The High Court has approved a two-week adjournment requested by prosecutors from the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) citing "certain developments" in the ongoing case.

Former Sanitation Minister Cecilia Abena Dapaah and her husband, Daniel Osei Kuffuor, have filed an application for an interlocutory injunction against the Office of the Special Prosecutor.

In their application, the couple argues that the OSP's re-seizure of their money initially confiscated on July 24 and the subsequent freezing of their bank accounts on September 5, 2023, are unfair and unlawful.

During the court session on Tuesday, December 5, 2013, Justice Joseph Adu Agyemang Owusu revealed that Counsel for the Respondent (OSP), Esther Fafa Tetteh, had sought a two-week adjournment due to "certain developments" affecting the case.

Justice Agyemang Owusu adjourned the case after meeting with the parties in his chambers at the request of Esther Fafa Tetteh, a Prosecutor from the OSP.

Both Cecilia Dapaah and her husband, Daniel Osei Kuffuor, were present during the court proceedings, while the Special Prosecutor was absent.

The High Court, under the presidency of Justice Joseph Adu Agyemang Owusu, has rescheduled the case to January 9, 2024.

Subject matter

The former Minister contends that her application for judicial review is prompted by the Special Prosecutor's prejudicial and arbitrary conduct since the commencement of investigations into alleged corruption and corruption-related offenses involving her and her husband.

She emphasized that the legal action aims to prevent any further violation of her constitutionally guaranteed rights and to safeguard the relevance of her application for judicial review.

“It is imperative that the Respondent is restrained from continuing his investigation pending the determination of my said Application.”

“I am advised by Counsel that I have property and personal rights that need to be protected by this Honourable Court and that an order of injunction should be granted against the Respondent to prohibit and restrain him from further violating my rights until the determination of this matter.

“I am advised by Counsel that damages will be inadequate to compensate me if this application for an injunction is not granted and judgment is subsequently entered in the Applicant’s favour.

“I am further advised by Counsel and verily believe same to be true that considering the facts of this case and all surrounding circumstances it is just, convenient, proper, and necessary for this Honourable Court to exercise its discretion in my favour and grant this application,” she argued.

Reliefs

According to the application for an interlocutory injunction, the former monster and her attorneys are requesting the following relief.

(a). A declaration that the Respondent’s re-seizure of the money (initially seized from the Applicant’s home on 24/07/23) and re-freezing of Applicant’s bank accounts respectively on 5th September 2023 is unfair, unreasonable, capricious, arbitrary, and ultra vires the Respondent’s statutory powers under Act 959 relative to the constitutional provisionsof Articles 23 and 296 of the Constitution, 1992.

(b) An Order for the Respondent to release the money reseized on 5th September 2023 to the Applicant and to unfreeze her bank accounts.

(c) An Order prohibiting the Respondent from continuing the investigation of the Applicant and her husband for corruption or corruption-related offences.

(d) Any such further or other Orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit.