Nana Appiah Mensah aka NAM1
Embattled Chief Executive Office of defunct Menzgold Ghana Limited, Nana Appiah, is expected to open his defence on October 16, 2024, in a case in which he and his companies have been accused of defrauding their clients.
In the meantime, the court has ordered counsel for the accused to file witness statements for all the witnesses they intend to call, by September 16, 2024 to give the prosecution time to study them.
Audrey Twum who held the brief of Kwame Boafo, counsel for NAM1, yesterday told the court that she was not sure about the number of witnesses the accused would be calling but indicated that it would be “at least three.”
When asked by the court whether NAM1 would be testifying himself in the trial, counsel responded that she could not tell whether that would happen.
A Justice of the Court of Appeal sitting as an additional High Court Judge, Ernest Owusu-Dapaah, subsequently adjourned the case to October 16, 2024 for continuation.
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 public to invest in Menzgold were false and must therefore answer to the charge.
Justice Owusu Dapaah, 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.
The judge pointed out that the prosecution had rightly responded that inducement to invest contrary to Section 344 of the Companies Act of 2019 is literally the same as section 320 of the old Act.
Justice Owusu Dapaah, touching on the charge of money laundering contrary to Section 1(1)b of Act 749, the court said there is sufficient evidence that since a prima facie case has been established, the transfers made by NAM1 and his companies, which are proceeds of unlawful activity, also creates a prima facie case of money laundering to which NAM1 must answer.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak