Court Orders Unfreezing of Sesi-Edem Company Accounts, Citing EOCO’s Lack of Legal Basis
An Adentan High Court has delivered a significant ruling, ordering the immediate de-freezing of bank accounts belonging to Sesi-Edem Company Limited. The court found that the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) had acted without the necessary legal foundation when it initially froze the company’s assets.
Presiding over the case, Justice Richard Apietu revoked a confirmation order that had been granted on January 30, 2026. This order had previously empowered EOCO to freeze the company’s Access Bank account, a move that originated from an administrative directive issued by EOCO on November 20, 2025.
Chronology of Events and Legal Challenges
The situation began with an administrative order from EOCO. While EOCO later acknowledged errors in the account details provided, leading to the withdrawal of the initial directive on December 17, 2025, it subsequently issued a corrected version. This was followed by an ex parte motion filed by EOCO on December 23, 2025, seeking to confirm the freezing order, which was then granted.
Sesi-Edem Company Limited, owned by Mr. Gabriel Tanko Kwamigah-Atokple, a respected member of the Council of State representing the Volta Region, challenged EOCO’s actions. The company formally applied for a review, seeking to have the confirmation order set aside. Their core argument was that EOCO’s interventions were not only unjustified and unlawful but also exceeded the agency’s statutory mandate.
Company’s Defence and Contractual Agreements
The company refuted allegations of fraud, which were reportedly linked to non-delivery of goods or failure to refund monies by November 4, 2025. Sesi-Edem Company Limited asserted that these claims were baseless, citing a contract with JG Resources that explicitly allowed for delivery up to June 2026.
Furthermore, the applicant highlighted that it held the requisite licenses and permissions at the time of entering into the Sale and Purchase Agreement, operating within the established regulatory framework. The company also contended that EOCO failed to disclose crucial information to the court, specifically that the initial freezing order had already lapsed and that the erroneous directive had significantly hampered its banking operations.
EOCO’s Opposition and Court’s Findings
EOCO, in its opposition to the company’s application, maintained that fraud had indeed been established and that its actions were timely and appropriate. The agency argued that the existence of a contract with a future expiration date did not invalidate the fraud allegations.
However, Justice Apietu’s ruling decisively sided with Sesi-Edem Company Limited. The court affirmed that the contractual timeline had not expired and that the agreement with JG Resources remained valid until June 2026.
The judge clarified that non-delivery or failure to refund monies within the stipulated period, prior to the contract’s expiration, did not inherently constitute fraud. Instead, such occurrences would typically be classified as a breach of contract, a civil matter best resolved through litigation rather than a criminal investigation.
Mandate and Licensing Scrutiny
A key element of the ruling focused on EOCO’s jurisdiction. The Court determined that the issues at hand did not fall within EOCO’s mandate as defined by Section 3 of the EOCO Act, 2010 (Act 804).
The court also examined the company’s licensing status. It was noted that Sesi-Edem Company Limited had obtained a gold trading license from the Precious Minerals Marketing Company in August 2024, which was valid until August 2025. Additionally, the company had secured authorization under a government agreement.
While acknowledging that the Goldbod Act had the effect of revoking previous licenses, the court took into account a public notice issued on May 22, 2025. This notice permitted existing licence holders to continue trading activities until June 21, 2025. Given this context, the contract executed with JG Resources on June 5, 2025, was deemed to fall within this permitted trading period and was therefore lawful.
Conclusion: Unjustified Actions and Constitutional Violations
Regarding the allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation, the Court concluded that Sesi-Edem Company Limited had not violated any directives and had not committed any fraudulent acts. The ruling further stated that no predicate offence had been established to substantiate the claims of money laundering, rendering EOCO’s actions unjustified.
Justice Apietu concluded his judgment by stating that EOCO had acted unfairly and ultra vires its statutory mandate, which is contrary to Article 23 of the 1992 Constitution.
As a direct consequence of these findings, the Court formally revoked the confirmation order and issued a directive for the immediate lifting of the freeze on Sesi-Edem Company Limited’s accounts. This ruling restores the company’s access to its funds and upholds the principle of lawful administrative action.
