The Applicant [Special Prosecutor] is acting "in flagrant breach of its enabling Act" and the application is an arbitrary exercise of the powers of the Applicant based on "nothing more than suspicion fueled by misrepresentation of facts and resultant media frenzy," were the words of counsel for Cecilia Dapaah, Mrs.Victoria Barth Esq. in moving Justice Edward Twum to dismiss the attempt by the Special Prosecutor to have the blessing of the Court to hold the property of Mrs. Cecilia Abena Dapaah. The property is sums of money seized from the matrimonial home of the former Sanitation Minister and money held in her Prudential Bank and Societe General accounts which have been frozen by the Special Prosecutor.

Filling out of time

Assisted by Calvin McQuaye Esq., Mrs. Barth, confident of the errors in the Special Prosecutor's application said the application of the Special Prosecutor under Section 32(2) of the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959) was filed out of time. In this light, she pressed on the court the danger of the court exceeding its powers if it granted the request of the Special Prosecutor. As part of the reasons for late application by the Special Prosecutor, Counsel for the Applicant said investigations are still ongoing on the ownership of the amount of $590,000 and GHc2,730,000 seized from the home of Mrs. Dapaa as the ownership remains in dispute.

[Pictured: Mrs. Victoria Barth]

Conjunctive vs. Disjunctive

On section 40(1) relied on by the Special Prosecutor for a confirmation of the freezing of Mrs. Dapaah's account, Counsel for Mrs. Dapaah said the court ought to weigh the grounds provided in section 40 conjunctively. That is, all the grounds listed under section 40(1) ought to be satisfied before the application under the hand of the Special Prosecutor is granted.

This point was met with vehement disagreement from Dr. Isidore Tuffour, a former Criminal law lecturer at the GIMPA Law Faculty and now Director of Prosecutions for the Office of the Special Prosecutor. In his words, the interpretation placed on section 40(1) by Mrs. Barth "carried a great deal of confusion and high amount of absurdity." He forcefully contended that section 40(1) should be read as disjunctive.

[Pictured: Dr. Isidore Tuffour]

"Tainted Property"

Relying on the meaning of Tainted Property provided under section 79 of Act 959, Counsel for the respondent former Minister said the Special Prosecutor has failed to show that money in Mrs. Dapaah's account, and sums in her house were derived or obtained from corruption. She said the Special Prosecutor cannot just assert that the sums are tainted property but must provide reasonable grounds for such a claim. To further fortify her argument, she said there was no basis to claim that money in her account was tainted property as banks were routinely required on a daily basis to report suspicious transactions.

Mrs. Barth went on to argue that given the admission of the Special Prosecutor on the dispute as to the actual ownership of the amount seized from the home of Mrs. Dapaah, the Special Prosecutor has no basis to say that the money belongs to Mrs. Dapaah in paragraph 7 of their affidavit.

These arguments of Mrs. Barth were an effort to dislodge the claim by Dr. Tuffour that Mrs. Dapaah has not provided justification for how she came to be in the possession of the amount seized from her home.

Ruling

After nearly two hours of hearing, the learned Justice Twum gave the 31st of August, 2023 as the date to give his ruling. Before giving the return date for ruling, His Lordship Edward Twum inquired from counsel representing the Prosecutor's office if Mrs. Dapaah had been charged to which Dr. Tuffour answered in the negative.