The embattled CEO of the now-defunct gold dealership company, Menzgold, Nana Appiah Mensah, popularly known as NAM1, has requested the court grant him additional time to engage new legal counsel. This appeal comes as he seeks to present his defense and affirm his innocence amidst an ongoing trial.

Appearing before the High Court in Accra on Tuesday, December 17, NAM1 explained that a significant disagreement with his legal team had necessitated his decision to part ways with them. Addressing the court presided over by Justice Ernest Owusu Dapaa, NAM1 pleaded for “reasonable time” to scout for and engage new lawyers who align with his defense strategy.

“My lord, kindly permit me to owe you an immeasurable gratitude by granting me a reasonable time in the interest of justice to engage new counsel to lead my defense and affirm my innocence before this court, the Republic, and the global community,” NAM1 stated.

Background
NAM1, alongside two of his companies—Menzgold Ghana Limited and Brew Marketing Consult—faces charges on 37 counts, including fraud and money laundering. On July 11, 2024, the court dismissed a submission of no case and ordered him to open his defense. He subsequently filed a motion for a stay of proceedings, pending an appeal against the court’s order.

However, on December 5, 2024, the High Court rejected the motion for a stay of proceedings and reiterated its directive for NAM1 to file witness statements and proceed with his defense.

When the case was called on December 17, NAM1 appeared in court without his lawyers, led by Kwame Boafo Akuffo. Explaining their absence, NAM1 revealed a fundamental disagreement on how to proceed with the case, which led to their departure from his legal team.

Prosecution’s Argument
Responding to NAM1’s request, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Mrs. Yvonne Attakora Obuobisa, highlighted the accused’s repeated attempts to delay the trial. She pointed out that NAM1’s former counsel, Mr. Kwame Boafo Akuffo, had filed a fresh motion for a stay of proceedings at the Court of Appeal earlier that same day, raising questions about NAM1’s intentions.

The DPP accused NAM1 and his companies of deliberately refusing to comply with the court’s orders to file witness statements and open their defense. “In my estimation, the persistent refusal by the accused persons to comply with the court’s orders demonstrates their lack of desire to open their defense, despite multiple opportunities provided over the past five months,” she argued.

The DPP cited section 174(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1960 (Act 30), which stipulates that if an accused person fails to open their defense, the court may proceed to make a ruling based on the evidence presented.

Court’s Decision
Justice Ernest Owusu Dapaa acknowledged the DPP’s submission and affirmed the court’s jurisdiction to proceed and convict the accused persons if necessary. However, he noted that judicial propriety required the court to await the outcome of the motion filed at the Court of Appeal.

In light of the circumstances, the case has been adjourned to February 4, 2025.

NAM1’s Position
Despite appearing to dismiss his legal team, NAM1 clarified that he was dissatisfied with their services and had not formally sacked them. His appeal for additional time underscores his determination to mount a strong defense in the face of significant legal challenges.

The trial continues to attract significant public interest, as many await the outcome of the high-profile case involving NAM1 and his defunct gold dealership firm.