In a very interesting and surprising development in the ongoing trial of Republic v. Abdul Hanan-Wahab and 4 Others, the Attorney-General has decided not to rely on some important evidence earlier presented to the court. In court yesterday, the AG’ Office announced that they would no longer rely on documents contained in 2 boxes presented to the court, and referred to in paragraph 38 of the witness statement of Julius Nudawu, a Staff Officer at the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO).
As a result, the two boxes of documents containing supposed evidence of supplies authenticated by the Ministry of Education and allegedly paid by the Ministry in favour of NAFCO have been taken out. Those boxes of evidence had earlier been provided to the court and the accused persons as documents to be relied upon by the Prosecution in proof of the offences. According to the A-G, they will no longer be used as evidence in the trial.
The development followed a series of objections by counsel for the 1st accused person, the former CEO of NAFCO, the Former Attorney-General, Hon. Godfred Dame, and counsel for the wnd accused person, Augustine Obour, to the documents. The objections centred on the lack of clarity of the documents and failure by the Prosecution to show how they are connected to the alleged irregular payments made by the former CEO of NAFCO.
The withdrawal by the Prosecution of the entire court, including counsel for the accused persons as the withdrawn evidence seemed to be the basis for charges against the accused persons.
GRAFFITI MARKINGS BY EOCO ON HANAN’S PROPERTY
Counsel for 1st accused, Godfred Yeboah Dame also challenged the basis of graffiti markings allegedly made by EOCO officers at his client’s residence on 8th April, 2026, without a court order. He argued that this act violated the rights of the accused persons to live in dignity and their presumption of innocence under the Constitution.
EOCO officers who were present in court admitted that an incident like that seemed to have happened but said they were not directly involved and did not know the full circumstances.
The court ordered the Assets and Surveillance Department of EOCO to appear in court at the next adjourned date to answer to the allegations by the counsel for the accused.
OBJECTION TO EOCO OFFICER PROSECUTING CASE WITH A-G.
Another objection was raised about the presence of an Assistant Staff Officer from EOCO in court, who was announced as appearing with the Attorney-General’s legal team. Hon. Dame argued that, under the Law Officers Act of 1974, the officer is not part of the Attorney-General’s Department and therefore could not represent the State in the case.
The court ordered the Attorney-General to produce evidence of due authorisation of the EOCO staff to prosecute together with the A-G, and postponed its decision on this issue to the next hearing date.
RETURN OF SEIZED ELECTRICAL GADGETS
Lawyer for Faiza Seidu Wuni (2nd accused), Augustine Obuor also complained about the seizure of electronic devices, including an iPhone 14 Pro Max, Tecno smartphones, and laptops belonging to his client, the 2nd accused’s children. He argued that since the prosecution has already completed case management without indicating that these items would be used as evidence, they should be returned.
Hon. Godfred Dame supported this request and added that phones belonging to his client and his client’s driver were also taken.
In response, the AG’s Office said it was not in a position to fully address the issues raised.
The court again directed EOCO officials to appear at the next hearing to respond to the concerns about the graffiti and the seized devices.
The case has been adjourned to April 29, 2026, at 12:00 PM, when EOCO officials are expected to explain their actions, and the court is likely to rule on the objections raised.
