Lawyers for social media entrepreneur Frederick Kumi, popularly known as Abu Trica, have raised a preliminary legal objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court hearing extradition proceedings against their client and two other accused persons.
Speaking after proceedings at the Gbese District Court on December 24, 2025, counsel for Abu Trica explained that the defence team argued that the matter must be heard by a court with proper territorial jurisdiction, based on where the accused persons were arrested.
‘Abu Trica did no wrong’ – Watch as staunch supporter pleads during court appearance
According to the lawyers, the objection is grounded in Section 51(5) of the Courts Act, as well as the Extradition Act, Act 22.
“We raised an objection regarding hearing the jurisdictional issue. That is a formal application that has been placed before the court, that a proper court should hear the jurisdictional issue,” counsel stated.
The defence explained that their preliminary objection focused on which court is properly mandated to hear the application before the substantive extradition proceedings commence.
However, the presiding judge ruled that she was properly seized with jurisdiction and subsequently vacated the preliminary objection.
Despite this, the court has adjourned the matter to January 13, 2026, to consider a formal application filed by the defence on the jurisdictional issue.
“We are coming back on the 13th of January to determine the formal application before the court before we even go into the merits of the extradition proceedings,” the lawyers noted.
They added that the outcome of the application will determine whether the case should be heard by a Basic Court, Madina Court, or any other court within the area where the accused persons were arrested, as well as the evidence that would be relied upon.
On the issue of bail, the counsel disclosed that while bail is at the discretion of the court, the defence deliberately did not apply for bail for Abu Trica, identified as the first accused (A1), because his name appears on the indictment issued by the United States authorities.
“When you read the fine black-letter law of Act 22, bail for A1 whose name is written on the indictment has not really crystallised. That’s why we didn’t apply for bail for A1,” counsel explained.
However, the defence team did apply for bail for the second and third accused persons (A2 and A3), arguing that their names do not appear on the indictment prepared by the United States Department of Justice.
“A2 and A3’s names are not on the indictment that was written by the USA. That’s why we prayed for bail,” the lawyers stated.
Despite this argument, the court declined the bail application, exercising its discretion in favour of the state.
Watch the moment Abu Trica appeared in court under heavy security
The defence further argued that A2 and A3 were merely “collateral damage” arising from the arrest of Abu Trica and should not be treated as alleged fugitives.
“It’s just for the state to hold them that they are collateral damage from the arrest of A1, yet they have also been arraigned,” counsel added.
Abutrica’s legal team raised a preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case, arguing that the matter should be determined by a district court with the appropriate territorial jurisdiction based on where the accused persons were arrested. pic.twitter.com/6FceyUxJfn
— EDHUB🌍ℹ (@eddie_wrt) December 23, 2025
@bessahghana LIVE | Abutrica’s lawyer argued that the court should grant bail, citing Act 22. The prosecution opposed, and the judge exercised discretion in favor of the state, denying bail. The lawyer pointed out A2 and A3’s names aren’t on the US indictment, implying they’re “collateral damage” from A1’s arrest. Case adjourned to Jan 13, 2026. – #bessahghlive ♬ original sound – BESSAHGHANA
MAG/EB
Meanwhile watch highlights of Black Sherif’s performance at Zaama Disco 2025
