Former Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Godfred Yeboah Dame, has vehemently denied allegations of fabricating evidence in the discontinued ambulance case against former Deputy Finance Minister, Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson. Dr. Forson is currently serving as the Finance Minister.
The allegations were brought by Richard Jakpa, the Director of Special Operations at the National Security Secretariat, who was a co-accused in the trial.
Mr. Dame dismissed the claims in a 50-point statement submitted to the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) on Monday, October 6, 2025, describing them as “baseless,” “sour grapes,” and “a desperate ploy to obstruct justice.”
Defense Against Fabrication and Influence
In his statement, Mr. Dame asserted that the elements of the alleged offence were not met, claiming, “none of the ingredients of the offence have been made out in the charge against me.”
He provided a definitive denial of the key accusations saying:
“I did not fabricate any evidence led in that criminal trial. I have not been shown any piece of evidence adduced in the matter, either by the prosecution or the defence, which is alleged to be fabricated by me.”
I “never attempted to influence the testimony of Richard Jakpa, and indeed, he was not influenced at all when giving evidence in the case in question.”
Mr. Dame further elaborated on the legal definition of the offence, arguing that his actions did not align with the crime: “the offence of fabrication of evidence entails causing a circumstance to exist, making a false entry in a book, record, account or forging a document adduced as evidence at the trial, with intent to mislead a judge, juror or public officer acting in a judicial capacity. No act of mine borders on the doing of anything that will constitute fabrication of evidence.”
The Alleged Secret Recording and Case Timeline
Mr. Dame addressed the supposed “evidence” relied upon by Jakpa, which was “a secret recording of a telephone conversation between himself and me on 26 March, 2024.”
He provided what he termed the correction regarding the date of the call: “that telephone conversation actually took place on 9 April, 2024, and not 26th March, 2024, as he alleges. I am unable to respond to an allegation based on an alleged conversation on 26 March 2024 since no conversation took place between us on that day.”
He argued that by the time of the actual conversation, the prosecution’s case was largely settled and advanced: “the prosecution had long filed and made available to the defence, and even gone ahead to tender in evidence all the documents it sought to rely on,” as early as “14th February, 2022.”
The High Court had already ruled that a prima facie case had been established against the accused persons on “30th March, 2023.”
He noted that at that stage, “the first accused, Dr. Ato Forson, had closed his case,” the second accused’s case was discontinued due to ill health, and “the only accused person left was Richard Jakpa, who was in the process of testifying. He opened his defence by himself as he had fired his lawyer, Mr. Aubyn.”
Purpose of the Call
Mr. Dame maintained that the sole purpose of his call to Jakpa was logistical: he “to discuss the possibility of adjourning proceedings for that day since I had to finish up preparations for an international arbitration hearing in London.” He stated that he would produce evidence of this.
He added that during this discussion, Jakpa spontaneously revived his complaints: “In the course of the discussion, he revived his disagreement over the meaning of the contract in question and the implications of using Letters of Credit as payment for the ambulances, which were proven to be not fit for purpose.”
Accusations of ‘Sour Grapes’ and Political Pressure
The former Attorney-General characterized Jakpa’s complaint as “just sour grapes” born out of personal frustration. He stated that Jakpa “felt aggrieved by my refusal to yield to his representations, in those meetings with Justice Kulendi, for me to discontinue his prosecution.”
He claimed Jakpa was “hugely disgruntled and resentful of me following my insistence on proceeding with this prosecution despite the pressure he and the other accused persons brought on me to halt their prosecution.”
He also disclosed that Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson had personally visited his residence in 2023 “to make representations and impress upon me to stop his prosecution. This, I refused to oblige.”
The Role of Justice Kulendi
Mr. Dame acknowledged the role of Supreme Court Justice Yonny Kulendi in their encounters, describing the judge as “a respected senior colleague for many years even before he was appointed to the Supreme Court.”
He insisted that all encounters with Jakpa occurred either in open court or at Justice Kulendi’s residence, emphasizing: “The fact remains that there would have been no ‘Dame–Jakpa’ without Justice Kulendi.”
He defended his visits as a matter of professional respect: “It is inconceivable for a lawyer, more so the Attorney-General, to refuse invitations by a Justice of the Supreme Court to visit or to decline to give him audience when requested.”
Mr. Dame maintained his independence, stating he “did not reasonably think that honouring invitations to his residence would entail any danger or prejudice” and that he “maintained independence of thought on all issues discussed in Justice Kulendi’s house, including matters related to Richard Jakpa’s prosecution.”
High Court Ruling and Res Judicata
Mr. Dame concluded by stating that Jakpa’s allegations were not only false but had already been “judicially considered and pronounced upon by the High Court, Accra.”
He referenced pages 24, 31, and 32 of the High Court ruling delivered on June 6, 2024, by Justice Afia Serwaa Asare-Botwe, quoting the court’s findings:
“After listening to the conversation between A3 and A1, the issue of whether the Attorney-General actually told A3 to implicate A1 is not borne out by the evidence.”
“The declaration that A3 was innocent and going through ordeal … was not made by the Attorney-General, but was made by A3, to which the Attorney-General responded at minute 10:20, ‘I am not asking you to help me.”
“After listening to the recording … there is no actual evidence that the Attorney-General as the prosecutor has behaved in such an egregious manner that the 1st Accused/Applicant’s right to a fair trial is in jeopardy.”
Finally, Mr. Dame questioned the jurisdiction of the CID, opining that it lacks the authority to reinvestigate matters already determined by a court of competent jurisdiction: “The instant complaint seeks to litigate issues already adjudicated upon by the High Court, Accra, in respect of which there is no appeal. The matters in issue have become res judicata.”
