Daniel Osei Kuffour, the husband of former Sanitation Minister, Cecilia Dapaah, has been detained as part of ongoing investigations into allegations of alleged corruption and crimes related to the former Minister, following reports of money reportedly stolen from their house.

This new information was presented in court, when the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) moved its plea for confirmation of an order to freeze Cecilia Dapaah’s bank accounts and hold unto almost $590,000 and GHC 2,730,000 discovered at her Abelemkpe home.

However, given that the allegedly tainted money was discovered in Cecilia Dapaah’s marital residence, the Judge presiding over the case questioned why she was the only one under investigation.

Nevertheless, the OSP’s Director of Prosecutions, Dr. Isidore Tufour, answered that Cecilia Dapaah’s husband had also been arrested. Surprisingly, Cecilia Dapaah’s attorney pointed out that since her client is unaware of her husband’s alleged detention, this information is fresh to them.

Cecicilia Dapaah Describes OSP’s Order To Freeze Accounts As Based On Media Frenzy

Cecilia Dapaah characterized the OSP’s appeal to confirm a freeze and seizure order against her properties as an effort to continue the arbitrary exercise of authority, based on false information and the ensuing media frenzy.

This was stated by her attorneys when they rejected the application on Thursday.

On Thursday, attorneys representing the anti-corruption organization and the former Sanitation Minister argued before Justice Edward Twum on whether the orders for the properties’ seizure and freeze should be confirmed.

Dr. Isidore Tuffour, speaking on behalf of the OSP, claimed that the order is in accordance with the office’s ACT (959) to prevent concealment of a property, allegedly tainted with corruption. The Special Prosecutor’s Office has submitted a confirmation application in an effort to seize $590,000 and GHC 2,730,000 that were discovered in her residence during a search of three houses connected to her.

In court, Dr. Tuffour testified that Cecilia Dapaah was unable to explain how she acquired the money, and that the ownership of the allegedly stolen assets in question. These support the attorney’s request for the seizure order. He then claimed that the office believed the funds were obtained through corrupt means.

On the other hand, Cecilia Dapaah’s attorneys, led by Victoria Barth, claimed that the application for confirmation was submitted in violation of the guidelines established by the office of the special prosecutor ACT.

According to her argument, section 32(2) of the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act 959 requires the office to submit the application for confirmation within seven days, following the seizure. She said that the immediate application was submitted after the seven-day period had passed.

Victoria Barth further argued before the court that the discovery of sizable quantities in her clients’ residence did not support the seizure of their belongings. In her opinion, the petitioner had not shown any evidence to support the claim that the funds discovered were tainted.

Additionally, the OSP is attempting to have the former Sanitation Minister’s Prudential Bank and Société General bank accounts frozen. The attorneys for the OSP said that in order for their request to be granted, the court must determine whether the respondent is a subject of an ongoing investigation for corruption, which they claim to have occurred.

According to Dr. Tuffour, they are not required to provide evidence supporting their suspicions that the accounts are corrupted. ACT 959’s author, he claimed, “did not provide that requirement to provide grounds for the freezing.”

However, Cecilia Dapaah’s attorneys contended that the mere fact that their client is under investigation for wrongdoing is insufficient justification for freezing her accounts. They claimed that in order to qualify under the special prosecutor ACT, the petitioner must provide evidence that there are legitimate reasons to believe the property is tainted, rather than merely asserting it to be so.

They argued that “there is no basis to suspect that the monies in respondent’s accounts are tainted property, especially when banks are routinely required on a daily basis to report suspicious transactions.”

After hearing from all parties, the Judge decided to postpone making a decision, until August 31.