[2023]DLSC16996 • July 27, 2023 • Supreme Court •
REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT, FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC CRIME DIVISION (COURT 2), ACCRA EX-PARTE: MALIK IBRAHIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ECONOMIC AND ORGANISED CRIME OFFICE
The applicant, Malik Ibrahim, was a former vice chairman and operations supervisor of Pacific Oil Ghana Ltd (POGL), a private petroleum distribution company owned by his brother, Alhaji Zakaria Ibrahim. Following internal disputes and allegations that revenues from POGL’s fuel outlets did not match sales, the brother petitioned EOCO to investigate suspected losses. EOCO, acting on the complaint and with accounting assistance, investigated the applicant and other company officials for alleged stealing, organised crime, and in the applicant’s case, money laundering. EOCO then administratively froze the applicant’s assets, including landed property and bank accounts, and obtained a High Court order confirming the freezing. When the applicant applied to discharge the order, the High Court instead varied it by appointing a receiver/manager over some filling stations and defreezing certain business accounts for management purposes. The applicant then invoked the Supreme Court’s supervisory jurisdiction, contending that EOCO lacked statutory authority under the Economic and Organised Crime Office Act, 2010 (Act 804) to investigate alleged stealing from a wholly private company and that the High Court therefore erred in confirming and varying the freezing order. Portion of judgment: paras. 2-6.
read moreRULING AMADU JSC:- INTRODUCTION (1) The key question that arises for our determination in this application is, whether the High Court, Financial and Economic Division 2, Accra acted in conformity with the statute that set the limits of authority of the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), the Interested Party herein, when it confirmed a freezing order over the assets of the Applicant herein. The 1992 Constitution under article 18 guarantees the right to property of every person in Ghana and prohibits interference with that right except in accordance with law. Thus, whereas the Constitution guarantees that individuals are free to enjoy the benefit or use of their properties without unnecessary hindrance, it is equally permits that properties unlawfully acquired may be taken away from their owners. The state has established a number of agencies with the mandate to trace and recover illegally acquired properties and the Interested Party herein is one of those agencies. However...