An Adentan High Court has ordered the de‑freezing of bank accounts belonging to Sesi‑Edem Company Limited, ruling that the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) acted without legal basis. 

The Court, presided over by Justice Richard Apietu, revoked a confirmation order granted on January 30, 2026, which had authorised EOCO to freeze the company’s Access Bank account.  

The directive originated from an administrative order issued by EOCO on November 20, 2025.  

EOCO later admitted errors in the account details, withdrew the directive on December 17, 2025, and replaced it with a corrected version.  

On December 23, 2025, EOCO filed an ex parte motion to confirm the freezing order, which was subsequently granted. 

Sesi‑Edem Company Limited, owned by Mr Gabriel Tanko Kwamigah‑Atokple, a Council of State member representing the Volta Region, applied for a review to set aside the confirmation order.  

The company argued that EOCO’s actions were unjustified, unlawful, and outside its statutory mandate. 

 It contended that allegations of fraud arising from non‑delivery or failure to refund monies by November 4, 2025 were baseless, as its contract with JG Resources allowed delivery up to June 2026. 

The applicant maintained that it was duly licensed at the time of entering into the Sale and Purchase Agreement, having obtained the requisite permissions under the regulatory regime.  

It further argued that EOCO failed to disclose that the earlier freezing order had lapsed and that the erroneous directive had adversely affected its banking operations. 

EOCO opposed the application, insisting that fraud had been established and that its actions were within the relevant timelines.  

It said that the existence of a contract expiring in June 2026 did not negate allegations of fraud. 

In his ruling, Justice Apietu held that the contractual timeline had not expired and that the agreement remained valid until June 2026.  

He stated that non‑delivery or failure to refund monies within the period did not constitute fraud but could amount to breach of contract, which is a civil matter to be resolved through litigation, not criminal investigation. 

The Court also held that the issues raised did not fall within EOCO’s mandate under Section 3 of the EOCO Act, 2010 (Act 804).  

It noted that the company had obtained a gold trading licence from the Precious Minerals Marketing Company in August 2024, valid until August 2025, and had also secured authorisation under a government agreement.  

Although the Goldbod Act revoked previous licences, a public notice issued on May 22, 2025, permitted existing licence holders to continue trading until June 21, 2025.  

The company’s contract with JG Resources, executed on June 5, 2025, therefore fell within the permitted period and was lawful. 

On allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation, the Court ruled that the company had not violated any directive and had committed no fraud.  

It held that no predicate offence had been established to support allegations of money laundering, rendering EOCO’s actions unjustified. 

Justice Apietu concluded that EOCO had acted unfairly and ultra vires its statutory mandate, contrary to Article 23 of the 1992 Constitution.  

Consequently, the Court revoked the confirmation order and directed that the freezing of the company’s accounts be lifted, restoring access to its funds.