Cropped Cropped Freshhope Logo 2.jpg

We disagree with the court’s judgement but we trust it – NAM 1

Nam 1

Nana Appiah Mensah, the Chief Executive of the now-defunct gold dealership firm Menzgold, expressed his disagreement with the court’s judgment after it dismissed his application of ‘no case’. As per the court’s ruling, NAM 1 is required to answer and open his defence. Following a court hearing on Thursday, NAM 1 spoke to the media, acknowledging the mixed outcomes of the case while asserting his belief in the legal system.

“We had some acquittals and a huge chunk of the charges have been dismissed, which is fine. We disagree with the judgment of the court, but it is worthy of note that the disagreement does not in any way erode our confidence in the judiciary or the court,” he stated. NAM 1 hinted that despite the court’s decision, his legal team would explore all available avenues for redress within the framework of the law.

“I will speak with the legal team of the defence and we will consider and explore all necessary rights to redress under the parameters of rule of law. We have always maintained that we are not guilty and we still stand by that,” he added.

Emphasising their legal right to seek further remedies, NAM 1 stated, “So once we disagree, the law permits that we take it to all the legal remedies under our legal dispensation. So, we will go back to the drawing table to defend ourselves and to affirm and get the court to proclaim our innocence to the whole world.”

NAM 1 however noted that he is ready to defend himself if he is required to adhere to the court ruling.

NAM1 and his two companies; Brew Marketing Consult and Menzgold have been charged with 39 counts of various offences.

The charges include selling gold without a license, operating a deposit-taking business, inducement to invest, defrauding by pretences, fraudulent breach of trust, and money laundering involving the sum of over GH₵340 million.

The prosecution closed its case after calling nine witnesses. The court on Thursday was required to rule on whether the prosecution has sufficiently made its case or a prima facie evidence has been made. Under the rules of court, at the close of the prosecution’s case, the court shall, on its motion or a Submission of No Case to Answer, give its reasoned decision as to whether the prosecution has or has not led sufficient evidence against the accused person.

In the 110-page ruling by the court, Justice Owusu-Dapaah first ruled on whether or not Menzgold and NAM1 sold gold to anyone. The court said the prosecution was able to establish that the accused were selling gold. The court thus, said it had reviewed and accepted into evidence, and that the receipts showed that the accused sold gold to the public.

On whether or not the accused were involved in the sale of gold without a license, and whether or not they had the license, the court said that it appears that neither NAM1 nor Menzgold was licensed to deal in gold under the Minerals and Mining Act.

“The receipts tendered by the witnesses were not personal jewellery but were real gold and thus the accused did not have the license to deal in gold in the manner they did. Brew Marketing Consult is unknown to the minerals commission to purchase gold. Based on the evidence presented, it appears that the accused persons did not possess a valid license,” the court stated.

Operating a deposit-taking without a License under Act 930. The court said it was satisfied that a prima facie case had been made against the accused and it appears that the accused were carrying on deposit-taking business without a license.

On whether the accused induced the general public to invest funds of more than GH₵340 million. The court found that the prosecution has made a prima facie case against the accused and that the accused has a case to answer. On whether the accused defrauded Ghanaians by pretences, the court initiated that the accused persons have a case to answer.

By: Ama Cromwell  

Leave a Reply

Verified by MonsterInsights