The twists and turns of the $800,000 stolen from Cecilia Dapaah’s home
Does the stolen $800,000 belong to her or her Late brother?
Since news of the theft in the residence of Ms Cecilia Dapaah broke, so much has happened. The then Minister of Sanitation and Water Resources has resigned from her ministerial position and she has disputed the figures as listed on the amended charge sheet presented when the suspects in the case appeared in court.
On the charge sheet, which was amended, the police said an amount of $1 million belonging to Mad Dapaah was stolen, including some €300,000 and items running into several hundred thousand cedis.
The Attorney-General in a dramatic fashion uncommon with that office in criminal cases, called for the docket and reviewed it. In the Attorney-General’s review, the stolen amount in US dollars came down to $800,000, but the ownership changed to that of the Late brother of Ms Dapaah.
The Attorney-General’s review contained the following: “Cecilia Abena Dapaah returned to Accra on 10th October 2022 to find that their bedroom had been ransacked. In a statement to the police on 4 July 2023, she stated that it took her a couple of days to arrange the things in the room and find out the items which had been lost. After going through her things she found a number of personal items including those of her deceased brother missing.
The personal items included a collection of jewellery she had kept for about 35 years totaling $95,000, various types of Kente cloth, Hollandaise and GTP cloths with a total value of about GH¢56,000, dresses valued at about GH¢20,000, various types of handbags, totaling $35,500 and different types of perfumes valued at $1400.
She also found that they had lost a bag containing about $200,000, another bag containing €300,000, an amount of GH¢300,000 contribution for her mother’s funeral, GH¢50,000 for the house and a box containing about $800,000 belonging to her deceased brother which was sent to her together with some regalia for safe keeping, following the death of her brother. She did not indicate who the $200,000 and the €300,000 belonged to.”
The Attorney-General’s review further stated: “Henry Osei Kwabena, brother of Cecilia Abena Dapaah, also gave a statement to the police on 4 July 2023. He told the police that his younger brother Nana Akwasi Essan II, Numuahene to Otumfuo Osei Tutu II died in January 2022. His office was opened after his demise and a box containing $800,000 was retrieved from the office. His mother asked him to send the box of money to his sister Abena Dapaah for safe keeping. According to him, his mother added some gold regalia belonging to his late brother to the money and he brought the money and regalia to his sister in Accra for safe keeping. He was informed by his sister in October 2022 that the money and regalia together with a number of items had been stolen from her home.”
Soon after the Attorney-General’s review of the docket became public, the widow of Ms Dapaah’s Late brother, Irene Cansah then took action to claim the $800,000 said to belong to her Late husband by the Attorney-General.
However, yesterday, when the accused persons were presented in court, the ‘Further Amended’ charge sheet in court specifically said: “Patience Botchwey (Hairdresser) Sarah Agyeli (unemployed), sometime in the year 2022 at Abelemkpe in the Greater Accra Region and within the jurisdiction of this court, did dishonestly appropriate cash the sum of Eight Hundred Thousand United States Dollars ($800,000 USD) the property of Cecilia Abena Dapaah.”
Some individuals have also argued that the money doesn’t belong to Ms Dapaah when the story broke. But now that she has claimed the missing $800,000, as her property, it is to be seen, what these individuals would say.
Does the money belong to Ms Dapaah or her Late brother?
Meanwhile, the Office of the Special Prosecutor has initiated investigation of corruption and corruption related issues in the matter.
By Emmanuel K Dogbevi
Copyright ©2023 by NewsBridge Africa
All rights reserved. This article or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in reviews.