Buffer Stock trial: Court rejects 2nd accused request to travel with son for medical care

The High Court has refused to release the passport of Faiza Seidu Wuni, the second accused person in the National Food Buffer Stock Company case, to enable her travel abroad with her seven-year-old son for medical assessment.

The court held that the application did not show that the child’s medical condition could not be treated or managed in Ghana.

Faiza Seidu Wuni had asked the court for permission to travel outside the country during the legal vacation in August.

Her lawyer, Augustine Obuor, argued that the trip was necessary for her son to receive medical assessment and treatment abroad.

Counsel said the child’s welfare should be the court’s primary concern, relying on the best-interest principle under the Children’s Act, 1998, Act 560.

He submitted that Faiza, being the child’s biological mother and primary caregiver, was the appropriate person to accompany him for the proposed medical trip.

The defence also argued that the journey would not disrupt the trial because it was planned for August, when the court would be on vacation.

According to counsel, the Attorney-General’s objection focused too heavily on Faiza’s status as an accused person and not enough on the welfare of the child.

The defence maintained that concerns that she might not return to stand trial should not defeat the child’s right to receive medical care.

But Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai opposed the request.

He told the court that the Republic was not disregarding the interests of the child.

Rather, he said, the State had a duty to balance the child’s welfare with the public interest in ensuring that the criminal trial proceeds without unnecessary disruption.

Dr Srem-Sai argued that the application did not establish any medical emergency.

He said there was a difference between a situation where treatment abroad is medically necessary and a parent’s decision to seek further assessment outside Ghana.

According to him, the documents filed by the defence did not show that the child required treatment unavailable in Ghana.

He also referred to the supporting affidavit, which indicated that the child would need follow-up appointments beyond August 5, 2026.

The Deputy Attorney-General argued that allowing the trip could affect the trial if Faiza remained outside the jurisdiction beyond the period proposed.

In its ruling, the court said a person seeking permission to travel abroad for medical treatment must place evidence before the court showing that the treatment needed cannot be obtained locally.

The judge found that no such evidence had been provided.

The court noted that the medical reports did not say the child’s condition could not be handled in Ghana.

It also observed that the child was improving through ongoing therapy.

“I am not convinced that the child’s condition cannot be managed or treated within the jurisdiction,” the judge ruled.

The application was accordingly dismissed.