The Gbese District Court in Accra has extended its ruling in the extradition proceedings involving Frederick Kumi, also known as Abu Trica, after the State revealed that it had no evidence against two of the accused, despite the court’s refusal to release them.
Lord Eshun and Bernard Aidoo were charged as alleged accessories in an extradition charge sheet filed on December 12, 2025.
However, the State informed the court that the investigations had been completed and that there was no reason to pursue proceedings against them.
The two had been charged as accessories to the prime suspect under Section 6 of the Extradition Act, 1960 (Act 22), but the Republic needed time to “put its house in order,” according to Derick Ackah Nyameke, who represented the Attorney-General’s Department in court.
The prosecution argued that the arraignment was a part of committal proceedings pending the receipt of formal diplomatic extradition requests when the court asked for clarification on the reason for the withdrawal.
Oliver Barker Vormawor, Abu Trica’s lawyer, contended that the evidence against his client was legally unworkable due to the accusations against the suspected conspirators being dropped.
According to Ghanaian law, “where alleged conspirators have been identified but have been discharged, it is legally impossible to proceed against the remaining accused person.” He added, “One person cannot be found guilty of an alleged conspiracy because the alleged conspirators are no longer before the court.”
He further argued that “the charge against Abu Trica fails in its entirety” since the charge sheet submitted on December 12, 2025, did not mention any unidentified conspirators at large.
Mr. Nyameke responded by opposing the discharge request, claiming that Abu Trica had been arraigned for extradition-related committal proceedings rather than for trial in Ghana.
He explained that a fugitive might be temporarily detained and brought before a district court while extradition procedures were being completed in accordance with Act 22 and the 1931 extradition treaty.
“The objection raised by defence counsel is premature,” he stated, noting that the defence had received a notification to suspend the extradition proceedings earlier in the day.
Justice Bernice Ackon presided over the court, which decided not to release any of the accused and postponed a decision until February 7, 2026.
Aggrey-Finn Amissah, the accused’s attorney, challenged the court’s decision to not release the two accused notwithstanding the State’s stance in an interview with the media following the proceedings.
He stated, “Prosecution is at the discretion of the state. The court should not have any interest… yet the judge decided not to discharge the two persons the state itself says there is no evidence against.”
The defence has since submitted a bail application to the High Court, which is scheduled to be considered on January 20, 2026, he continued.
Source: newsthemegh.com