Court lifts freeze on Sesi-Edem accounts in sharp rebuke to EOCO

The High Court in Adentan has ordered the release of bank accounts belonging to Sesi-Edem Company Limited, in a ruling that also clears the firm’s founder, Gabriel Tanko Kwamigah-Atokple, of wrongdoing.

The decision marks a major legal victory for the company after weeks of scrutiny over an investigation initiated by the Economic and Organised Crime Office, EOCO.

According to details of the ruling, EOCO stepped in after receiving a petition from JG Resources Ltd. That intervention led to the freezing of Sesi-Edem’s accounts on 20 November 2025 and again on 17 December 2025. The freeze was later reinforced through an ex parte order granted on 30 January 2026.

But the court found that EOCO had gone beyond the authority granted to it by law.

In its judgment, the court said the disagreement between Sesi-Edem and JG Resources stemmed from a private commercial arrangement, not from fraud, money laundering or any other criminal conduct that would justify EOCO’s involvement. The judge held that the matter was contractual in nature and should have been handled through the civil courts.

The ruling also found that Sesi-Edem was not in breach of its Sale and Purchase Agreement at the time the accounts were frozen. The court noted that the contract was still being performed and that the delivery period had not yet run out. Any disagreement over timelines, it said, remained a civil issue.

On the question of licensing, the court concluded that Sesi-Edem was lawfully authorised to trade in gold at the time of the transaction. It found that the company operated under directives issued by the Ghana Gold Board during a transition period that allowed licensed dealers to continue business. As a result, the court held that the company’s representations about its regulatory status were lawful.

The judgment was equally critical of EOCO’s conduct during the process.

The court said the agency did not secure judicial confirmation of its initial freezing directive within the 14-day period required by law. Instead, it issued a second order in December without disclosing the earlier one, then sought confirmation through an ex parte application, a move the court found deeply problematic because it denied Sesi-Edem the chance to respond.

That second order, the court ruled, was invalid. In effect, the continued freezing of the company’s accounts was unlawful.

The judgment sends a strong message about the limits of state investigative authority, making clear that public institutions cannot be used as tools in private commercial battles. It also underscores that EOCO, like every public body, must act strictly within its statutory mandate.