Extradition proceedings against Frederick Kumi, popularly known as Abu Trica, have reached a critical turning point at the Gbese District Court in Accra after prosecutors admitted they have no evidence against two alleged accomplices named in the case.
The admission has sparked intense legal debate, with defence lawyers arguing that the State’s position has fundamentally weakened the entire case.
During proceedings, State prosecutors informed the court that Lord Eshun and Bernard Aidoo, who were cited as accessories, were no longer the subject of active investigations. According to the prosecution, investigations had been completed and failed to produce sufficient evidence to justify continuing charges against the two men. Despite this admission, the State did not formally apply for their discharge, prompting objections from the defence.
Eshun and Aidoo were added to the extradition charge sheet on 12 December 2025 under Section 6 of the Extradition Act, 1960 (Act 22), based on their alleged association with Abu Trica. Representing the Attorney-General’s Department, Derick Ackah Nyameke told the court that the State needed more time to regularise its position following a review of investigative findings.
Defence counsel Oliver Barker Vormawor strongly challenged the prosecution’s stance, arguing that it had fatally undermined the case. He maintained that under Ghanaian law, a conspiracy charge cannot stand where alleged co-conspirators are no longer being pursued.
“One person cannot be convicted of conspiracy when the supposed conspirators are no longer before the court,” he argued, adding that once identified conspirators are abandoned by the State, it becomes legally impossible to proceed against the remaining accused.
Mr Vormawor further pointed out that the charge sheet filed in December 2025 made no reference to any unknown conspirators. As a result, he insisted that the case against Abu Trica collapses entirely once the State concedes it has no evidence against the alleged accomplices.
The prosecution rejected the defence’s application, insisting that the proceedings were not a criminal trial but part of extradition-related committal processes. Mr Nyameke cited the Extradition Act and the 1931 extradition treaty, which allow for provisional arrest and court proceedings while diplomatic arrangements for extradition are ongoing. He described the defence objection as premature and disclosed that the State had filed a motion seeking a stay of proceedings.
Presiding judge Her Worship Bernice Ackon declined to discharge any of the accused persons and adjourned the matter to 7 February 2026 for a ruling.
Following the hearing, defence counsel Aggrey-Finn Amissah criticised the decision, describing it as inconsistent with the prosecution’s own admissions. He revealed that the defence has also filed a bail application at the High Court, scheduled for 20 January 2026.
The defence maintains that without evidence against the alleged accessories, the extradition proceedings against Abu Trica lack a sound legal foundation and should not be sustained.
