The Former Attorney General and Lawyer for Abdul Wahab Hanan, Godfred Dame has challenged claims that his client attempted to withdraw money from a frozen bank account and argued that no evidence exists to support the allegation. Speaking on the re-arrest of Abdul Wahab Hanan, Mr Dame also questioned the legal basis of actions taken against his client and called on the prosecution to present proof before the court.
Setting out his position, the Counsel rejected assertions by the Attorney General’s department and described the allegation as impossible under the circumstances. He argued that funds held in a frozen account cannot be withdrawn and therefore any claim suggesting otherwise must be supported with verifiable records.
Furthermore, Mr Dame invited the prosecution to produce documentary evidence if it believes such a transaction has taken place. The Counsel stated that any genuine withdrawal would ordinarily leave a trail through a cheque, withdrawal slip or other banking document.
“How does one withdraw money from a frozen account? That is not possible. I am challenging him to produce evidence of the said withdrawal. If it was by cheque then let him produce the cheque. If it was by any withdrawal note then let him produce it. There is nothing like that because nothing of the sort occurred.”
Godfred Dame
Turning to the legal status of the account, Mr Dame argued that the earlier freezing order no longer has legal effect after the previous criminal charges were withdrawn. In his account, the subsequent re-arrest require a new legal process and any previous orders automatically cease to operate.
Additionally, the Counsel referred to a ruling of the High Court at Adenta which he said affirmed that the earlier freezing orders has lapsed. He explained that the court has indicated a fresh application would be required if the Attorney General intended to secure another freezing order.
Mr Dame questioned why a new application has not been filed before the court. He suggested that the appropriate legal procedure is available and should be pursued if the prosecution believed further restrictions were necessary.
The Former Attorney General also argued that every action affecting an accused person must be grounded in lawful judicial authority. In his assessment, adherence to due process is essential in safeguarding confidence in the administration of justice.
The Counsel reiterated that his client would challenge every allegation through the courts. Mr Dame added that the defence is prepared to respond to any application brought before the appropriate judicial forum while insisting that allegations must always be supported by evidence.
Court Access Row Deepens Legal Tensions Over Detention Case
The Former Attorney General and Lawyer for Abdul Wahab Hanan, Godfred Dame has raised strong objections over the handling of his client’s detention and described the situation as a breach of legal procedure. Speaking on the re arrest of Abdul Wahab Hanan, Mr Dame further indicated that the circumstances surrounding access to his client undermine established rights under Ghanaian law.
Addressing issues of legal access, the Counsel stated that he was denied entry to see his client during a visit to a security facility where the accused person was being held. He explained that both he and the wife of Abdul Wahab Hanan were refused access on the grounds that it was a weekend and officials were not working.
“Never once did I authorise the arrest of any person. Never once did I authorise the curtailment of a person’s right to freedom of movement. Accused persons have always been granted court approved movement. So what is happening now raises serious questions about fairness.”
Godfred Dame
Furthermore, Mr Dame questioned the justification for continued detention without clear procedural steps being communicated. He argued that keeping an accused person in custody while denying access to legal counsel contradicts established practice in criminal justice administration.
Moreover, the Counsel expressed dissatisfaction with what he described as a lack of transparency in the handling of the case file. He noted that no formal statement had been taken from his client and no clear charges had been communicated at the time of his visit.
Mr Dame challenged the rationale behind what he termed pre-trial restrictions and argued that such actions risk undermining the integrity of due process. He stressed that legal proceedings must begin with clarity on charges and access to counsel.
“Keeping him in detention without access to his lawyers raises a fundamental issue. I was at the BNI office with his wife and we were denied access. He has not been granted bail and no statement has been taken from him.”
Godfred Dame
In addition, the Counsel indicated that contempt proceedings against the Attorney General may follow, describing it as a necessary legal consequence if procedural breaches are confirmed. He argued that law enforcement actions must remain within constitutional boundaries at all times.
He also questioned the justification for arresting an accused person over allegations that have not been substantiated in court. Mr Dame stated that even where orders exist, compliance with proper legal channels remains essential before enforcement actions are taken.
The Counsel reaffirmed that the defence will pursue all available legal remedies to protect the rights of his client. He added that any dispute over court orders should be resolved through formal appeal processes rather than administrative enforcement measures.
READ ALSO: UK Overhauls Political Funding Rules to Improve Transparency
