Lawyers of Nana Appiah Mensah the embattled Chief Executive Officer of Menzgold Ghana Limited, have clenched a deal in court as lead to the temporary freedom of their client.
This is because an Accra Circuit Court yesterday varied the bail conditions of Mr. Appiah Mensah aka NAM1, by removing the condition that requires sureties to his bail to show evidence of owning properties worth the GH¢1billion bail sum.
The court presided over by Mrs Jane Harriet Akweley Quaye, however, did not change the bail sum of GH¢1billion.
The latest twist to the bail issue follows an application filed by lawyers of NAM 1, Mr Kwame Boafo Akuffo to that effect.
NAM 1 has remained in police cells for more than 10 days despite the bail due to his inability to meet the bail condition.
Making a case for the review of the bail condition, lawyers of NAM 1 argued that the bail conditions were unfair and needed to be reviewed.
Even though prosecution in the case did not oppose the plea for the variation of the bail condition, they disagreed with the fact that NAM1’s lawyers were giving their own figure.
In the ruling of the court however, the judge maintained the GH¢1 billion bail condition but varied the surety conditions.
Mrs. Akweley Quaye ruled that NAM1 is supposed to provide five sureties none to be justified suggesting that he must only show properties worth GH¢ 1 billion and report to the police every Wednesday after meeting the bail conditions.
NAM 1 is standing trial over allegations of defrauding more than 16,000 people of Ghc1.6billion.
On July 26, 2019, the court granted NAM 1 bail in the sum of GH¢1billion with 5 sureties, three to be justified, a condition he was unable to meet, compelling his lawyer to head back to court.
NAM1 who returned to Accra on Thursday, July 11, 2019, after months of detention in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates is alleged to have defrauded some 16,000 customers of more than GH¢1.68 billion between January 2017 and September 2018.
Two of his companies — Brew Marketing Consult and Menzgold Ghana Limited — represented by him, have each been charged with defrauding by false pretense, contrary to sections 20 (1) and 13 (1) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29),
The two companies have also been charged with carrying out a deposit-taking business without a license, contrary to Section 6 (1) of Act 930.
Also in the dock are his sister and his wife, Benedicta Appiah and Rose Tetteh, respectively, who have been slapped with two counts of abetment to defraud by false pretence and two counts of abetment to carry out banking business without a license, contrary to Section 6 (1) of Act 930.
The two women are, however, at large.