NAM 1 to either open defence or be freed July 10

The High Court in Accra has scheduled July 10, 2024, to determine whether Nana Appiah Mensah, the Chief Executive Officer of Menzgold, popularly known as NAM1, has a case to answer.

This decision follows the completion of written submissions by both defense lawyers and the prosecution regarding the establishment of prima facie evidence.

The prosecution concluded its case after presenting nine witnesses against NAM1 and his two companies, Menzgold Ghana Limited and Brew Marketing Consult Ghana Limited. They face 39 counts, including selling gold without a license, operating a deposit-taking business, inducement to invest, defrauding by false pretense, fraudulent breach of trust, and money laundering involving over GHC340M.

Justice Ernest Owusu-Dapaa, presiding over the court, will decide whether NAM1 and his companies should defend themselves or be acquitted and discharged based on the prosecution witnesses' testimonies.

Faceless defendants

Kwame Boafo Akuffo, counsel for NAM1 and the two companies, argued that the prosecution failed to provide evidence that the accused lacked a license to sell gold. He contended that the court should not deal with anonymous witnesses and noted that no one testified they were induced to invest by the accused.

He rhetorically asked, "If the accused decides to pay the GHC340 million, to whom would it be paid?" while arguing for a dismissal of the case. He insisted that the court should not entertain complaints from unidentified individuals.

Record

Akuffo informed the court that there is no record showing the accused lacked a license to sell gold and that only eight Ghanaians have testified. He urged the court to acquit and discharge his clients, claiming the prosecution's witnesses failed to establish a case to answer.

Defense

Mrs. Yvonne Attakora Obuobisa, the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP), maintained that they have presented sufficient prima facie evidence against the accused, necessitating his defense. She highlighted that the prosecution called nine witnesses and submitted extensive documents to support their case.

The DPP argued that the accused induced investments in violation of the Companies Act and that the investors later realized the companies lacked the necessary licenses.

Money laundering

The DPP accused NAM1 of money laundering, stating that the accused engaged in criminal activities that generated proceeds, which were then moved to other accounts, including his personal account.

Brew Marketing unknown

The DPP also claimed that Brew Marketing Consult is not recognized by the Minerals Commission as a licensed company to purchase and import gold in Ghana. She stated that customers were misled into purchasing gold from NAM1 and Menzgold.

Celebrities

The DPP argued that customers were influenced to invest due to advertisements featuring celebrities, which gave the impression that the accused were licensed for their business operations.

False representation

On the charge of defrauding by false pretenses, the DPP asserted that NAM1 made false representations and that the prosecution has provided evidence of the total amount involved. She argued that it was unnecessary to bring all complainants to court and that they have established a prima facie case through witness testimonies and documents.

The DPP challenged NAM1 to open his defense and clarify his business model.