MENU
CLOSE
The Law Platform
© Copyright 2021 - 2026
The Criminal Division of the High Court presided by H/L Justice Francis Achibonga, JA, shall hear a motion filed by the learned Richard Gyambiby on Monday, the 20th day of July, 2026 where Mr. Gyambiby requests from the Court the striking out of the Charge Sheet filed by the Office of the Attorney-General and Ministry of Justice (A-G) against Mr. Hanan and his wife for offences of stealing, defrauding by false pretense, money laundering and others.
The motion of Mr. Gyambiby filed on the 14th day of July, 2026 was brought to the attention of the Court on the last adjourned date. This compelled the Court to postpone the commencement of trial owing to the prayers sought by the motion and effect of same on the entire prosecutorial drive of the A-G.
Void for vagueness & duplicity
In the 44-paragraphed motion under the hand of Mr. Gyambiby, a criminal procedure lecturer and experienced former state prosecutor, Mr. Hanan deposes to his affidavit supporting the motion filed by his lawyers that the charges filed by the A-G are "vague, ambiguous, duplicitous, renders a fair trial impossible and violates my fundamental human rights as an accused person under the Constitution and therefore ought to be struck out by this Honourable Court."
In a bid to attack the root of the case of the A-G by an onslaught against the legality of the charge sheet of the A-G, Mr. Hanan deposes as follows: "That on a careful examination, it is apparent that the Charge Sheet is confusing, ambiguous and deprives me of a proper understanding of the precise nature of the allegations by the Republic against me."
Lumping of transactions and counts
At paragraphs 14 - 17 of the affidavit of Mr. Hanan he showcases what he deems to be the incompetence of the charge sheet of the A-G by failure of the charge sheet to separate transactions and failure to encapsulate same in individual counts. He submits to the Court that, "each transaction is required by law to be set out in a separate count as a failure to do so violates my fundamental constitutional right to a fair trial and to be informed in detail of the nature of the offence charged against me."
Mr. Hanan further deposes to his affidavit on failure of specificity of transactions that:
21 minutes ago
16th Jul, 2026
15th Jul, 2026
9th Jul, 2026
6th Jul, 2026
"14. That I am advised by counsel and verily believe same to be true that if the alleged act of stealing consists of alleged multiple payments or transactions, each transaction is required by law to be set out in a separate count as a failure to do so violates my fundamental constitutional right to a fair trial and to be informed in detail of the nature of the offence charged against me.
15. That, additionally, the particulars do not provide information on the specific payments) which constituted the offence of stealing and no information is provided as to whether the money was transferred, withdrawn, or retained by me.
16. That in respect to the four counts of stealing, the particulars allege that I stole various sums of money "while purporting to make payments".
17. That I am confused as to whether I am alleged to have done the act or I pretended to do it and, in the process, stole it. These fundamental defects make me unable to properly prepare for the trial."
Stealing and defrauding by false pretences mixed together
As part of the strive of Mr. Gyambiby to procure orders of the Court striking out the charge sheet of the A-G, Mr. Hanan deposes at paragraphs 32,33,34 that the offence of stealing and defrauding by false pretences cannot be founded on the same set of particulars.
Mr. Hanan deposes that "32. That in particular, in Counts 13 and 14, I have been charged with the offences of stealing and defrauding by false pretences respectively, in respect of the same sum of money, namely GH¢5,495,748.36, arising from the same transaction - the alleged payments from the NAFCO to Aludiba Enterprise between February 2017 and February 2019.
33. That I am further advised by Counsel and verily believe same to be true that, by their nature, the offences of stealing and defrauding by false pretences, when levelled in respect of the same act involving the same sum of money, are mutually exclusive.
34. That I am advised that a person cannot both "take and carry away" property without consent (stealing) and simultaneously "induce the owner to part with it" by a false pretence (defrauding), as the two offences rest on fundamentally different and contradictory factual bases. Preferring both offences in respect of the same transaction therefore creates an incurable ambiguity in violation of the principles of fair trial enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution, and renders the charge sheet incurably defective."
READ/DDOWNLOAD MOTION BELOW
Unlock premium articles, PDF downloads, cases and more
Learn how to subscribe