The Attorney-General’s Office (A-G) has filed an appeal with the Supreme Court (SC), challenging the Court of Appeal’s decision to acquit and discharge Dr Cassiel Ato Forson and businessman Richard Jakpa from the ambulance trial.
The AG’s Office wants the SC to reverse that ruling and subsequent order acquitting and releasing the two on July 30, 2024.
The office is also seeking an order compelling Dr Forson, the Minority Leader in Parliament and a former Deputy Finance Minister, and Mr jakpa to continue with their defence at the trial at the High Court.
On July 30, 2024, the Court of Appeal acquitted and discharged Dr Forson and Jakpa of all allegations brought against them by the State during the trial, with a 2:1 majority ruling.
As a result, the Court upheld Dr Forson and Mr Jakpa’s submission of a no case filed at the High Court.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the prosecution failed to produce adequate evidence, that the trial judge erred in ordering Dr Forson and Mr Jakpa to open their defense, and that no facts were positively proven.
In March 2023, the High Court ordered Dr Ato Forson and two others to open their defence after a prima facie case was made against them.
The two were Dr Sylvester Anemana, a former Chief Director at the Ministry of Health, and Mr Richard Jakpa. DrForson, Dr Anemana and Jakpa were charged with causing financial loss to the State.
The State later filed a nolleprosequi to discontinue the charges leveled against DrAnemana, who is currently out of the country for medical treatment.
Dr Forson was granted a self-recognisance bail of GH¢3million for allegedly willfully causing financial loss of 2,370,000 euros to the State.
He is also facing an additional charge of “Intentionally misapplying public property contrary to section 1 (2) of the Public Property Protection Act, 1977 (SMCD140).”
The appeal, filed and signed by Mrs Yvonne Attakora-Obuabasi, the Director of Public Prosecution, argued that the Court of Appeal’s majority decision misapplied the legal standards necessary to determine whether the accused had a case to answer.
The AG’s Office argued that the majority decision failed to consider whether the prosecution had proven a “prima facie case” was the true criteria for determining whether the prosecution had made a case for the accused to answer.
According to the office, the majority decision did not give due consideration to the prosecution’s case, as required by law, when determining whether a case had been made for the accused to respond.
It said the Court of Appeal unnecessarily dwelt on possible defences for the accused in determining whether a case had been made by the prosecution.
“The majority’s consideration of possible defences for the accused persons showed that the accused persons indeed had a case to answer, and the trial court was justified in calling upon the accused to open their defence,” it said.
The AG’s Office said the majority of the Court of Appeal’s consideration of possible defences for the accused at the conclusion of the prosecution’s case was unfair because the prosecution had discredited those potential defences in the cross-examination of witnesses called by the accused by the time the court’s ruling was issued.
The court also failed to consider the relevant factors in determining whether a prima facie case had been established for the accused persons to answer, whether the evidence presented by the prosecution satisfied the elements of the offenses with which the accused were charged, and whether there were any possible defences for the accused. —GNA