The Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Godfred Yeboah Dame has filed an appeal at the Supreme Court praying the Apex Court of the land to set aside a judgement of the Court of Appeal that acquitted and discharged Dr Cassiel Ato Forson (current Minority Leader) and Richard Jakpa (a businessman)
The two were standing trying at the high court for causing financial loss to the State.
The acquittal of the two accused persons by the Court of Appeal followed an appeal filed by lawyers of Cassiel Ato Forson and Richard Jakpa challenging the decision of the trial High Court dismissing their submission of no case application they filed after the State called its case against them.
In their 2:1 majority decision, the Court of Appeal panel presided over by Justice Alex Poku-Acheampong and comprising Justice Bright Mensah and Justice Ackaah-Boafo, per Justice Ackaah-Boafo, held that based on his analysis of the records of appeal (ROA) and “in fidelity to the law, he is of the opinion that the appeals filed by both the 1st and 3rd Appellants should succeed.
“In the result, I would allow the appeals, and the ruling of the trial court dated 30 March 2023, calling on the 1st Appellant to open his defence in respect of the charges in counts 1 and 5, is hereby set aside. Also, the call on the 3rd Appellant to open his defence in respect of the charge in count 3 is set aside.
“In their place, an order upholding the submission of no case entered for the both the 1st and 3rd Appellants in respect of those three counts in the charge sheet are issued. Consequently, both Appellants are hereby acquitted and discharged, the Court of Appeal majority decision read.
The Attorney General following the decision of the Court of Appeal, filed an appeal at the Supreme Court dated Thursday, 8th August 2024. Essentially, the Attorney General is asking for two reliefs from the Supreme Court.
First is “that the decision and consequential order of the Court of Appeal dated 30th July 2024 acquitting and discharging the accused persons be set aside and secondly, that the accused persons be ordered to continue with their defence at the trial High court.
Grounds of appeal
The Attorney General contends that “the majority on the Court of Appeal misdirected itself in the application of the fundamental principles regarding the standard of proof required in determining whether a case has been made for the accused persons to answer.”
The AG’s appeal further states: “The majority decision failed to give due regard to the fact that whether a “prima facie case” has been made by the prosecution is the true standard required in assessing whether the prosecution has made a case for the accused persons to answer.
“The majority decision failed to give due consideration to the case of the prosecution, as required by law, in the determination of whether a case had been made for the accused to answer and additionally, the majority on the Court of Appeal unnecessarily dwelt on possible defences for the accused determining whether a case had been made by prosecution.”
The Attorney General further argued that “the majority on the Court of Appeal’s consideration of possible defences for the accused persons at the close of the prosecution’s case was unfair to prosecution since the prosecution had indeed discredited those possible defences in cross-examination of witnesses called by the accused by the time of the judgment of the Court of Appeal.”
“The majority on the Court of Appeal failed to appreciate the relevant factors in determining whether a prima facie case has been established for the accused persons to answer, viz. whether the evidence given by the prosecution satisfied the ingredients of the offences with which accused are charged, and not possible defences for the accused,” the AG’s criminal appeal read.
“The holding by the majority on the Court of Appeal that the establishment of the letters of credit did not constitute payment under the contract, is contrary to the clear evidence in the case and untenable.
“The majority’s holding that the Ministry of Health’s default caused financial loss to the State (and not the act of the 1st accused in authorizing the establishment of the letters of credit) was laden with fundamental errors and occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice,” the AG’s grounds of appeal further read
