The Supreme Court yesterday dismissed an application by Chief Executive Officer of defunct Mezgold Ghana Limited, Nana Appiah Mensah, known popularly as NAM1, seeking to further halt his trial before a High Court in Accra for allegedly defrauding his clients.
He had gone to the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeal dismissed a similar application in May this year, putting the case on hold since last year after the court ordered NAM1 to open his defence.
The embattled businessman had asked both courts to stay proceedings so that he could pursue an appeal against the High Court’s order on him to open his defence. The High Court had earlier declined the request to stay proceedings pending appeal.
The apex court’s decision means NAM1 would have to go back to the High Court to open his defence, more than one year after the court, presided over by Justice Ernest Owusu Dapaah of the Court of Appeal, sitting as an additional High Court judge, ordered him to mount a defence.
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 him and two of his companies to warrant a defence.
The court gave him up to October 16, 2024 to file witness statements for himself and his witnesses, but this was not done.
His lawyer, Kwame Akuffo, on July 31, 2024, filed a notice of appeal seeking to overturn the trial judge’s order on the accused to open a defence.
The trial judge, in his decision on a motion for submission of no case, had held on the charge of defrauding by false pretence contrary to Section 131(1) of Act 29, 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 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, 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