Former Chief Executive Officer of the National Food Buffer Stock Company (NAFCO), Abdul-Wahab Hanan Aludiba, has filed an application at the High Court in Accra seeking to strike out several criminal charges brought against him, arguing that the charge sheet is “fatally defective” and violates his constitutional right to a fair trial.

The application, filed before the High Court’s Specialised Court under case number CR/0530/2026, is asking the court to strike out Counts 1 to 20 contained in the charge sheet.

Aludiba, who is the first accused person in the case involving him and Faiza Seidu Wuni, contends that the charges are vague, ambiguous, duplicative and fail to provide sufficient details for him to understand the allegations he is expected to defend.

According to his affidavit in support of the application, the Republic arraigned him on May 15, 2026, on 16 counts, including defrauding by false pretences, willfully causing financial loss to the Republic, stealing, using public office for profit, intentional dissipation of public funds and money laundering.

The applicant argues that the particulars of several charges do not meet constitutional and statutory requirements, particularly Article 19(2)(d) of the 1992 Constitution, which guarantees an accused person the right to be informed immediately and in detail of the nature of the offence for which they are charged.

2026 FIFA World Cup: What Ghanaian prophets said vs what God delivered

Aludiba claims that some charges covering periods spanning several years fail to identify specific transactions allegedly constituting the offences.

He cited charges relating to alleged payments to Sawtina Enterprise between February 2017 and February 2025, arguing that the prosecution did not clarify whether the alleged offences arose from a single transaction or multiple payments.

He further argued that the charge of stealing an amount of about GH¢50.8 million from NAFCO was unclear because it did not specify how the alleged stealing occurred, the particular acts involved, or whether the money was transferred, withdrawn or retained.

The former NAFCO boss also challenged the charges of willfully causing financial loss to the Republic, stating that the prosecution merely repeated the statutory phrase “willfully caused” without providing details of how the alleged loss occurred.

He maintained that the charge sheet did not explain whether the alleged loss was direct or indirect or how the payments in question were unlawful.

On the charges of defrauding by false pretences, Aludiba argued that the prosecution failed to identify the specific false representations allegedly made by him, when those representations were made, how they were communicated, or the goods and quantities involved.

He also raised concerns about what he described as duplicity in the charges, particularly Counts 13 and 14, which he said relate to the same alleged transaction involving GH¢5,495,748.36 paid by NAFCO to Aludiba Enterprise.

According to him, charging him with both stealing and defrauding by false pretences over the same transaction creates an inconsistency because the two offences are based on different factual allegations.

“That Count 5 charges me with "wilfully causing financial loss of about GH¢50,879,210 to the Republic," but the word "wilfully appears only as a label in the statement of offence and is repeated in the particulars, but no particulars are provided to support what constituted the "wilful cause" for me to know the nature of the charge against me.

“That the particulars state that I, in the "course of making payments", wilfully caused the said NAFCO to lose the stated sum without more. Quite fatally, there is no indication of how unlawfully the payments were made or how the payments caused loss to the company. It is also not stated whether the loss was direct or indirect.

“That I am advised by counsel and verily believe same to be true that the drafting style of the Republic in lumping everything together under the phrase "wilfully caused," is impermissibly vague and prejudices my right,” part of the documents said.

The applicant further challenged the money laundering charge, arguing that it depended on a defective predicate offence and therefore could not stand.



AM

GhanaWeb launches maiden Real Estate Platform



Ghanaians welcome GhanaWeb’s digital solution for real estate challenges



GhanaWeb's Real Estate Platform will benefit property sector – Rev. Dr. Nanayaa Prempeh



Do your due diligence before investing in real estate – GhanaWeb CEO David Antwi