The Criminal High Court, hearing the case of the Republic versus Abdul Hanan-Wahab and 4 others, has ordered the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) to explain why it continues to hold on to the communication and electronic devices belonging to the accused persons.
The court made the order following a complaint by defence lawyers during the court’s sitting on Wednesday, 22 April 2026. Lawyer for Faiza Seidu Wuni (2nd accused), Augustine Obuor, protested the seizure of electronic devices, including an iPhone 14 Pro Max, Tecno smartphones, and laptops, belonging to his client’s children.
He argued that since the prosecution has already completed case management without indicating that these items would be used as evidence, they should be returned. Godfred Dame, lawyer for the first accused person, supported this request and added that phones belonging to his client and his client’s driver were also taken.
In response, the AG’s Office said it was not in a position to fully address the issues raised. The court directed EOCO officials to appear at the next hearing to address concerns regarding the seized devices.
The case has been adjourned to April 29, 2026, at 12:00 PM, when EOCO officials are expected to explain their actions, and the court is likely to rule on the objections raised by defence lawyers.
Graffiti Markings By EOCO On Hanan’s Property
Counsel for the 1st accused, Godfred Yeboah Dame, also challenged the basis of graffiti markings allegedly made by EOCO officers at his client’s residence on 8th April, 2026, without a court order.
He argued that this act violated the accused persons’ rights to live in dignity and their presumption of innocence under the Constitution.
EOCO officers who were present in court admitted that an incident like that had occurred, but said they were not directly involved and did not know the full circumstances.
The court ordered the Assets and Surveillance Department of EOCO to appear on the next adjourned date to answer the allegations raised by counsel for the accused.
Objection To EOCO Officer Prosecuting Case With AG
Another objection was raised about the presence of an Assistant Staff Officer from EOCO in court, who was announced as appearing with the Attorney-General’s legal team. Hon. Dame argued that, under the Law Officers Act of 1974, the officer is not part of the Attorney-General’s Department and therefore could not represent the State in the case.
The court ordered the Attorney-General to produce evidence of the EOCO staff’s due authorization to prosecute together with the AG, and postponed its decision on this issue to the next hearing date.
