A-G debunks dropping cases for political reasons

The Attorney-General (A-G) and Minister of Justice, Dr Dominic Ayine, has debunked assertions that he terminated certain cases initiated by the previous administration for political expediency.

Dr Ayine said he only terminated the cases after extensive consultations with state attorneys in his office, lawyers involved in the case, after taking cognisance of constitutional provisions regarding his mandate as the A-G, and the factors he ought to consider when exercising his discretionary powers to prosecute.

Addressing the press yesterday, he said his decision to stop prosecuting the seven cases was grounded in law and based on ethical and professional considerations.

For ethical and professional reasons, the A-G said he “could not in good conscience continue to prosecute some of the cases”.

“The second was that, for some of the cases, my own review and analysis of the charges showed clearly that the charges were defective, and some were filed against the promptings of plain common sense,” Dr Ayine said.

“The third reason was that, in some of the cases, the evidence led so far showed that there was reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused persons and no prosecutor should continue to pursue a case in the face of overwhelming doubt regarding the guilt of the accused,” he added.

Termination of cases

The Office of the Attorney-General has so far terminated seven criminal cases initiated by the previous administration since Dr Ayine took office this year.

The cases include the Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT) Operational Business Suites (OBS) project, the Saglemi Affordable Housing Project and the case involving the former Chief Executive of the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD), Dr Stephen Kwabena Opuni, and a businessman, Seidu Agongo, who were accused of causing financial loss to the state in a fertiliser purchase deal.

Others include the prosecution of the 53 Democracy Hub demonstrators, the appeal against the acquittal of Dr Cassiel Ato Forson, the case of Samuel Ofosu Ampofo and Kweku Boahen and the case of a former Second Deputy Governor of the Bank of Ghana, Dr Johnson Pandit Asiama, who was on trial in two separate cases over accusations of being complicit in the collapse of Unibank and UT Bank.

Witch-hunt

Giving specific reasons, the A-G described the prosecution of Dr Forson, Ofosu Ampofo and Kweku Boahen as a clear political witch-hunt.

“I believed then and still believe now that the Honourable Ato Forson was the victim of a political witch-hunt and that he had no case to answer in that trial,” he said.

“That position was vindicated by the erudite judgment of the Court of Appeal which ruled that the trial court erred in calling upon the accused persons to mount their defence,” he added.

With regard to Ofosu Ampofo’s case, he said, the “charges were trumped up and motivated purely by politics.”

Defective charges

On the Saglemi Housing project case, the A-G said his review revealed that the charges levelled against the accused persons were defective.

For instance, he said the charge of causing financial loss against the state slapped on Collins Dauda, a former Minister of Water, Works and Housing “was against common sense”.

“The prosecution in this case also failed and or neglected to take account of payments that were made by other ministers who took office after the Honourable Collins Dauda.

For instance, the Honourable Atta Akyea as Minister of Works and Housing approved a payment to the tune of $5 million in 2017,” he said.

Dr Ayine further indicated that the charges against Dr Asiama were also defective as the prosecution failed to take into consideration that the said financial loss that he allegedly occasioned was recovered.

Based on this fact, he said the prosecution division recommended to the then A-G to drop the charges against Dr Asiama but that recommendation was not implemented.

“Based upon these recommendations, I dropped the charges against Johnson Pandit Asiama in both the Unibank and UT Bank cases.

In coming to this decision, I am fortified by the Rule 40(2)(a) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules, 2020 (L.I. 2423) which provides that, in a criminal case, a prosecutor shall refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by the facts,” Dr Ayine added.

Opuni’s case

In relation to Dr Opuni’s case, Dr Ayine said although the main contention of the prosecution was that Dr Opuni bought substandard fertiliser, not a single farmer was called to attest to that fact.

“More importantly, in the course of the investigation, COCOBOD took statements from two farmers. While one stated that he did not see any significant change on his farm; the second farmer stated that after using Lithovit fertiliser, he saw a significant increase in yield, and that Lithovit fertiliser is a very good fertiliser,” the A-G pointed out.