– Court-ordered medical trip to London derailed by security agencies; AG seeks revocation as defence moves to quash charges.
By Prince Ahenkorah
The legal tussle between Hanan Abdul-Wahab Aludiba, former chief of the National Food Buffer Stock Company (NAFCO), and Ghana’s two premier security agencies is entering a decisive phase. At issue is not the substance of any criminal charge none has been formally preferred but the seizure of his passport, £7,000 in cash, and two mobile phones, all of which he claims were taken in defiance of a High Court order.
Aludiba, in an affidavit filed in opposition to an application by the Attorney-General seeking to revoke the travel permission, accused the state security agencies of deliberately frustrating the court’s order by arresting him at the Kotoka International Airport before his scheduled departure to the United Kingdom.
According to him, despite obtaining leave from the High Court on June 29, 2026, to travel to London for medical treatment, officials from the BNI and EOCO prevented him from boarding his flight on July 4, even after he had completed immigration and security checks.
Aludiba is asking the court to order the Attorney-General, EOCO and the BNI to release his passport, £7,000 in cash and two mobile phones, which he says remain in the custody of the state agencies.
He explained that the money had been borrowed specifically to cover his travel expenses and medical treatment in the United Kingdom.
The former Buffer Stock CEO further alleged that the agencies had continued to withhold the items despite the court’s express permission for him to travel.
In the affidavit, Aludiba stated that after receiving the court’s approval, he booked a flight to London, scheduled to depart on July 4 and return to Ghana on July 12.
He said that after successfully completing all airport departure formalities, armed officers identifying themselves as BNI personnel approached him at the departure lounge.
He claimed that EOCO officials later joined the operation and arrested him despite being aware of the court’s order authorising his journey.
According to him, he was detained in BNI cells for two days before being transferred to EOCO, where he spent an additional two days in custody.
He further alleged that he was denied access to his legal team until the final day of his detention.
Aludiba also criticised the bail conditions imposed by investigators, describing them as excessive and unreasonable.
According to the affidavit, investigators initially granted him bail on condition that he provide GH¢5 million with two sureties, a requirement he argues bore no relation to the allegations under investigation.
He further claimed that after he was unable to satisfy the conditions, the agencies continued to detain him instead of presenting him before a court.
The affidavit also alleges that while his two mobile phones remained in the custody of EOCO and the BNI, officials accessed information stored on the devices on July 6 and July 7 without obtaining judicial authorisation.
Aludiba contends that the alleged searches violated his constitutional rights and were conducted without lawful approval.
The Attorney-General is also seeking to revoke the court’s earlier permission for Aludiba to travel, alleging that he attempted to use deceptive means to withdraw money from a frozen account held at Republic Bank. However, Aludiba has denied the allegation.
He argued that the prosecution failed to identify the specific bank account involved, the amount allegedly withdrawn or the method by which he supposedly intended to access the funds.
He further maintained that investigators found no money from any frozen account on him at the time of his arrest and that no criminal charge relating to the allegation has been brought against him.
Aludiba has therefore asked the High Court to enforce its June 29, 2026 order by directing the Attorney-General, EOCO and the BNI to release his passport, the approximately £7,000 he says was borrowed for his medical trip, and his two mobile phones.
He described his arrest as unlawful and contemptuous of the authority of the court, insisting that the Attorney-General’s application to revoke his travel permission is founded on false and malicious allegations.
The Attorney-General’s application and Aludiba’s response are expected to be determined by the High Court.
The allegations contained in Aludiba’s affidavit and the Attorney-General’s claims remain matters before the court and have not yet been judicially determined.