GHANA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Victoria Bright and Maxwell Amihere, Addison Bright Sloane
AI’s Role in Corporate Governance Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly influenc - ing corporate governance practices in Ghana, offering tools to enhance decision-making, risk management and compliance. While AI adoption is growing across various sectors, its integra - tion into corporate governance frameworks is still developing. AI and machine learning (ML) offer significant potential to transform traditional practices by automating data analysis and minute-taking dur - ing meetings. AI carries the potential to enable organisations to proactively identify risks and ensure adherence to regulatory standards. Conclusion The corporate governance space continues to be an active space admitting novel ideas and systems. The aforementioned are by no means exhaustive, representing instead the important highlights in an ever-changing corporate legal landscape. What remains certain is the intent of various regulatory bodies to continue to improve corporate governance in Ghana through usher - ing in new standards to improve efficiency over - all.
(UNCITRAL) model law on cross-border insol - vency. It allows for the recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings and reliefs. Operation - ally, a foreign representative can apply for the commencement of an insolvency proceeding in Ghana and participate in proceedings regarding a debtor or creditor. Striking Down of Certain Sections of the Companies Act, 2019 The Supreme Court has recently clarified that the erstwhile requirement in Act 992 for intend - ing directors to declare, as part of a number of statutory declarations, whether they have been charged with a criminal offence, violates the constitution. In its decision in the case of Der - rick Adu-Gyamfi v The AG (November 2023), the Court held: “From the foregoing, we are of the view that the words ‘charged with or’ which appear in sections 13 (2)(h)(i), 13 (2)(h)(ii) and, 172 (2)(a)(i) & (ii) of Act 992 are inconsistent with the letter and spirit of Article 19 (1) & (2) of the 1992 Constitution and are accordingly void. The said words are unconstitutional and are hereby struck down.” However, the Court stipulated in respect of the constitutionality of Section 177 (1)(c) and (e) as follows: “We are however unable to agree with the Plaintiff’s submission that Section 177 (1)(c) & (e) are in breach of the constitutional provisions on fair hearing and presumption of innocence. We do not find the said provision to be incon - sistent with Article 19 (1) and 19 (2)(c) and 15 (3) of the Constitution. Consequently, the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff in respect of section 177 (1)(c) & (e) are dismissed.”
352 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook