Kevin Okyere Sets Record Straight on Petraco Commercial Deal

Springfield founder Kevin Okyere has taken a bold step toward transparency, using his day in court to clarify the facts behind one of Ghana's most talked-about commercial disputes. In a High Court cross-examination, the entrepreneur addressed head-on the issues that have swirled around Springfield's dealings with Petraco, setting out the numbers, the structure, and his position with unusual directness.

The Numbers: US$50 Million, Not US$100 Million

At the heart of Okyere's testimony was a crucial data point that reframes the entire conversation. While the facility agreement with Petraco carried a headline value of US$100 million, Okyere confirmed that Springfield actually drew down only half that amount.

Although the facility agreement is for 100 million dollars, Springfield only drew down 50 million dollars. Therefore, the loan is 50 million dollars and not 100 million dollars.

For a Ghanaian energy company operating in a capital-intensive sector, accessing international financing facilities is standard business practice. The distinction between a facility's headline figure and its actual drawdown is one that seasoned investors and lenders understand well. Okyere's willingness to put the real number on the record speaks to a growing culture of corporate accountability among African entrepreneurs.

Personal vs Corporate: A Critical Distinction

Okyere drew a sharp line between personal and corporate liability throughout his testimony. When asked directly whether he had taken a loan from Petraco, his answer was unequivocal.

I Kevin Okyere have not taken a loan personally.

He confirmed that the borrowing entity was the 2nd plaintiff, a Springfield-linked company where he serves as both director and shareholder. Confronted with claims that he personally guaranteed US$50 million, Okyere denied it categorically.

No. I did not personally guarantee 50 million dollars from Petraco Oil Company.

He explained the structure as a commercial arrangement backed by a 10% lien on Springfield shares as collateral, with the possibility of additional shares being sold to cover any shortfall in a default scenario. This, he stressed, is standard corporate finance, not a personal guarantee.

Default Is Not Fraud: A Principle Worth Defending

Perhaps the most powerful moment in Okyere's testimony came when he addressed the fraud narrative head-on. Acknowledging that Springfield is in default, he made a distinction that matters for every African entrepreneur navigating cross-border commercial relationships.

Taking a loan is not fraud. Ghana Government take loans and companies take loans to work.

When pressed further, he added: Yes, there is default. However, it is a commercial transaction and no fraud has been committed.

This is a principle that resonates far beyond this case. As African businesses increasingly access global capital markets, the line between commercial dispute and criminal allegation must be clearly drawn. Okyere's stance echoes what many in the business community have long argued: default happens in business, and the proper response is structured resolution, not media trials.

Ghana's Institutions Weigh In

Okyere revealed that state institutions have already examined the matter. According to his testimony, both the CID and the Attorney General investigated petitions related to the dispute and concluded it is a commercial matter that should be addressed as such.

This is significant. It signals that Ghana's investigative and legal institutions are capable of distinguishing between commercial disputes and criminal matters, an important marker for international investors watching how African jurisdictions handle complex cross-border cases.

It is worth noting that EOCO has previously stated it is handling two investigations involving Springfield, one related to a petition against the company and another concerning the Springfield-BOST matter. How these parallel tracks reconcile remains a live question, and one that observers will follow closely as Ghana continues to refine its approach to commercial dispute classification.

The Dubai Episode: Facts Over Framing

On the widely reported Dubai detention, Okyere made an important on-record confirmation. When counsel suggested his detention was true, he answered directly.

Yes. However, publications the Herald made were all false.

He does not deny the detention itself. What he contests is the framing and the claims attached to it. In the world of international business, where executives frequently navigate complex legal landscapes across multiple jurisdictions, this distinction between fact and narrative is everything.

UK Proceedings and Cross-Border Enforcement

Okyere confirmed he was served with a court summons from a London court related to Petraco, while stating he has not personally appeared in a UK court in 2024, 2025, or 2026. This pattern, being served but not attending, is typical of commercial disputes that migrate from negotiation into cross-border enforcement pathways. For diaspora entrepreneurs and African businesses with international operations, understanding these enforcement mechanisms is becoming essential knowledge.

Defending Reputation Through Legal Channels

Throughout the proceedings, Okyere returned to a theme that resonates with business leaders across the continent: the right to have commercial disputes resolved through proper legal and arbitration mechanisms rather than through media campaigns.

If there is default, there are mechanisms such as court and arbitration to resolve any dispute.

His injunction and contempt strategy targets publications he says breached a court order and tarnished his reputation with narratives about a US$94 million fraud and alleged arrest warrants. For African entrepreneurs building global brands, reputation protection is not vanity, it is a business imperative.

What Comes Next

The case now hinges on what the court determines constitutes contemptuous publication versus legitimate reporting. Beyond that, several threads remain open: whether EOCO provides updates on its investigations, how Petraco pursues enforcement, and whether Okyere's commercial classification of the dispute holds through subsequent procedural stages.

What is already clear is that this case offers important lessons for Ghana's growing business community. As African enterprises scale and engage international capital, transparency, proper corporate structures, and a clear understanding of dispute resolution mechanisms are not optional. They are the infrastructure of trust that makes deals possible.

Kevin Okyere's decision to face the questions directly and put facts on the record may not settle every argument, but it sets a standard for how African entrepreneurs can engage with controversy: with clarity, with specificity, and with an insistence that commercial matters be treated as commercial matters.