfilling its mandate, or has it become a vehicle for state control over private banks?
Despite managing over GHS 800 million in public funds, there is a glaring lack of financial disclosures, performance reports, or detailed accountability on how GAT has been operating. More critically, its private equity-style model—where ownership of rescued banks shifts to the National Trust Holding Company (NTHC)—raises concerns about government intentions and long-term financial sector independence.
Where are the regular reports? Why is ownership shifting to NTHC? Who is holding GAT accountable?
These are questions that demand urgent answers.
Where Are the Reports? A Case of Systemic Evasion
The most immediate red flag is the absence of regular reporting to the people’s representative, our Parliament. With public funds involved, financial experts, economists, and legislators have long demanded periodic updates on GAT’s financial health, yet these calls have largely not been heard or responded to by the managers of the entity.
- Why has GAT not presented a full financial report to Parliament since its inception?
- Who is responsible for ensuring that GAT remains transparent in its operations?
- Has GAT achieved its original goal of stabilizing local banks, and where is the proof?
The lack of reports raises suspicions that GAT is either underperforming or operating with an agenda beyond financial stabilization. Financial interventions require trust, but without transparency, skepticism is the natural response.
Ghana’s financial sector has already seen enough upheaval post-banking crisis—should another trust deficit be brewing?
Why the Private Equity Model? The Hidden Shift in Ownership
GAT was designed as a special-purpose vehicle (SPV) to raise capital and stabilize struggling banks, but its structural model more closely resembles that of a private equity firm. Instead of simply injecting capital into banks and allowing them to operate autonomously, GAT’s financial model ensures that NTHC—a state-owned entity—holds ownership of shares in these banks. This raises critical concerns which are:
- Why did the government opt for a private equity model instead of a direct financial support system?
- What is the long-term goal for the banks under NTHC’s control?
- Is there a clear exit strategy, or is this a long-term state acquisition plan?
In typical private equity structures, investors seek returns before exiting. However, in GAT’s case, there is no visible path to eventual re-privatization, nor a clear justification for why NTHC was positioned to gain control.
If the goal was merely financial stability, why is the government moving toward deeper involvement in bank ownership?
A Governance Structure Shrouded in Mystery
The governance structure of GAT should, in theory, ensure that it operates independently and transparently. Chaired by former Ecobank CEO Albert Essien, with Eric Otoo as Managing Director, the presence of financial experts should inspire confidence. Yet, their leadership, in my opinion, has not translated into the necessary openness expected from such an entity for 5 years and is still counting.
Even more concerning is the role of KPMG, which was appointed in 2018 to provide administrative oversight. If KPMG’s role was to enhance transparency and ensure accountability, then it has either failed in its mandate or been sidelined from reporting its findings to the public I think looking at how things are being run.
- Why has KPMG not published a public assessment of GAT’s financial position?
- Does the GAT board have the autonomy to make independent decisions, or is it under political influence?
- What is the Ministry of Finance’s role in overseeing GAT’s activities?
Without these answers, there is little assurance that GAT is operating as a neutral financial stabiliser rather than a government tool for strategic financial control.
Beyond structural concerns, there is also the pressing issue of whether GAT has delivered tangible results. When GAT was formed, the promise was that it would provide struggling local banks with the necessary capital to stabilise and grow. However, many of these banks remain in financial distress, raising a crucial question: has GAT actually helped the institutions it was meant to save?
Several reports suggest that the funding provided by GAT came with high interest burdens, exacerbating rather than alleviating liquidity challenges.
- If GAT was meant to ease financial burdens, why are many local banks still struggling?
- Has GAT improved the overall stability of the banking sector, or merely prolonged instability?
- What has been the financial return on the GHS 800 million invested?
Instead of creating a self-sustaining banking ecosystem, GAT appears to have reinforced dependency on government intervention, a move that could ultimately backfire by discouraging independent banking sector growth.
The Bigger Picture: Is the Government Quietly Taking Over the Banking Sector?
If GAT’s approach remains unchanged, Ghana risks a gradual consolidation of its banking sector under government control. While state interventions are sometimes necessary, prolonged ownership raises legitimate concerns about political influence in banking operations. With NTHC holding significant shares, Ghana may be heading towards a financial landscape where political considerations override market-driven decisions.
- Is Ghana’s financial sector at risk of excessive state control?
- Are we seeing the beginning of a quiet nationalization of private banks?
- How will this impact investor confidence in the banking industry?
The Call for Immediate Reform and Oversight
The future of Ghana’s financial sector depends on immediate action to address these concerns. Parliament must demand a full, independently audited report on GAT’s finances, investments, and governance. If GAT is to continue operating, its structure must be revisited to ensure transparency and prevent excessive government involvement in private banking affairs.
Additionally, there must be a clear exit strategy for the banks under GAT’s control. The longer NTHC maintains ownership, the more difficult it will be to re-privatize these banks without political interference.
Final Thoughts: Is GAT Still Fit for Purpose?
The Ghana Amalgamated Trust was created to stabilize the banking sector, but in practice, it has raised more questions than answers. The absence of regular reports, the unexplained shift toward a private equity model, and the lack of clear oversight all suggest that GAT’s role has evolved beyond what was originally promised.
Ghanaians deserve clarity on whether GAT is still fit for purpose or if it has become a tool for state-led financial consolidation. The banking sector is too critical to Ghana’s economy to be left in a state of ambiguity. The government and financial regulators must act now to ensure that GAT operates with full accountability, transparency, and a well-defined purpose—before it’s too late.
