The Court of Appeal has halted the trial of former Chief Executive Officer of the National Food and Buffer Stock Company (NAFCO), Hanan Abdul-Wahab Aludiba, pending the determination of his appeal challenging the charge sheet.
A three-member panel, presided over by Justice Noble Nkrumah, granted the stay of proceedings on Monday, October 19, 2026, after finding that the issues raised by his lawyers constituted exceptional circumstances.
The panel, which also included Justices Lydia Osei Marfo and George Boadi, heard arguments from lawyers for Hanan and the Republic before granting the application.
Hanan is appealing a July 2026 High Court ruling that dismissed his application to quash the charges on grounds of alleged defects in the charge sheet.
The charges against him 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.
Arguing for the suspension of the trial, his lead counsel, former Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame, said the alleged defects raised fundamental questions about his client’s right to a fair trial.
He argued that proceeding before the appeal was determined could result in a substantial miscarriage of justice, as the charge sheet must provide sufficient particulars to enable an accused person to understand the allegations and prepare a defence.
Mr Dame challenged counts three, 13 and 18, which concern stealing, arguing that the prosecution had grouped several transactions into individual counts without adequately identifying the alleged acts.
He cited count three, which alleges that Hanan stole GH¢50 million through payments made between 2017 and 2025. He argued that the period was too broad and that the charge did not identify the individual transactions underlying the allegation.
According to Mr Dame, although the prosecution’s statement of facts referred to 86 transactions, those details were absent from the charge sheet.
He further argued that the prosecution had not explained how the alleged stealing occurred beyond describing the offence as “stealing”.
Relying on Section 109 of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30), Mr Dame submitted that distinct acts constituting separate offences should be charged separately.
On the allegation of defrauding by false pretences, he argued that count one did not identify the alleged false representation through which the money was obtained.
He also told the court that the appeal could be heard without undue delay because the record of appeal was ready.
Opposing the application, Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai argued that Hanan had failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify suspending the trial.
He said disagreement with a trial court’s ruling was not sufficient grounds for a stay of proceedings.
Dr Srem-Sai maintained that the charge sheet adequately informed the accused persons of the allegations against them. He also 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 warned that halting the trial could cause unnecessary delays, particularly if the appeal failed.
In response, Mr Dame maintained that the accused persons were entitled to challenge the charge sheet. He also disputed the prosecution’s argument about repeated offences, saying it was not supported by the particulars provided.
Delivering its ruling, the panel said the charge sheet formed the foundation of the trial.
“Having listened, we take the position that the charge sheet carries the superstructure of the trial,” the court said.
It held that the issues raised warranted a stay and suspended the High Court proceedings pending the determination of the appeal. The ruling does not determine the merits of the charges or resolve the challenge to the charge sheet.