Why OSP was denied freezing confirmation of Sledge, others' assets

The High Court (Finance and Economic Crime Division) has dismissed an application by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) seeking confirmation of the freezing of assets belonging to businessman Nana Yaw Duodu, popularly known as Dr Sledge, Goldbridge Refinery, and two others.

Presided over by Justice Samuel D. Kotey, the court held that the OSP failed to lay a proper criminal foundation for its action.

The court said what the OSP described as a corruption probe was, in substance, a contract enforcement dispute arising from an operational agreement under the Minerals Income Investment Fund’s (MIIF) Gold Trade Programme. The court found that the OSP’s application was effectively aimed at enforcing that agreement, rather than prosecuting a clearly established corruption offence.

In its affidavit, the OSP said preliminary investigations showed that parts of the funds transferred by MIIF to Goldbridge under the programme were misappropriated by its CEO, Dr Sledge, “without due cause” and contrary to the operational agreement. However, the court held that the OSP did not provide evidence that Goldbridge’s failure to meet its contractual obligations amounted to corruption, or that withdrawals made by Dr Sledge constituted misappropriation of MIIF funds.

Against this background, the court said the OSP appeared to be using its coercive powers to help MIIF enforce rights under the agreement. The court rejected the argument that a mere failure to perform contractual obligations, without more, could reasonably support a conclusion that corruption had occurred.

The court accepted that the OSP showed evidence of withdrawals from Goldbridge’s account by Dr Sledge. But it said there was no evidence the money was spent outside the company’s business under the operational agreement. It also found no evidence that the withdrawals were used to acquire the specific properties that were frozen. The court added that even if a link had been shown between the withdrawals and the acquisition of assets, that alone would not automatically justify a corruption investigation in the manner framed by the OSP.

The court also pointed to a key weakness in the OSP’s case. It noted that Dr Sledge is not a public officer, Goldbridge is not a public institution, and none of the other respondents were public officers. The court said this made the corruption allegations difficult to sustain unless a clear link to a public officer was shown. While the OSP suggested possible connivance with MIIF officials, the court said there was no evidence that any public officer was being investigated for corruption together with the respondents before it.

In the end, the court held that the application was “simply one seeking the enforcement of contractual rights garbed in criminal shawls,” and that the OSP had no standing to pursue such enforcement. The court said the law allows the OSP to intervene only where there is a reasonable suspicion that corruption or a corruption-related offence has been committed, but no such reasonable suspicion was shown on the evidence.

As a result, the court found no basis to treat the properties as tainted and ruled that the administrative freezing of the assets had no legal footing under sections 38, 39 and 40 of the OSP Act. The application to confirm the freezing order, filed on 14 November 2025, was therefore refused and dismissed.

The OSP is investigating the operations of MIIF between 2020 and 2024. As part of that investigation, it froze some assets linked to Dr Sledge and Goldbridge Refinery Limited and later applied to the High Court for confirmation of the asset freeze.