MENU
CLOSE
The Law Platform
© Copyright 2021 - 2026
The Specialised division of the High Court presided by H/L Justice Francis Achibonga has demonstrated its 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 on 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).
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 was not done with forensics on the devices of the accused persons and thus, EOCO through its Executive Director, Raymond Archer, is yet to return the items to the A-G for same 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.
In a voice of caution, 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 Court's order or notice to EOCO, to inform the Court why it could not comply with the orders of the Court.
Some gadgets returned
about 16 hours ago
22nd Jul, 2026
19th Jul, 2026
15th Jul, 2026
9th Jul, 2026
The Court informed the accused persons that the incompleteness of the gadgets should not warrant a refusal by the accused persons to accept some of the gadgets returned to them.
Account for items; Last time talking about the issue
The Court in a voice of surprise at non-compliance with its orders informed the parties that it had made the order for the return of the gadgets a month ago. The Court refused all explanations offered by Dr. Srem-Sai for the disobedience to the order and made a further order in the circumstances for the filing of an account of all item seized and returned.
The Court in a voice and body language suggesting caution to prosecution informed Dr. Srem-Sai that it wished not to have the matter visited again. In the words of Achibonga, JA " I don't want to visit this issue again". The Court thus adjourned to today, Monday, the 17th day of August, 2026 to hear arguments on the effect of a notice filed in Court on a stay of proceedings filed at the Court of Appeal.
Unlock premium articles, PDF downloads, cases and more
Learn how to subscribe