Number 12 exposé: Court frees Nyantakyi

A Former Ghana Football Association (GFA) President, Kwesi Nyantakyi, has been discharged by the High Court in Accra, bringing an end to a five-year legal saga that gripped the nation.

The case, stemming from explosive allegations of fraud and corruption exposed in the investigative documentary, Number 12, collapsed after prosecutors failed to produce the star witness, Anas Aremeyaw Anas, to testify.

Trial

The trial, presided over by Justice Marie-Louise Simmons, saw Mr Nyantakyi and former GFA Executive Committee member, Abdulai Alhassan, charged with three counts of conspiracy to commit fraud and corruption. However, the case unravelled as the prosecution repeatedly sought adjournments, unable to bring Anas—the investigative journalist whose undercover work exposed the alleged shady dealings in Ghana football —to the stand to testify.

Justice Marie-Louise Simmons ruled in favour of Mr Nyantakyi and his co-accused, former GFA Executive Committee member, Abdulai Alhassan, criticising the delays in prosecution. “Since 2021, the court has awaited the commencement of this trial with little progress. The accused’s time has been unduly wasted,” she noted in her ruling.

The decision followed an application by Mr Nyantakyi’s counsel, Baffour Gyau Bonsu Ashia, who urged the court to discharge his client after the prosecution requested yet another adjournment to secure Mr Anas’s testimony.

The two football administrators were standing trial on allegations of corruption from the ‘Number 12’ exposé by Anas and his Tiger Eye P.I. team. The investigative piece, released in 2018, uncovered alleged widespread corruption within Ghanaian football. The undercover investigation resulted in Mr Nyantakyi’s dramatic fall from grace as Ghana’s football chief, First Vice

President of the Confederation of African Football, and a member of the influentil FIFA Council, following a lifetime ban by FIFA’s Ethics Committee from football-related activities (the ban was later reduced to 15 years).

Turning point

A pivotal moment in the case occurred in May 2023, when the High Court granted Mr Nyantakyi’s request to see Mr Anas’s face without his trademark bead mask before the journalist could testify. 

This decision led to legal wrangling, with both prosecution and defence challenging the ruling at the Court of Appeal.

In a ruling dated January 30, 2025, the Court of Appeal set aside the High Court’s decision to allow the star witness to testify in open court without his mask.

A three-member panel of the court presided over by Justice Anthony Oppong was of the opinion  that Mr Nyantakyi’s right to a fair trial supersedes the witness protection principles invoked by the state.

The court added that Nyantakyi’s right to a fair trial could only be assured by allowing the witness (Anas) to unmask and allowing the judge and lawyers to examine Anas’ demeanour.

It, therefore, set aside the High Court’s decision to allow the investigative journalist, Anas Aremeyaw Anas, to testify in open court with his mask.

Justice Kweku Tawiah Ackaah-Boafo, a member of the panel who delivered the lead judgement, reinforced that physical presence and visibility were crucial in assessing a witness’s credibility.

He explained that the adversarial nature of criminal justice hinged on face-to-face confrontation. “Denying the accused this right, particularly when the witness is also the accuser, undermines the fairness of the trial,” he remarked.

The court added that the fairness of a trial must consider both the rights of the accused and the welfare of witnesses, ensuring accurate verdicts while upholding dignity.

Acknowledging the prosecution’s argument that the order requiring Mr Anas to reveal his face in chambers before testifying could endanger his life, the Court held that the prosecution “failed to substantiate this claim with evidence and found that the security concerns highlighted by the State could be managed through existing judicial controls.”

According to the court, the argument that Mr Anas’ exposure could endanger him due to the unresolved murder of Ahmed Suale was more emotional than factual.

“There was no evidence linking the respondents to Suale’s death, and constitutional rights cannot be overridden without verifiable proof,” the Court held.

The court said this meant that he (Anas) was known to many people, including peers and classmates, and thus the claim about the danger of him being seen in court was exaggerated and lacked merit.