EOCO re-arrest of ex-NAFCO CEO is an ‘abuse of the process’ – Dame fires back

Legal tensions have intensified 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 for their alleged involvement in a GH¢78 million financial loss to the state. However, in a dramatic turn of events, operatives from the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) re-arrested them almost immediately after the court’s decision, sparking legal controversy and raising questions about due process.

Counsel for the couple, Godfred Yeboah Dame, speaking on JoyNews Prime, criticised the circumstances surrounding the re-arrest, describing them as troubling and potentially unconstitutional.

“The exact offence is definitely not known to us,” he said, questioning the legal grounds for the couple’s continued detention.

He further alleged that his clients have been denied access to legal representation since their re-arrest—an action he described as “most reprehensible” and a violation of their fundamental rights.

The case had been ongoing for nearly a year, during which the accused persons consistently complied with bail conditions, including restrictions on travel and financial activities. According to Mr Dame, their passports were confiscated and assets frozen, limiting their ability to adequately fund their defence.

“They have been through hell in defending themselves because they have not had access to even resources on their own,” he stated.

Mr Dame suggested that recent courtroom developments may have triggered the prosecution’s decision to discontinue the case before initiating a fresh arrest. He alleged that prosecutors attempted to introduce additional witnesses without obtaining leave from the court.

“It purported to smuggle evidence… by filing witnesses’ names without any leave of the court,” he explained, adding that the court subsequently struck out those names following objections from the defence.

He claims that shortly after this setback, the prosecution withdrew the case, paving the way for EOCO to carry out the re-arrest.

While acknowledging that the state has the legal authority to discontinue a case, Mr Dame argued that such discretion must be exercised fairly and transparently.

“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, describing the sequence of events as a “clear abuse of discretion.”

He also questioned why the couple had not been granted bail under the new circumstances, despite previously meeting all bail requirements.

“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 further criticised what he described as prejudicial public commentary surrounding the case, alleging that the Attorney-General had made statements prior to formal charges that portrayed the accused as guilty.

“The Attorney General had a press conference… and maligned them, vilified them as having stolen money,” he claimed.

He warned that continued actions of this nature risk undermining the integrity of the justice system and 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 will pursue all available legal avenues to challenge the re-arrest and secure the couple’s release from EOCO custody. He also called on civil society organisations and human rights advocates to closely monitor developments in the case.

As of now, the Economic and Organised Crime Office has not publicly detailed the legal basis for the re-arrest or responded to the allegations raised by the defence.

The unfolding case is expected to test critical aspects of Ghana’s legal framework, including prosecutorial discretion, due process, and the protection of individual rights within the criminal justice system.