By “My Lady, … I want to make it clear here that the Attorney-General has on several occasions had meetings with me privately at odd hours, both in person and on phone in respect of this case to cooperate or answer questions in a manner that will make his case better against A1 [Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson] and I have refused. I have evidence to that. So if he is accusing here that I am here to defend A1, he has brought hostilities my doorstep… if he continues on this angle, I will open the Pandora’s box and we will all know exactly what transpired.”
This outburst was recorded in court on Thursday, 23rd May 2024 in the ongoing trial involving former Deputy Finance Minister (now Minority Leader in Parliament) and two others accused of causing financial loss to the State over the purchase of 30 ambulances in 2012. The office of Attorney-General, in a statement, categorically denies the claims, and assures that it “remains focused on a zealous prosecution of the case”.
The statement, endorsed by Deputy Attorney-General Alfred Tuah-Yeboah, addresses communications from legal representatives of the accuser, Richard Jakpa, the third defendant in the case, proposing a plea bargain. It asserts that these allegations form “part of a grand scheme by the NDC to put more pressure on him [the AG] to discontinue the prosecution or to divert attention from the real issues regarding the actions of the accused persons which have caused enormous financial loss to the State.”
The accusations, integral to the testimony of the third defendant, are exceptionally grave. In a nation committed to fostering robust systems of integrity, they warrant meticulous scrutiny. Their severity lies in their potential implications for both criminal charges and professional ethics, which could culminate in the permanent revocation of the AG’s law license.
Section 213 of the Criminal and Other Offenses Act, 1960 (ACT 29) defines fabricating evidence to obstruct or pervert justice as a felony. Moreover, Rules 13, 40, and 54 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules 2020 (L.I 2423) explicitly prohibit lawyers from advising or inducing witnesses to provide false testimony. These rules also forbid prosecutors from engaging in such behavior, including communicating with represented individuals without their lawyer’s consent.
The severity of the sanctions for such misconduct underscores the gravity of the offense, particularly if proven against a legal officer under Article 88. The Attorney General not only serves as the primary legal adviser to the Government but also holds the dual role of Minister for Justice, assumes leadership within the legal community, and fulfills pivotal responsibilities on sensitive boards, committees, and international representations on behalf of the country.
I imagine the State, in pursuing this prosecution, aims not only to secure convictions, which serve as a deterrent through jail terms but also to recoup the alleged 2.4 million euros lost (or stolen) in what former Health Minister Kwaku Agyemang Manu characterized as a mere bizarre deal “sprinter buses fitted with kitchen panels” in 2017 while announcing a probe by the EOCO.
Ghanaian taxpayers rightfully expect meaningful outcomes from corruption trials. If Mr. Jakpa is found to be lying under oath, he must face the consequences, including charges for perjury. Perjury, classified as a felony (second degree) under Section 211 of Act 29, carries a potential sentence of up to ten years imprisonment, positioned just before Section 213.
In other jurisdictions, his allegations might trigger a mistrial procedure, offering the possibility of recovering the lost funds. Despite the mishaps in the case, it still holds potential for success based on its merits. Prosecutorial misconduct that undermines the trial’s fairness could lead to a mistrial.
Let those responsible for upholding personal integrity, professional conduct, and, above all, the integrity of the Office of the Attorney General and criminal justice in Ghana, not allow this matter to be overlooked.
However, the demand placed on the judge by some commentators is unwarranted. In the role of a witness, it is not the duty of a judge to request material proof for a witness’s testimony. It falls upon the accused to provide evidence that supports their claim or upon the cross-examining party or the affected party to challenge or refute the adverse testimony. Such demands are made because the standard of proof here is beyond reasonable doubt, and any doubt in the prosecution’s case benefits the accused.
A judge’s involvement arises after the trial, when they review the testimony and evidence to establish facts and deliver a judgment.
We are not a Civil Law jurisdiction where judges actively participate in trials. We adhere to Common Law principles, where judges refrain from entering the fray of conflict.
And that concludes My Perspective.
Samson Lardy ANYENINI
