Juaben MCE Nominee

The trial involving allegations of corruption in connection with a public election against Mr. Alexander Sarfo-Kantanka, President Akufo-Addo’s nominee for Chief Executive of the Juaben Municipal Assembly in the Ashanti Region, remains pending before the appellate courts.

On 9 April 2024, the High Court, Criminal Division, Kumasi, partially dismissed a submission of no case to answer filed by the accused. The Court held that the prosecution had established a prima facie case in respect of three charges and accordingly ordered the accused to open his defence on those counts.

The accused, Mr. Sarfo-Kantanka, subsequently appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeal and filed an application before the High Court seeking a stay of proceedings pending the appeal. The High Court dismissed the stay application, and the trial continued as directed. Mr. Sarfo-Kantanka testified and was cross-examined by prosecutors from the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP). Judgment was initially scheduled for 28 November 2024.

However, on the scheduled date, Justice Abdul Razak Musah took over the case following the transfer of the trial judge, Justice Priscilla Dikro Ofori. Justice Musah granted an adjournment to allow the accused’s newly constituted legal team time to review the record and file final addresses. On 3 December 2024, the Judicial Service of Ghana confirmed Justice Ofori’s transfer and announced that she had been authorised to deliver outstanding judgments. Justice Ofori subsequently submitted a Case Completion Plan on 29 November 2024 to facilitate the delivery of pending decisions.

Judgment was not delivered untill the 26 May 2025. The High Court acquitted and discharged Mr. Sarfo-Kantanka on all counts. Among the grounds for the decision was the finding that there was no direct evidential link between the admitted viral video footage and other prosecution evidence and the alleged acts of bribery.
Dissatisfied with the judgment, on 24 June 2025, the OSP filed a notice of appeal against the decision. The OSP contends that the judgment is against the weight of the evidence on record and that the trial judge misdirected herself on key issues of law and fact.