Advertisement

State withdraws charges against two alleged accomplices of Abu Trica in romance fraud case

Abu Trica
Extradition proceedings against Frederick Kumi, also known as Abu Trica, hit a turning point at the Gbese District Court after prosecutors admitted they have no evidence against two alleged accomplices, Lord Eshun and Bernard Aidoo. Despite this admission, the court declined to discharge the two men and reserved its ruling. Defence lawyers argued that the State’s position fatally weakens the case, as a conspiracy charge cannot stand without co-conspirators.
Advertisement

Proceedings in the extradition case involving Frederick Kumi, popularly known as Abu Trica, took a dramatic turn at the Gbese District Court in Accra after the prosecution conceded that it had no evidence to support charges against two alleged accomplices, yet stopped short of seeking their immediate discharge.

Advertisement

During the hearing, State prosecutors informed the court that Lord Eshun and Bernard Aidoo, who had been cited as accessories in the case, were no longer the subject of active investigations. According to the prosecution, completed investigations did not provide sufficient grounds to continue pursuing charges against the two men. Despite this admission, the court declined to strike out the charges and instead deferred its decision.

Eshun and Aidoo were formally added to the extradition charge sheet on 12 December 2025 as accessories. Appearing for the Attorney-General’s Department, Derick Ackah Nyameke told the court that the State needed additional time to regularise its position following a review of the investigative findings.

Advertisement

He explained that the two individuals had been charged under Section 6 of the Extradition Act, 1960 (Act 22), on the basis of their alleged links to the principal suspect, Abu Trica.

In submissions before the court, defence counsel Oliver Barker Vormawor argued that the State’s position had fatally undermined the case. He contended that a conspiracy charge could not stand where all alleged co-conspirators had effectively been abandoned by the prosecution.

He argued;

One person cannot be convicted of conspiracy when the supposed conspirators are no longer before the court. Under Ghanaian law, once identified conspirators have been discharged, it becomes legally impossible to proceed against the remaining accused

Advertisement

Mr Vormawor further pointed out that the charge sheet filed on 12 December 2025 made no reference to any unknown conspirators, insisting that

the entire case against Abu Trica collapses once the State concedes there is no evidence against the others

The prosecution rejected the defence application, maintaining that the proceedings before the court were not a criminal trial but part of extradition-related committal processes. Mr Nyameke cited Act 22 and the 1931 extradition treaty, which allow for the provisional arrest and court appearance of a fugitive while diplomatic arrangements for extradition are being finalised.

Advertisement

“The objection raised by defence counsel is premature,” he submitted, adding that the State had already filed a motion on notice seeking a stay of proceedings, which had been served on the defence earlier that day.

Presiding judge Her Worship Justice Bernice Ackon declined to discharge any of the accused persons and adjourned the matter to 7 February 2026 for a ruling.

Following the hearing, defence counsel Aggrey-Finn Amissah criticised the court’s decision, describing it as inconsistent with the prosecution’s own admissions.

“Prosecution lies entirely within the discretion of the State. The court should have no interest in sustaining charges where the State itself admits there is no evidence,” he told journalists. “Yet the judge refused to discharge the two individuals.”

Mr Amissah also revealed that the defence has filed a bail application at the High Court, which is scheduled to be heard on 20 January 2026.

When pressed by the court to explain why the charges against the alleged accomplices had not been withdrawn, the prosecution maintained that their inclusion was procedural, forming part of committal arrangements pending the receipt of formal diplomatic extradition requests.

The defence, however, insists that the State’s own admissions have stripped the case of its legal foundation, arguing that without evidence against the alleged accessories, the extradition proceedings against Abu Trica cannot be sustained.

Advertisement
Latest Videos
Advertisement