Court adjourns ‘Abu Trica’ extradition ruling as state admits no case against two

The Gbese District Court in Accra has postponed its decision in the extradition matter involving Frederick Kumi, also known as “Abu Trica”, even after the State told the court it had no evidence against two of the three men originally put before it.

Prosecutors informed the court that Lord Eshun and Bernard Aidoo, who had been dragged into the case as alleged accessories, should no longer remain on the charge sheet because investigations had been completed and nothing incriminating had been found against them.

The two were charged under Section 6 of the Extradition Act, 1960 (Act 22) as accessories to the principal suspect, following an extradition charge sheet filed on 12 December 2025.

However, despite that clear position from the State, the presiding judge, Her Worship Bernice Ackon, declined to discharge them. Instead, she adjourned the matter to 7 February 2026 for a ruling.

State attorney Derick Ackah Nyameke, representing the Attorney-General’s Department, told the court the Republic needed time to “put its house in order”, explaining that the charges formed part of committal proceedings pending receipt of formal diplomatic extradition requests.

Lawyer for Frederick Kumi, Oliver Barker-Vormawor, seized on the State’s position to argue that the entire case against his client had effectively fallen apart.

He contended that once the alleged co-conspirators were being taken out of the process for lack of evidence, any claim of conspiracy against Abu Trica could not stand.

“One person cannot be found guilty of an alleged conspiracy when those said to have conspired with him are no longer before the court,” he argued.

He further pointed out that the 12 December 2025 charge sheet did not indicate that there were any unnamed conspirators at large. In his view, that omission, coupled with the State’s own admission that it had no case against Eshun and Aidoo, meant that “the charge against Abu Trica fails in its entirety”.

Responding, Mr Nyameke opposed any move to discharge the accused, insisting that the proceedings were not a substantive criminal trial in Ghana, but part of an extradition process governed by Act 22 and the 1931 extradition treaty.

He explained that under that framework, a person sought by a foreign state could be arrested provisionally and brought before a district court while the formal extradition documentation is completed and transmitted.

“The objection raised by defence counsel is premature,” he told the court, noting that there was also a pending motion on notice to stay the extradition proceedings, which had been served on the defence earlier in the day.

After hearing both sides, the court refused to release any of the three men at this stage and fixed 7 February 2026 to deliver its ruling on the committal and related objections.

Outside the courtroom, one of the defence lawyers, Aggrey-Finn Amissah, criticised the decision not to immediately free Eshun and Aidoo, given the State’s own acknowledgement that it had no evidence against them.

“Prosecution is at the discretion of the State. The court should not have an interest in forcing a case where the Republic itself says there is no basis,” he told journalists, describing the decision as unfortunate.

He disclosed that the defence team has already filed a bail application at the High Court, which is scheduled to be heard on 20 January 2026, in an effort to secure the liberty of the accused men while the extradition proceedings play out.