Court
Three directors of JG Resources Limited — including Papa Yaw Owusu-Ankomah, son of a former Attorney-General and former UK High Commissioner — risk possible jail time over their alleged roles in a controversial US$17 million gold transaction dispute. Investigations and court proceedings are ongoing.
Papa Yaw Owusu-Ankomah, together with fellow directors Maame Akosua Asama Kuranchie and Kwaku Appiah Yeboah, is expected to appear before the High Court (Commercial Division) in Accra on 5 March 2026. The appearance follows contempt proceedings initiated against them and their company.
The directors are accused of disobeying directives issued by Justice Doris Awuah-Dabanka-Bekoe concerning the alleged forging of documents and the receipt of the substantial sum using the name of Sesi-Edem Company Limited, a registered gold dealership.
The proceedings stem from Suit No. GJ-CM/OCC/0181/2026, in which Sesi-Edem Company Limited alleges that JG Resources Limited used its corporate name and the signature of its Managing Director without authorisation in connection with a Sale and Purchase Agreement with Tayvest-FZCO for the purchase of gold dore bars.
It is further alleged that the agreement bears a forged signature and company stamp, which Sesi-Edem reportedly discovered after receiving information from a journalist, Kay Cudjoe. The company subsequently initiated legal action against JG Resources.
On 19 December 2025, the High Court granted an injunction and preservation order in favour of Sesi-Edem Company Limited.
According to court filings, the orders directed JG Resources to freeze specified bank accounts — including one held at Access Bank — deposit funds related to the disputed transaction into court, and file a sworn affidavit disclosing all related assets. The order was reportedly served on 22 December 2025.
In support of the contempt application, Sesi-Edem filed an affidavit asserting that no funds were deposited into court, no disclosure affidavit was submitted, and no application was made to vary, discharge, or stay the order.
A registry search dated 7 January 2026 is cited as confirming the absence of these compliance steps. The applicant contends that the alleged non-compliance occurred while the order remained in force and amounts to wilful disobedience.
