Abu Trica Alleges Coercion, Torture, Intimidation In Explosive High Court Suit Over Cybercrime Arrest

By Nadia Ntiamoah 

The legal confrontation surrounding Ghanaian socialite Frederick Kumi, popularly known as Abu Trica, has intensified, as fresh court filings reveal disturbing allegations of coercion, intimidation and human rights abuses involving both Ghanaian security agencies and the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

In a motion filed on February 9, 2026, before the Human Rights Division of the High Court in Accra, Abu Trica is seeking GH¢10 million in damages, accusing the FBI and Ghanaian authorities of torture, unlawful detention and degrading treatment following his arrest in December 2025 over alleged cyber fraud offences.

According to the suit, Abu Trica was arrested on December 11, 2025, in a joint security operation linked to investigations into a cross-border cybercrime syndicate accused by U.S. prosecutors of running a multi-million-dollar online romance scam targeting elderly Americans.

The U.S. indictment, unsealed in Ohio, alleges that the syndicate used fake online identities, artificial intelligence tools and emotional manipulation to defraud victims of more than $8 million through fabricated stories involving medical emergencies, travel costs and fraudulent investment schemes.

However, in his High Court action, Abu Trica shifts the focus from the criminal allegations to the methods used in his arrest and interrogation, claiming that the process itself violated the constitutional protections and international human rights standards.

Court documents state that while in custody, Abu Trica was taken into a separate room and interrogated by three individuals identified as FBI agents, together with a local law enforcement officer, without access to legal counsel.

He describes the atmosphere as threatening and oppressive, alleging that the questioning took place under coercive conditions that stripped him of basic legal protections.

He further claims that during the interrogation, he was forced to sign documents whose contents were neither explained to him nor made available for him to read, insisting that his limited literacy made it impossible for him to independently understand what he was being made to sign.

According to the filings, this occurred while he remained in custody and without the presence of a lawyer.

In one of the most serious allegations,

Abu Trica claims he was threatened with being falsely linked to large-scale financial crimes if he refused to cooperate.

He alleges that interrogators warned him he would be charged with involvement in fraudulent transactions allegedly ranging from $1 million to $8 million, regardless of his actual involvement, unless he provided the information they demanded.

He also told the court that he was placed under intense pressure to disclose the password to his mobile phone while in detention, again without legal representation.

This, he argues, amounted to forced self-incrimination and a violation of his right to legal counsel and privacy.

The suit further details the circumstances of his arrest at his residence in Airport Residential Area, Accra, where he claims that more than 15 armed officers stormed his apartment while he was playing video games with friends. He alleges that he was immediately handcuffed and kept restrained from morning until late evening, during which time he was denied food, water and adequate rest, conditions he describes as inhumane and degrading.

Abu Trica also recounts events leading to his first court appearance on December 12, 2025, alleging that his request to contact his lawyer while being transported to court was denied by officers, who reportedly told him that legal representation was unnecessary because it was only his “first appearance” and that the court process was merely to confirm the arrest and search warrant.

The lawsuit names the Minister for the Interior, the Narcotics Control Commission (NACOC), the FBI, the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), and the Attorney-General as respondents, placing both domestic and foreign institutions at the centre of a major constitutional and human rights dispute.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *