The Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) has returned to the High Court with a fresh motion requesting tighter bail conditions for former Managing Director of the Bulk Oil Storage and Transportation Company (BOST), Edwin Provencal. This comes just days after his legal team succeeded in reducing his bail from GH¢60 million to GH¢30 million with two sureties.
Provencal was apprehended on Monday, November 10, at Kotoka International Airport while preparing to board a flight to Mozambique. He is currently being investigated for allegedly causing financial loss to the state.
Initially, EOCO granted him an administrative bail of GH¢60 million. However, his lawyers petitioned the High Court for a variation, which resulted in the bail being lowered to GH¢30 million with two sureties.
EOCO has now petitioned the court to amend its ruling by adding two critical conditions: justification of the sureties and a mandatory reporting schedule for the accused throughout the investigation period.
In an affidavit filed by Joseph Normesinu, an Assistant Staff Officer at EOCO, the agency argued that the current bail arrangement poses “a high risk of non-enforceability” should Provencal abscond. EOCO stressed that because the bail was “not justified,” the State may lack property or financial assets to rely on during forfeiture proceedings.
The affidavit further explained: “The sureties are not to provide any property on which the Republic will fall in execution of the bail sum if the Applicant/Respondent jumps bail and the sureties cannot produce him.”
EOCO maintained that justification is a standard safeguard designed to ensure that sureties have the financial capacity to cover the bail amount in case of default. The motion emphasized that “a surety is a financial guarantor who must possess the means and capacity to pay the bail sum,” warning that without verification of the sureties’ financial standing, the Republic remains vulnerable.
Additionally, EOCO pointed out that the Court’s ruling did not stipulate any reporting requirements, which it considers essential in cases where investigations are ongoing.
Consequently, the Office is urging the High Court to revise its November 18 order to incorporate these extra conditions “so that this bail may not avail to nothing during forfeiture.”
Leave a Reply