Embattled Abdul Hanan Accuses Security Agencies of Judicial Contempt
A former state enterprise executive has petitioned the High Court to compel law enforcement apparatus to comply with judicial authorization permitting his international transit, characterising his airport apprehension as institutional defiance of court authority and an unlawful detention grounded in allegations the prosecution has failed to substantiate with specificity or evidence.
Hanan Abdul-Wahab Aludiba, former Chief Executive of the National Food Buffer Stock Company, submitted affidavit testimony asserting that the Bureau of National Investigations and the Economic and Organised Crime Office executed his arrest in deliberate violation of a June 29 court order explicitly authorising him to travel to London for medical treatment.
The chronology Aludiba articulated establishes the alleged institutional transgression.
The High Court, after receiving affidavits and hearing arguments from both prosecution and defence, determined on June 29 that travel permission was warranted.
Aludiba subsequently secured flight reservations for July 4 with scheduled return to Ghana on July 12, intending to utilise the authorised travel window for his medical intervention.
Upon arrival at Accra International Airport on July 4, Aludiba completed all requisite immigration and security procedures and received clearance to proceed toward his flight.
Yet as he approached the boarding gate, armed officers identifying themselves as BNI personnel confronted him, shortly joined by EOCO officials. Despite the officers’ evident awareness that the court had authorised his journey, they executed his arrest.
The Attorney-General has mounted a legal counter-offensive, seeking to revoke Aludiba’s travel permission on the basis that he attempted to utilise fraudulent methodology to empty a Republic Bank account that had been judicially frozen as part of asset preservation measures in his ongoing prosecution.
The allegation constitutes the institutional justification for the July 4 airport arrest.
Aludiba’s affidavit categorically denies the allegation with specificity-focused argumentation. He asserts that he neither withdrew nor attempted to withdraw money from any frozen account.
He challenges the Attorney-General to identify the specific account, the precise amount allegedly involved, or the operational method he purportedly intended to employ.
The prosecution has provided none of these particulars, he contends, rendering the allegation bare accusation devoid of substantive specification.
The absence of recovered funds further undermines the prosecution’s narrative. Aludiba was apprehended whilst attempting to board his flight; no currency representing proceeds from frozen account withdrawal was discovered upon his person during the arrest.
No financial evidence exists supporting the allegation that he successfully or even attempted the alleged criminal conduct.
Additionally, Aludiba has not been formally charged with any offence arising from the frozen account allegation — a procedural absence suggesting that investigative authorities lack confidence in the evidentiary foundation necessary to support criminal prosecution.
The detention itself, according to Aludiba’s account, violated procedural safeguards. He remained in BNI custody for two days before transfer to EOCO, where he spent an additional two days.
His access to legal representation was restricted until the final day of his detention — a constraint that impeded his capacity to mount immediate legal challenge to what he characterises as unlawful custody.
The bail conditions initially imposed — GH¢5 million with two sureties — Aludiba characterises as “excessive and unreasonable” given that the allegations under investigation involve substantially smaller sums than the proposed security requirement.
The disproportionality between alleged wrongdoing scale and bail quantum suggests, in his assessment, that institutional intent focused upon punishment through custody rather than upon securing court appearance guarantee.
Beyond the detention’s legality, Aludiba alleges that state agencies have unlawfully retained his property.
Approximately £7,000 — funds he had borrowed to finance his London travel expenses and medical treatment — remain in governmental custody rather than being returned to him.
Two mobile phones similarly remain confiscated, their contents allegedly accessed on July 6 and July 7 without judicial authorisation whilst the devices remained under state agency control.
Most critically, his passport remains in governmental possession despite the court’s June 29 order explicitly permitting international travel. The retention of his travel documentation effectively nullifies the judicial permission even should he secure release from detention.
Aludiba has petitioned the court to direct the Attorney-General, EOCO and BNI to comply with the June 29 travel authorisation by releasing his passport, returning the £7,000, and restoring the mobile phones.
He characterises his arrest as unlawful and contemptuous of judicial authority, positioning the Attorney-General’s revocation application as grounded in false and malicious allegations designed to punish him for attempting to exercise judicially-authorised rights.
The allegations contained within Aludiba’s affidavit remain unverified assertions awaiting judicial determination — yet they delineate a complex institutional conflict between judicial authority and law enforcement discretion, with questions of contempt of court, unlawful detention and property seizure occupying central positions in the escalating legal dispute.
Popular News
No trending posts found.