The Circuit Court 1 at Adentan has dismissed a submission of no case to answer filed on behalf of pastor William Gyimah, who is standing trial for allegedly making false communications and publishing false news concerning an alleged plot to kill Ghana’s Vice-President, Naana Jane Opoku-Agyemang.
In a ruling delivered on October 22, 2026, Her Honour Angela Attachie held that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused person, warranting a call upon him to open his defence.
The accused is facing charges of false communication under section 76 of the Electronic Communications Act, 2008 (Act 775), and publication of false news with intent to cause fear and alarm under section 208 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29).
Background to the Case
The prosecution’s case arose from a video circulated on social media platforms, including TikTok, in April 2026, in which the accused, a pastor residing in Kasoa, allegedly claimed to have received a divine revelation concerning a plot to kill the Vice-President.
In the video, the accused allegedly suggested that certain individuals within the Vice-President’s close circle were plotting her death because of political interests surrounding the succession to the presidency. He further drew comparisons with the deaths of former President John Evans Atta Mills and former Vice-President Kwesi Bekoe Amissah-Arthur, both of whom hailed from the Central Region.
According to the prosecution, the statements were capable of generating public fear and panic, particularly given their circulation across social media platforms.
At the close of the prosecution’s case, the accused, through counsel, filed a submission of no case to answer, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him.
The Legal Test for a Submission of No Case to Answer
In determining the application, the court examined the applicable principles governing submissions of no case to answer under section 173(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1960 (Act 30).
The provision requires a court, at the close of the prosecution’s evidence, to determine whether a case has been made out sufficiently to require the accused person to make a defence.
Relying on Tsatsu Tsikata v The Republic (2003–2005) 2 GLR 294, the court reiterated that the central question at this stage is whether there is a genuine case for trial.
The Supreme Court’s position in that case was that where reasonable minds could differ on the import of the prosecution’s evidence, a submission of no case ought not to be upheld. However, where the only reasonable conclusion, even assuming the prosecution’s evidence to be true, favours the accused, the court ought to uphold the submission.
The court also referred to The State v Sowah and Essel (1961) GLR 743, emphasising that the prosecution is not required to establish the guilt of an accused person beyond reasonable doubt at the submission-of-no-case stage. Rather, the prosecution must present a prima facie case capable of calling for an explanation from the accused.
Further reliance was placed on The State v Ali Kassena (1962) 1 GLR 144, where the Supreme Court identified circumstances in which a submission of no case may properly be upheld. These include situations where there is no evidence establishing an essential element of the offence or where the prosecution’s evidence has been so discredited through cross-examination, or is so manifestly unreliable, that no reasonable tribunal could safely convict upon it.
Court’s Assessment of the Evidence
The prosecution called one witness, Detective Inspector Victor Baba Atiniak, the investigator in the case. He tendered the video recording containing the statements attributed to the accused and testified about the investigation, including the accused’s interrogation and caution statement.
An important aspect of the defence’s challenge concerned whether the prosecution had established that the accused himself published the video on social media.
During cross-examination, the investigator admitted that he could not confirm that the accused had uploaded the video. He also acknowledged that the person who first uploaded it had not been identified and that the IP address associated with the video had not been linked to the accused.
The court acknowledged the deficiencies exposed during cross-examination. However, it considered other portions of the evidence, particularly statements made by the accused in the video and his caution statement.
In the video, the accused allegedly appealed to the Vice-President’s husband to advise her to leave the political party, claiming that certain individuals were plotting against her.
Similarly, in his caution statement, the accused indicated that he had previously communicated his alleged revelation about the Vice-President to a person identified as Obaapa and had appealed for the Vice-President’s husband to advise her to step down.
The court considered these statements significant in determining whether the accused intended his communication to reach other persons.
Drawing on the principles governing the use of circumstantial evidence, the court referred to section 8(2) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323), which defines an inference as a deduction of fact that may logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact or group of facts established in an action.
The court also relied on Logan and Laverich v The Republic (2007–2008) SCGLR 76, where the Supreme Court explained that, in a summary trial, a judge must assess whether the facts established by the evidence are sufficient to support an inference of guilt if the evidence remains uncontradicted.
On that basis, the court reasoned that the accused’s statements demonstrated an intention to communicate the alleged revelation to persons beyond himself. It consequently found that the prosecution had established publication, notwithstanding the investigator’s inability to identify the person who initially uploaded the video.
The court further considered the statutory provisions concerning false communications and the publication of false news. It reasoned that the accused’s failure to take reasonable steps to verify the alleged revelation was relevant to the question of whether the statements were false or misleading.
Public Fear, Alarm and the Nature of the Statements
The court also considered whether the statements were capable of causing fear and alarm among members of the public, disturbing public peace or endangering the safety of a person.
It observed that the accused’s statements went beyond an ordinary political commentary, as they suggested that individuals close to the Vice-President were plotting her death and that previous deaths involving prominent political officeholders from the Central Region were connected to similar circumstances.
The court considered the potential influence of the accused’s position as a pastor and the capacity of such statements to generate public anxiety, particularly among persons who might be influenced by his religious standing.
In this regard, the court referred to Allcard v Skinner, in which the court observed that religious influence could be particularly powerful in shaping the minds of others.
The court consequently considered the statements sufficiently serious to warrant an answer from the accused.
The Court’s Decision
Having considered the evidence presented by the prosecution, the court concluded that a prima facie case had been established against William Gyimah.
The submission of no case to answer was accordingly dismissed, and the accused was ordered to open his defence.
The ruling does not amount to a determination of the accused’s guilt. It establishes only that the prosecution’s evidence, at this stage of the proceedings, is sufficient to require him to answer the charges. The prosecution will still bear the applicable burden of establishing his guilt at the conclusion of the trial.
