THE REARREST EXPOSES THE NDC’S GRAVE ABUSE OF STATE POWER
On May 5, 2026, the Attorney-General withdrew charges against former NAFCO CEO Hanan Abdul-Wahab and his wife, Faiza Seidu Wuni, in the alleged GH¢78 million school feeding case after admitting that “fresh evidence” had emerged. The court discharged them accordingly. Yet, within hours, EOCO operatives moved in to rearrest the same individuals.
That sequence of events is not just troubling. It is a direct assault on public confidence in due process and the integrity of Ghana’s justice system.
If the Attorney-General, the chief legal officer of the Republic, officially tells a court that charges should be withdrawn because new evidence has emerged, then what justified the immediate rearrest? Was the withdrawal genuine, or was it only a public relations exercise designed to protect the collapsing credibility of the government’s much-publicised ORAL anti-corruption campaign?
This is the dangerous contradiction the NDC government cannot explain.
The Economic and Organised Crime Office was created under the Economic and Organised Crime Act, 2010 (Act 804), to investigate and prosecute organised crime within the strict limits of the law and under the authority of the Attorney-General.
Article 23 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana states: “Administrative bodies and administrative officials shall act fairly and reasonably and comply with the requirements imposed on them by law and persons aggrieved by the exercise of such acts and decisions shall have the right to seek redress before a court or other tribunal.”
Yet, the current developments create the disturbing impression that state institutions are being weaponised for political optics rather than lawful justice, raising serious concerns about whether this constitutional duty of fairness and reasonableness is being upheld.
Ghanaians were promised professionalism, evidence-based prosecution, and accountability. Instead, the country is witnessing arrests, withdrawals, legal confusion, and dramatic rearrests that make the justice system look like a political theatre stage.
Even more worrying is the fact that this case had already suffered procedural controversies in court. Defence lawyers challenged witness statements, questioned prosecutorial conduct, and disputed EOCO’s legal role in the proceedings. The presiding judge himself demanded proof of proper authorisation for an EOCO officer involved in the prosecution.
These are not minor procedural mistakes. They are warning signs of a prosecution struggling to stand on solid legal ground.
A government truly committed to fighting corruption does not rely on spectacle. It relies on evidence, consistency, constitutional procedure, and respect for the rule of law.
Law enforcement must never become a propaganda machine to manufacture headlines for failed political promises. Once state power begins to operate for optics instead of justice, democracy itself becomes the casualty.
