Senior lawyer and Vice President of IMANI Africa, Kofi Bentil, has questioned the basis of continued scrutiny surrounding the legal issues involving former Chief Executive Officer of the National Food Buffer Stock Company (NAFCO), Hanan Abdul-Wahab Aludiba, arguing that actions taken against him must be assessed within the context of existing court decisions.

Speaking on JoyNews’ Newsfile programme on Saturday, July 11, Mr Bentil said the public discussion surrounding the former NAFCO CEO’s frozen bank account and subsequent legal proceedings risked creating the impression of wrongdoing even after aspects of the matter had been resolved by the courts.

His comments follow the ongoing legal battle involving Hanan Abdul-Wahab, who was recently arrested by the state and restricted by the court from travelling to the United Kingdom.

Bentil argued that once a court order affecting an individual has been vacated, the person should not continue to be treated as though the earlier restriction remains in force.

"The basis upon which the account was frozen had been vacated, and there was an order to that effect where the judge expressly said that there is no issue against him," he said.

According to him, the legal effect of that decision is that Mr. Abdul-Wahab is entitled to rely on the court’s directive when dealing with institutions affected by the earlier order.

Mr Bentil explained that a person whose account restriction has been lifted should ordinarily be able to present the relevant court documentation to financial institutions and request access to their funds.

"So everybody will take that to the bank and say this is my bank letter, give me my money," he stated.

However, he acknowledged that financial institutions may require additional confirmation before taking action, particularly where previous restrictions were imposed through legal processes.

"It’s for the bank to say, ‘Hey, I haven’t been told so wait,’ or for somebody else to raise anything," he added.

The lawyer maintained that such procedural steps are different from suggesting that the individual has committed a crime or should be presumed guilty.

Mr Bentil expressed concern that legal processes can sometimes be interpreted in the public domain in ways that go beyond what has actually been established in court.

"He has no problem whatsoever in presenting that to the court, so for somebody to raise that as if it is a crime is worrying," he said.

He stressed that the existence of a legal dispute, an account freeze or an investigation does not automatically amount to proof of criminal wrongdoing.

He argued that accountability mechanisms must operate alongside protections for individual rights, including the presumption of innocence and the authority of court rulings.