Nana Appiah Mensah aka NAM1
The trial of embattled Chief Executive Officer of defunct Menzgold Ghana Limited, Nana Appiah Mensah aka NAM1, has once again been adjourned due to a pending application before the Court of Appeal seeking to stay of proceedings pending the determination of an interim appeal.
The accused is seeking to stay the trial at the High Court pending the determination of an appeal he filed against the decision of the trial court, which dismissed his submission of no case to answer and instead ordered him and his companies to mount a defence.
He subsequently filed a stay of proceedings before the court, which was dismissed and he decided to file a repeat application at the Court of Appeal.
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 application for stay of proceeding is yet to be heard, and it turns out that NAM1 did not attach the decision of the High Court which he is challenging.
The Court of Appeal has therefore, adjourned the case indefinitely until such time when the impugned decision is attached to the application.
Watkins Adama, a Senior State Attorney, told the court yesterday that a copy of the said decision has been obtained but it was yet to be certified by the registrar.
He, therefore, prayed the court to adjourn the case so as to wait for the decision of the Court of Appeal based on the trial court’s previous pronouncements.
Justice Owusu-Dapaa adjourned the case to March 27, 2025, hoping that the Court of Appeal would have dealt with the application by that date.
Trial
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, 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-Dapaa, 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.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak