The High Court in Accra has fixed July 10, 2024 to decide whether the Chief Executive Officer of Menzgold, Nana Appiah Mensah popularly known as NAM1 has a case to answer or not.
This was after both defence lawyers and the prosecution have highlighted on their respective written submissions in favour and against a determination of a prima facie evidence.
Prosecution has closed its case after parading nine Witnesses in the case in which NAM1 and two of his companies – Menzgold Ghana Limited and Brew Marketing Consult Ghana Limited have been charged.
They are facing 39 counts which comprises of selling gold without a license, operating a deposit-taking business, inducement to invest, defrauding by false pretense, fraudulent breach of trust and money laundering involving the sum of over GHC340M.
Following the closure of the prosecution’s case, the Court presided over by Justice Ernest Owusu-Dapaa is expected to determine whether there is a case for NAM1 and his two companies to answer.
On that day, he would decide wether NAM1 should be called upon to open his defence or be acquitted and discharged based on the testimonies of Prosecution Witnesses.
Faceless defendants
Kwame Boafo Akuffo, Counsel for NAM1 and two companies, while addressing the Court said, the prosecution has not presented to the court with any evidence that the accused persons do not have license to sell gold.
He submitted that; the court of law has no business with faceless witnesses.
Counsel also submitted that, nobody appeared before the court to complain that they were induced by the accused to invest.
“If the accused decides to pay the GHc340 million who is it going to be paid to?” Counsel asked rhetorically while highlighting on his submission of no case to answer.
He added, “That is why the court should not entertain faceless complainants.”
“A person cannot be guilty of fraud and at the same time be guilty of fraudulent breach of trust in respect of the same business,” Counsel for NAMI intimated.
He emphasized that, “no court can convict a man on the basis of implications and faceless complainants.”
It was his case that, “untested allegation cannot form the basis of conviction,” and “the complainants have to come to court for them to be questioned.”
No evidence on record
He told the Court that, there is no evidence on record that the accused has no license to sell gold and that, “only eight Ghanaians have come before you (the Court)” to testify.
He there urged the Court to acquit and discharge his clients on accounts that, the prosecution through its witnesses have not been able to prove that his clients have a case to answer.
NAM1 must open his defence
Mrs. Yvonne Attakora Obuobisa, the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP), said “we have led prima facie evidence against the accused for which he must open his defence.
“We have led sufficient evidence against the accused for which he has been charged,” the DPP stated.
To buttress her point, she said, “We called nine witnesses and tendered copious documents to prove our case against the accused persons.”
“It is our case that the accused induced people to invest in breach of the companies act. We have mentioned specific figures in the charges, and we have led evidence through witnesses who have mentioned specific amounted they were defrauded.
“They have also tendered documents regarding investments they made with A2 (Menzgold Ghana Limited)” saying that they had the requisite licenses,” Mrs Oboubisa stated.
The DPP stated that, it was after the investment that “they realized that the companies did not have the requisite license and if they knew this they would not have invested.”
NAM1 committed Money laundering
“It is also our case that the first accused committed money laundering which is a predicate offence and having established that the accused persons have engaged in certain criminal offences from which they realised proceeds, dealing with it anyway, moving it to other accounts… that is where the offences,” the DPP submitted.
She again said, “the monies were deposited into the accounts and withdrawn into other offences, some of which into his personal account.”
The DPP submitted that, “It is our case that A1 (NAM1) and A2 (Menzgold) did not have the license to sell gold in Ghana but to export.”
Brew Marketing unknown
The DPP further submitted that, Brew Marketing Consult, “the third accused), “is unknown to the Minerals Commission as a company licensed by government of Ghana to purchase and import gold.”
She added that, Customers were led to purchase gold or gold collectibles from NAM1 and Menzgold.
“We led evidence where they were made to buy gold from Menzgold and deposit with Brew consult,” she pointed out to the Court.
It was her case that NAM1 and Brew marketing consult, cannot by the stretch of anyone’s imagination be described as a small-scale mining firm.
“We have led evidence to show that NAM1 and Brew Marketing Consult do not have license to sell gold to the public which was what they did,” the DPP submitted.
Celebrities
“We have led evidence that customers who came to this court to testify invested because they saw advertisements and the adverts were to persuade these customers to enter into a gold deal with NAM1 and Menzgold and the use of celebrities – people who are popular in the Ghanaian society.
These “advertisements”, she said “are always placed for people to respond and in this case people responded.”
“They (accused persons) did the adverts giving the impression they were licensed to do the business they claim to do,” and “It was not in a vacuum and our evidence is that people responded and invested.”
The DPP further submitted that, “the witnesses we brought to this court stated that they went to Menzgold because of the advert they saw.”
False representation
On the charges of Defrauding by false pretences, the DPP said NAM1 made false representations.
She submitted that, in all we said that is the total amount that dissipated was GHc340 million by the accused, we brought evidence.”
She stated that, the Multiplicity of evidence does not help the court, in a response to the accused that, faceless complainants cannot secure conviction in a court.
“There was no need to bring all the complainants to the court to say that they were defrauded by the accused.
“We have laid sufficient evidence with the witnesses that we called and tendered sufficient documents in evidence,” she said.
“All we have to do at this stage is to establish a prima facie case and we have established it through witness and documents we tendered in this trial.
“What is he afraid of? What is he running away from?” the DPP wondered, adding that “he (NAM1) should open his defense and tell us what his business model is,” the DPP submitted.
