Proceedings at the High Court came to an abrupt end on Tuesday, May 5, 2026, after the Attorney-General (A-G) formally withdrew all charges against former NAFCo Chief Executive Officer, Hanan Abdul-Wahab Aludiba, his wife Faiza Seidu Wuni, and three others.
The decision to discontinue the case was explained in a Facebook post by Deputy Attorney-General Justice Srem Sai, who indicated that “fresh evidence” had emerged. According to him, the move was intended to ensure that the accused persons receive “a fair and more speedy trial in accordance with the constitution.”
Despite the withdrawal, the matter took a dramatic turn shortly after court proceedings when the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) re-arrested Abdul-Wahab and his wife.
The accused persons Abdul-Wahab, Faiza Wuni, Richard Sam-Asante, The Aludiba Foundation, and Energy Partners Limited had been facing 21 charges. These included stealing, money laundering, defrauding by false pretences, conspiracy, and the alleged dissipation of public funds, in violation of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) and the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2020 (Act 1044).
Lawyers for the accused have strongly criticised the Attorney-General’s handling of the case.
Counsel for the first accused, Godfred Yeboah Dame, questioned the approach taken by the A-G, arguing that investigations should have been thorough before charges were filed. While he did not oppose the withdrawal describing it as a form of reprieve he raised concerns about the immediate re-arrest of his clients.
He further criticised what he described as a pattern of prosecutorial abuse, where cases are initiated without sufficient evidence and later discontinued.
Similarly, Augustine Obuor, lawyer for the second accused, described the decision as an abuse of discretionary power. He noted that the case had progressed significantly and argued that if the state intended to pursue different charges, it should have amended them instead of withdrawing the entire case.
Obuor also cautioned that any attempt to refile the matter in another court could amount to an abuse of judicial process, stressing that prosecutorial discretion must always align with the constitutional rights of the accused.
