The Specialised division of the High Court presided by H/L Justice Francis Achibonga has demonstrated his displeasure with the failure or refusal of the Office of the Attorney-General and Justice Ministry (A-G) and the Economic and Organised Crime office, (EOCO) to return back to Mr. Hanan and his wife, phones and laptops seized from their possession during their arrests and detention.

The Court vented its dissatisfaction of the 12th day of August, 2026 when the Court asked the parties if there were any matters the Court ought to address before adjourning to Monday for the continuation of proceedings in the Bufferstock case as intituled Republic v Hanan Abdul Wahab (CR/0530/2026).

STAR OF THE MONTH - Justin Amenuvor Esq.

Mr. Hanan seized the opportunity presented by the Court as he jumped his feet to inform the Court of the breach of the orders of the Court directed at prosecution to release the phones and laptops of the accused persons back to them.

The Court which looked dismayed demanded a response from the A-G. Dr. Srem-Sai rose to his feet and attempted to explain the reason for their non-compliance with the wishes of the Court. Dr. Srem-Sai informed the Court that EOCO were not done with their forensics on the devices of the accused and thus, EOCO through its Executive Director, Raymond Archer, is yet to return the items to the A-G to be released to the accused persons.

Orders cannot be in abeyance

With a face of dissatisfaction, the learned Presiding Judge told Dr. Srem-Sai that the court has made specific orders which ought to be complied with. The court said the A-G ought to serve or inform EOCO of the orders of the Court.

As if in a cautionary voice, the Court informed the A-G that "we cannot leave the order of the Court in abeyance". The Court further added that if the orders could not be complied with, it was incumbent on EOCO upon the service of the order or notice of same to EOCO, to inform the Court it could not comply with the orders of the Court.

Some gadgets returned

Prosecution informed the Court of the return to the accused persons some of their seized gadgets. The Court returned to the accused persons for their response on the new piece of information. The second accused, wife of Mr. Hanan informed the Court that they rejected the return of some of the gadgets insisting to only receive their gadgets pursuant to the orders of the Court when the full set of gadgets are returned to them, not some.