The Gbese District Court in Accra has adjourned its ruling in the extradition case involving Frederick Kumi, popularly known as Abu Trica, after the State disclosed that it had no evidence against two of the accused persons but declined to have them discharged.
The two, Lord Eshun and Bernard Aidoo, were arraigned as alleged accessories under an extradition charge sheet filed on December 12, 2025. However, the prosecution informed the court that investigations had been completed and there was no basis to continue proceedings against them.
Appearing for the Attorney-General’s Department, Derick Ackah Nyameke said the two were charged under Section 6 of the Extradition Act, 1960 (Act 22), as accessories to the principal suspect. He explained that the Republic required additional time to regularise its processes.
When the court sought clarification on the intended withdrawal, the prosecution maintained that the arraignment was part of committal proceedings pending the receipt of a formal diplomatic request for extradition.
Counsel for Abu Trica, Oliver Barker Vormawor, argued that the State’s position effectively collapsed the case against his client. He contended that a conspiracy charge could not stand where the alleged conspirators were no longer before the court.
“Under Ghanaian law, once identified conspirators have been discharged, it becomes legally impossible to proceed against the remaining accused person,” he said, adding that the charge sheet did not indicate the existence of any unidentified conspirators at large.
In response, Mr Nyameke opposed the application for discharge, explaining that Abu Trica was not standing trial in Ghana but was before the court for extradition-related committal proceedings.
He said Act 22 and the 1931 extradition treaty permit the provisional arrest of a fugitive pending the completion of extradition processes, describing the defence’s objection as premature. He also disclosed that the State had filed a motion on notice to stay the extradition proceedings, which had been served on the defence earlier that day.
Presided over by Justice Bernice Ackon, the court declined to discharge any of the accused persons and adjourned the matter to February 7, 2026, for ruling.
Speaking to the media after the proceedings, defence counsel Aggrey-Finn Amissah criticised the court’s decision, arguing that once the State had admitted having no evidence against the two accused persons, the court ought to have discharged them.
“Prosecution lies at the discretion of the State. The court should not insist on keeping persons in a case the prosecution itself says lacks evidence,” he said.
He added that the defence has filed a bail application at the High Court, which is scheduled to be heard on January 20, 2026.
