The Accra High Court is set to determine the freedom or otherwise of embattled Chief Executive Officer of defunct Menzgold Ghana Ltd, Nana Appiah Mensah also known as NAM1.
On Tuesday, the prosecution and lawyers of the Menzgold boss gave their final written submissions regarding the matter.
While Director of Public Prosecution believes the state has established prima facie case against NAM1 and has proved that NAM1 has questions to answer, the defense lawyers argued that there was no tangible evidence made against their client.
Prosecution closed its case after calling on nine witnesses in the case in which NAM1 and two of his companies – Menzgold Ghana Limited and Brew Marketing Consult Ghana Limited have been charged with 39 counts of offences including selling gold without a license, operating a deposit-taking business, inducement to invest, defrauding by false pretense, fraudulent breach of trust and money laundering involving over GHC340 million.
NAM1, who is representing all three entities, has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Defense’s Standpoint: Faceless Witnesses and Lack of Evidence
Lead counsel for the Menzgold boss, lawyer Kwame Boafo Akuffo argued that the state lacked tangible evidence and relied on “faceless witnesses.”
“The prosecution has not presented this court with any evidence that the accused do not have a license to sell gold.” He asserted that no one had appeared before the court to claim they were induced by the accused to invest.
Kwame Akuffo further questioned the basis of the fraud charges, highlighting that if the accused decided to pay the alleged GHC340 million, there was no clear recipient.
“A person cannot be guilty of fraud and at the same time be guilty of fraudulent breach of trust in respect of the same business,” he stated, urging the court not to entertain complaints from faceless individuals.
He added that “No court can convict a man on the basis of implications and faceless complainants. Untested allegations cannot form the basis of conviction.”
According to him, the complainants needed to be present in court for cross-examination, reinforcing the principle that unchallenged allegations should not lead to a conviction.
But Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Yvonne Attakorah Obuobisa disagreed.
She averred that the prosecution had done enough to establish a prima facie case that necessitates the accused to open his defense. The DPP emphasized that sufficient evidence had been led against the accused, resulting in the charges brought forward.
Responding to claims of faceless individuals, Madam Attakorah Obuobisa indicated that nine witnesses that were called submitted documents proving their case.
“We called nine witnesses and tendered copious documents to prove our case against the accused persons.”
She also noted that using celebrities, NAM1 used misleading advertisement and false representations regarding the business’s legitimacy hence induced people to invest.
“It is our case that the accused induced people to invest in breach of the companies act,” the DPP asserted.
After listening to submissions from both parties, Justice Ernest Owusu-Dapaa set July 10 to rule on the submission of no case.
This decision will determine whether NAM1 and his two other companies will need to present their defense or if the charges will be dismissed.
By Laud Adu-Asare
