A court has discharged former National Food and Buffer Stock Company Limited CEO, Hanan Abdul-Wahab Aludiba, and his wife, Faiza Seidu Wuni, after the state withdrew charges against them.

Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai informed the court on Tuesday, May 5, that the prosecution was discontinuing the case against the couple, prompting the court to strike out the charges.

The two had been on trial alongside others over their alleged role in the procurement and supply of foodstuffs under the national school feeding programme and had pleaded not guilty to all counts.

Despite their discharge, the couple was re-arrested shortly afterwards, though details of the new development were not immediately available.

GH¢78 million trial

The case forms part of a broader prosecution involving multiple accused persons and companies, who are alleged to have caused financial loss to the state estimated at GH¢78 million.

At an earlier hearing, Principal State Attorney Esi Dentah Yankah indicated that the prosecution had filed two witness statements on April 24, 2026, but intended to replace them with earlier statements submitted on December 18, 2025.

Procedural dispute in court

Former Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame opposed the move, arguing that the prosecution failed to comply with procedural requirements.

“Clearly, they have not applied for leave and they have not demonstrated why that leave should be granted. They have not indicated the nature of the document they have filed before you,” he argued.

He further stated that “from the process filed it cannot be determined whether it is an amendment to the already filed witness statements or an addition or indeed an entirely new one. This is totally out of order, it is not known to the rules before you.”

Lawyer for Mrs Wuni, Augustines Obour, backed the objection, maintaining that new witness statements could not be introduced after case management had been concluded.

Justice Francis Achibonga upheld the defence’s arguments, striking out the two witness statements for non-compliance with procedural rules.

Row over prosecution team

The court had also been set to rule on an objection to the inclusion of an Assistant Staff Officer from the Economic and Organised Crime Office in the prosecution team.

While the prosecution maintained that such participation was permissible under the Law Officers Act, Mr Dame disagreed, insisting on strict adherence to statutory requirements.

“The mere introduction of a person who is not a staff of the Attorney General of the rank specified in the Law Officers Act of 1974 does not amount to a law,” he argued.

Justice Achibonga subsequently struck out the officer’s name temporarily and directed the Attorney-General’s Department to provide proof of authorisation.

Following the withdrawal of charges, the court did not proceed with rulings on the outstanding issues.