This case revolves around a contractual dispute involving a businessman, Kofi Amankwaa, who hired a musician and two event planners to secure the performance of dancehall artist Stonebwoy at an event held at Amankwaa’s Amist Classic Hotel. The accused individuals, Ebenezer Chaka (aka Tsaqa), Daniel Frimpong, and Richmond Eshun, stand charged with conspiracy to defraud by false pretences and a substantive charge of defrauding by false pretence. The core of the accusation is that the trio accepted a total of GH¢70,000 from Amankwaa, promising to deliver Stonebwoy’s performance, but ultimately failed to do so, leaving Amankwaa without the headline act for his event.
The timeline of events began in November 2024, when Amankwaa approached an acquaintance, whose identity remains undisclosed in the available information but who serves as a witness in the case, seeking assistance in booking Stonebwoy. This witness subsequently connected Amankwaa with Tsaqa, the musician, who then introduced Frimpong and Eshun as event planners capable of facilitating the arrangement. Following these introductions, the accused parties quoted a fee of GH¢70,000 for Stonebwoy’s appearance. Amankwaa initially paid GH¢50,000, and later disbursed the remaining GH¢20,000 upon the accused’s request.
Despite receiving the full agreed-upon payment, the accused individuals failed to produce Stonebwoy on the day of the event. This breach of contract prompted Amankwaa to file a formal complaint with the police on December 14, 2024. The police investigation led to the arrest of Tsaqa, Frimpong, and Eshun. The three accused have pleaded not guilty to the charges brought against them, maintaining their innocence in the face of the allegations.
The Dansoman Circuit Court, presided over by Her Honour Halima El-Alawa Abdul-Baasit, has granted bail to each of the accused. The bail conditions stipulate a sum of GH¢80,000 per individual, secured by three sureties. Crucially, these sureties must be public servants residing within the court’s jurisdiction and earning a minimum of GH¢5,000. Additionally, the accused are required to deposit their Ghana Cards with the Court Registry and report to the police station bi-weekly pending further instructions from the court.
The prosecution’s case hinges on demonstrating that the accused conspired to deceive Amankwaa and fraudulently obtained his money under the false pretence of securing Stonebwoy’s performance. The defense, on the other hand, will likely argue that the failure to deliver Stonebwoy was not a result of intentional deception but rather unforeseen circumstances or a breach of contract by a third party, potentially Stonebwoy himself or his management.
The details surrounding the communication and agreements between the accused and Stonebwoy or his representatives remain unclear based on the available information. This information will likely be crucial in determining the outcome of the case. If evidence emerges suggesting that the accused never had a confirmed agreement with Stonebwoy or misrepresented their ability to secure his performance, it would strengthen the prosecution’s case. Conversely, if the defense can demonstrate that they made reasonable efforts to fulfill their contractual obligations and that the failure to produce Stonebwoy was due to factors beyond their control, they may have a stronger defense. The role of the witness who initially connected Amankwaa with Tsaqa will also likely be important in understanding the sequence of events and the representations made to Amankwaa. The witness’s testimony could shed light on whether the accused intentionally misled Amankwaa from the outset or if they genuinely believed they could secure Stonebwoy’s performance.
The legal proceedings will likely involve the presentation of evidence, including financial records, communication logs, and witness testimonies, to establish the facts of the case. The court will then evaluate the evidence and determine whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused are guilty of the charges against them. The stringent bail conditions, requiring public servant sureties earning a substantial income, suggest the court views the charges as serious and is taking measures to ensure the accused persons’ compliance with the legal process. The ongoing bi-weekly reporting requirement further reinforces this perspective. The outcome of this case will not only impact the individuals involved but could also have broader implications for the entertainment industry in Ghana, potentially influencing how contracts are structured and enforced in similar situations.
