Menzgold: Akufo-Addo Won’t Pay Any Customers – Abronye DC
Kwame Baffoe aka Abronye DC, the Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) has revealed that Akufo Addo will not pay any customers of the embattled gold dealership firm Menzgold.
According to Abronye DC, it is unlawful for any government to pay customers of the gold firm because it is an individual company and therefore the state cannot release funds to rescue it not even on the day of elections.
“For me, if the NPP decides to pay customers of Menzgold, I will cease campaigning for the party”, Mr. Kwame Baffoe told Hello Fm in an interview monitored by MyNewsGH.com.
Meanwhile, Mr. John Dramani Mahama flagbearer of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) has accused the NPP government of shielding Nana Appiah Mensah alias NAM 1 Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the defunct gold trading firm at the time he is supposed to pay his customers.
“What is so special about NAM 1 that Akufo-Addo is shielding him? Why do you unleash the police on innocent customers while NAM 1 walks free”, Former President John Mahama quizzed?
However, responding to this comment by the leader of the NDC, Abronye also accused Mr. Mahama of not attempting to also pay customers of defunct micro finances institutions that collapsed during his government.
Abronye further insisted that his party NPP is not going to pay customers of the collapsed gold trading firm and should leadership decide to do so he will stop campaigning for the party because paying customers of Menzgold is not backed by law.
He also alleged that Nana Appiah Mensah during the 2016 general elections sponsored the NDC’s campaign with an amount totaling GHC 5.6 million.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 2020 asked Menzgold to suspend its gold trading operations with the public.
According to the SEC, Menzgold had been dealing in the purchase and deposit of gold collectibles from the public and issuing contracts with guaranteed returns with clients, without a valid license from the Commission.
This, the SEC said was in contravention of “section 109 of Act 929 with consequences under section 2016 (I) of the same Act.”