Dr. Mustapha Abdul-Hamid
Lawyers for former Chief Executive Officer of National Petroleum Authority (NPA), Dr. Mustapha Abdul-Hamid have dismissed the Office of the Special Prosecutor’s (OSP) claims of seizure of assets worth over GH¢100 million in connection with their client who is standing trial for alleged extortion.
A statement issued by Hanifa Yahaya, stated “emphatically and without ambiguity, that no assets or businesses belonging to or associated with our client have been identified, traced, or seized by the OSP.”
According to the statement, Dr. Abdul-Hamid does not own any such assets, directly or indirectly, and no property worth the stated amount exists anywhere in connection with him.
Charges
The Office has slapped Dr. Mustapha Abdul-Hamid and nine (9) others with 54 criminal charges, accusing them of extorting a total of GH¢291.574 million and $332,407.47 from bulk oil transporters and oil distributors.
The ten – seven (7) individuals and three companies were initially charged with 25 counts of charges, including extortion by a public officer, conspiracy to commit money laundering and money laundering.
The individuals are Jacob Kwamina Amuah, Coordinator of the Unified Petroleum Pricing Fund (UPPF) at NPA; Wendy Newman, a staff of NPA; Albert Ankrah, Isaac Mensah, all Directors of Kel Logistics Limited; Bright Bediako-Mensah, a Director of Kel Logistics Limited and Kings Energy Limited as well as Kwaku Aboagye Acquaah, Director of Kings Energy Limited.
The three companies are Propnest Limited, Kel Logistics Limited and Kings Energy Limited.
Frozen Assets
Last Monday, the OSP indicated in a statement that it has seized and frozen more than GH¢100 million and $100,000 worth of assets, as part of ongoing trial initiated against Dr. Mustapha Abdul-Hamid and nine (9) others.
According to the OSP, additional assets are under active tracing, pointing out that these actions are based on strong documentary, banking, and transaction evidence linking the proceeds to the alleged offences.
The statement indicated that this case represents a major step in protecting public funds, ensuring accountability in the petroleum sector, and affirming that no public official is above the law.
The OSP was reacting to a widely circulated video on social media which captured Dr. Abdul-Hamid referring to his trial as a “useless.”
No Seizures
But lawyers for the former NPA boss have refuted the OSP’s claims, noting that the OSP’s own amended charge sheet filed before a High Court in Accra does not mention, refer to, or concern any asset or business purportedly owned by Dr. Mustapha Abdul-Hamid, neither did the accompanying statement of facts.
“It is, therefore, false, misleading, and injurious for the OSP to make public assertions inconsistent with its own court filings in respect of Dr. Mustapha Abdul-Hamid,” the statement pointed out.
It further indicated that the OSP, as a public institution established under law, is reminded that its officers are bound by constitutional and ethical obligations to discharge their duties with fairness, integrity, and respect for the rights and dignity of all persons, including persons they have arraigned before court.
“Engaging in public commentary that distorts facts before the court is inconsistent with those obligations and unbecoming of the prosecutorial office,” the statement stressed.
The statement also pointed out that Dr. Abdul-Hamid, has at all times cooperated fully with the OSP, from the commencement of investigations, through appearing in court at all times, and noted that his record of conduct throughout these proceedings has been one of respect for judicial process.
“It is, therefore, deeply regrettable that instead of complying with the orders of the court, including the directive to file its disclosures, the OSP has chosen to engage in public theatrics and false reportage. We advise the OSP to devote its energies to prosecutorial diligence rather than media sensationalism,” the statement said.
It further reminded the public that Dr. Mustapha Abdul-Hamid remains innocent until proven guilty in accordance with the 1992 Constitution, adding that any attempt to prejudice public opinion through misinformation undermines the rule of law and the integrity of the judicial process.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak