The state has withdrawn all charges against former National Food and Buffer Stock Company (NAFCO) CEO Hanan Abdul-Wahab Aludiba and his wife, Faiza Seidu Wuni, resulting in their immediate discharge by the court.
However, shortly after walking free, the couple was re-arrested in a dramatic twist that has left details of the fresh development unclear.
The two were standing trial alongside others over their alleged involvement in the purchase and supply of foodstuffs under the national school feeding programme. They had pleaded not guilty to all charges.
When the case was called on Tuesday, May 5, 2026, Deputy Attorney-General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai informed the court of the state’s decision to discontinue proceedings against the couple. The court subsequently struck out the charges as withdrawn.
But moments after their discharge, security operatives re-arrested the two. No official explanation has been provided yet for the new action.
The accused persons, together with companies linked to them, were on trial for allegedly causing a financial loss of GH¢78 million to the state.
Proceedings had been ongoing, with the prosecution and defence locked in legal arguments over procedural matters.
At the previous sitting, Principal State Attorney Esi Dentah Yankah had told the court that the prosecution filed two witness statements on April 24, 2026, but sought to substitute them with earlier statements filed on December 18, 2025.
That move was opposed by former Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame, who argued that the prosecution had breached procedural rules by filing new witness statements without first seeking the court’s leave.
“Clearly, they have not applied for leave, and they have not demonstrated why that leave should be granted. They have not indicated the nature of the document they have filed before you,” Dame argued.
He added: “From the process filed, it cannot be determined whether it is an amendment to the already filed witness statements or an addition, or indeed an entirely new one. This is totally out of order, it is not known to the rules before you.”
Counsel for Mrs Wuni, Augustines Obour, supported the objection, maintaining that the prosecution could not introduce new witness statements after declaring that case management was concluded.
In a bench ruling, Justice Francis Achibonga agreed with the defence and struck out the two witness statements for failing to comply with procedural requirements.
The court had also been expected to rule on an objection regarding the participation of an Assistant Staff Officer from the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) in the prosecution team.
The prosecution argued that under the Law Officers Act, a public officer acting on the authority of the Attorney-General could appear in court without further proof of authorisation.
However, Dame challenged that position, insisting that any such delegation must strictly comply with the law.
“The mere introduction of a person who is not a staff member of the Attorney-General of the rank specified in the Law Officers Act of 1974 does not amount to a law,” he argued.
Justice Achibonga subsequently struck out the name of the assistant staff officer from the proceedings temporarily and directed the Attorney-General’s Department to produce evidence of authorisation.
With the withdrawal of the charges, the court was unable to deliver its ruling on the pending issues. As of press time, the reasons for the couple’s re-arrest remain unknown.
