…As he explains why high-profile political cases were dropped
The Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Dr Dominic Ayine, has offered an extensive explanation for his decisions to drop several high-profile political cases, many of which involve individuals linked to the previous National Democratic Congress (NDC) administration.
The cases were initiated by his predecessors, Gloria Akuffo and Godfred Yeboah Dame, but it was the latter, who held them as World Cup trophies, which he defended after the former was booted out of government.
This occurred, amid the banning of Judge Justice Clemence Jackson Honyenuga, over his biased comments and the unconventional expunging of defence evidence, Dame’s judge-shopping conduct, his witness-coaching, the transfer of a judge who sought to rehear the Opuni-Agongo case, and political commentary, including from then-President Nana Akufo-Addo.
Speaking at a press conference, Dr Ayine said that, these decisions were based on ethical, legal, and practical considerations, asserting his commitment to fairness and transparency.
The A-G, highlighted the delicate nature of the prosecutorial authority vested in his office under the Constitution, which, he explained, grants him discretionary power subject to constitutional safeguards.
He stressed, “The decision to prosecute or discontinue prosecutions is a matter of immense public interest… and it affects the rights of the accused. It is for these reasons that I have chosen to explain my decisions candidly to the people of Ghana.”
The A-G mentioned the constitutional framework guiding his actions, particularly the requirement for impartiality and fairness in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.
He explained that, prior to making his decisions, he consulted widely, meeting with prosecutors, defence lawyers, investigators, and even receivers in the banking cases. “I was so mindful of the fact that I was serving in a government that came to power on the back of promises of exacting accountability from everyone who has served or is serving in public office,” he noted.
The Attorney General, outlined three main reasons for his decisions and disclosed his prior involvement as counsel in two significant cases—the Republic v. Cassiel Ato Forson & Another and the Republic v. Ofosu Ampofo & Another—which led him to drop charges in those matters.
“I was deeply involved as counsel in these two cases, and for ethical reasons, I could not in good conscience continue to prosecute,” he explained.
He described these cases as politically motivated and maintained that no new evidence had emerged to justify a reversal of his professional stance. “A prosecutor must have the courage of his convictions and remain fearless in standing by them, even in the face of public criticism,” he asserted.
The A-G also raised concerns about the validity of certain charges, particularly in the case of the Republic v. Collins Dauda & Others.
He pointed out that the prosecution had failed to account for critical facts, including the value of constructed properties in the Saglemi housing project. “The charges were filed against the promptings of plain commonsense,” he said. He emphasized that criminal law requires charges to be precise and fair, a standard that was not met in several of the cases under review.
The A-G justified his decision to drop charges in cases where evidence presented no reasonable prospect of conviction.
In the Republic v. Stephen Opuni & Another, the A-G found that evidence regarding the controversial Lithovit fertilizer was flawed and insufficient to sustain the charges. “Where evidence falls short, it is unethical and imprudent to continue pursuing a case,” he stated.
Beyond the specifics of the cases, the A-G also raised concerns about the conduct of some judges involved in the proceedings.
He criticized what he described as instances of judicial bias, which he argued undermined the fairness of the trials.
He pointed to the handling of the Opuni case, where he noted that a judge had “expunged exculpatory evidence” and expressed dissatisfaction with a judge’s transfer, which he saw as an attempt to influence the trial’s outcome.
The A-G also expressed concern about the executive’s potential role in influencing judicial decisions. “The promotion of some judges involved in these cases raises serious ethical concerns,” he remarked, though he stopped short of accusing any individual judge of impropriety.
Throughout his address, the Attorney General sought to dispel any notions that his decisions were politically motivated.
“The President has not directed me to drop any case,” he stated emphatically, adding that his decisions were based solely on legal and ethical grounds.
He also defended his stance against those who might seek to brand him as a political pawn, declaring, “I take absolute responsibility for all decisions taken so far.”
The A-G reiterated that his decisions were not made lightly, acknowledging the public’s interest in ensuring accountability in governance.
However, he argued that the pursuit of justice must be based on integrity, the rule of law, and the principles of fairness. “I am here today to account to my fellow citizens for the decisions I have taken so far.”
