Ghanatodayonline.com News, Politics, Health, Education & More
Cecilia Dapaah Former Sanitation Minister called the Special Prosecutor’s request to uphold the order to freeze and confiscate her assets as an attempt to continue the arbitrary exercise of power based on misrepresentation of the facts and the resulting media frenzy.
Her attorneys announced on Thursday that they were objecting to the filing.
Anti-Corruption Agency lawyers and a former Health Secretary argued before Judge Edward Twum on Thursday over whether the lockdown and lockdown orders should be upheld.
The head of the prosecutor’s office of the special prosecutor, Dr. Isidore Tufour argued that the order was in line with the Special Procedures Act (959) to prevent the concealment of assets suspected of corruption.
A request for confirmation from the Special Prosecutor’s Office seeks to seize $590,000 and 2,730,000 GHC found in his home during a search of three homes associated with him.
In this case, Dr. Tufour admitted in court that Cecilia Dapaah was unable to explain how she obtained the funds, and ownership of the allegedly stolen money is disputed.
This justifies the lawyer’s application for confirmation of the confiscation order. He said the office suspected the money found was tainted with corruption.
However, lawyers for Cecilia Dapaah, led by Victoria Barth, argued that the confirmation request was made in violation of ACT Special Prosecutor’s Office procedure.He argued that the Special Prosecutor’s Office Act 959 at p. 32 sec. 2 empowers the prosecutor’s office to request confirmation within seven days of the seizure. He argued that the immediate application was made after seven days had elapsed.
Victoria Barth also argued in court that the fact that large sums of money had been found in her clients’ homes did not justify the confiscation. According to her, the applicant had not provided any evidence that the money found was counterfeit.
The Special Prosecutor’s Office is also requesting that the former Sanitation Minister’s bank accounts at Prudential Bank and Société Générale be frozen. The anti-corruption lawyers argued that in order to uphold their allegations, which they believe happened, the court must ensure that the defendant is investigated for corruption.
Mr Tufour argued that they did not need to show that they suspected the accounts to be fraudulent.
He argued that by Act 959, the legislature “did not provide for any obligation to justify a freeze”.
However, Cecilia Dapaah’s lawyers argued that the mere fact that her client was under investigation for corruption was not sufficient reason to freeze hisaccounts.
According to her, the Special Prosecution Act required the plaintiff to provide reasonable grounds for believing that the property was impure property, and not just a finding of fact.
He argued that “there is no reason to believe that money in respondents’ accounts represents tainted property, especially when banks are routinely reported to suspicious transactions on a daily basis.”
After hearing both parties, the judge postponed the hearing to decide the case until August 31.
Source: Ghanatodayonline.com
