RULING 
This is an application to defreeze the accounts of the applicant herein, which is opposed by the respondent.  
The applicant’s case, from his Affidavit in Support, is that, from June, 2013, to December, 2015, he was appointed as the Deputy Chief Executive of the National Health Insurance Authority (N.H.I.A.) in charge of finance and investments. He contended that, out of his numerous and extensive work engagements with various institutions, he saved substantial amounts of monies earned in his respective bank accounts. He stated that all acquired funds have been legitimate earnings through his years of hard work in various establishment and capacities. He stressed that throughout his employment with the N.H.I.A., he has conducted his duties with 
2  
diligence, integrity and in a manner expected of a reasonably prudent public servant. He asserted that he has co-operated with the B.N.I. in their investigations.  
The applicant contends that his wife’s account has also been frozen although she is not being investigated. He stated that, due to the freezing of all his bank accounts by the respondent, he and his family have resorted to borrowing and/or relying on charity and generosity of friends; and on some occasions, they have struggled to provide for their basic needs including, but not limited, to food, payment of utilities, school fees, health care, etc.. 
Learned counsel for the applicant emphasized that most of the money in the applicant’s frozen accounts stood in his credit before his employment with N.H.I.A. It was submitted that the continuous freezing of the applicant’s account and that of his wife’s, who is not under any investigation, constitutes a breach of the applicant’s fundamental human rights and freedoms, particularly the economic right and right to property.  
Learned counsel for the respondent, in opposing the application, submitted that the applicant and four others whose accounts were frozen are being investigated by the B.N.I., in respect of their involvement in the reconfiguration of the Oracle Financial Systems that resulted in the loss of the sum of U.S. $3,125,000.00 to the state and attached an international report from the B.N.I. marked as Exhibit F.I.C. 1. He stated that it is appropriate that the accounts remain frozen pending the completion of the investigation by the B.N.I.. He contended that, since investigation is ongoing, it would be pre-mature to defreeze the accounts of the applicant herein.  
I have carefully considered the submissions and authorities cited by both learned counsel in support of their case.  
3  
On the issue of the process used by the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant has explained that they used the originating notice of motion, a new suit, and not the suit under which the applicant’s account was frozen. He stated that it is because the applicant was not notified about that suit or the freezing by the F.I.C., as required by Section 47(3) of Act 749, as amended.  
The applicant’s accounts were frozen and confirmed frozen in January, 2016. The Supreme Court case of Xenon Investment Co. Ltd. (Civil Motion No. J5/46/2015), dated 22nd March, 2016 is to the effect that an account can be frozen by the F.I.C. for a year, where necessary pending investigations.  
It is a fact that all of the applicant’s accounts have been frozen. He contends that his wife’s account has, also, been frozen. He asserts that he has been denied access to all his sources of funds and this has created hardship on him and his family.  
Balancing all the interests at stake, that of the applicant and the state, it is in the interest of justice to grant the applicant access to some of his accounts and funds to enable him sustain himself and his family. I have carefully studied all the accounts frozen. I have considered the amounts therein and the dates the transactions were made in the said accounts. In Account No. 1030000110620, with Fidelity Bank of Ghana, most of the deposits were made by June, 2013, when the applicant was appointed to the N.H.I.A.. 
In the circumstances, I hereby defreeze the said account of the applicant forthwith to enable him have access to one of his accounts and the funds therein. The application to defreeze the applicant’s accounts is granted with respect to only the said account above.  
There is no order as to costs.   
4  
(SGD.) GEORGINA MENSAH-DATSA (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT)  
COUNSEL: 
1. Mr. Yonny Kulendi, with Mr. Samuel Abu Jinapor and Ms. Georgina Arthur, for         the Applicant. 2. Mr. C. A. Chambers for the Respondent.  