By Sammy Gyamfi, National Communications Officer of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), has praised the trial judge for delivering a comprehensive judgment in the ongoing ambulance purchase trial involving Minority Leader Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson and third accused Richard Jakpa.
However, Mr. Gyamafi expressed concerns about certain decisions made by the judge, which he stated the NDC disagrees with.
Speaking on JoyNews’ The Pulse on Thursday, June 6, the NDC Communications Officer stated, “As a student of law, and as a lawyer interested in the development of the law, I am excited, and it is something that we need to encourage.”
“Now as to the certain decisions that the trial judge made, which in our opinion were totally wrong because those decisions are not borne out by the law and the fact that were before her,” he said.
His statement follows the High Court Judge, Justice Afia Serwah Asare-Botwe, advising the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Godfred Yeboah Dame, to recuse himself from the ambulance procurement case due to allegations of professional and prosecutorial misconduct.
Read also: Recuse yourself from ambulance case – Judge advises Attorney General
JoyNews’ Latif Iddrisu reported that Mr. Dame stood up in an attempt to explain himself, but the judge maintained her stance.
This decision follows separate applications filed by the first accused, Dr. Forson, and the third accused, Richard Jakpa.
The applications sought several orders, including an inquiry into the conduct of the Attorney-General, based on Jakpa’s claims that the Attorney-General had been contacting him at odd hours.
However, the judge stated that the demand for an inquiry into the Attorney General’s conduct in the ongoing Ambulance case has no basis.
In light of this, Mr. Gyamfi reiterated that the NDC has several disagreements with the judge regarding some of the decisions made.
Regarding the issues of mistrial, where the judge stated she could not find any legal basis to grant the relief the applicants were seeking, Mr. Gyamfi remarked, “It is one of the things we disagreed with the trial judge on.”
“We think that the court had the jurisdiction and the power to make an order for mistrial or an order for an inquiry into the conduct of the Attorney-General.”
He argued that according to Article 140 of the Constitution, the High Court has jurisdiction over all criminal and civil matters, subject to the provisions of the Constitution.
He stated that when jurisdiction has been conferred on the High Court, unless there is any specific law that expressly excludes the court’s jurisdiction to make orders for mistrial or inquiry, the NDC believes the court has that general jurisdiction.
“You have the jurisdiction in all criminal matters and so in hearing a criminal matter, the court has the responsibility to ensure that these processes are not abused and the rights of the accused persons are respected and the prosecution is done in good faith,” he said.
The NDC Communications Officer added that if matters are brought before the court indicating a breach of prosecutorial misconduct by the Attorney General, those are the matters the court should be interested in, emphasizing that the court is there to ensure justice.
