Court fixes August 17 to hear stay application in Abdul Hanan trial
The date was set after defence counsel failed to appear when the matter was called on August 12.
The Accra High Court has fixed August 17, 2026, for lawyers of former NAFCO Chief Executive Officer Hanan Abdul-Wahab Aludiba and his wife, Faiza Seidu Wuni, to address the court on their application for stay of proceedings pending appeal.
The date was set after defence counsel failed to appear when the matter was called on August 12.
Mr Aludiba and his wife are standing trial on charges including stealing, causing financial loss to the State and money laundering.
Their lawyers, Godfred Yeboah Dame and Augustine Obour, were absent from court.
Mr Aludiba told the court that counsel had taken ill after petitioning the Chief Justice to stop the court from sitting during the legal vacation.
He also explained that Richard Gyambibi, who he described as the second in command to his lawyer, was out of town marking scripts for the Ghana School of Law.
The former NAFCO CEO said he had also been served with a copy of an application filed at the Court of Appeal seeking a stay of proceedings.
He therefore asked the court for a long adjournment to allow counsel to recover and for the stay application to be heard.
Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai opposed the request.
He argued that Mr Dame had already indicated that he would not conduct the trial during the legal vacation and would therefore be absent.
“It is important that when a lawyer is unable to attend proceedings there is an established way of doing it. That is not what we are seeing in this particular instance,” Dr Srem-Sai said.
He submitted that the application filed at the Court of Appeal did not automatically stay the proceedings before the High Court.
According to him, if counsel wanted the court to rely on ill-health as a basis for adjournment, documentary proof should have been provided.
“If counsel wanted medical condition to be a basis for anything in this court, he could have honoured this court with documentary evidence,” he argued.
Dr Srem-Sai said counsel was aware of the proper procedure, especially because he had previously required his own client to provide medical excuse duty when raising health-related concerns.
He argued that the failure to submit medical evidence meant counsel did not intend to rely on ill-health as the reason for his absence.
The Deputy Attorney-General urged the court to allow proceedings to continue in the normal course.
The presiding judge, however, adjourned the matter to August 17 to allow defence counsel to appear and address the court on the application to stay proceedings pending appeal.
The case is among high-profile criminal trials that have generated debate over court sittings during the legal vacation.
