Proceedings at the Gbese District Court in Accra over the extradition case involving Frederick Kumi, widely known as Abu Trica, were put on hold after prosecutors conceded they lacked evidence against two co-accused persons, even as the court refused to strike out the charges against them.
At the hearing, the State informed the court that Lord Eshun and Bernard Aidoo, who had been brought before the court as alleged accessories, were no longer subjects of active investigation. Despite this admission, the court declined to formally discharge them and instead deferred its ruling, Graphic Online reported.
The two men were listed as accessories on an extradition charge sheet filed on December 12, 2025. According to the prosecution, investigations had been completed and did not support continuing proceedings against them. Derick Ackah Nyameke, appearing for the Attorney-General’s Department, told the court that the Republic needed time to “put its house in order” after reviewing the outcome of its inquiries.
Mr Nyameke explained that Eshun and Aidoo had been charged under Section 6 of the Extradition Act, 1960 (Act 22), as accessories linked to the principal suspect. When pressed by the court to justify the withdrawal, the prosecution said their arraignment formed part of preliminary committal proceedings while Ghana awaited formal diplomatic extradition requests.
Counsel for Abu Trica, Oliver Barker Vormawor, challenged the continued detention of his client, arguing that the State’s position had effectively collapsed the case. He maintained that once the alleged conspirators were no longer being prosecuted, the legal basis for the charge against Abu Trica disappeared.
“One person cannot be found guilty of an alleged conspiracy because the alleged conspirators are no longer before the court,” he said. He further noted that under Ghanaian law, “where alleged conspirators have been identified but have been discharged, it is legally impossible to proceed against the remaining accused person”.
Mr Vormawor also pointed out that the December 12, 2025, charge sheet made no reference to unidentified conspirators, insisting that “the charge against Abu Trica fails in its entirety”.
The prosecution resisted the defence application, with Mr Nyameke stressing that Abu Trica was not standing trial in Ghana but was before the court for extradition-related committal proceedings. He cited Act 22 and the 1931 extradition treaty, which allow for provisional arrest and court appearance of a fugitive while extradition processes are finalised.
“The objection raised by defence counsel is premature,” he said, adding that the State had also filed a motion on notice seeking to stay the extradition proceedings, which had been served on the defence earlier that day.
Presiding judge Justice Bernice Ackon declined to discharge any of the accused persons and adjourned the matter to February 7, 2026, for a ruling.
Outside the courtroom, defence counsel Aggrey-Finn Amissah criticised the court’s decision, describing it as inconsistent with the prosecution’s own position.
“Prosecution is at the discretion of the state. The court should not have any interest… yet the judge decided not to discharge the two persons the state itself says there is no evidence against,” he said.
He disclosed that the defence had filed a bail application at the High Court, which is scheduled to be heard on January 20, 2026.
