According to a court paper extract in Sadie’s ruling, the report had “revealed serious problems of corporate governance within the group”. This court found that Matjila did not contest the findings of the report but instead said that “if the PIC, which he represents within [Ecobank], had been aware of this fact it would not have invested in the capital of the group]”.

Advertisement

PIC’s continued involvement questioned

Sadie questioned how, having made that admission to the courts in 2014, the PIC granted Ecobank a further $98 million annual revolving loan with a three-year term in 2016 and arranged a $250 million convertible bond in 2017.

However, he did mention that to his understanding the loans, although vulnerable to deterioration under the business environment, were being serviced.

He further stated that Ecobank was given a “b” rating by one of the major credit rating agencies, Fitch, which “denotes weak prospects for ongoing viability”. The agency had noted that the bank’s material risk was high with a limited margin of safety remaining.

Advertisement

Sadie asked the commission to establish whether the PIC’s mandate allowed it to invest in a highly speculative investment while there were suitable alternatives it could place its money in.

Brought to you by Moneyweb