A legal dispute has emerged 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 on May 5. The couple had been on trial over their alleged involvement in a GH¢78 million financial loss to the state.
Counsel for the couple, Godfred Yeboah Dame, has raised concerns about the legality and procedural basis of the fresh arrest carried out by operatives of the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO). Speaking on JoyNews Prime, he questioned the justification for their continued detention, stating that the specific offence underpinning the re-arrest had not been disclosed.
Mr Dame further alleged that the couple had been denied access to legal representation following their detention, describing the situation as deeply troubling. He noted that the case had been ongoing for nearly a year and was approaching the stage where the prosecution was expected to formally present its case, before it was abruptly discontinued.
The High Court had discharged the couple after a prolonged trial period during which, according to the defence, they consistently complied with all bail conditions. Mr Dame emphasised that despite their cooperation, the accused had faced significant constraints, including the seizure of their passports and the freezing of their assets, which he said hindered their ability to adequately fund their defence.
He suggested that recent developments in court may have influenced the prosecution’s decision to withdraw the case. Specifically, he alleged that the prosecution attempted to introduce additional witnesses without obtaining leave from the court. Following objections from the defence, the court reportedly struck out the names of the proposed witnesses.
According to Mr Dame, the prosecution subsequently discontinued the case, after which EOCO proceeded to re-arrest the couple. While acknowledging the state’s authority to withdraw charges, he argued that such discretion must be exercised in a fair and transparent manner, warning that the sequence of events raises concerns about potential abuse.
He also questioned the denial of bail under the new circumstances, arguing that the couple should, at minimum, be granted similar bail terms to those previously imposed, particularly given that their assets remain under state control.
Mr Dame further criticised earlier public commentary on the case, alleging that the Attorney-General had made prejudicial statements prior to the formal filing of charges, which he argued could undermine the presumption of innocence.
He cautioned that continued actions of this nature risk amounting to pre-trial harassment and called for restraint in the exercise of prosecutorial powers. The defence team, he indicated, intends to pursue all available legal remedies to secure the couple’s release and ensure the protection of their rights.
As of now, EOCO has not publicly stated the grounds for the re-arrest nor responded to the allegations raised by the defence.
The case is expected to raise significant legal questions regarding prosecutorial discretion, due process, and the safeguarding of individual rights within Ghana’s criminal justice system.
