An Accra High Court has fixed July 23, 2026, to deliver its ruling on an application by Mr Hanan Abdul-Wahab seeking to strike out the entire charge sheet against him.
His prayer is the on grounds that it is fatally defective and violates his constitutional right to a fair trial.
Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, counsel for Mr Abdul-Wahab, who moved the application contended that the charges were incurably defective and contravened Article 19 of the 1992 Constitution and the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30).
Mr Abdul-Wahab, 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.
Mr Dame argued that the charge sheet was vague, ambiguous and duplicitous, making it impossible for his client to properly understand the allegations and prepare an effective defence.
He submitted that several counts spanned an eight-year period from 2017 to 2025 without identifying the specific transactions or payments alleged to constitute the offences.
According to counsel, the stealing charges failed to disclose how the alleged offences were committed or whether the monies involved were transferred, withdrawn or retained by the accused.
He argued that the counts relating to wilfully causing financial loss merely repeated the wording of the law without setting out factual particulars showing how the alleged losses occurred.
Mr Dame contended that the charges of defrauding by false pretences did not identify the alleged false representations, when they were made, how they were communicated or the specific food items involved.
The defence further argued that the Republic had improperly charged Mr Abdul-Wahab with both stealing and defrauding by false pretences in respect of the same transactions and sums of money, describing the charges as legally inconsistent.
Counsel maintained that the money laundering charge could not stand because it was founded on an underlying stealing charge which he argued was itself fundamentally defective.
He also challenged the counts of using public office for profit, saying they merely reproduced the statutory language without identifying the specific acts alleged to constitute abuse of office.
Mr Dame submitted that the cumulative effect of the alleged defects rendered a fair trial impossible and urged the court to strike out the entire charge sheet.
Responding, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, the Deputy Attorney-General, opposed the application and described it as being based on a misunderstanding of the law.
He argued that Article 19(2)(d) of the Constitution required only that an accused person be informed of the charges in a language he understood, adding that the law did not require every element of the prosecution’s evidence to be included in the charge sheet.
Dr Srem-Sai submitted that the particulars of offence were intended only to provide sufficient information to enable an accused person understand the allegations and prepare a defence.
He argued that the defence had confused particulars of offence with the evidence that would be led during the trial.
On the allegation of duplicity, the Deputy Attorney-General said no single count contained more than one offence, explaining that duplicity arose only where multiple offences were contained in the same count.
He argued that the law permitted the prosecution to charge different offences arising from the same transaction, with the evidence at trial determining which offence, if any, would ultimately be proved.
After hearing arguments from both parties, the court adjourned the matter to July 23, 2026, for its ruling on the application.
