The Presiding Judge presiding over Cecilia Dapaah stolen money saga has set August 31, 2023 to give final verdict on Special Prosecutor’s application to freeze all assets belonging to the former Sanitation Minister.
Additionally, it follows the Special Prosecutor‘s motion for a court order freezing Cecilia Dapaah’s bank accounts.
When the former Minister’s husband was not also arrested after the money was discovered in their marital home, the presiding judge asked this question.
Cecilia Dapaah, in the meantime, has characterized the special prosecutor’s application to confirm a freeze and seizure order against her properties as an effort to continue the arbitrary exercise of power based on false information and the ensuing media frenzy.
This was stated by her attorneys when they rejected the application on Thursday.
On Thursday, attorneys for the anti-corruption organization and the former sanitation minister argued before Justice Edward Twum about whether the orders for the properties’ seizure and freezing should be confirmed.
In an effort to stop the concealment of a property allegedly tainted with corruption, Dr. Isidore Tufour argued that the order is in accordance with the office of the Special prosecutor’s ACT (959) guidelines.
READ ALSO: Cecilia Dapaah’s husband under arrest by Special Prosecutor
The special prosecutor’s office has submitted a confirmation application in an effort to seize $590,000 and GHC 2,730,000 that were discovered in her home during a search of three houses connected to her.
Dr. Tufour revealed in court that Cecilia Dapaah was unable to explain how she acquired the money and that the ownership of the allegedly stolen funds is in question regarding this.
These support the attorney’s request for confirmation of the seizure order. He claimed that the office believes the funds were obtained through corrupt means.
On the other hand, Cecilia Dapaah’s attorneys, led by Victoria Barth, claimed that the application for confirmation was submitted in violation of the guidelines established by the office of the special prosecutor ACT.
According to her argument, section 32(2) of the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act 959 requires the office to submit the application for confirmation within seven days of the seizure. She claimed that the immediate application was submitted after the seven-day period had passed.
Victoria Barth further argued before the court that the discovery of sizable amounts in her clients’ home did not support the seizure of their belongings. In her opinion, the applicant has not presented any evidence to support the claim that the funds discovered are tainted.
Additionally, the special prosecutor’s office is attempting to have the former sanitation minister’s Prudential Bank and Societe General bank accounts frozen. The attorneys for the anti-corruption group argued that in order for their request to be granted, the court must determine whether the respondent is a subject of an ongoing investigation for corruption, which they claim to have occurred.
After hearing from both sides, the judge decided to postpone making a decision until August 31.
