Court to rule July 23 on Hanan Abdul-Wahab’s bid to strike out charges

The High Court in Accra will on July 23, 2026, decide whether to strike out the charge sheet filed against former National Food Buffer Stock Company Chief Executive Officer, Hanan Abdul-Wahab.

Mr Abdul-Wahab is asking the court to set aside the entire charge sheet on the grounds that it is defective and violates his constitutional right to a fair trial.

He has pleaded not guilty to charges including defrauding by false pretences, wilfully causing financial loss to the Republic, stealing, using public office for profit, intentional dissipation of public funds and money laundering.

Moving the application, his lawyer, former Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame, argued that the charges were vague, ambiguous and duplicative.

He said the way the charges had been framed made it difficult for his client to understand the exact allegations against him and prepare a proper defence.

According to Mr Dame, some of the counts cover an eight-year period, from 2017 to 2025, without identifying the specific transactions or payments said to constitute the offences.

He argued that the stealing counts did not explain whether the alleged monies were transferred, withdrawn, retained or dealt with in any specific manner by the accused.

Counsel also submitted that the counts on wilfully causing financial loss merely repeated the words of the law without providing facts on how the alleged losses were caused.

On the charges of defrauding by false pretences, Mr Dame said the prosecution had failed to identify the alleged false representations, when they were made, how they were communicated and the specific food items involved.

The defence further argued that the Republic could not properly charge Mr Abdul-Wahab with both stealing and defrauding by false pretences over the same transactions and amounts.

Mr Dame described those charges as legally inconsistent.

He also challenged the money laundering charge, arguing that it could not survive if the stealing charge on which it was based was itself defective.

The counts relating to using public office for profit were also attacked by the defence.

Counsel said those charges only reproduced the statutory wording without identifying the specific acts said to amount to abuse of office.

Mr Dame maintained that the combined effect of the alleged defects made a fair trial impossible.

He therefore urged the court to strike out the entire charge sheet.

The Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, opposed the application.

He argued that the defence had misunderstood the law on the framing of criminal charges.

According to him, Article 19(2)(d) of the Constitution requires that an accused person be informed of the charge in a language he understands.

He said the Constitution does not require the prosecution to include every detail of its evidence in the charge sheet.

Dr Srem-Sai submitted that particulars of offence are meant to give an accused person enough information to understand the allegation and prepare a defence.

He argued that the defence had confused particulars of offence with the evidence to be led at the trial.

Responding to the claim of duplicity, the Deputy Attorney-General said none of the counts contained more than one offence.

He explained that duplicity arises only where multiple offences are put into a single count.

He further argued that the law permits the prosecution to charge different offences arising from the same transaction.

According to him, the evidence led during the trial will determine which offence, if any, is eventually proved.

After hearing both sides, the court adjourned the matter to July 23, 2026, for ruling.