By Kay Codjoe
There is a familiar chorus rising again in Ghana: innocent until proven guilty. It is a constitutional principle that protects us from prejudice and abuse of power. But somewhere along the way, that noble principle has been weaponized as a silencing tool, a command for the public to remain quiet while the powerful enjoy the comfort of silence.
We are told not to ask questions. We are told not to react to the evidence placed before us. We are told that until a judge bangs a gavel, public accountability must sit quietly in the corner. Those defending Hanan Abdul Wahab and his spouse Faiza Seidu Wuni repeat this refrain. They insist that any scrutiny outside the courtroom is persecution. They insist that citizens demanding answers are ignorant of the law. They insist that commentary must wait.
So let us ask what their argument avoids: what if at the end of this trial, it is true?
What if ₵50.8 million meant for feeding schoolchildren never reached the hungry because those entrusted with the nation’s food security allegedly helped themselves first? What if the houses and the seventeen-bedroom hotel and the luxury living were funded by the meals that never made it to children’s plates? What if suppliers waited months for payment because their money was allegedly financing a lavish real estate portfolio?
There is no law that says citizens must wait for conviction before demanding accountability. The presumption of innocence protects the accused. It does not silence the society the accused is said to have harmed.
The Attorney General did not present rumor. He presented a case backed by forensic transfers traced by the Financial Intelligence Centre. According to the FIC, ₵40.49 million was traced directly to the pair and related accounts: ₵16.17 million to Abdul-Wahab, ₵23.91 million to Alqarni, ₵500,000 to Fa Hausa Ventures, and ₵550,000 to Chain Homes Ghana Ltd, a luxury real-estate developer. Property seized includes a five-bedroom residence valued at $1.6 million, a three-bedroom house at $600,000, a seventeen-bedroom hotel valued at $250,000, a four-bedroom home at ₵4.1 million, and government land estimated at ₵307,000.
Investigators found 61 designer bags and luxury watches worth about ₵1.5 million. They assessed that the couple’s declared income, between ₵14,000 and ₵28,000 monthly for Hanan and ₵5,000 for his wife, could not reasonably justify more than $5 million in assets. These were funds meant for school feeding and food security.
And still, defenders emerge. Why? What do they know that the nation does not? What loyalty do they hold that outweighs loyalty to the people? Are they beneficiaries of the same system that looks away while the hungry wait?
The Constitution imposes a shared duty on citizens. Article 35(8) demands that the state eradicate corruption. Article 41 requires every Ghanaian to protect public property and uphold accountability. Public scrutiny is therefore not a nuisance. It is a constitutional responsibility.
Those who rise boldly to shield the accused from even public discourse must answer a civic question. If a court eventually confirms that millions meant for children were instead used for mansions and luxury living, would their silence still have been noble or merely convenient for the privileged?
Corruption is not abstract. Every cedi allegedly stolen translates into one less meal for a child, one more debt for a struggling supplier, one more family trapped in hardship while others prosper at their expense.
Ghana has watched too many scandals fade into dust because silence protected the guilty. We will not allow that again. If the accused are innocent, they will walk free. If the evidence proves otherwise, then let the nation say we spoke while justice was still possible.
Let this trial be more than a courtroom ritual.Justice must not only be fair. It must be seen. Justice must not only be a verdict. It must be a warning.
By Kay Codjoe
