A hearing in the extradition case involving Frederick Kumi, also known as Abu Trica, took an unexpected turn at the Gbese District Court in Accra after prosecutors acknowledged they had no evidence to sustain charges against two alleged accomplices, yet failed to secure their discharge.
According to a Graphic Online report, during proceedings, the State informed the court that Lord Eshun and Bernard Aidoo, who had been joined to the case as accessories, were no longer under active investigation. The disclosure followed the conclusion of investigations, which the prosecution said did not justify continuing action against them. Despite this position, the court declined to strike out the charges and instead reserved its ruling.
Eshun and Aidoo were named as accessories on an extradition charge sheet filed on December 12, 2025. Representing the Attorney-General’s Department, Derick Ackah Nyameke told the court that the Republic required time to “put its house in order” after reviewing the investigative findings.
Mr Nyameke explained that the two had been arraigned under Section 6 of the Extradition Act, 1960 (Act 22), as accessories connected to the principal suspect. When questioned by the court on why the charges should be withdrawn, the prosecution maintained that their inclusion formed part of committal proceedings undertaken while Ghana awaited formal diplomatic extradition requests.
The defence for Abu Trica seized on the State’s admission, with counsel Oliver Barker Vormawor arguing that the prosecution’s position had stripped the case of any legal foundation. He contended that once the alleged conspirators were no longer being pursued, the case against his client could not stand.
READ ALSO: Akosua Serwaa Seeks Appeal Court Reversal In Marriage Dispute
“One person cannot be found guilty of an alleged conspiracy because the alleged conspirators are no longer before the court,” he said. He added 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 further argued that the December 12, 2025 charge sheet did not suggest the existence of any unidentified conspirators, insisting that “the charge against Abu Trica fails in its entirety”.
The prosecution opposed the defence application, with Mr Nyameke stressing that Abu Trica was not before the court for a domestic criminal trial but for extradition-related committal proceedings. He cited Act 22 and the 1931 extradition treaty, which permit the provisional arrest and court appearance of a fugitive while extradition arrangements are completed.
“The objection raised by defence counsel is premature,” he said, noting that the State had also filed a motion on notice seeking to stay the extradition proceedings, which had been served on the defence earlier in the day.
Presiding judge Justice Bernice Ackon declined to discharge any of the accused persons and adjourned the case to February 7, 2026, for a ruling.
Speaking to journalists after the hearing, defence counsel Aggrey-Finn Amissah criticised the decision, arguing that it contradicted the prosecution’s own stance.
“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.
Mr Amissah also disclosed that the defence has filed a bail application at the High Court, which is expected to be heard on January 20, 2026.
