An Accra High Court has adjourned the criminal trial of former National Food Buffer Stock Company (NAFCO) CEO, Hanan Abdul-Wahab Aludiba, to hear an application seeking to strike out the entire charge sheet against him.

The application, filed by Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, counsel for Abdul-Wahab, argued that the charge sheet violated his client’s constitutional right to a fair trial.

Mr Dame told the court that the application sought to strike out the entire charge sheet and should be determined before the substantive trial continued.

Mr Augustine Obour, Counsel for Hajia Faiza Seidu Wuni, wife of Mr Abdul-Wahab, informed the court that they had not been served with the application.

Responding, Ms Esi Yankah, Principal State Attorney, said the prosecution was unaware of the application, noting that it had been filed only on July 14, 2026.

She submitted that the application did not automatically suspend proceedings because the charges had already been read to the accused persons, who had pleaded not guilty, and the Case Management Conference had commenced.

Ms Yankah argued that until the court determined otherwise, the charge sheet remained valid and the trial could continue.

She further relied on Section 176 of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30), submitting that the court retained the power to make appropriate orders while the application was pending.

According to her, if proceedings continued on the day, the motion could still be heard on its scheduled date without prejudice to any party.

The Court, presided over by Justice Francis Apongabono Achibongo, said it had been shown the application seeking to strike out the charge sheet and effectively terminate the proceedings.

The court observed that if the application succeeded, there would be no trial on the existing charges, making it prejudicial to continue hearing the substantive case before determining the motion.

The court consequently adjourned the case to July 20, 2026, to hear the application to strike out the charge sheet.

Earlier, the defence complained that the prosecution had disclosed only about 10 per cent of the documents requested under the applicable practice directions.

Counsel argued that several undisclosed documents were necessary for the conduct of the trial and that only the first prosecution witness possessed personal knowledge of many of the facts relied upon by the State.

The defence contended that documents requested through a June 11, 2026 application, including records from NAFCO and other public institutions, had not been supplied, although they were directly relevant to the case.

It argued that it was untenable for the prosecution to state that it did not possess public documents that formed part of the factual basis of the charges.

Ms Yankah responded that the Attorney-General’s Department and the investigative team had already disclosed all documents in their possession, while many others had been served earlier as part of the initial disclosures.

She explained that the State could not disclose documents it did not possess and advised the defence to obtain such records from the relevant public institutions through appropriate court orders.

Mr Augustine Obour, Counsel for the second accused, argued that it was not for the prosecution to determine the relevance of the requested documents and sought leave for the defence to inspect records held by the Ministry of Education relating to NAFCO.

The court noted that the State’s response indicated that some documents had already been disclosed while others were unavailable because they were not in its possession.

It directed the accused persons to file a formal application for further disclosures, to which the State would respond, adding that disclosure remained a continuing process and would not, by itself, halt the trial.