Ghana EOCO: Returns Hanan Defence Items After Court Order

• Ghana's Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) returned £6,700, GH¢2,750, two laptops, and at least six mobile phones to former CEO Hanan Abdul Wahab, his wife, and driver.
• The items were crucial for their defence in an ongoing financial crimes trial, with some seized as early as 2025 and others during Mr. Hanan's July 2026 airport arrest.
• Lead counsel Godfred Yeboah Dame successfully argued that the trial could not proceed without the return of these items, citing constitutional rights under Article 19(2)(e) and (g).
• Justice Francis Achibonga ruled that the prosecution could not call its first witness until the defence's application for the property's release was determined.
• The return on October 5, 2026, followed both the court's stance and a petition alleging unlawful retention of the property.

This ruling by Justice Francis Achibonga, leading to the Ghana EOCO returns Hanan defence items, establishes a significant precedent regarding the rights of accused persons in Ghana.

The Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) in Ghana has recently returned a significant amount of cash and electronic devices to former Ghana Buffer Stock Company CEO Hanan Abdul Wahab, his wife Hajia Faiza Wuni, and their driver. The items, which included £6,700, GH¢2,750, two laptop computers, and at least six mobile phones, were handed over on Monday, October 5, 2026. This development occurred as the three individuals face trial on charges related to financial crimes, specifically allegations of offences against the state.

The seizure of these properties took place at different times. Some items were initially confiscated during investigations in 2025. More recently, on July 4, 2026, Mr. Hanan was arrested at the airport and detained for four days, despite being scheduled to travel abroad for medical treatment under a court order. During this arrest, cash, one laptop, and two mobile phones were seized.

At a court hearing on September 29, 2026, the prosecution indicated its readiness to present its first witness. However, lead counsel for Mr. Hanan, Godfred Yeboah Dame, a former Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, challenged this, arguing that the trial could not proceed without the return of the seized items. Mr. Dame emphasized that the mobile phones contained information crucial for preparing the defence. Counsel for the second accused, Faizal Wuni, Augustine Obour, also requested the release of his client's electronic devices, stating they were fundamental to her defence.

Presiding over the trial, Justice Francis Achibonga ruled against the prosecution's attempt to commence its case. The court determined that the prosecution could not call its first witness until the application for the release of the phones and other property had been decided, acknowledging the defence's need for access to these items for adequate preparation.

The legal battle for the return of the seized items centered on the fundamental rights of an accused person to a fair trial and adequate defence. Godfred Yeboah Dame, representing Mr. Hanan, had previously filed a motion seeking a court order to compel EOCO to release the property. His argument highlighted that the mobile devices held information vital to the proceedings, directly impacting the defence's ability to prepare effectively, including the capacity to raise objections to documents the prosecution intended to tender.

This defence challenge was firmly rooted in Ghana's 1992 Constitution, specifically citing Article 19(2)(e) and (g). These provisions guarantee an accused person the right to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence and to examine witnesses or have them examined. The defence contended that retaining these electronic devices, which contained central information, directly impeded these constitutional rights. The prosecution, conversely, had argued that the trial could proceed concurrently with the determination of the application for the items' release.

The court's decision to halt proceedings until the defence had access to the materials underscored the judiciary's commitment to upholding these constitutional safeguards. The return of the items by EOCO on October 5, 2026, followed not only the court's stance but also a formal petition submitted by Mr. Hanan's lawyers, Dame & Partners. This petition, addressed to EOCO Acting Executive Director Raymond Archer and Attorney-General Dr. Dominic Ayine, asserted that the property had been retained without legal justification. The petition detailed an earlier incident on July 9, 2026, where Mr. Hanan, attempting to retrieve his belongings from EOCO, was only given an empty purse, a wristwatch, and his boarding pass, with investigating officer Frank Cromwell reportedly stating he lacked authorization to release the remaining items, including two mobile phones and envelopes containing £5,000, £1,700, and GH¢2,750.

This ruling by Justice Francis Achibonga, leading to the Ghana EOCO returns Hanan defence items, establishes a significant precedent regarding the rights of accused persons in Ghana. It reinforces the critical importance of an accused person's constitutional right to access seized personal property, particularly electronic devices, when those items are deemed essential for preparing their defence. The court's insistence that the trial could not proceed without the return of these materials highlights the judiciary's role in safeguarding fundamental liberties, even in complex financial crime cases.

The case underscores that investigative bodies like the Economic and Organised Crime Office Ghana cannot indefinitely retain property crucial for an accused's defence, especially when such retention infringes upon constitutional guarantees. The successful Godfred Yeboah Dame defence challenge, grounded in Ghana's Article 19(2)(e) and (g) of the 1992 Constitution, provides a clear roadmap for future legal challenges. It affirms that the accused right to defence evidence Ghana is paramount, ensuring that individuals have the necessary "facilities" to prepare adequately for their trial, thereby upholding the principles of natural justice and fair hearing. This outcome serves as a vital reminder to legal practitioners and law enforcement agencies alike about the boundaries of state power during investigations and the non-negotiable rights of the accused.

This ruling reinforces the critical importance of an accused person's constitutional right to access seized personal property, such as electronic devices, when those items are deemed essential for preparing their defence in Ghana. Lawyers should note this precedent to challenge investigative bodies' retention of client property that is crucial for trial preparation, particularly under Article 19(2)(e) and (g) of the 1992 Constitution.

Source: Original reporting via Myjoyonline.com