Legal exchanges have erupted following the re-arrest of former National Food and Buffer Stock Company (NAFCO) Chief Executive Hanan Abdul-Wahab and his wife, Faiza Seidu Wuni, shortly after they were discharged by the High Court today, May 5.
The couple had been standing trial over their alleged involvement in a GH¢78 million loss to the state.
Counsel for the couple, Godfred Yeboah Dame, speaking on JoyNews Prime, said the circumstances surrounding the fresh arrest by operatives of the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) raise serious constitutional and procedural concerns.
“The exact offence is definitely not known to us,” Mr Dame said, questioning the legal basis for the couple’s continued detention.
He further alleged that the two had been denied access to legal representation following their re-arrest—an action he described as “most reprehensible”.
“Indeed, they’ve been denied access to counsel, and I do not understand why a case that has travelled almost a year… the actual prosecution case is about to begin… then the prosecution… decides to discontinue the prosecution itself, and then they re-arrest them,” he stated.
The development comes after the High Court discharged the couple in an ongoing case that had spanned nearly a year, during which they had consistently met bail conditions.
According to Mr Dame, the accused persons had remained compliant throughout the proceedings. He added that despite cooperating fully, the couple’s passports had been seized and their assets frozen, limiting their ability to fund their legal defence.
“They have been through hell in defending themselves because they have not had any access to even resources on their own,” he said.
Mr Dame suggested that recent courtroom developments may have triggered the discontinuation of the case and the subsequent re-arrest.
He alleged that the prosecution had attempted to introduce additional witnesses without leave of the court—a move he challenged.
“It purported to smuggle evidence with a backdoor by filing witnesses’ names without any leave of the court… when objection was raised… the court appeared to have struck out the witnesses’ names,” he explained.
He claimed that shortly after this development, the prosecution discontinued the case, only for EOCO to effect a fresh arrest.
While acknowledging that the state has the authority to discontinue prosecutions, Mr Dame argued that such powers must be exercised fairly.
“I’m not saying that they cannot withdraw charges… but that discretion ought to be exercised in a very fair and candid manner,” he said, adding that the sequence of events “clearly shows abuse of discretion”.
He questioned why the couple had been denied bail under the new circumstances.
“If they have discontinued, let them build the same bail terms that they were on… after all, the Republic has control of all their assets,” he argued.
Mr Dame also criticised earlier public commentary on the case, referencing statements he said were made by the Attorney-General prior to formal charges being filed.
“The Attorney General had a press conference… and maligned them, vilified them as having stolen money… calling them all sorts of names,” he claimed.
He warned that continued actions of this nature could amount to “pre-trial torture and harassment”.
“You can’t have a prosecution abuse its power in the way they’ve done… all these resorts to pre-trial torture and harassment ought to cease,” he added.
Mr Dame indicated that the defence team would pursue all available legal avenues to secure the release of the couple from EOCO custody.
“We continue with their force to ensure their release,” he said, while urging human rights advocates and civil society groups to closely monitor the case.
The Economic and Organised Crime Office has yet to publicly outline the basis for the re-arrest or respond to the allegations raised by defence counsel.
The case is expected to test the boundaries of prosecutorial discretion, due process, and the protection of individual rights within Ghana’s criminal justice system.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
Source link
