NII NUEH ODONKOR v. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (E.O.C.O), BANK OF GHANA AND ECOBANK (GH) LTD

RULING

This is an application “to set aside order of confiscation and forfeiture and for a further order to defreeze and release account”. According to the Motion paper, the application is premised on the inherent jurisdiction of the court; Article 296 clause (a)&(b) of the 1992 Constitution; S.38(1)(a)(i) and 2(a); Ss 47, 50(1)&(3) and 51 of the Economic & Organised Crime Office [E.O.C.O] Act, 2010 (Act 804) and Order 19 r 1(1) of CI 47.

The thrust of the application as can be gleaned from the averments contained in the applicant’s affidavit accompanying the motion paper is that in November, 2011 he (Applicant) received US$22500 from a Roxanne Sprankle into his account with the Tema branch of Ecobank. His bankers refused him access to the money and when he complained he was referred to the Compliance Department of the bank in Accra. There, he was informed that the 1st Respondent has written to the bank indicating that the account has been frozen by E.O.C.O and the freeze confirmed by the court. He contends that he was never invited by the E.O.C.O nor notified of the freezing directive. It was until 09/01/14 by which a meeting was scheduled by the 1st Respondent where he (Applicant) met a Okutu and a Bernice Gilgui at the E.O.C.O offices. According to the Applicant, he went into the meeting with his lawyer and was interrogated extensively by the E.O.C.O officials.

It is the case of Nii Nueh Odonkor that it was during that meeting that he was informed that his funds in the account in contention have been transferred into the Exhibit Account of the 1st Respondent with the Bank of Ghana. Allefforts to get the funds released to him have been unsuccessful hence this instant application, he added.

Arguments in support of the application:

In moving the application, learned Counsel for the Applicant argued most aggressively that by the order of the court made on 23/02/12 the account was confirmed frozen to allow the 1st Respondent sufficient time to conduct investigations as provided for by law. Subsequently an application was put before the court for the forfeiture of the account.The gravamen of learned Counsel’s submissions is that the court erred in invoking S.23(3) of the Economic & Organised Crime Office Act, 2010 (Act 804) to order the forfeiture of the funds after the freezing directive by the 1st Respondent has been confirmed by an order of the court. Although the application was for forfeiture of account what the court sought to do was to confiscat