Justice Kwabeng of Kanifing High Court acquitted and discharged all six accused persons in the Social Security and Housing Finance Corporation (SSHFC) staff’s alleged corruption case. The accused are Amie Sarr, Modou K. Sarr, Caroline Siga Sarr, Andrew Demba, Alhagie Fatty, and Assan Jatta who were facing a total of sixty-two (62) criminal counts of corrupt practices, official corruption, and obtaining goods by false pretences.
In delivering his ruling, Justice G. A. Kwabeng dismissed all sixty-two charges after ruling on a submission of “no case to answer” raised by the defence counsel, concluding that the prosecution’s evidence was “woefully insufficient” to call upon the accused persons to open their defence.
The accused persons, all former or current employees of the Social Security and Housing Finance Corporation (SSHFC), were charged under the repealed Criminal Code for offences allegedly committed before the enactment of the new Criminal Offences Act, 2025.
The charges are Corrupt Practices (contrary to Section 360(a), Official Corruption (contrary to Section 86(a) and Obtaining goods by false pretences (contrary to Section 288). The charges are alleged fraud related to land allocation, corrupt acceptance of consideration or commission for land transactions between individuals and the SSHFC.
The 1st Accused, Amie Sarr, faces 58 charges and counts, with the alleged claim that as a public officer, she corruptly accepted monetary rewards and commissions in exchange for facilitating land transactions at the SSHFC. She was charged with 23 Counts of Corrupt Practices Section 360(a) Criminal Code 20 Counts of Official Corruption Section 86(a) Criminal Code, and 15 Counts of Obtaining goods by false pretences Section 288 Criminal Code, all of which she pleaded not guilty to.
Prosecution charged the 1st Accused, Amie Sarr with multiple counts of Official Corruption for corruptly receiving various commissions, including D55,000.00, D40,000.00, D50,000.00, D75,000.00, D65,000.00, D60,000.00, D440,000.00, D50,000.00, D70,000.00, D30,000.00, D30,000.00, D80,000.00, and D85,000.00 from individuals for land allocations.
She was also charged with obtaining goods by false pretences for receiving sums ranging from D30,000.00 to D815,000.00 by falsely claiming she could allocate land plots. She was also jointly charged with the 5th accused (Alhagie Fatty) and the 6th accused (Assan Jatta) in transactions involving sums up to D815,000.00.
The 2nd Accused, Modou K. Sarr, and 3rd Accused, Caroline Siga Sarr: The two are jointly charged with one count of Official Corruption Section 86(a) of the Criminal Code for corruptly receiving a commission of D50,000.00 and one count of Corrupt Practices Section 360(a) for accepting “consideration” from one Sheriffo Touray.
4th Accused, Andrew Demba: He faces one count of Official Corruption Section 86(a) of the Criminal Code for corruptly receiving a commission of D20,000.00 and one count of Corrupt Practices Section 360(a) for accepting consideration from Ebrima Kinteh.
5th Accused, Alhagie Fatty: He is jointly charged with the 1st Accused (Amie Sarr) on 11 counts of Official Corruption and Corrupt Practices, involving substantial sums totalling D1,475,000.00 (D175,000 + D140,000 + D150,000 + D195,000 + D815,000) from various individuals.
6th Accused, Assan Jatta: He is jointly charged with the 1st Accused (Amie Sarr) on three counts, including one count of Official Corruption and one count of Obtaining goods by false pretences for corruptly receiving D190,000.00 from Alieu Camara for a land plot that was never allocated.
In establishing their case, the prosecution, led by Counsel Fatou Touray, closed its case after presenting several witnesses, including PW4, Aji Fatou Kah, who produced documentary evidence, but failed to secure the testimony of Alieu Camara and Sheriffo Touray, who are named as the sources of the corrupt payments in many counts. The prosecution had indicated that Alieu Camara’s testimony was material and critical to proving the case.
Following the close of the prosecution’s evidence, the defence counsels led by Counsel Adama Sillah for the 1st and 2nd accused persons along with Counsel Oria Marku Donkor, Anna Reduin Gomez and Fatoumata Jallow for the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th respectively filed a “No Case Submission” under Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2025.
Defence Counsel Sillah argued that the absence of the vital witnesses was fatal to the prosecution’s case, as their evidence was fundamental in settling the core issue of the payments.
The core of the defence counsel’s argument is that the prosecution (State) has failed to establish a prima facie case, with the failure to call the key complainants being fatal to the allegations. Counsels argued that the prosecution failed to establish the necessary link showing the accused either directly or indirectly defrauded, obtained or induced the victims.
Justice Kwabeng confirmed that the proceedings were governed by the Criminal Procedure Act, 2025. He affirmed the fundamental principle of law mandated by Section 24(3)(a) of the 1997 Constitution, the presumption of innocence, and reinforced by the English case of WOOLMINGTON V. DPP (1935), which establishes that the burden of proof never shifts from the prosecution.
Justice Kwabeng applied the established test for a “no case to answer” submission, citing R v. Galbraith (1981). The test considers whether there is no evidence that a crime has been committed by the accused, whether the evidence is tenuous or inconsistent, or whether a conviction would be unsafe due to insufficient evidence. Justice Kwabeng emphasised that while the prosecution was required to establish a prima facie case requiring the accused to open their defence, the evidence must still prove the essential elements of the offence and connect the accused to the crime.
Justice Kwabeng established the prosecution’s failure to call vital witnesses or complainants as the central, fatal flaw in their case. He added that prosecution, led by Counsel Fatou Touray, closed its case after presenting only six witnesses, but failed to secure the attendance of “material witness,” Alieu Camara, who refused to appear to testify and those named as the sources of the alleged corrupt payments
Justice Kwabeng cited ONALI v. STATE (1985), defining a vital witness as one whose evidence is fundamental and determines the case one way or the other.
Justice Kwabeng highlighted that the 1st Accused (Amie Sarr) faced 58 counts, as she was alleged to have corruptly accepted substantial monetary rewards for facilitating land deals, but the prosecution failed to call most named complainants, including Alieu Camara, who was central to most counts. While Alieu Camara refused to appear to testify despite a Witness Summons, citing annual leave.
Justice Kwabeng ruled that the lack of testimony from those who allegedly paid the funds was fatal to the prosecution’s case, stating that evidence only included the testimony of PW4 (Aji Fatou Kah) and PW6 (Lamin Demba) who were named in a small fraction of the 58 counts.
2nd and 3rd Accused (Modou K. Sarr and Caroline Siga Sarr): Charged jointly concerning a D50,000.00 commission involving Sheriffo Touray; the prosecution failed to call Sheriffo Touray, the material witness in the transaction. Justice Kwabeng held that his absence was deemed fundamental and fatal to the case against the accused and resolved in favour of both the 2nd and 3rd Accused.
4th Accused (Andrew Demba): Charged with corruptly accepting a D20,000.00 commission from Ebrima Kinteh. Justice Kwabeng noted that the prosecution failed to call Ebrima Kinteh, and no evidence was presented to prove that the accused received the commission. The issue was resolved in favour of the 4th accused.
The 5th and 6th Accused (Alhagie Fatty and Assan Jatta) charged jointly with the 1st Accused on various counts, the evidence was found insufficient. Justice Kwabeng found that the alleged payment of D190,000.00 was not proven, and no witness who testified mentioned the 5th Accused receiving any consideration. The issues were resolved in favour of the 5th and 6th Accused.
Justice Kwabeng also addressed other evidentiary weaknesses like the cautionary and voluntary statements. He analysed the accused persons’ cautionary and voluntary statements (PE1 to PE11), stressing that admissions made in such statements are only valid if proven reliable concluding that even if admitted, the evidence was not sufficient to sustain a conviction.
On documentary proof, Justice Kwabeng held that the testimony of PW4 (Aji Fatou Kah) regarding her alleged D240,000.00 payment to the 1st Accused was not corroborated by documentary proof. He cited the Ghanaian Supreme Court case of Eric Kofi Agyei Addo v. Salome Alu Allotey (2022) to highlight the danger of preferring oral testimony over conclusive documentary evidence or lack thereof, which prejudices the surety of the evidentiary rules.
Based on the totality of the evidence, Justice Kwabeng resolved that the prosecution had not established a sufficient case to require any of the accused persons to open their defence.
Justice Kwabeng stated that the evidence presented, even when taken at face value, did not sufficiently link the accused persons to the commission of the offences charged.
In his ruling, Justice Kwabeng relied on Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2025 formerly Section 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which mandates the court to dismiss a case if, at the close of the prosecution’s evidence, a case is not made out sufficiently to require the accused to make a defence.
Justice Kwabeng affirmed the fundamental legal principle enshrined in Section 24(3)(a) of the 1997 Constitution: “Every person who is charged with a criminal offence… shall be presumed innocent until he or she is proved or has pleaded guilty”.
Justice Kwabeng resolved that the prosecution’s case had been “so discredited by the defence as to be cogent and conclusive” that no reasonable tribunal could safely convict based on the evidence presented.
Relying on Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2025, Justice Kwabeng dismissed all sixty-two charges. “All six accused persons are acquitted and discharged,” he ruled, dismissing all sixty-two charges.
