Speaking to journalists after proceedings at the court on Tuesday, Mr Amissah, who represents the second accused person, questioned the logic behind criminalising online romantic interactions that involve the exchange of gifts or money.
According to the lawyer, engaging in romantic conversations online and receiving financial support from admirers does not automatically amount to fraud.
He argued that such arrangements are common in modern relationships, particularly those initiated on digital platforms.
“There is nothing illegal about expressing affection online and receiving money or gifts from someone who willingly offers it,” Mr Amissah stated.
“There is nothing illegal about expressing affection online and receiving money or gifts from someone who willingly offers it,” Mr Amissah stated.
“This is the nature of many online relationships today.”
He stressed that if such conduct were to be treated as a criminal offence, then many others engaging in similar behaviour should equally be investigated and prosecuted.
“If the State believes this is a crime, then it should be consistent,” he added.
He stressed that if such conduct were to be treated as a criminal offence, then many others engaging in similar behaviour should equally be investigated and prosecuted.
“If the State believes this is a crime, then it should be consistent,” he added.
“There are individuals who solicit money from men under romantic pretences every day. If that is the standard, then all of them should be arrested as well.”
Beyond the bail issue, Mr Amissah also expressed strong concerns about Ghana’s extradition framework, describing it as vulnerable to potential abuse by foreign governments.
He questioned why Ghana should readily comply with extradition requests from the United States, warning that such powers could be misused in the future.
“One day, they may even come for our president if these laws remain unchanged,” he cautioned.
Beyond the bail issue, Mr Amissah also expressed strong concerns about Ghana’s extradition framework, describing it as vulnerable to potential abuse by foreign governments.
He questioned why Ghana should readily comply with extradition requests from the United States, warning that such powers could be misused in the future.
“One day, they may even come for our president if these laws remain unchanged,” he cautioned.
“We cannot continue to allow our citizens to be sent abroad without carefully protecting our sovereignty.”
His comments followed the court’s decision to adjourn proceedings in the ongoing extradition case involving Abu Trica, who is alleged to be part of a romance scam network sought by U.S. authorities.
During the hearing, the prosecution made a significant disclosure, admitting that it had no evidence against two of the accused persons—Lord Eshun and Bernard Aidoo—despite the court’s refusal to formally discharge them.
The two men were initially charged as accessories under an extradition charge sheet filed on December 12, 2025.
His comments followed the court’s decision to adjourn proceedings in the ongoing extradition case involving Abu Trica, who is alleged to be part of a romance scam network sought by U.S. authorities.
During the hearing, the prosecution made a significant disclosure, admitting that it had no evidence against two of the accused persons—Lord Eshun and Bernard Aidoo—despite the court’s refusal to formally discharge them.
The two men were initially charged as accessories under an extradition charge sheet filed on December 12, 2025.
However, State prosecutors informed the court that investigations had concluded and there was no justification to continue proceedings against them.
Counsel for the Attorney-General’s Department, Derick Ackah Nyameke, explained that the two individuals had been arraigned under Section 6 of the Extradition Act, 1960 (Act 22), as part of preliminary committal processes pending the arrival of formal diplomatic extradition requests.
He told the court that the Republic required additional time to regularise procedural issues surrounding the extradition request, stating that authorities needed to “put their house in order.”
The court has since adjourned the matter, with all accused persons remaining in custody as the legal process continues.
Counsel for the Attorney-General’s Department, Derick Ackah Nyameke, explained that the two individuals had been arraigned under Section 6 of the Extradition Act, 1960 (Act 22), as part of preliminary committal processes pending the arrival of formal diplomatic extradition requests.
He told the court that the Republic required additional time to regularise procedural issues surrounding the extradition request, stating that authorities needed to “put their house in order.”
The court has since adjourned the matter, with all accused persons remaining in custody as the legal process continues.