The Court of Appeal has ordered a stay of the trial of the former Chief Executive Officer of the National Food and Buffer Stock Company (NAFCO), Hanan Abdul-Wahab Aludiba.
It followed the granting of an application by Hanan to stay proceedings in his trial at the High Court pending the determination of an appeal against a ruling on the charge sheet.
A three-member panel, presided over by Justice Noble Nkrumah, held on Monday, October 19, 2026, that the issues raised by Hanan’s lawyers constituted exceptional circumstances warranting a stay of proceedings.
The panel, which also comprised Justices Lydia Osei Marfo and George Boadi, granted the application after hearing arguments from counsel for Hanan and the Republic.
Hanan, through his lawyers led by former Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame, is challenging a July 2026 ruling by the High Court dismissing his application to quash the charges against him on grounds of alleged defects in the charge sheet.
The charges against Hanan and his wife, Faiza Seidu Wuni, include stealing, defrauding by false pretences, wilfully causing financial loss to the Republic, using public office for profit, dishonestly receiving, money laundering and intentional misapplication of public funds.
Defective charge sheet
Moving the application, Mr Dame argued that the alleged defects in the charge sheet raised fundamental issues concerning Hanan’s right to a fair trial.
He said allowing the trial to proceed before the appeal was determined could result in a substantial miscarriage of justice.
He argued that a charge sheet must provide sufficient particulars of an alleged offence to enable an accused person to understand the case against them and prepare a defence.
Referring to counts three, 13 and 18, which concerned stealing, Mr Dame said the prosecution had grouped several transactions into a single count without providing sufficient particulars of the alleged acts.
He cited count three, which alleged that Hanan had stolen GH¢50 million through payments made between 2017 and 2025.
Mr Dame argued that the period covered by the charge was too broad and did not identify the individual transactions forming the basis of the alleged offence.
He said the prosecution’s statement of facts referred to 86 transactions, but those details were not contained in the charge sheet.
The lawyer further argued that the prosecution had failed to explain how the alleged stealing was committed, beyond using the term “stealing” in the charge.
He relied on Section 109 of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30), arguing that distinct acts constituting separate offences should be charged separately.
On the charges of defrauding by false pretences, Mr Dame said count one did not specify the alleged false representation through which the money was obtained.
He urged the court to grant the application, arguing that the appeal could be determined without undue delay because the record of appeal was ready.
Republic oppose
However, the Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, opposed the application, arguing that the applicant had failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify halting the trial.
He said disagreement with a trial court’s ruling was not, in itself, sufficient grounds for a stay of proceedings.
Dr Srem-Sai argued that the charge sheet provided adequate information about the alleged offences and questioned whether the use of the word “stealing” would prevent the accused persons from understanding the allegations against them.
He also argued that offences committed repeatedly over a period could be grouped in a charge, adding that the law required the particulars of an offence to be stated in ordinary language rather than technical terms.
The Deputy Attorney-General further contended that suspending the trial could cause unnecessary delays, particularly if the appeal was unsuccessful.
In response, Mr Dame maintained that the accused persons’ rights included the right to challenge the charge sheet and that the prosecution’s assertion that the alleged acts had been committed repeatedly was not supported by the particulars of the charges.
Ruling
In its ruling, the panel held that the charge sheet formed the foundation of the trial and that a challenge to it had to be addressed.
“Having listened, we take the position that the charge sheet carries the superstructure of the trial,” the court said.
It added that the issues raised by the applicant were exceptional and warranted a stay of proceedings.
The court subsequently granted the application.
The order suspends the proceedings at the High Court pending the determination of Hanan’s appeal against the ruling on the charge sheet.
