The High Court in Accra has dismissed an application by Faiza Seidu Wuni, the second accused person in the ongoing trial involving former National Food Buffer Stock Company (NAFCO) Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Hanan Abdul-Wahab Aludiba, seeking permission to travel outside the jurisdiction with her seven-year-old son for medical treatment.
The court on Wednesday, July 29, held that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the medical treatment sought for the child was unavailable in Ghana. The court ruled that there was no medical evidence before it showing that the child's condition could not be managed locally.
Aludiba and his wife, Faiza Seidu, are facing charges including stealing, causing financial loss to the state and money laundering. The accused persons have denied the charges.
Child's welfare
Moving the application, counsel for the second accused, Augustine Obuor, prayed the court to release his client's passport and grant her leave to travel outside Ghana with her seven-year-old son to seek medical attention during the court's vacation.
He argued that the application was grounded in the welfare principle under the Children Act, 1998 (Act 560), which requires the best interests of the child to be the court's paramount consideration.
Mr Obuor told the court that the child required further medical assessment and treatment abroad and that his client intended to use the month of August, when the court would be on vacation, to complete the child's medical needs. He said the biological mother, who had cared for the child since birth, was the appropriate person to accompany him for treatment.
Counsel further argued that the prosecution's concern that the second accused might fail to return to stand trial should not outweigh the child's welfare, insisting that the court should prioritise the medical needs of the child.
Opposition
Opposing the application, the Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, argued that the Republic was not acting against the interests of the child but had a constitutional duty to balance individual rights with the public interest.
He submitted that the court ought to distinguish between a genuine medical emergency and a parent's voluntary decision to seek further medical assessment abroad. According to him, the affidavit in support of the application did not establish that the child was facing a medical emergency or that the required treatment was unavailable in Ghana.
Dr Srem-Sai further argued that the applicant herself indicated that follow-up appointments would continue beyond August 5, suggesting that the treatment process could extend indefinitely and potentially disrupt the ongoing criminal trial.
"It is not accurate to create an impression that the child is having a medical emergency," he submitted, adding that the prosecution had already completed disclosures and was ready to proceed with a speedy trial.
Court's ruling
Delivering the ruling, the court held that an applicant seeking permission to travel abroad for medical treatment must demonstrate that the required treatment cannot be obtained within the jurisdiction. It observed that no medical evidence had been placed before the court to show that the child's condition could not be managed in Ghana. The court also noted that the medical report before it indicated that the child was improving.
Consequently, the application for the release of the second accused person's passport and leave to travel outside the jurisdiction with the child was dismissed.
Before the motion was argued, counsel for the first accused, Richard Gyambiby, holding brief for Godfred Yeboah Dame, informed the court that Mr Aludiba had been admitted to hospital and presented medical documents to that effect, stating that he remained on admission.
