Godfred Yeboah Dame
Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Godfred Yeboah Dame, has indicated that traps have been set for him in the ongoing €2.37 million ‘defective’ ambulances case, but he will flee from them and “righteousness will always prevail over evil”.
Addressing the press after proceedings in the case yesterday, Mr. Dame stated that the Lord does not delight in the pleasure of the wicked, and was confident he will escape any trap set for him.
“They are always resorting to these tricks and of course we’ve replied, as you know. All I can say is that the Lord does not delight in the pleasure of the wicked and that even though they’ve laid traps for me, I will flee from them. And righteousness will always prevail over evil,” the Attorney General indicated.
Dr. Ato Forson and Richard Jakpa, are standing trial for willfully causing financial loss of €2.37 million to the state, through a contract to purchase 200 ambulances for the Ministry of Health, among other charges.
The trial judge yesterday adjourned the case to June 6, 2024, to deliver her rulings on four separate applications filed before the court, essentially seeking an order to discontinue the trial of the two.
The Member of Parliament (MP) for Ajumako-Enyan-Esiam’s lawyers have filed an application asking the court for order of injunction against the Attorney General or his office from further prosecuting their client.
He is also seeking a mistrial which will essentially terminate the case and also a stay of proceedings pending an appeal.
Jakpa, on the other hand, is asking the court to strike out the charges against him on ground that it violates his right to fair trial.
The MP’s lawyers have filed an affidavit in support of the application filed by Jakpa, asking for the charge of causing financial loss to the state levelled against him to be struck out.
The applications are grounded on claims by Jakpa that the Attorney General has met with him and impressed on him to incriminate Ato Forson in order to secure his (MP’s) conviction.
The Attorney General has opposed the applications, describing them as frivolous and that “the accused persons are bent on using any means necessary, fair, or foul, to abort their legitimate prosecution for crimes committed against the Republic, and must not be aided in that illegitimate endeavour through a grant of the instant application.”
The affidavit in opposition avers that it is in the public interest that the case be brought to a firm conclusion based on the credible evidence before the court.
Justice Afia Serwah Asare-Botwe, a Justice of the Court of Appeal sitting as an additional High Court judge, said the documents filed by the lawyers are extensive enough for the court to consider them and deliver a ruling.
The court will also be analysing an audio tape attached by Richard Jakpa to his application, with emphasis on its endorsement and admissibility.
The judge’s ruling will also touch on an objection raised by Thaddeus Sory, counsel for Jakpa, against the Attorney General’s affidavit in opposition to the businessman’s application.
Mr. Sory, in his objection, argued that the affidavit in opposition fails to disclose the source of the information in respect of the matters contained in it, specifically matters relating to his client’s direct conversation with the Attorney General.
He said it contains matters which are not in his personal knowledge and are therefore inadmissible.
“Being a Principal State Attorney at the Office of the Attorney General does not mean you have personal knowledge of direct interactions that took place between the third accused and the Attorney General. He refers to matters that took place in chambers and he wasn’t there,” the lawyer argued.
The objection was opposed by the Attorney General, who argued that it is unfounded and without merit.
He said it is not accurate at all for opposing counsel to say that the deponent to the affidavit did not disclose the source of his information.
He referred to paragraph one of the affidavit, where the Principal State Attorney states that he “has the authority of the Attorney General to depose to the affidavit, the facts of which have come to my knowledge in the course of my work.”
Mr. Dame further argued that the authorities relied on by his opponent, especially C.I. 47, are not applicable to proceedings before the court.
He added that the matters of fact raised in certain paragraphs should have been addressed by way of a supplementary affidavit and not through an objection, adding that “the notice of objection is totally offensive to the proceedings before you and ought not to be entertained.”
BY Gibril Abdul Razak