Legal exchanges intensified on May 5, following the re-arrest of former National Food and Buffer Stock Company (NAFCO) Chief Executive Hanan Abdul-Wahab and his wife, Faiza Seidu Wuni, by operatives of the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) shortly after their discharge by the High Court. The couple had been facing trial for their alleged involvement in a GH¢78 million loss to the state.
Concerns Over Procedural Irregularities
Counsel for the couple, Godfred Yeboah Dame, voiced strong objections to the re-arrest, citing significant constitutional and procedural concerns. Speaking on JoyNews Prime, Mr. Dame stated that the exact grounds for the fresh arrest remain unknown to the defence, raising questions about the legal justification for the couple’s continued detention.
He further alleged that both Mr. Abdul-Wahab and Ms. Wuni were denied access to legal representation after their re-arrest. Mr. Dame described this as a “most reprehensible” action, especially given that the prosecution had just discontinued the original case after nearly a year of proceedings.
Background of the Case
The couple had been on trial for approximately one year, consistently adhering to bail conditions throughout the proceedings. Mr. Dame emphasized their full cooperation and compliance with the court’s directives.
However, despite their compliance, the defence team highlighted that the couple’s passports had been seized and their assets frozen. This situation, according to Mr. Dame, severely limited their ability to access resources and fund their legal defence, describing their experience as having “been through hell.”
Allegations of Prosecutorial Misconduct
Mr. Dame suggested that recent developments in the courtroom may have prompted the prosecution’s decision to discontinue the case and subsequently re-arrest the couple. He alleged that the prosecution had attempted to introduce additional witnesses without obtaining the necessary leave from the court.
“It purported to smuggle evidence with a backdoor by filing witnesses’ names without any leave of the court,” Mr. Dame explained. He stated that when an objection was raised, the court appeared to have struck out the names of these witnesses.
Following this courtroom setback, the prosecution reportedly decided to discontinue the case, leading directly to the fresh arrest by EOCO. While acknowledging the state’s authority to withdraw charges, Mr. Dame argued that this discretion must be exercised fairly and candidly. He characterized the sequence of events as a “clear abuse of discretion.”
Questioning Bail and Pre-Trial Harassment
Mr. Dame questioned why bail had not been granted under the new circumstances. He argued that if the charges were discontinued, the couple should have been placed back on their original bail terms, especially considering the state’s control over their assets.
The defence counsel also criticized earlier public statements made by the Attorney-General regarding the case, even before formal charges were filed. He alleged that the Attorney-General had “malign[ed] them, vilify[ied] them as having stolen money… calling them all sorts of names.”
Mr. Dame warned that such actions could constitute “pre-trial torture and harassment” and urged that “all these resorts to pre-trial torture and harassment ought to cease.”
Defence Vows Legal Action
The defence team has pledged to pursue all available legal avenues to secure the release of Mr. Abdul-Wahab and Ms. Wuni from EOCO custody. Mr. Dame urged human rights advocates and civil society groups to closely monitor the case.
Future Implications
The Economic and Organised Crime Office has yet to issue a public statement detailing the basis for the re-arrest or responding to the allegations made by Mr. Dame. This unfolding situation is poised to test the boundaries of prosecutorial discretion, due process, and the protection of individual rights within Ghana’s criminal justice system. Observers will be watching closely to see how EOCO proceeds and whether the defence’s legal challenges will lead to the couple’s immediate release or a new round of legal battles.
Leave a Reply