OSP has not withdrawn request for recusal, removal of Justice Edward Twum
By DL News
Published
Updated
2 min read
Earlier today, there were reports on social media to the effect that the Office had withdrawn the petition.
The Office of the Special Prosecutor has insisted that it has not withdrawn its request to the Chief Justice for the removal and recusal of Justice Edward Twum from the Cecilia Dapaah case.
Earlier today, there were reports on social media to the effect that the Office had withdrawn the petition.
However, a post by OSP, notes that all such reports are untrue and thus should be disregarded as such.
The Office of the Special Prosecutor is requesting the recusal and subsequent removal of Justice Edward Twum from all pending cases before him involving the office.
This according to the OSP, is grounded on the founded belief that the High Court Justice appears to be highly prejudiced against the institution and the person of the Special Prosecutor.
The OSP is currently before the court seeking a second confirmation of the seizure of cash belonging to Madam Cecilia Dapaah which it deems to be tainted with corruption.
In the application, the OSP has averred among others that the substantial sums of US$590,000 and GHC2.730,000 discovered by Officers following a search at the residential properties of the suspect are tainted because they are not linked to any lawful sources.
The Office also alleged that Madam Dapaah had registered a company called ‘Dermacare Cosmetics’ and also had an undisclosed and undeclared real estate business in that she used an undisclosed identity to sell the property to others.
However, Madam Cecilia Dapaah has denied the assertion that her husband is covering up for her relative to the ownership and the sources of money that were reportedly stolen from their premises.
Further, she describes as false, the OSP’s assertion that she registered a cosmetic and an undisclosed real estate company that she has concealed and is using to transact businesses.
She subsequently filed a motion motion for an abridgment of time which was upheld by the court yesterday and thus awaiting the court to sit on the OSP’s motion today, October 12, 2023.
However, before this could happen, the OSP has noted per a post that it would not and cannot be reasonably expected to be parties to proceedings before the said judge.”
