Nana Appiah Mensah aka NAM1
The embattled Chief Executive Officer of defunct gold dealership firm, Menzgold Ghana Limited, Nana Appiah Mensah, aka NAM1, has been ordered by a High Court in Accra to open his defence in a trial in which he has been accused of defrauding his clients.
The court, presided over by Justice Ernest Owusu-Dapaah, a Justice of the Court of Appeal siting as an additional High Court judge, yesterday dismissed an application filed by counsel for the accused at the close of the prosecution’s case.
The trial judge held 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 his companies to warrant a defence.
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 and money laundering.
An initial charge sheet filed before the court accused the three of inducing members of the public to invest a total of GH¢1,680,920,000.
That figure has significantly dropped to GH¢340,835,650, due mainly to the fact that some of the complainants are not willing to testify.
The prosecution had called nine witnesses to prove its case and some of the witnesses told the court about the difficulties losing their money to NAM1 and his companies have exposed them to.
His lawyer, Kwame Boafo Akuffo, at the close of prosecution’s case filed a submission of no case asking the court to dismiss the case because the prosecution failed to lay sufficient evidence against his client.
Pushing his argument for a no case submission, he averred that the court of law has no business with faceless complainants, given the allegations levelled against the accused.
Mr. Akuffo also averred that the prosecution has not presented the court with any evidence that the accused does not have license to sell gold.
The prosecution, on the other hand, asserted that the Office of the Attorney General has presented more than enough evidence through its nine witnesses, thereby establishing a prima facie case against the accused.
“What is he afraid of, what is he running away from? He should open his defence and tell us what his business model is,” the DPP challenged.
Justice Owusu-Dapaah, after assessing the evidence, held yesterday that the prosecution has made a case against the accused for which they ought to open their defence.
Specific Charges
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.
Justice Owusu-Dapaah said NAM1 set up offices, issued official receipts, among others when he knew he did not have the licence for Brew Marketing Consult to sell gold nor did Menzgold have the authority to take deposits, and must therefore answer to the charge.
Regarding selling gold without licence, the court found that at this stage of the prosecution, Brew Marketing Consult is unknown as an entity authorised by the Minerals Commission to sell gold to the general public, therefore, must answer to the charge of selling gold contrary to Section 99(1) of the Minerals and Mining Act.
The court then found on the charge of operating a deposit-taking business without a licence that, the Bank of Ghana on several occasions wrote to NAM1 to caution him on same, and that the prosecution has led sufficient evidence to this, hence NAM1 must answer.
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.
He added that since the act was illegal even then, NAM1 can be charged now under the new law that has simply reproduced it, hence the accused must answer to this charge as well.
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