Court adjourns Abu Trica extradition case as state drops charges against two accused persons
The Gbese District Court in Accra has adjourned its ruling in the extradition proceedings involving Frederick Kumi, popularly known as Abu Trica, after the State disclosed that it had no evidence against two of the accused persons, even as the court declined to discharge them.
The two accused persons, Lord Eshun and Bernard Aidoo, were arraigned as alleged accessories under an extradition charge sheet filed on December 12, 2025. However, the State told the court that investigations had been concluded and there was no basis to continue proceedings against them.
In court, Derick Ackah Nyameke, representing the Attorney-General’s Department, said the two had been arraigned under Section 6 of the Extradition Act, 1960 (Act 22) as accessories to the principal suspect, but the Republic required time to “put its house in order”.
When the court sought clarification on the basis for the withdrawal, the prosecution maintained that the arraignment formed part of committal proceedings pending the receipt of formal diplomatic extradition requests.
Counsel for Abu Trica, Oliver Barker Vormawor, argued that the withdrawal of charges against the alleged conspirators rendered the case against his client legally untenable.
“One person cannot be found guilty of an alleged conspiracy because the alleged conspirators are no longer before the court,” he said, adding that under Ghanaian law, “where alleged conspirators have been identified but have been discharged, it is legally impossible to proceed against the remaining accused person”.
He further contended that the charge sheet filed on December 12, 2025, did not indicate that there were any unidentified conspirators at large, insisting that “the charge against Abu Trica fails in its entirety”.
Responding, Mr Nyameke opposed the application for discharge, arguing that Abu Trica had not been arraigned for trial in Ghana but for extradition-related committal proceedings.
He explained that under Act 22 and the 1931 extradition treaty, a fugitive could be provisionally arrested and brought before a district court pending the completion of extradition processes.
“The objection raised by defence counsel is premature,” he said, adding that there was also a pending motion on notice to stay the extradition proceedings, which had been served on the defence earlier in the day.
The court, presided over by Justice Bernice Ackon, declined to discharge any of the accused persons and adjourned the case to February 7, 2026, for ruling.
Addressing the media after the proceedings, counsel for the accused, Aggrey-Finn Amissah, criticised the court’s decision not to discharge the two accused persons despite the State’s position.
“Prosecution is at the discretion of the state. The court should not have any interest… yet the judge decided not to discharge the two persons the state itself says there is no evidence against,” he said.
He added that the defence had since filed a bail application at the High Court, which is expected to be heard on January 20, 2026.
