The trial of Chief Executive Officer of defunct gold dealership firm, Menzgold Ghana Limited, has once again been adjourned, this time due to delays in an appeal he filed against the decision of the trial court.
He filed an appeal against the High Court’s order on him to open his defence after the court had found that the prosecution had led sufficient evidence to warrant him to open a defence.
The trial court presided over by Justice Ernest Owusu Dapaa of the Court of Appeal, had adjourned the case pending the decision of the Court of Appeal before proceeding.
But the appeal is yet to be heard and it turns out that a date has not even been fixed for the hearing of the appeal.
Watkins Adama, a Senior State Attorney told the court yesterday that, “we are yet to be served with any notices to appear before the Court of Appeal for the appeal to be heard.”
Asked whether the prosecution had taken any steps to ensure the appeal was heard, he said no, prompting the judge to express his dissatisfaction.
“The state with all the resources at your disposal if you were minded to file anything you would’ve done so. The accused is assumed innocent until proven guilty. You know I don’t like adjourning cases. This one I will put the blame on the state,” Justice Dapaa intimated.
He urged the prosecutor to follow up on the appeal if they are minded to have it determined for the case to continue.
The case was, therefore, adjourned to February 25, 2025, for an update on the pending appeal at the Court of Appeal.
NAM1, Menzgold Ghana Limited, and Brew Marketing Consult Ghana Limited are facing 39 counts of defrauding by false pretence, inducing members of the public to invest, and money laundering, among others for a total of GH¢340,835,650.
The court on July 11, 2024, ordered NAM1 to open his defence after holding that the prosecution led by the Director of Public Prosecution, Yvonne Atakora Obuobisa, had led sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against NAM1 and two of his companies to warrant a defence.
On the charge of defrauding by false pretence contrary to Section 131(1) of Act 29, the court found that it appears at this stage that NAM1 knew that the representations he made to the general public to invest in Menzgold were false and must therefore answer to the charge.
Justice Owusu Dapaah, touching on the charge of inducement to invest contrary to Section 344 of the Companies Act of 2019, said counsel for NAM1 in his submission of no case argument, sought to make what the court describes as a ‘nuclear bomb’ argument by saying the act complained of occurred before 2019 when the new law came into effect.
The judge pointed out that the prosecution had rightly responded that inducement to invest contrary to Section 344 of the Companies Act of 2019 is the same as Section 320 of the old Act.
Justice Owusu Dapaah, touching on the charge of money laundering contrary to Section 1(1)b of Act 749, the court said there is sufficient evidence that since a prima facie case has been established, the transfers made by NAM1 and his companies, which are proceeds of unlawful activity, also creates a prima facie case of money laundering to which NAM1 must answer.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak