Ex-Buffer Stock Boss Hearing: State asked to produce E.I authorizing prosecutorial power

A court has directed prosecutors to present an Executive Instrument authorising EOCO’s role in the case against former Buffer Stock CEO Hanan Abdul-Wahab.

The directive followed an objection by defence counsel Godfred Yeboah Dame, who questioned the legal basis for an EOCO officer’s participation in the prosecution.

Hanan Abdul-Wahab and his wife, Faiza Seidu Wuni, face charges of stealing, defrauding by false pretences, money laundering, and intentional dissipation of public funds. Both have pleaded not guilty and are currently on bail.

During proceedings on April 22, Principal State Attorney Esi Dentaa Yankah introduced an Assistant Staff Officer of the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), Rabia Abdulai, as part of the prosecution team. Dame immediately objected, arguing that existing laws do not permit such representation without explicit authorisation.

“I wish to object to the representation of the republic by an assistant staff officer of EOCO because there are two legislations governing representation,” Dame stated, referencing the Law Officers Act and the Legal Services Act.

He added that “none of these legislations gives authority” for such participation without a specific Executive Instrument from the Attorney-General.

In response, Yankah maintained that EOCO officials had been duly empowered. She told the court that “the Assistant Staff Officer is an official of EOCO, which has since been issued with a fiat in the form of an executive instrument” enabling participation in prosecutions on behalf of the state.

Presiding judge Francis Achiponga deferred ruling on the objection and ordered the prosecution to produce the said Executive Instrument at the next hearing.

The session also took a turn when Dame alleged that EOCO operatives raided his client’s residence on April 8 and defaced the property with graffiti. He sought orders against the agency over the incident.

Yankah indicated she had no prior knowledge of the allegation. The court subsequently summoned an EOCO officer to provide clarity.

Julius Nudanu told the court he had been informed that EOCO’s Surveillance and Asset Recovery Unit conducted the operation, but lacked specific details.

Counsel for the second accused, Augustin Obuor, further requested the release of seized phones and a laptop, arguing the items were not listed in prosecution disclosures yet remained in custody.

The court ordered EOCO to explain the continued detention of the devices. Proceedings have been adjourned to April 29.