Former Sanitation Minister, Cecilia Dapaah, has condemned the special prosecutor's move to secure a freeze and seizure order on her assets, denouncing it as an effort to perpetuate arbitrary power based on distorted facts and ensuing media frenzy.

This information was revealed by her legal team as they contested the application on Thursday.

Before Justice Edward Twum, lawyers from both sides debated the confirmation of the orders for property seizure and freezing on Thursday.

The office of the special prosecutor, represented by Dr. Isidore Tuffour, contended that the order adheres to the Special Prosecutor Act (959) and is meant to prevent the concealment of properties suspected to be connected to corruption.

The confirmation application seeks to seize $590,000 and GHC 2,730,000 discovered during a search of Dapaah's three associated houses.

Dr. Tuffour stated in court that Dapaah couldn't account for the funds, and the ownership of the money is disputed.

Cecilia Dapaah's lawyers, led by Victoria Barth, argued that the confirmation application violated the outlined procedure in the Special Prosecutor Act. She asserted that the application should have been brought within seven days after the seizure, as specified in section 32(2) of the Act.

Barth further argued that the discovery of substantial amounts in Dapaah's home doesn't justify property seizure. She maintained that the applicant hadn't provided sufficient grounds to prove the money's corruption connection.

The special prosecutor's office also intends to freeze Dapaah's bank accounts at Prudential Bank and Societe Generale.

The anti-corruption lawyers contended that the court must ensure the respondent is being investigated for corruption, which they believe they have demonstrated.

However, Dapaah's lawyers countered that being investigated for corruption doesn't alone justify freezing her accounts.

According to them, the Special Prosecutor Act necessitates reasonable grounds for believing the property is tainted.

The Judge adjourned the case to August 31 for his ruling after hearing arguments from both sides.