…As he goes to Supreme Court against Ato Forson’s acquittal
The office of the Attorney General, led by Godfred Yeboah Dame, has gone to the Supreme Court with a notice of appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment that acquitted and discharged Dr Cassiel Ato Forson and Richard Jakpa, in the ambulance case.
Dame is asking the Supreme Court to thus set aside the acquittal and discharge and order, for the accused to continue with their defence.
Interestingly, the courts are on vacation and won’t be back until sometime in October. The appeal, has put the Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo, in a tight corner, concerning which judges at the apex court she is likely to empanel to hear the case.
In the notice of appeal filed yesterday, August 8, 2024, the Attorney General’s office, cited as grounds of appeal that the majority decision misdirected itself in the application of the rule on the standard of proof required in determining whether a case has been made for the accused to answer.
According to this ground of appeal, the prosecution alleges that “the majority of the court of Appeal unnecessarily dwelt on the possible defences for the accused in determining whether a case has been made for the accused to answer.”
Citi newsroom’s Hanson Agyemang writes that for the office of the Attorney General, the consideration of the possible defences at the close of the prosecution’s case was “unfair to prosecution since the prosecution, had indeed discredited the possible defences in cross-examination of witnesses called by the accused at the time of the judgment of the court of appeal.”
The prosecution notes that, the majority decision “failed to appreciate the relevant factors in determining whether a Prima Facie case has been established for the accused persons to answer.”
The notice of the appeal, further states that the majority decision that the letters of credit did not constitute a payment under the contract, is contrary to the evidence in the case and untenable.
The appeal, also states that the finding of the majority decision stating that the Ministry of Health, caused the financial loss is laced with fundamental errors and occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice
The prosecution providing particulars of the errors stated that the majority failed to consider the evidence on record that the Ministry of Health, ordered Big Sea Trading LLC to stop producing the ambulances before the vehicles were shipped.
It also noted that the majority decision “failed to consider the fact that the Ministry of Health never requested the Ministry of Finance to authorize Bank of Ghana to establish the letters of credit which were used to pay for the vehicles.”
The appeal is also anchored on the belief of the prosecution that the majority decision failed to appreciate and correctly apply to the evidence, the essential ingredients of the offences with which the accused were charged.
The appeal also alleges that the holding by the court of appeal that the authorisation for the letters of credit was regular is “fraught with grave errors and occasioned a substantial miscarriage of Justice.”
To the prosecution, the court of appeal failed to appreciate the fundamental point that acting in an official capacity “is no defence to the offence of willfully causing financial loss to the state.”
The office of the Attorney General, further indicated that the majority decision equally failed to appreciate that in criminal law acting under superior orders is no defence available to Dr Forson.
The prosecution also deems as unreasonable the determination by the majority decision that the prosecution ought to have proven that the minister of Finance did not authorize the letters of credit.
For the office of the Attorney General, the judgment is unreasonable having regard to the evidence on record, therefore wants the Supreme Court to set aside the acquittal and discharge and order the accused to continue with their defence.
The Ghana Bar Association (GBA) had expressed shock at the reaction of the Attorney General towards the Appeals Court verdict after the ruling of the controversial ambulance case.
Dame, described the Appeals Court’s judgment as ‘perverse,’ ‘grossly unfair,’ and ‘erroneous.’
The third accused in the ambulance procurement trial, Richard Jakpa and Minority Leader, Cassiel Ato Forson, were weeks ago, acquitted and discharged of the charges of causing financial loss to the State.
The Public Relations Officer of the GBA, indicated that the Justice Minister’s choice of words was unwarranted.
Saviour Kudze asked that “assuming the decisions were made in his favour, would he be using such words?”
According to him, “He [Attorney General] is the leader of the Bar. We shouldn’t expect him to be using such words.”
“You could say you disagree with the verdict of the court and you will take steps. I think that is what everybody does.”
“But an official leader using such words, we take an exception to it,” he added.
Associate professor at the University of Ghana School of Law, Kwadwo Appiagyei Atua, agreed with the GBA spokesperson’s position.
“As the leader of the Bar, he went a little bit too far. The use of words like perverse… I am also of the view that it was unnecessary,” he told
Godfred Yeboah Dame, had served notice he will appeal against the 2:1 majority Court of Appeal decision that quashed the controversial trial (Ambulance Trial) of the Minority Leader, Cassiel Ato Forson, and businessman Richard Jakpa, for allegedly causing financial loss to the State.
Cassiel Ato Forson and Richard Jakpa, who is a representative for Big Sea, were accused of causing a financial loss of €2.37 million to the State in a deal to purchase 200 ambulances for the country between 2014 and 2016.
The Court said the two have no case to answer, and therefore stepped aside an earlier decision of the trial High Court for the case to proceed, for which Richard Jakpa, the 3rd accused, has had to call a number of witnesses.
A statement issued by the Attorney General shortly after the ruling, indicated that his office “considers the decision of the Court of Appeal to be perverse in the quest for public accountability and the rule of law. The decision clearly is heavily against the weight of the cogent evidence led by the prosecution in substantiation of all the charges against the accused persons at the trial.”
The AG, who proceeded to narrate what he said are the ‘relevant facts of the matter’, concluded that “The Office of the Attorney-General considers the decision of the Court of Appeal grossly unfair to the nation and inimical to the fight against impunity and abuse in public office. The Office will promptly file an appeal in order to erase the effect of this erroneous decision of the Court of Appeal.”
