Patience Botwe, the first accused in the alleged theft of substantial sums of money from the residence of former Minister Cecilia Dapaah and her husband, Daniel Osei Kuffour, has claimed that the funds and properties linked to her were part of an inheritance from her late brother.
Represented by defense counsel, Lawrence Boampong, standing in for Kormivi Dzotse, Botwe argued before the Accra High Court Criminal Division that her late brother, Joe, had won a significant lottery prize before his death and had left part of his wealth to her.
Joe allegedly entrusted the money to Christiana Achab, the fifth accused (A5), to purchase houses and cars on behalf of Botwe.
Counsel Boampong emphasized that the assets and funds attributed to Botwe and Achab were inherited legally, not stolen.
Prosecution Witness Cross-Examined
The prosecution’s first witness, Daniel Osei Kuffour, testified on Friday, November 29, 2024.
During cross-examination, he admitted being unaware of whether the money and properties linked to the case were legally acquired, stating, “I wouldn’t know.”
Mr. Kuffour also disclosed discrepancies in the reported missing funds. Initially, the family believed €300,000 had been stolen from their home.
However, subsequent investigations by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) revealed additional undiscovered funds within the household.
“We knew the total monies that were missing. We were surprised when OSP came and found some more monies still around,” Kuffour explained. “This meant that the total monies we thought were missing were less. We came to realize that the house helps had taken less than we thought and had hidden the rest somewhere we were unaware of.”
Expanded Charges Filed
On November 8, a revised charge sheet was submitted to the High Court, increasing the charges against the accused from 14 to 31 counts. The updated charges comprise five counts of conspiracy, six counts of stealing, nine counts of dishonestly receiving, and 11 counts of money laundering.
Patience Botwe, an 18-year-old hairdresser, is standing trial alongside seven others: Sarah Agyei (30, unemployed), Benjamin Sowah (29, plumber), Malik Dauda (34, unemployed), Christiana Achab (trader), Job Pomary (mechanic), and Yahaya Sumaila (excavator operator).
Trial Adjourned
Presiding Judge Justice Marie-Louise Simmons adjourned the case to February 21, 2025, for further proceedings.
Cross examination of PW1
Q: You told the OSP that you were paid an amount of €300,000 as part of fees that you earned from a work that you did in respect of the Tamale ‘Teaching Hospital. Is that correct?
A: Yes my Lady. That is correct.
Q: Do you have any evidence before this Court showing that you were paid the said amount?
A: Yes my Lady. I have given a few of the details of other projects done, which I have been paid but it is not only the Tamale Teaching Hospital. I have done projects for six foreign Embassies in Ghana. I have given a few of the sources of the monies to the police. Some of the projects span a period of years. And I was paid in Euros for a lot of the projects.
Q: Can you point to the Court from your witness statement the evidence before the Court that shows that the €300,000 was from the Tamale Teaching Hospital Project?
A: I have already explained that not only that. We have 7 storey building at prominent part of the city where monies came from. I have done various projects apart from the Tamale Teaching Hospital.
Q: You further told the OSP that you also earned some monies from a property that you own at Kwame Nkrumah Circle. is that correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: And you further stated that the monies that you alleged that were stolen were part of rent that you collected from tenants of the said property. ls that correct?
A: Yes my Lady.
Q: Do you have any evidence before this Court that suggests that you own the said property at Kwame Nkrumah Circle, which you took rent from?
Counsel for the Republic: My Lady, we object to the line of questioning on relevance. That, how PW1 obtained his monies, which A1 is accused of having stolen is irrelevant to the charge of stealing. And his line of questioning that PW1 has documents to show to prove his ownership of those monies is again irrelevant.
Counsel for A1: My Lady with respect, the objection is displaced. I say so because for a charge of stealing in this particular case, we must first establish that PW1 had the amount of €300,000. My Lady, this is very important so if…. My Lady further, from the argument from the State Attorney, it does suggest that she sees Al as a person who have already been convicted. A1 is an Accused person and until that is proven by this court, she remains so. My Lady, relevance in my line of questioning to ascertain whether PW1 had €300,000, which he accuses Al of stealing.
Counsel for the Republic: My Lady, it is trite law that he who alleges must prove. PW1 has said that he is the owner of the said money.
By Court: The charges against A1 are Stealing and money laundering. Under Section 123 (1) of 29 and 1233, proceedings in respect of the offences stated therein include stealing, robbery, extortion etc. the Prosecution need not prove ownership or values of the property in issue. What they need to prove is an act of appropriation, an act of dishonesty and the fact that the property did not belong to the Accused.
However, the law stated that it does not necessarily mean that if such evidence is available, it cannot be produced. So if the witness is able and capable of answering the question, he can answer.
Cross examination continues
A: I have with the Police photographs and valuation reports of these properties.
Q: You will recall that you were before the Circuit court in respect of this matter. Is that correct?
A: Yes my Lady.
Q: You will admit that before the Prosecution filed the charge sheet against A1 in Circuit Court 1, you were interviewed by the Police about this case. Is that correct?
A: Yes my Lady.
Q; Did you inform the police A1 had stolen your €300,000?
A: It did not come to that. It was after A1 had jumped bail and the Police had located and ambushed-and grabbed with some of the accomplices that the details came out. There has been various trials -from Juvenile, Circuit and now High Court.
Q: In the amended charge sheet dated July 20, 2023, there was no mention of A1 stealing €300,000 belonging to you?
A: This problem has arisen because the monies taken, they took the bulk and then hid… That is why some of the details are not completely tied up.
Q: I put it to you that also in the further amended charge sheet filed in the Circuit Court dated August 8, 2023, there was no mention of any €300,000, which belong to you that was alleged to have been stolen by Al?
A: I am not aware. This has come up because some of the charge sheets were found to be wrong or some were not true so there were objection of some of the charge sheets so they had to be amended.
Q: Are you suggesting to this Court that before the charge sheet was amended twice, you had not informed the Police of your stolen €300,000?
A: No my Lady. It time to know exactly what have been missing. We were surprised the OSP came to do further checks and found some monies still around. We knew the total monies that were missing. We were surprised OSP came and found some more monies that were missing. So our first assumption was that so much had been taken from us but when OSP came, then we came to realisation that these monies were with Al and co hadn’t taken everything like we thought. This meant that the total monies we thought were missing were less.
Because at the goal, we did calculation of monies missing and later on when OSP found further monies, then we knew the house helps had taken less. They had taken and hidden somewhere that we were not aware.
Q: You claim you knew the total amount of money that was stolen. Tell the Court how much money was stolen belonging to you?
A: That is what I have already stated. The €300,000 for myself.
Q: Do you have an idea of how much was stolen from Madam Cecilia Dapaah, your wife?
A: That has been detailed out in some of the latest charge sheet.
Q: I put it to you that your allegation that Al had stolen your €300,000 euros is a total fabrication.
A: What you are saying is not correct.
Q: I further put it to you that the charge sheets filed in the Circuit Court stated that the €300,0000 belong to Madam Cecilia Dapaah.
A:What you are saying is not correct.
Q: I put it further to you that the US$200,000, which you claimed are yours were stated in the charged sheet filed in the Circuit Court to belong to Madam Cecilia Dapaah?
A: I don’t know and I cannot comment on that
Q: You have told this Court that you used part US$200,000 to undertake projects for your niece. ls that correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: You will, therefore, agree with me that it is falsehood to have alleged that A1 had stolen US$200,000 belonging to you?
A: What you are saying is not correct. It is not A1 alone. That’s A1 and A2 were having the duplicate keys and they were in turns going into the room in our absence.
Q: How much of the US$200,000 did A1 take from you?
A: I wouldn’t know. Because it wasn’t A1 alone.
Q: You will, therefore, agree with me that A1 has not stolen any US$200,000 from you?
A: What you are saying is not correct.
Q: Do you know any family of A1?
A: I do not know.
Q: I suggest to you that A1 had a brother called Joe who is deceased?
A: I do not know.
Q: I suggest to you that before the demise of A1’s brother, Joe, had become rich after he won a lottery
A: I wouldn’t know.
Q: I further suggest to you that Joe gave some monies to A5 to buy houses and cars for A1 before he died?
A: I wouldn’t know.
Q: I put it to you that the monies, houses, cars found in the custody of A1 and A5 are legally obtained Properties?
A: I wouldn’t know my Lady.
Q: At the time A1 was interviewed by the Police before the case was commenced in Circuit Court 1, were you present?
A: I was present about two occasions.
Q: Do you recall the other persons who were present at the interview?
A: I remember one, 21C and then one, investigator, then another police officer. They were three.
Q: In these two sessions that you referred to was Madam Cecilia Dapaah present?
A: Yes my Lady.
Q: Do you recall the time of the day of this interrogation?
A: It was in the day time but the exact time, I cannot remember.
Q: Did you attend any interrogation of A1, which was conducted midnight?
A: No I didn’t
Q: Could you tell the Court how much money you spent on behalf of your niece in respect of her projects?
A: It will be close to US$200,000.
Q: And that was the same amount you alleged to have been stolen?
A: Not the same amount.
Q: I put it to you that everything that you have told this Court in respect of A1 was falsehood and that A1 has not stolen your 300,000 euros or your US$200.000?
A: That is not correct.
End of cross-examination of PW1 BY Counsel for accused person
COURT: Any re-examination?
PROSECUTION: My Lady there will be no re-examination.
BY COURT: A3 and A4 have filed for variation of bail pending trial.
It was filed on October 24, 2024. The Prosecution has no objection to it. Counsel prays that the bail sum of GH¢750,000.00 to be justified with landed property by one surety be reduced to GH¢200,000.00 with two sureties, one to be justified and for A4, GH¢100,000.00.
The Court will grant the application and will reduce the bail sum of A3 to GH¢400,000.00 to be justified with two sureties, one to be justified with landed property.
All the other conditions are still maintained. For A4, bail sum is reduced to GH¢300,000.00 with two sureties one (1) to be justified with landed property. All other conditions still maintained Application is therefore granted.
The Court has advised the Prosecution to investigate the current state of the properties that were obtained from A1 and A2, the houses and vehicles to determine who are in Occupation for the houses and the cars, how its value can be preserved.
Again, Prosecution is further advised to investigate the age of Al as at the time of the continuation of the offence to determine whether she was a juvenile. Any consequential applications arising from these investigations must be put before relieving judge at Criminal Court 1.
The post Aunty Ceci Stealing Case: A1 Says Properties Linked To Her Are Inheritance From Late Brother appeared first on The Ghanaian Chronicle.
Chronicle
