Hanan Abdul-Wahab Aludiba
The Court of Appeal temporarily halted the trial of former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of National Food Buffer Stock Company Limited (NAFCO), Hanan Abdul-Wahab Aludiba, and his wife, Faiza Seidu Wuni, pending the determination of an interlocutory appeal against the charges that initiated the trial.
This was after a three-member panel of the court granted an application for stay of proceedings filed by Godfred Yeboah Dame, lead counsel for Mr. Aludiba, challenging the decision of the High Court to dismiss a challenge against the charges.
Mr. Aludiba is standing trial with his wife, Faiza Seidu Wuni, for allegedly stealing and causing financial loss to the state totalling GH¢62.6 million. The prosecution was expected to call its first witness today.
Mr. Dame had challenged the charges filed by the Office of the Attorney General, contending that they are vague, ambiguous, duplicitous and renders a fair trial impossible, as well as violate his fundamental human rights as an accused person under the constitution.
The court, presided over by Justice Francis Achibonga, a justice of the Court of Appeal sitting as an additional High Court judge, on July 23, dismissed Mr. Aludiba’s request to strike out the charge sheet for being “fatally defective.”
According to the court, apart from count 9 and 14 which it has directed the prosecution to amend, all the other 18 counts on the charge sheet provide enough details to inform the accused of the charges levelled against them.
On the issue of the prosecution charging the accused with the offence of stealing and defrauding by false pretences in respect of the same transaction, Justice Achibonga said there was nothing legally wrong with preferring both offences in distinct counts.
The court, however, acknowledged that there cannot be a conviction for the offences of defrauding by false pretences and stealing if they arise from the same facts.
Interlocutory Appeal
Mr. Dame subsequently filed an interlocuroty appeal challenigng the High Court’s decision and followed it up with an application for stay of proceedings pending appeal.
That application was dismissed by the trial court, thereby opening the door for the defence lawyer to file a repeat application at the Court of Appeal.
Moving the motion before rhe Court of Appeal yesterday, Mr. Dame argued that the issues raised are fundamental and hinge on the accused’s right to a fair trial, such that allowing the trial to continue will occasion substantial miscarriage of justice.
He further contended that a charge sheet invokes the court’s jurisdiction and must be prepared in accordance with the law.
“We contend further that any defect which inhibits an accused person from knowing the particulars of the offence with which the accused is charged, and withholds material information about the offence, does not invoke the jurisdiction of the court,” Mr. Dame, a former Attorney General, argued.
Again, he argued that it is unfair for the accused to be subjected to a trial for stealing over payments spread across such a broad period.
“The facts say 86 transactions. Even if the Court considered this, there are more fundamental issues. There are no specificities. It is unfair for an accused to be subjected to such a trial,” he added.
Opposition
The application was opposed by Deputy Attorney General, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, who argued that it did not raise any exceptional circumstances.
The application must disclose exceptional circumstances.
He contended that the “embellishment is far from reality,” pointing out that it is a matter of whether an accused has stolen or dishonestly appropriated, noting that “trial judge and the other accused say they understand stealing better.”
He added that the accused person’s disagreement with the decision of the trial court is “is not enough to stay proceedings.”
Ruling
The three-member panel, Justices Noble Nkrumah (Presiding), Lydia Osei Marfo, and George Boadi, in a ruling, said the charge sheet carries the superstructure of the trial and a challenge to that must be dealt with.
“We find the matters raised by the applicant to be exceptional and to warrant the grant of a stay. The application is granted,” the court held.
By Gibril Abdul Razak