Chief Executive Officer of the defunct gold dealership firm Menzgold Ghana Limited, Nana Appiah Mensah, and his two companies (Menzgold and Brew Marketing Consult), have been ordered by the High Court in Accra to file their proposed evidence, including audio-visual recordings, by July 6.
The order of the Court, presided over by Justice Sedinam Awo Kwadam, followed two separate applications moved by lawyers for the accused persons who are standing trial for allegedly defrauding customers of their funds.
As part of the orders, Justice Kwadam also granted NAM1 leave to file a supplementary witness statement and any other proposed evidence he may wish to.
The Court gave the directives after the Prosecution, led by Watkins Adamah, a Senior State Attorney, did not oppose the grant of the request.
Justice Awo Kwadam, following the orders, adjourned the case to July 6, 2026 for the purpose of a Case Management Conference.
The Court has also taken subsequent firm dates for the trial to continue.
The embattled CEO of the defunct Menzgold Ghana Limited, Nana Appiah Mensah, popularly known as NAM1 (A1), and his two companies – Menzgold Ghana Limited (A2) and Brew Marketing Consult (A3) – are answering questions on 35 out of 39 counts of charges in the Menzgold case.
NAM1 has pleaded not guilty to charges including selling gold without a license, operating a deposit-taking business without a licence, inducement to invest, 19 counts of defrauding by false pretences, seven counts of fraudulent breach of trust, and gold laundering contrary to statute.
Witness statement
Paa Joy Akuamoah Boateng, Counsel representing NAM1 (First Accused) and Menzgold (Second Accused), said their application was filed on June 3.
“We have invoked your jurisdiction to extend time for the 1st and 2nd Accused persons to file Witness Statements and for further leave to file a supplementary Witness Statement for the 1st Accused Person.
“We move in terms of the Motion paper, the supporting affidavit, and we rely on the averments therein and pray that the said application finds favour with the Court,” Counsel prayed.
Adamah, the Assistant State Attorney, while not opposing the application, pointed to some factual errors in the Applicants’ motion.
“Respectfully, I wish to point to paragraph 5 of their affidavit in support to say that the orders to file disclosures or Witness Statements were made on 11th July, 2024 and not 11 May, 2026,” he argued.
While making reference to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Applicants’ processes, he said, “it is noted that 1st and 2nd Applicants have prayed for ‘some few days’ with the assurance of getting all the necessary processes to file.”
“Indeed, it is confirmed in their paragraph 9 when they stated, ‘fortunately we now have a lot of them.’
“We pray that, in allowing the Application and mindful of the history of this case, the Court will grant them just a few days as prayed,” he submitted.
Second motion
For the second, a notice of motion for an order extending the time within which to file the Witness Statements of A3 and other witnesses of A3.
“The application was filed on 3rd June 2026. We move in terms of the motion paper and the supporting affidavit and pray that this Honourable Court makes an order extending the time within which to file the said witness statements,” Counsel prayed.
Again, the Prosecution did not oppose the grant of an extension of time to the 3rd Accused (Brew Marketing Consult), Applicant, to file Witness Statements and other disclosure materials.
That notwithstanding, he said, “it is to be noted again that paragraph 4 of the affidavit in support makes reference to 11th May 2026.”
“We wish to put on record that the order of the Court to file Witness Statements and other disclosure materials was issued on 11th July, 2024. It is also noted that the Applicant has not indicated the number of witnesses they intend to file Witness Statements for,” Counsel for the Prosecution submitted.
He recounted that, at the last Court sitting, the Court reminded all the Applicants (Accused Persons) that the order to file Witness Statements and other materials was still subsistent and there was no bar on them to file their processes if they were minded to do so before appearing today for the Motion to be heard.
He added that, “as at this morning I had not been served with any processes filed at the instance of the Applicants other than the processes filed on 3rd June, 2026 and when we last appeared before this Court.”
