The Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, has withdrawn charges against former Chief Executive Officer of the National Food and Buffer Stock Company Limited, Hanan Abdul-Wahab Aludiba, and his wife, Faiza Seidu Wuni, leading to their discharge by the court.
The couple, who had been standing trial alongside others over their alleged involvement in the purchase and supply of foodstuffs under the national school feeding programme, had pleaded not guilty to all charges.
When the case was called on Tuesday, May 5, Dr Srem-Sai informed the court of the decision to discontinue proceedings against the couple. The court subsequently struck out the charges as withdrawn.
However, shortly after their discharge, the two were re-arrested, although details surrounding the latest development remain unclear.
Background to GH¢78 million case
The accused persons, together with companies linked to them, had been on trial for allegedly causing financial loss to the state amounting to GH¢78 million. Proceedings had been ongoing, with both prosecution and defence engaged in legal arguments over procedural issues.
At the previous sitting, Principal State Attorney, Esi Dentah Yankah, told the court that the prosecution had filed two witness statements on April 24, 2026, but sought to substitute them with earlier statements filed on December 18, 2025.
Defence challenges prosecution’s move
The request 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 leave of the court.
“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,” he argued.
Mr Dame further contended that “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, insisting that the prosecution could not introduce new witness statements after declaring that case management had been 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.
Dispute over prosecution team
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 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, Mr 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 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.
