Hanan Abdul-Wahab Aludiba
The trial of former Chief Executive Officer of National Food Buffer Stock Company Limited (NAFCO), Hanan Abdul-Wahab Aludiba, has taken a new twist as he has filed an application asking the court to strike out the charges against him.
He avers in an affidavit in support that a careful consideration of the charges levelled against him by the Attorney General reveal they are “vague, ambiguous, duplicitous and renders a fair trial impossible and violate his fundamental human rights as an accused person under the constitution.”
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.
He is facing 16 counts, including defrauding by false pretences, willfully causing financial loss to the state, stealing, using public office for profit, intentional dissipation of public funds and money laundering.
Mr. Aludiba, who is represented by former Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, contends that Article 19(2)(d) of the 1992 Constitution guarantees to every person charged with a criminal offence the right to be informed immediately in a language that he understands, and in detail, of the nature of the offence charged, noting that a violation of this fundamental provision renders the trial unfair, and the charges unfit to proceed to trial.
He said this constitutional provision is fortified by the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30), but the charge sheet based on which he is on trial is confusing, ambiguous and deprives him of a proper understanding of the precise nature of the allegations against him.
He clarified that the period within which it is alleged that he allegedly committed the offences of stealing, using public office for profit and willfully causing financial loss to the state — February 2017 to February 2025 — spans eight years, during which multiple payments were allegedly made to Sawtina Enterprise.
He contends that the particulars of offence do not identify which specific payments or transactions caused the loss or whether the loss is aggregated from multiple acts.
Mr. Aludiba also points out that count three accuses him of stealing about GH¢50,879,210 from NAFCO by purporting to pay it to Sawtina Enterprise without specifying how the alleged stealing was done, or what specific act(s) constituted the stealing and what modus was used.
“Most fundamentally, whilst the amount is stated to be about GH¢50,879,210, there is no indication whether this sum represents one single transaction or multiple payments over the eight-year period (2017-2025).”
He argues that if the alleged act of stealing consists of alleged multiple payments or transactions, each transaction is required by law to be set out in a separate count, as a failure to do so violates his fundamental constitutional right to a fair trial, and to be informed in detail of the nature of the offence charged against him.
“That in respect to the four counts of stealing, the particulars allege that I stole various sums of money while purporting to make payments.”
He said he is confused as to whether he is alleged to have done the act or pretended to do it and, in the process, stole it, noting that “these fundamental defects make me unable to properly prepare for the trial.”
Mr. Aludiba argues that these defects also affect counts 6, 13, and 18, as they employ the identical deficient particulars which make them incurably defective, and are indicative of systemic defects throughout the charge sheet.
On the charges of willfully causing financial loss to the state, he contends that the drafting style of the prosecution in lumping everything together under the phrase “wilfully caused,” is impermissibly vague and prejudices his right to know the case against him.
He again argues that counts 134 and 14, which have charged him with stealing and defrauding by false pretences, in respect of the same transaction are mutually exclusive, as a person cannot both ‘take and carry away’ a property without consent (stealing) and simultaneously induce the owner to part ways with it by false pretences (defrauding).
He further adds that the charge of money laundering levelled against him cannot be sustained where the predicate offence upon which it depends is incurably defective.
“To prepare my defence, I would need to know what I am accused of doing. The charges do not provide me with details but demand that I guess,” Mr. Aludiba added.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak