Prosecutors from the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) have had a request for a two-week adjournment “due to certain developments” granted by the High Court.

Former Sanitation Minister, Cecilia Abena Dapaah and husband Daniel Osei Kuffuor have filed an Application for interlocutory injunction against the Officer of the Special Prosecutor.

The couple per the application filed are seeking among other things, that the OSP’s re-seizure of their money initially seized on July 24 and re-freezing of their bank accounts on September 5, 2023, is unfair and unlawful.

In Court on Tuesday, December 5, 2013, Justice Joseph Adu Agyemang Owusu, said Counsel for the Respondent (OSP) Esther Fafa Tetteh requested a two-week adjournment “due to certain developments” that will affect the matter before the court.

Justice Agyemang Owusu was adjourning the case after he had met the parties in his chambers upon a request from Esther Fafa Tetteh, a Prosecutor from the OSP.

Cecilia Dapaah and her husband per the application filed are seeking among other things, that the OSP’s re-seizure of their money initially seized on July 24 and re-freezing of their bank accounts on September 5, 2023, is unfair and unlawful.

According to EIB Network’s Legal Affairs Correspondent, Murtala Inusah, the Applicants – Cecilia Dapaah and her husband Daniel Osei Kuffuor were both present while the Special Prosecutor was absent.

The High Court presided over by Justice Joseph Adu Agyemang Owusu has since adjourned the case to January 9, 2024.

Subject matter

The former Minister argued that her application for Judicial review was necessitated by the OSP’s prejudicial and arbitrary conduct from the inception of his investigations into corruption and corruption-related offences allegedly involving her and the husband.

She said, the action is also to prevent further violation of her constitutionally guaranteed rights and rendering her Application for Judicial review otiose, “It is imperative that the Respondent is restrained from continuing his investigation pending the determination of my said Application.”

“I am advised by Counsel that I have property and personal rights that need to be protected by this Honourable Court and that an order of injunction should be granted against the Respondent to prohibit and restrain him from further violating my rights until the determination of this matter.

“I am advised by Counsel that damages will be inadequate to compensate me if this application for an injunction is not granted and judgment is subsequently entered in the Applicant’s favour.

“I am further advised by Counsel and verily believe same to be true that considering the facts of this case and all surrounding circumstances it is just, convenient, proper, and necessary for this Honourable Court to exercise its discretion in my favour and grant this application,” she argued.

Reliefs

The former monster and her lawyers are seeking the following reliefs per the application for interlocutory injunction.

(a). A declaration that the Respondent’s re-seizure of the money (initially seized from the Applicant’s home on 24/07/23) and re-freezing of Applicant’s bank accounts respectively on 5th September 2023 is unfair, unreasonable, capricious, arbitrary, and ultra vires the Respondent’s statutory powers under Act 959 relative to the constitutional provisions
of Articles 23 and 296 of the Constitution, 1992.

(b) An Order for the Respondent to release the money reseized on 5th September 2023 to the Applicant and to unfreeze her bank accounts.

(c) An Order prohibiting the Respondent from continuing the investigation of the Applicant and her husband for corruption or corruption-related offences.

(d) Any such further or other Orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit.