Court Modifies Bail Conditions in High-Profile Case

An Accra High Court has reviewed the bail conditions of Kwabena adu-Boahene in a matter concerning alleged financial offences. The ruling followed a legal contest between counsel for the applicants and the Attorney General, who opposed any relaxation of the existing bail conditions.

Proceedings and Initial Objections

The court initially adjourned for an hour to allow the Deputy Attorney General to file an affidavit in opposition to the bail application. Upon resumption, the Deputy Attorney General raised preliminary objections regarding the application’s title, which was styled as ‘Bail Pending Investigation.’ However, upon perusal of the affidavit, it became evident that the application sought judicial review of the bail conditions already granted by the relevant authorities.

Upon this clarification, the Deputy Attorney General indicated a willingness to proceed, provided that counsel for the applicant clearly articulated the true nature of the relief sought.

Arguments Advanced by Counsel for the Applicant

Counsel for the applicant relied heavily on constitutional provisions, particularly Article 14, which enshrines the right of any person detained to be brought before a court within 48 hours. He contended that allowing the Attorney General to exercise the same discretion as the judiciary in granting bail would compromise the integrity of the judicial system.

Counsel urged the court to grant the applicants bail on self-recognisance, arguing that their passports and properties had already been seized by the authorities. He further submitted that reasonable bail conditions would ensure their availability for trial and preliminary matters.

An emotive argument was also advanced regarding the psychological distress inflicted upon the applicants’ four children, who had been left in distress for over eight days due to their parents’ continued detention. Additionally, counsel emphasised that the ability of the applicants to engage in confidential consultations with their legal representatives was being severely hampered. He further stressed that there was no indication that the offences in question were non-bailable and, therefore, urged the court to exercise its discretion in their favour.

The Deputy Attorney General’s Submissions

In response, the Deputy Attorney General acknowledged that the avoidance of unnecessary detention was in the interest of the Attorney General’s office. However, he insisted that the gravity of the alleged offences warranted the maintenance of the existing bail conditions.

A key plank of the Deputy Attorney General’s argument was that the applicants’ substantial assets could not serve as adequate bail guarantees, as the law mandates that security for bail must be provided by sureties. Further, he contended that both applicants posed a flight risk due to concerns surrounding multiple passports and dual nationality.

Specifically, investigators had identified discrepancies in the first applicant’s travel documents, raising suspicions that he may be in possession of a foreign passport. Meanwhile, the second applicant’s dual citizenship status heightened fears that, if granted more lenient bail conditions, he might evade ongoing investigations.

The Deputy Attorney General argued that any relaxation of the bail terms would significantly increase the risk of flight and potential interference with evidence. Consequently, he prayed the court to affirm the existing conditions.

Court’s Ruling

After considering the submissions of both parties, the court exercised its discretion and ruled as follows:
1. The bail conditions for the first applicant were modified, requiring him to provide security in the sum of GHS 80 million, with two sureties, one to be justified.
2. The bail conditions for the second applicant remained unchanged at GHS 80million without justification
3. Both applicants were granted permission to travel, subject to obtaining express authorisation from the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO).
4. The applicants were mandated to report to EOCO three times per week for a duration of three weeks.