The prosecution of former Chief Executive Officer of the National Petroleum Authority (NPA), Dr. Mustapha Abdul-Hamid, and nine other accused persons
The prosecution of former Chief Executive Officer of the National Petroleum Authority (NPA), Dr. Mustapha Abdul-Hamid, and nine other accused persons has entered a delicate phase, as fresh court filings highlight both the scope of the Office of the Special Prosecutor’s (OSP) case and the mounting legal questions surrounding its evidentiary strength.
The OSP has charged the suspects over an alleged corrupt scheme involving about GH¢280 million.This is said to have happened between 2022 and 2024.
On January 12, 2026, the OSP formally filed a Notice of Disclosures at the High Court (Criminal Division in Case No. CR/0030/2026, outlining the documents and witnesses the Republic intends to rely on in prosecuting the accused persons over alleged offenses including extortion and abuse of public office.
The Case And The Accused
The Republic is prosecuting Dr. Mustapha Abdul-Hamid, together with Jacob Kwamina Amuah, Wendy Newman, Albert Ankrah, Isaac Mensah, Bright Bediako-Mensah, Kwaku Aboagye Acquaah, and three corporate entities—Propnest Limited, KEL Logistics Limited, and Kings Energy Limited.
The charges stem from investigations into the administration of the Unified Petroleum Price Fund (UPPF) during Dr. Abdul-Hamid’s tenure at the NPA, following a petition submitted to the OSP in early 2025.
Disclosures Filed
According to court records, the OSP’s disclosures include a wide range of documentary and testimonial evidence.
These comprise: A witness statement by Robert Mensah Tengey, a petition dated February 4, 2025, submitted by Benjamin Agyapong, Dr. Abdul-Hamid’s appointment letter dated June 18, 2021, and his schedule of remuneration.
Official correspondence transmitting records relating to Dr. Abdul-Hamid and Jacob Kwamina Amuah
Dr. Abdul-Hamid’s Income and Property Declaration Form. Several cautioned and charge statements from all accused persons, recorded between February and May 2025.
An audio recording of Dr. Abdul-Hamid’s interview, stored on a pen drive and tendered as an exhibit
The prosecution says these materials form the backbone of its case as it prepares for full trial.
Proposed Witnesses And Subpoenas
Significantly, the OSP has also listed over a dozen industry players it intends to subpoena as prosecution witnesses. These include chief executive officers and senior managers of oil marketing and logistics companies such as GB Oil, Annandale Logistics, Star Oil, Mobik Energy, Rik Energy, First Gas Company, Band Energy, and others operating within the downstream petroleum sector.
According to the OSP, these individuals are central to establishing the alleged extortion scheme said to have occurred within the regulatory space of the NPA.
Controversy Over ‘Victim’ Testimony
However, the prosecution’s strategy has become the subject of intense debate.
Legal sources indicate that many of the individuals described by the OSP as victims of alleged extortion have not independently reported any wrongdoing and have so far declined to voluntarily testify that they were extorted by Dr. Abdul-Hamid or the other accused persons.
Indeed, persons familiar with the investigation say several of these industry figures have already appeared before the OSP during the investigative stage and denied being extorted, with some stating they had never met Dr. Abdul-Hamid nor received any demand from him.
It is this development that has fueled controversy, as the OSP is now seeking to rely on court-issued subpoenas to compel their testimony.
Legal And Public Reactions
The unfolding situation has drawn sharp reactions from sections of the legal community. Some lawyers argue that compelling alleged victims to testify, after they have denied wrongdoing during investigations, may weaken the prosecution’s narrative and expose the case to procedural challenges.
Others caution that the court will ultimately determine the relevance and weight of the evidence, stressing that subpoenas are a lawful tool available to prosecutors, even though their use in such circumstances is unusual.
Background
Dr. Abdul-Hamid and his co-accused were first interrogated and granted bail by the OSP in February 2025. They were later arraigned before the High Court and granted bail again, with the court noting that all accused persons had complied with their bail conditions.
The case has since seen amended charge sheets, transfers between courts, and multiple pre-trial applications, making it one of the most closely watched corruption-related prosecutions in recent years.
COMMENTS