Nana Appiah Mensah, aka NAM1
The Court of Appeal has thwarted an attempt by the embattled Chief Executive of defunct Menzgold Ghana Limited, Nana Appiah Mensah, aka NAM1, to truncate his trial at a High Court in Accra.
He was before the court seeking to stay the trial at the High Court pending the determination of an appeal he filed against the decision of the trial court.
The trial court had dismissed his submission of no case to answer and instead ordered him and his companies to mount a defence.
He appealed against that decision and followed it with an application for stay of proceedings pending the determination of the appeal.
The Court of Appeal, presided over by a three-member panel made up of Justices Gbiel S. Suurbaareh (presiding), Afia Serwah Asare-Botwe and Christopher Archer, yesterday dismissed the application, holding that it did not raise any exceptional circumstances to warrant the court to exercise its powers over the lower court to stay the trial.
The court therefore, dismissed the application filed by NAM1 through his lawyers. This reaffirms the trial court’s decision not to stay the trial until the appeal was determined by the Court of Appeal.
The decision means that NAM1 would have to go back to the High Court where he would open his defence, while he awaits the Court of Appeal’s decision on his appeal against the trial court.
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.
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