Hanan Abdul-Wahab and Faiza Seidu Wuni
A High Court in Accra has directed the Attorney General (AG) to amend two charges levelled against former Chief Executive Officer of National Food Buffer Stock Company Limited (NAFCO), Hanan Abdul-Wahab Aludiba and his wife, Faiza Seidu Wuni, who are accused of causing financial loss of GH¢62.6 million to the state.
This followed a partial grant of an application by lawyers for Mr. Aludiba, who argued that the charges levelled against him are defective and do not contain enough particulars to spell out the details of the alleged offence, to enable him adequately defend himself.
His lawyer, Godfred Yeboah Dame, had argued that the charges 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, in a ruling yesterday held that count 9 and 14 which charge the couple with defrauding by false pretences are defective as they do not provide sufficient particulars of the offences preferred against the accused persons.
The court noted that the prosecution did not indicate in the particulars of offence that the representation made by the accused persons was by false pretence and, therefore, directed the Attorney General to amend the two counts to provide better particulars to the accused persons.
The court, however, 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.
Contention
Mr. Dame, while moving the application on July 22, had argued that the charges levelled against the accused person are deficient as they do not state the specific details of the offences with which his client is charged with, to enable him understand the import of the offences and to adequately prepare for his defence.
He pointed out that the prosecution has combined a number of distinct offences into one charge against the accused person, and this again violates his right to a fair trial since he is deprived of a clear understanding of the nature of charges preferred against him, to enable him adequately prepare for the trial.
Mr. Dame added that “lumping the charges together into one count without even stating the number of transactions, when each of them occurred, how the stealing of sum occurred and expecting first accused to contest the charges at trial is like folding the eye of a boxer and tying his hands at his back and expecting him to box in the ring. That is unfair.”
Opposition
The application was opposed by Deputy Attorney General, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, who argued that Article 19(2) (d) of the Constitution is clear that the requirement is to inform the accused person in a language that he understands, and the Supreme Court has explained this to mean “in ordinary language.”
He contended that the particulars of offence is not the place for evidence as it is merely to give sufficient information to the accused person, and this is exactly what Section 112(1) of Act 30 said.
“It is therefore, completely misconceived to require that particulars of offence or the charge sheet should contain every detail, including how the accused person even committed the offence. Our contention is that every single count has sufficient information to enable the accused person, if he is so capable, to put forward a defence,” Dr. Srem-Sai argued.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak