The Court of Appeal has ordered a stay of proceedings in the trial of Hanan Abdul-Wahab Aludiba, former Chief Executive Officer of the National Food and Buffer Stock Company (NAFCO), pending the determination of his appeal against a High Court ruling on the charge sheet.
A three-member panel presided over by Justice Noble Nkrumah, sitting with Justices Lydia Osei Marfo and George Boadi, ruled on Monday, October 19, 2026, that the issues raised by Hanan’s lawyers constituted exceptional circumstances warranting a stay of proceedings.
The panel 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 High Court ruling that dismissed 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.
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, warning that allowing the trial to proceed could result in a substantial miscarriage of justice.
He contended that a charge sheet must provide sufficient particulars of an alleged offence to enable an accused person to understand the case and prepare a defence.
Referring to counts three, 13, and 18 concerning stealing, Mr Dame said the prosecution had grouped several transactions into a single count without sufficient particulars.
He cited count three, which alleged Hanan stole GHC50 million through payments made between 2017 and 2025, arguing the period was too broad and failed to identify individual transactions.
He noted the prosecution’s statement of facts referenced 86 transactions not contained in the charge sheet.
Relying on Section 109 of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30), Mr Dame argued that distinct acts constituting separate offences should be charged separately.
He also said count one, on defrauding by false pretences, did not specify the alleged false representation. He urged the court to grant the application, noting the appeal record was ready for a timely determination.
Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai opposed the application, arguing the applicant had failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify halting the trial.
He maintained that disagreement with a trial court’s ruling was not sufficient grounds for a stay, and that the charge sheet provided adequate information about the alleged offences.
Dr Srem-Sai argued that offences committed repeatedly over a period could be grouped in a charge, and that the law required particulars to be stated in ordinary language rather than technical terms.
He also warned that suspending the trial could cause unnecessary delays, particularly if the appeal proved unsuccessful.
In response, Mr Dame maintained that the accused persons had the right to challenge the charge sheet, and that the prosecution’s claim of repeated acts was not supported by the charge particulars.
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 stated, adding that the issues raised were exceptional and warranted a stay of proceedings.
The order suspends proceedings at the High Court pending the determination of Hanan’s appeal.
