A comprehensive analysis of the case involving the stolen cash from Cecilia Abena Dapaah’s residence has shed light on significant aspects of the investigation, resulting in a series of charges and findings.
The analysis revealed that despite the monetary value of the case exceeding GHS500,000, the accused individuals had been charged and arraigned in court without the prior consultation of the Attorney-General’s Office. This was deemed contrary to the earlier directive dated April 21, 2023, which mandated the submission of dockets for cases with a value above GHS500,000 for advisory review.
It was established that the 1st and 2nd accused, both of whom were employed as house helps in the complainants’ residence, had dishonestly appropriated substantial sums of money. The items and properties recovered, however, fell short of the reported amount stolen. The 1st accused admitted to stealing money from the complainants’ store room, claiming $200,000 and GHS200,000. Yet, evidence suggests that she might have dishonestly appropriated more than her admission implies.
The involvement of the 2nd accused was contested by the 1st accused, who detailed their collaboration in stealing money from the complainants’ room. The 5th accused corroborated this by confirming receiving GHS100,000 from the 2nd accused.
While the 1st accused denied taking any personal belongings, seven handbags were found in her possession. However, without evidence connecting these handbags to the complainant, charges of dishonestly appropriating assorted handbags were not deemed sustainable.
Regarding jewellery, two empty jewellery boxes belonging to the complainant were found in the house of the 2nd accused. Although no jewellery was recovered, this evidence sustained a charge of dishonestly appropriating jewellery against the 2nd accused.
Charges of dishonestly appropriating assorted Kente clothes and six men’s suits were considered unsustainable due to a lack of evidence.
The 3rd accused admitted receiving GHS180,000 from the 1st accused for a car purchase and acknowledged the money was stolen. Thus, a charge of dishonestly receiving was sustained against him.
The 4th accused, the father of the 1st accused, was not found to have sufficient evidence suggesting he knew the money he received was stolen, resulting in insufficient grounds for a charge of dishonestly receiving.
The 5th accused, however, received GHS100,000 from the 2nd accused and GHS5,000 from the 1st accused. Despite claiming ignorance of the stolen origin, his credibility was questioned given the circumstances and evidence. As a result, charges of dishonestly receiving were deemed applicable to him.
This detailed analysis has provided a clearer understanding of the roles and actions of the accused individuals, leading to a series of charges based on the evidence at hand. As the case continues to unfold, these findings will play a crucial role in determining the outcome of the legal proceedings.