The Attorney-General has presented a detailed explanation as to why the former Chief Executive Officer of National Food Buffer Stock Company Ltd (NAFCO) Hanan Abdul-Wahab Aludiba was arrested at the airport on Saturday, July 4 as he attempted to travel to the UK despite the Court’s grant of his request.
In the A-G’s application to set aside his permit to travel to the UK, the Attorney-General alleged that Hanan Aludiba attempted to use false means to withdraw all the money in the bank accounts which had been frozen by the court order.
The application filed by the A-G argued that the accused in order to “achieve the purpose of withdrawing all the money from the said bank accounts, A1 represented to his bankers at Republic Bank that the prevailing court freezing confirmation orders on all the bank accounts had been discharged by the High Court.”
But the A-G argued that “the document which A1 presented to his bankers as the basis for his representation (that the High Court has discharged the freezing confirmation order) is a Court ruling in an entirely different matter, namely, Su it Number CC1/56/25 dated May 20, 2026.”
The Attorney-General further alleged that Hanan Abdul-Wahab presented a false document to the banks to allow him withdraw the monies from the frozen bank accounts.
The A-G explained that it was in this regard that Hanan was arrested before a court order could be obtained despite the court’s leave to him to travel to London.
“That it became reasonably necessary that A1 be (and was, indeed) apprehended as soon as practicable. That it was, under the above circumstances, impracticable to obtain this Court’s order before having A1 apprehended; and that the decision to apprehend A1 was not to disregard this Court’s leave to him to travel to London, but to safeguard it,” A-G said.
The A-G said the documents presented to the banks were in respect of a different ruling on landed properties not bank accounts.
“That a review of Exhibit AG4 would, contrary to A1’s representation to his bankers, show the following: a. That the ruling therein was in respect of the court freezing confirmation order of a completely different set of assets, namely, landed properties (not bank accounts), and
“That the Court therein expressly struck out A1’s application for review of the court freezing confirmation order in Suit Number CC1/56/25 and not in Suit Number CC1/39/2025 or Suit Number CC1/39/2025 which contain the bank accounts).”
According to the Attorney-General, the bank then reported to the A-G’s office about the attempted withdrawal which led to his arrest.
“That alarmed by A1’s obvious misrepresentation, A1’s bankers refused A1’s request and immediately informed the Office of the Attorney-General and the investigators at the Economic and Organized Crime Office of A1’s efforts to, by false means, empty his bank accounts,” the motion claimed.
A-G says Hanan Abdul-Wahab’s conduct has since made him “more significant flight risk” than previously, urging the court to set aside the travel permit.
“That the above conducts of A1, coupled with the following facts have constituted A1 into a more significant flight risk than he was in this Court’s eyes immediately before the grant of leave to travel.”
Also, the motion claims that Hanan Abdul-Wahab’s evidence presented for medical need in the UK is untenable as he could not submit “a valid medical appointment from a medical officer in London, but rather a British health and beauty retailer and pharmacy chain online booking.”
“That the two medical diagnostic reports which A1 submitted to the Court as evidence of his medical condition did not, in any way, support his claims of medical need – the two reports converging on the point that A1 was suffering from allergies and catarrh, treatable by administering anti allergic eyedrops. Attached and marked as Exhibit AG5 and Exhibit AG6 are the medical diagnosis report which A1 filed (as Exhibits HS1 and Exhibit HS2) in support of his application for leave to travel, and
“That A1 could not present to this Court a valid medical appointment from a medical officer in London, but rather a British health and beauty retailer and pharmacy chain online booking (as Exhibit HS3 therein). Attached and marked as Exhibit AG7 is a copy of the BOOTS online booking.”
A-G argued that by this offence the accused has committed a “breach of a court freezing order, or is about to commit a criminal offence, namely, imminent breach this Court’s order to return to stand trial.”
“That it became reasonably necessary that A1 be (and was, indeed) apprehended as soon as practicable.”
“That it was, under the above circumstances, impracticable to obtain this Court’s order before having A1 apprehended; and that the decision to apprehend A1 was not to disregard this Court’s leave to him to travel to London, but to safeguard it.”
“That this is a proper case where this Court ought to exercise its discretion to revoke the leave it granted to A1 to travel to London.”
Read the full application for an order to revoke Hanan’s travel permit
