Court of Appeal Rejects NAM1’s Attempt to Pause Menzgold Trial
0
0
Nana Appiah Mensah—better known as NAM1—has failed in his latest effort to stall the criminal proceedings against him. On Monday, 19 May, the Court of Appeal threw out his bid for a stay of proceedings, clearing the way for the Financial and Economic Crime Court to press on with the long-running Menzgold case.
What the charges are
NAM1 and his two companies—Menzgold Ghana Ltd. and Brew Marketing Consult Ltd.—face 39 counts ranging from:
-
Operating an unlicensed gold-trading and deposit-taking scheme
-
Inducement to invest and defrauding by false pretence
-
Fraudulent breach of trust
-
Money-laundering involving more than GH₵ 340 million
Why he asked for a stay
After the High Court ruled in July 2024 that a prima facie case had been established and ordered him to open his defence, NAM1 appealed that ruling. Pending the outcome of that appeal, his lawyers also sought a stay of proceedings so the trial would pause until the appeal was decided.
How the Court of Appeal ruled
A three-judge panel—Justice Gbiel Suurbaareh (presiding) with Justices Afia Serwaa Asare-Botwe and Christopher Archer—unanimously dismissed the stay application. State prosecutors had argued that the request was merely an attempt to “overreach the powers of the court” and pointed out that NAM1 had shown no exceptional circumstances warranting a halt to the trial.
What happens next
With the stay denied, the Financial and Economic Crime Court is free to resume hearings, now scheduled for 28 May 2025. Speaking to reporters, NAM1 signalled he has not given up:
“It doesn’t end here. We still have the Supreme Court, so we will exercise all the rights the Constitution gives us,” he said, adding that he would consult his lawyers on the next move.
Case background in brief
Prosecutors say that between 2016 and 2018, Menzgold and Brew Marketing lured more than 16,000 investors into depositing money under the guise of gold-trading contracts, then siphoned off the funds into related businesses and personal accounts.
Monday’s decision marks another legal setback for the once-celebrated entrepreneur—and brings thousands of aggrieved investors one step closer to seeing the case fully tried in court.
