Fact Pattern
In late August 2026, the Accra High Court set the next hearing of former National Food and Buffer Stock Company chief executive Hanan Abdul‑Waahab Aludiba and his wife, Faiza Seidu Wuni, for 29‑30 September. The defence had asked for a stay until 19 October, citing an unresolved application to the Court of Appeal and medical reports that their lawyers had been excused from work.
The Core Legal Question
Does the mere filing of an application for a stay of proceedings automatically pause a trial, or must the trial court independently decide whether to suspend the trial?
Governing Principles
The High Court’s ruling relied on the procedural rules governing criminal trials in Ghana. The court clarified that an application to stay is a request to a superior court, not a directive to the trial judge. The trial judge is still bound to schedule hearings unless the stay order is granted by the appellate court. The court also noted that medical reports are admissible for a limited adjournment but do not constitute evidence that a prolonged pause is warranted.
Analysis of the Court’s Reasoning
The judge rejected the defence’s expectation that the pending appellate application would automatically extend the trial’s suspension. By distinguishing the application from the stay, the court upheld the principle that trial courts retain control over their own docket unless a higher court explicitly orders otherwise. This preserves the trial court’s authority to balance the interests of justice, the accused, and the state.
Counterargument
The defence might argue that the pending appellate application, coupled with counsel’s ill health, effectively creates a “de facto” stay. They could cite precedents where trial courts have postponed proceedings pending appellate review. However, the court found no such precedent in the Ghanaian context and emphasised that the rules do not automatically trigger a stay.
Practical Implications
The decision signals that trial courts can grant short adjournments to accommodate counsel’s health without surrendering procedural control to appellate courts. It also underscores the importance of timely filing of stay orders. For defendants, it means that pending appeals do not guarantee an extended pause unless the appellate court explicitly orders it.
Reform Suggestion
To reduce ambiguity, the Criminal Procedure Code could be amended to explicitly state that a stay application remains an application until a stay order is granted. A separate procedural rule could require trial courts to inform counsel of their right to seek a stay, ensuring clarity from the outset.
Conclusion
The High Court’s narrow adjournment in the NAFCO case illustrates the delicate balance between allowing counsel time to recover and preserving the trial’s momentum. By maintaining that an application to stay does not equate to an automatic suspension, the court reinforced the trial court’s autonomy while still accommodating legitimate health concerns. Future reforms could codify these distinctions, reducing procedural uncertainty and safeguarding the efficient administration of justice.
Authorities and sources
Accra High Court judgment, 26 August 2026 Graphic Online, “Hanan trial: Court adjourns case to September 29” (26 August 2026)