International corporate lawyer Victoria Bright has urged the public to allow the evidence to guide discussions surrounding the case involving Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah and the Economic and Organised Crime Office’s (EOCO) investigation into the SIC Life Savings and Loans transaction.Speaking on JoyNews’ Newsfile on Saturday, October 3, Ms Bright said the controversy should not be reduced to a simple choice between justice and political power play.She said there were two separate questions that needed to be considered: whether EOCO had a legitimate basis to investigate the underlying transaction, and whether the office had exercised its investigative powers lawfully, proportionately and fairly.“For me, we need to resist the temptation to reduce this matter to a simple choice between justice and power play,” she said.“There are two separate questions, and it’s important that we don’t conflate the two questions.”Ms Bright said information already available in the public domain raised questions about the transaction that, in her view, warranted investigation.She identified the settlement, the authorisation for the movement of funds and what she described as apparent anomalies in the documentation as areas requiring scrutiny.“From what we have seen in the public domain, I believe that there are questions that do warrant investigation about the settlement, questions about the settlement, who authorised the movement of funds and some apparent anomalies in the documentation,” she said.However, she said that establishing a basis for an investigation was separate from examining how EOCO exercised its powers during that investigation.“And we know they have considerable powers,” she said, adding that the question was “whether those powers are being exercised lawfully, proportionately, and fairly in pursuing their investigation.”According to Ms Bright, the two issues must be examined independently because the legitimacy of an investigation does not automatically settle questions about the conduct of the investigation.“It’s possible for an investigation to be legitimate while aspects of the manner in which it is conducted raise legitimate rule of law concerns,” she said.She therefore urged caution against drawing conclusions before all the relevant evidence had been properly examined.“So for me, it’s important that we follow the evidence rather than presume either guilt or political prosecution,” Ms Bright said.A major issue she believes requires closer examination is the GH¢5 million settlement at the centre of the controversy.Ms Bright said the key questions should include whether the amount represented a commercially defensible compromise of a difficult judgment debt and, importantly, whether the decision to accept the settlement had been properly authorised.“One of the questions we should be asking ourselves is whether the 5 million cedis is a commercially defensible compromise of a difficult judgment debt,” she said.“And whether that compromise, if so, whether that compromise was properly authorised.”For her, establishing who had the authority to settle on behalf of SIC is particularly important.“Who authorised the settlement on behalf of SIC?” she asked.Ms Bright noted that questions had been raised about the authority of the SIC official allegedly involved in the transaction. However, she said the issue should ultimately be capable of being resolved through documents.“I know that Yuriko is questioning the authority of the lady, the SIC official who was involved in all of this, or allegedly involved in all of this,” she said.“But for me, that should be capable of documentary resolution.”Ms Bright said investigators and the public should be looking for specific documents that could establish how the settlement decision was reached.Among the questions she raised was whether a board resolution existed and whether authority had been formally delegated.“Was there a board resolution? Was authority delegated?” she asked.She also questioned what instructions had been given to the lawyers representing SIC and what the engagement agreement between the company and its lawyers provided.“What instructions were given to the lawyers? Where is the lawyer’s engagement contract with SIC? What does it say?” she said.Another important question, she said, was who approved the GH¢5 million figure and what legal advice had been received about continuing enforcement of the judgment debt.“Who actually approved the figure of 5 million cedis? And what advice was received about continuing enforcement?” she asked.Ms Bright said the answers could establish whether the settlement was the result of a properly authorised commercial decision or whether someone acted without the necessary authority.“If properly authorised management made a commercial decision after receiving advice, then that presents one factual picture,” she said.“Conversely, if someone without authority surrendered a substantial judgment debt, then that presents a different matter altogether.”Ms Bright also cautioned against assuming that an unfavourable or unsuccessful commercial decision necessarily amounts to wrongdoing.She noted that businesses make difficult decisions every day, some of which may appear unwise when viewed later.“We need to remember that,” she said.“Because commercial decisions are made every day that subsequently may look unwise,” she added.