Businessman and owner of the defunct gold dealership firm Menzgold, Nana Appiah Mensah, popularly known as NAM1, has strongly criticised the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), accusing the agency of spreading falsehoods in an ongoing विवाद surrounding an alleged fraudulent gold deal.
The controversy stems from a dispute involving Dr. Gabriel Tanko Kwamigah-Atokple, a member of the Council of State representing the Volta Region, whose company, SESI-EDEM, is reportedly under investigation by EOCO over the alleged transaction.
Tensions escalated after EOCO issued a statement defending its decision to proceed with the probe despite opposition from the Volta Regional House of Chiefs. The chiefs had earlier condemned the agency’s actions, describing them as unacceptable and citing a High Court ruling that they claim bars such an investigation.
In its response, EOCO maintained that it was acting within its mandate and asserted that Dr. Kwamigah-Atokple had past links to NAM1, describing him as a former associate and staff member of Menzgold.
However, NAM1 has vehemently rejected these claims. In a strongly worded social media post on Thursday, April 9, he described EOCO’s assertions as “defamatory,” “unsavoury,” and lacking any factual basis.
“Your inferred defamatory and unsavoury assertions about me, alluding that H.E. Gabriel Kwamigah was a Menzgold staff, is not only deficient in facts, it is ridiculous for an intelligence agency, distasteful, morally and legally offensive. Respectfully, cease and desist,” NAM1 stated.
His remarks have added another layer to the already heated exchanges between EOCO and key stakeholders in the matter, raising questions about the accuracy of the agency’s claims and the broader handling of the investigation.
While EOCO insists it will continue with its probe into the alleged fraudulent gold deal, NAM1’s response signals a deepening standoff that could potentially lead to legal challenges or further public scrutiny.
The unfolding dispute underscores growing tensions between state investigative bodies and influential figures, as well as concerns about due process, reputational harm, and the boundaries of public accountability in high-profile financial investigations.
