The Court of Appeal has explained why it stayed proceedings in the criminal trial involving former Chief Executive Officer of the National Food Buffer Stock Company, Hanan Abdul-Wahab Aludiba, and another accused person, Faiza Seidu Wuni, pending the determination of an appeal challenging the charge sheet on which the prosecution is proceeding.
In its ruling delivered on October 19, 2026, in Hanan Abdul-Wahab Aludiba v. The Republic, the Court held that the issues raised concerning the validity and legal sufficiency of the charge sheet constituted exceptional circumstances warranting a stay of proceedings.
The central concern was that a charge sheet forms the foundation of a criminal trial and that allowing proceedings to continue while its legal correctness remained under challenge could jeopardise the entire case.
Why the Charge Sheet Became Central to the Dispute
The application for a stay was brought by Aludiba, who argued that the charge sheet did not sufficiently disclose the particulars of certain offences to enable him to understand the specific allegations he was required to answer.
Counsel for the applicant challenged, among other things, counts relating to stealing, defrauding by false pretences and causing financial loss to the Republic.
On the stealing charges, counsel contended that certain counts grouped several transactions over an extended period without adequately identifying the individual transactions alleged to constitute the offences. Reference was made to Count 3, which allegedly covered transactions between 2017 and 2025, as well as the prosecution’s reference to 86 transactions in the statement of facts.
Counsel argued that the absence of sufficient particulars made it difficult for the accused to identify the specific acts alleged against him. Section 109 of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30) was cited in support of the argument that the specific act constituting the offence ought to be identified.
Regarding the charges of defrauding by false pretences, counsel argued that the alleged false pretence had not been adequately disclosed. The applicant also challenged the particulars accompanying the charge of causing financial loss, maintaining that the charge sheet failed to specify sufficiently the manner in which the alleged offence was committed.
The applicant’s case was that these were not merely technical defects but issues affecting his ability to understand and answer the charges. He further argued that proceeding with the trial before the appeal was determined could occasion irreparable prejudice.
The Republic Opposed the Application
The Deputy Attorney-General, representing the Republic, opposed the application, arguing that a stay of criminal proceedings required exceptional circumstances and that the applicant had not established any.
The prosecution maintained that the applicable law required reasonable information about the nature of the offence charged, rather than necessarily requiring the separation of every alleged act where the conduct involved repeated transactions over a period.
It also argued that the applicant’s disagreement with the High Court’s ruling on the charge sheet did not, by itself, justify halting the trial.
According to the Republic, refusing the application would not suffocate the applicant’s rights, while granting it could result in unnecessary delay if the appeal ultimately failed.
The dispute therefore placed two competing considerations before the Court: the need to prevent possible prejudice arising from an allegedly defective charge sheet and the public interest in avoiding unnecessary delays in criminal proceedings.
Why the Court Considered the Circumstances Exceptional
In granting the application, the Court of Appeal, comprising Justices Jerome Noble-Nkrumah, Lydia Osei and George Boadi, focused on the fundamental role of a charge sheet in criminal proceedings.
The Court observed that a charge sheet is the fundamental document upon which a criminal trial is built, carrying the structure of the proceedings through to conviction or acquittal and sentence.
It reasoned that a challenge to the contents of that document ought to be addressed as early as practicable because allowing a trial to proceed on a document whose legal validity is seriously disputed could put the entire action at risk.
The Court stated that questions concerning the validity, legal correctness and drafting soundness of a charge sheet could not simply be glossed over.
It consequently found that the matters raised by the applicant were exceptional enough to warrant a stay. In the Court’s view, there was little purpose in allowing the trial to continue while the appeal concerning the charge sheet remained pending.
The application was therefore granted as prayed.
What the Ruling Means for the Buffer Stock Case
The ruling does not amount to a determination that Aludiba’s allegations concerning the charge sheet are correct. The Court of Appeal’s decision was to suspend the trial pending the determination of the appeal, rather than finally resolve the substantive challenge to the charges.
A stay preserves the position while the relevant legal question is determined; it does not, by itself, invalidate the charge sheet or terminate the prosecution.
AG Appeals to Supreme Court
The ruling has since been challenged by the Attorney-General, with Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai filing an appeal at the Supreme Court seeking to overturn the Court of Appeal’s decision of October 19, 2026. The Attorney-General contends that the Court of Appeal erred in staying the proceedings pending the determination of the appeal concerning the charge sheet. The Supreme Court will therefore have to determine whether the Court of Appeal was justified in halting the trial on the grounds advanced by the accused persons.
