Knightscild Chambers, Lawyers for Sesi-Edem Company Limited (the “Company”), issues this
statement to correct material inaccuracies contained in recent publications by GhanaWeb (dated 25
April 2026) asserting that the Economic and Organised Crime Office (“EOCO”) is “free to investigate”
the Company and its directors on the basis that the Injunction issued on 14 April 2026 has expired. That
assertion is wrong as a matter of law and fact.
The Injunction Remains in Force
On 14 April 2026, the High Court granted an interim injunction restraining EOCO, its officers, and all
persons acting on its behalf from, inter alia, maintaining or publishing any “wanted” declaration in
respect of the Company’s directors, and from taking steps to invite, arrest, detain, charge, or otherwise
interfere with their liberty in connection with the underlying transaction. Prior to the expiry of the initial
ten-day period, the Company duly filed and served an application for an interlocutory injunction on
notice on 17 April 2026. Under Order 25 rule 10 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I.
47), where such an application is made, the interim injunction continues in force pending the
determination of that application. The injunction accordingly remains in force by operation of law
until the interlocutory application is determined.
EOCO’s Affidavit in Opposition
We note that EOCO has since filed its affidavit in response on 21 April 2026. In that affidavit, made on
oath, EOCO now contends before the Court that it never declared the Company and its directors
“wanted”, and that its press releases were issued merely for purposes of media engagement.
That position is, to put it mildly, remarkable. In any properly regulated public institution, an admission
of this nature, made on oath before a court of competent jurisdiction, would ordinarily warrant immediate
and thorough disciplinary review of all officers involved in authorising or publishing the impugned
statements.
EOCO was at all material times aware that the Company and its directors were not fugitives from justice,
and that there was no pending court process or outstanding invitation that could justify the manner in
1
which those publications were made. Such conduct cannot properly be dismissed as media
engagement. The timing and circumstances of the publications speak for themselves: they followed
adverse court findings and intense media coverage of EOCO’s loss. It represents a serious misuse of
institutional authority and a naked abuse of power. The Company has commenced appropriate
proceedings to vindicate its rights and will pursue all necessary steps to ensure accountability, but will
refrain from further public comment pending the determination of those processes.
Prior Court Ruling that EOCO Exceeded Its Mandate
Quite apart from the interim injunction, the High Court, Adenta (Court 1), in a ruling delivered on 19
March 2026, held that EOCO had acted outside its statutory mandate and in breach of the Company’s
constitutional right to administrative justice. This decision remains in force. On 23 April 2026, the judge
of the High Court, Adenta (Court 3), who granted the interim injunction in response to the “wanted”
declaration, took the view that the interlocutory injunction would best be placed before the judge of High
Court, Adenta (Court 1), who had already ruled on 19 March 2026 that EOCO’s purported investigation
fell outside its statutory mandate, in order to ensure consistency. He accordingly adjourned the matter,
pending a direction from the Chief Justice as to whether the matter should proceed before Court 1 or
Court 3.
EOCO’s Management Has Been Directed to Comply
We note that the Board of EOCO has found it necessary to formally intervene in this matter. By
correspondence dated 22 April 2026, signed by its Board Secretary, Sedina Gbeve, Esq., the Board
communicated to this firm that it has directed the Management of EOCO to strictly comply with the
injunction for as long as it remains in force. The Board’s intervention in this regard is noted. EOCO’s
Management is not at liberty to act inconsistently with either the Board’s directive or the terms of the
Court’s order.
Demand for Correction
In these circumstances, continued publication or repetition of statements suggesting that EOCO is “free
to investigate” notwithstanding the subsisting injunction is liable to mislead the public, to undermine the
authority of the Court, and may amount to contempt of court. We call upon GhanaWeb and any other
media outlet that has published the inaccurate reports to issue an immediate correction and retraction.
The Company reserves all its rights.
ENDS
Issued by:
Knightscild Chambers
Lawyers for Sesi-Edem Company Limited
