The High Court has dismissed an application by the second accused person in the National Food Buffer Stock Company (NAFCO) case, Faiza Seidu Wuni, seeking the temporary release of her passport and permission to travel outside Ghana with her seven-year-old son for medical treatment.
The application, argued by her lawyer, Augustine Obuor, sought an order allowing Faiza Seidu Wuni to travel during the court’s legal vacation to enable her son to receive medical assessment and treatment abroad.
Counsel told the court that the child required medical attention outside the jurisdiction and relied on the welfare principle under the Children’s Act, 1998 (Act 560), arguing that the best interests of the seven-year-old should be the court’s paramount consideration.
According to the defence, the proposed trip was intended to take place in August—a period during which the court would be on vacation and the trial would not be sitting. Counsel maintained that as the child’s biological mother and primary caregiver, Faiza Seidu Wuni was the proper person to accompany him for treatment.
The defence further argued that the Attorney-General’s opposition focused more on the status of the accused person than on the welfare of the child. It contended that the prosecution’s claim that the second accused might fail to return to stand trial if permitted to travel should not override the child’s right to receive medical care.
Opposing the application, Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai argued that the Republic was not acting against the interests of the child but had a constitutional obligation to balance those interests with the broader public interest, including ensuring the expeditious prosecution of the criminal case.
He submitted that there was a clear distinction between a genuine medical emergency and a parent’s voluntary decision to seek further medical assessment abroad. According to him, the affidavit filed in support of the application did not establish that the child’s condition constituted a medical emergency or that he required treatment that could not be accessed in Ghana.
Dr Srem-Sai further pointed to paragraph 8 of the supporting affidavit, which indicated that the child would require follow-up appointments beyond August 5, 2026. He argued that granting the application could place the trial in jeopardy if the second accused remained outside the jurisdiction for an extended period.
The Deputy Attorney-General also rejected the defence’s interpretation of the prosecution’s affidavit in opposition, explaining that its purpose was not to suggest the child should have initiated the medical process but rather to highlight the difference between urgent treatment prescribed by medical professionals and a parent’s voluntary decision to seek additional assessment.
Delivering its ruling, the court held that an applicant seeking permission to travel abroad for medical treatment must demonstrate that the required treatment is unavailable within Ghana.
The court found that no such evidence had been placed before it. It was observed that the medical reports did not indicate that the child’s condition could not be managed locally and noted that the child was, in fact, improving through ongoing therapy.
“I am not convinced that the child’s condition cannot be managed or treated within the jurisdiction,” the judge ruled before dismissing the application.–Citifmonline.com
