Speaking on JoyNews’ The Pulse on Monday, September 15, in reaction to Dr. Ayine’s address at the GBA’s Annual Conference in Wa, Mr. Tuah-Yeboah argued that the Attorney-General’s remarks amounted to attacking his own leadership.

“I must first and foremost point out that the Attorney-General is the leader of the Bar, as he always puts it. And so, if the first gentleman leading the Bar now says the Association lost its voice, then he is essentially criticising himself,” he said.

He maintained that if Dr. Ayine believed the Bar had been silent in the past, he should have acted to correct the situation rather than publicly rebuking the association.

Mr. Tuah-Yeboah recalled instances where the GBA remained silent on constitutional matters under both NDC and NPP administrations, citing the removal of the CHRAJ Commissioner in 2014 and the removal of the Electoral Commission Chairperson in 2017.

Even so, he cautioned against repeating past mistakes: “The fact that something was done yesterday and you think it wasn’t proper should not mean it should be repeated.”

The former Deputy A-G further argued that Dr. Ayine should have commended the GBA for standing up for the judiciary, noting that under Commonwealth practice, Bar Associations serve as defenders of the judiciary, which cannot publicly respond when under attack.

He also dismissed Dr. Ayine’s comparison between the Electoral Commission and the Chief Justice, stressing that the two institutions are fundamentally different.

“The Chief Justice is the head of an arm of government. The Electoral Commission, though independent, technically operates under the executive. So, the two cannot be equated,” he said.

Source: Emma Ankrah

ALSO READ:

• GBA President deflects ‘selectivity’ criticism on advocacy role

• AG warns against foreign intrusion in Ghana’s judicial affairs amid Torkornoo removal

Speaking at the GBA’s Annual Conference in Wa on Monday, September 15, Dr Ayine stressed that lawyers must remain vigilant in safeguarding democracy, even when threats to constitutional order emerge from within the profession itself.

“We must reclaim our role as guardians of democracy. The voices of lawyers must not fall silent when constitutionalism is under threat, whether from the executive, the legislature, political parties, or even from within us,” he told the gathering of legal practitioners.

He emphasised the need to restore public confidence in the justice system by upholding integrity among lawyers.

“A few errant lawyers can tarnish the entire Bar. The Ghana Bar Association must be vigilant in holding us to the highest standards of integrity,” he said.

On access to justice, Dr Ayine noted that legal aid should not be a “token gesture” but a genuine lifeline for the poor. He reaffirmed government’s commitment to resourcing the Legal Aid Commission while urging the Bar to embrace pro bono services as part of its civic duty.

He further called for the modernisation of the justice system through e-filing, case management reforms, and digital court records, describing them as necessities rather than luxuries for a 21st-century judiciary.

Source: Emma Ankrah

ALSO READ:

• Depoliticise business for national growth – Ayine

• A Plus apologises to Dr. Ayine over inappropriate choice of words

Speaking at the Ghana Bar Association’s Annual Conference in Wa on Monday, September 15, Dr Ayine acknowledged the value of international collaboration in promoting professional standards but stressed that such partnerships should not extend into Ghana’s constitutional politics.

“We must resist the temptation of inviting foreign interference in our internal constitutional processes. There is nothing wrong with building relationships with like-minded foreign associations, as these are important for exchanging ideas and improving standards. But that is where it should stop,” he said.

He added: “Allowing interference in constitutional politics undermines the principle that sovereignty rests with the people of Ghana, in whose name and interest government authority is exercised.”

Dr Ayine’s remarks follow a joint appeal by the Bar Council of England and Wales and the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, which called on President John Dramani Mahama to reverse the suspension of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo before her removal. In a statement dated August 14, the organisations praised Ghana’s tradition of upholding the rule of law and urged the government to ensure the Chief Justice’s immediate reinstatement—a position that has since sparked debate within Ghana’s legal community.

1. On 28th July, 2025, he stated with some boldness, that it took the Attorney-General six (6) months to file witness statements in the Republic vrs. Ato Forson & 2 Others trial. This is palpably false, just like many other statements by him.

The accused persons in the Republic Vrs. Ato Forson & 2 Others case were arraigned before court for the first time on 18th January, 2022. The court, on that day, gave directions for filing of disclosures after the grant of bail to all the accused and adjourned proceedings to 15th February, 2022.

The Prosecution complied with the order of the court and filed all documents to rely on, including all intended exhibits, documents required by the defence and all witness statements of witnesses to be called by the Republic on 14th February, 2022 – within 27 days (less than one month), and not 6 months as wildly claimed by Dr. Ayine.

For the sake of banishing falsehoods and exposing the ways of the wicked, I hereby exhibit a copy of the record of proceedings for 18th January, 2022 and the process titled “Documents To Be Relied On” filed by the Attorney-General on 14th February, 2022.

The Office of the Attorney-General never, on a single occasion in the “Ato Forson” trial, requested further time to file a witness statement, or indeed, any document at all.

2. The important question is, how can the period of 27 days within which the Attorney-General filed witness statements and documents to be relied on in the “Ato Forson” trial appear to be six (6) months in the mind of Dr. Ayine? Is it sheer recklessness or a deliberate effort to make his predecessor and for that matter the Office he now heads, look bad? The docket on the case is in Dr. Ayine’s office and the facts could easily have been verified. I have said before, that, the tendency of the Attorney-General to publish plain untruths, half-truths and misinformation against the prosecuting team and courts adjudicating cases previously being prosecuted by his Office, is highly unprofessional. Dr. Ayine’s actions constitute an attack on the very Office he now heads.
3. The inescapable reality of Dr. Ayine’s latest act and ex post facto rationalisations (laden with contradictions and inconsistencies as they are) is that, he sought to free his former clients from the clutches of criminal prosecution through the exercise of the power of nolle prosequi. That is the first disclosure he should have made to the public at his press conference. Ghanaians deserve this basic courtesy.
4. Dr. Ayine ought not mislead the public into thinking that through some unprecedented genius, he has recovered assets or money for the State. All the assets of the Duffuors, Unibank and related companies as well as other persons being prosecuted with them, had already been identified by the Receivers of Unibank appointed by Bank of Ghana. The Receiver already had a full list and profile of assets owned by them. Dr. Ayine should indicate to the public when either himself or his team this year discovered any new assets owned by the Duffuors.

The record will reflect the fact that, to date, Dr. Ayine has not recovered a single Cedi in the Unibank matter. What he proposes to do, and for which he has already entered nolle prosequi, is to, in future, use some of the assets already identified by the Receiver to defray what he has unilaterally determined to be owed by the accused persons.

Instructively, this arrangement is not pursued under any law. It is only pursuant to the exercise of Ayine’s power of nolle prosequi. Dr. Ayine thus, cannot lay claim to recovering any more assets than what the Receiver already has. He also cannot claim to have recovered for the Republic any money from the accused persons this year.

Questions arising include, was any agreement executed with the Republic before the entry of nolle prosequi, and if so, when? Where is that agreement? Has any fair and objective valuation of the properties been done, and if so, when? Where is the valuation report? In the event of default, what is the penalty and how enforceable is it?

5. In Republic Vrs. William Ato Essien – a case arsing out of the collapse of Capital Bank – the amount admitted as owed by Ato Essien himself was GHC27Million. The State in an agreement entered into under section 35 of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459), settled on GHC90Million to be paid by the accused person. The accused paid GHC30Million in cash before the settlement was adopted by the court, with the rest to be paid over a period of one year. When he defaulted after paying GHC9million in addition to the GHC30Million deposit, the Attorney-General applied to the court for him to be sentenced to a term in prison. Ato Essien is presently in custody serving a 15 year jail term.

I daresay that, on account of the “RESETTING” of prosecution we are witnessing, there is no justification for Ato Essien to be in jail. Free Ato Essien now!

6. I ask, under what circumstance does Dr. Ayine claim that counsel for the accused in the Beige Bank case offered him GHC10Million? I assert that there is no record of this. I challenge Dr. Ayine to produce receipt of such a proposal, and, his official response. Was it a proposal to Ayine in his private capacity?
7. The State lost the Beige Bank case under Dr. Ayine’s watch on an appeal against a ruling on a submission of no case filed by the accused. Alarmingly, instead of exploring means of challenging the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal at the Supreme Court, Dr. Ayine seems very satisfied with the development and has already made comments suggestive of a disinclination to appeal.
8. I have been wondering why Ayine paints such a dreary and bleak picture of the prosecution of financial crimes? The facts show that between 2017 and 2025, the only high-profile financial crime case in which the Office failed to secure conviction was Republic vrs. Ato Forson & 2 Others, in which the accused persons were acquitted in a curious 2 – 1 judgment of the Court of Appeal, and in respect of which Dr. Ayine abandoned the conduct of an appeal filed by the Attorney-General and pending at the Supreme Court, at the time he took office as Attorney-General. The Office secured conviction in Republic Vrs. Eugene Baffoe-Bonnie & Others, Republic Vrs. Sedinam Tamakloe Attionu, Republic Vrs. Daniel Duku & Others (the Venture Capital Case), Republic Vrs. William Ato Essien, etc.

Indeed, on Sedinam Tamakloe Attionu, Dr. Ayine ought to brief the nation on what he is doing to extradite the lady to serve her sentence in Ghana or to trace her assets.

Ayine should simply declare his fundamental aversion to prosecution of financial crimes against a section of the Ghanaian society, and an appetite for cutting deals in lieu of prosecution.

9. The allegation of undue delay in the prosecution of white-collar crime regularly put up by Dr. Ayine as justification for cutting deals in lieu of prosecution, is a sham and ought to be rejected by the nation. The record will again reflect the fact that the inordinate delay in the trial of serious financial crime cases filed against leading members of the erstwhile NDC administration, witnessed in this country the past 8 years, were all a product of the tactics and machinations of defence counsel including Dr. Ayine. Unfortunately, they were aided by the justice system as they filed numerous interlocutory applications, appeals and judicial review applications at the Supreme Court. It is ironic that the first significant action by the Attorney-General, when the NDC assumed power, was to discontinue all of such cases filed against leading members of the NDC, completely impeding accountability and the rule of law.
10. I recall that, to cure the undue delays with the prosecution of criminal cases generally, I laid in Parliament and spearheaded through to near passage, an amendment to the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, which would eliminate most of the bottlenecks with the criminal procedure laws of the country including a suspension of the filing of interlocutory appeals until the submission of no case stage, and ensure day to day trial of criminal cases. If Dr. Ayine seeks to speed up the trial of financial cases, he ought to reintroduce that Bill into Parliament (just as he has done with the constitutional instrument on the Removal of Justices of the Superior Courts, which he adopted in full without changing a single clause when he assumed office and has since laid in Parliament).
11. A careful analysis of all the cases discontinued by Dr. Ayine, would show an abandonment of the pursuit of a total of over Seven Billion Ghana Cedis (GHC7,000,000,000), if one were to exclude the deal for GHC2Billion that Ayine claims to have struck in the Unibank case. The Republic, through Dr. Ayine’s decision to discontinue the prosecution of the cases, has automatically lost this gargantuan amount. It calls for an enquiry.
12. As a footnote, I cannot lose sight of the condescending tone in which Dr. Ayine frequently speaks about his predecessors with comments like “… those who started the prosecution did not do this, …. they failed to do this, … but I am doing this”, etc. cannot be lost on all.

The record shows that the Attorney-General who commenced prosecution of most of the banking sector cases, that Dr. Ayine treats with disdain, was Miss Gloria Afua Akuffo, who is many years senior to Dr. Ayine both at the Bar and in office. In fact, it goes without saying that all of Ghana’s previous Attorneys-General are Dr. Ayine’s seniors in office. Lol. They deserve utmost respect.

The veiled disparagement of former Attorneys-General by Dr. Ayine departs from the conservative traditions of that high office and is most unfortunate.

LEGALLY SPEAKING …!

Godfred Yeboah Dame,
Dame & Partners,
Accra.
29/07/25

Speaking at the Government Accountability Series on Monday, July 28, Dr. Ayine said the filing of formal charges had been delayed following new evidence of financial irregularities involving an account at the Bank of Ghana linked to former NSA Director-General, Mr. Osei Assibey.

He disclosed that GH¢189 million had been transferred into the said account, but GH¢80 million of that amount could not be traced.

“Two cheques linked to the former Director-General’s name and account details were allegedly used to withdraw just under GH¢2 million,” Dr. Ayine said.

He explained that the Attorney-General’s office is withholding the filing of charges until it receives further documentation from the Bank of Ghana, the Ministry of Finance, and the Controller and Accountant-General’s Department.

According to Dr. Ayine, some of the accused persons have expressed their willingness to assist in the prosecution.

“Eight suspects, including three former NSA officials, have approached us to negotiate plea bargains. Some are ready to testify against their co-accused, while others—particularly vendors and service providers—have agreed to serve as prosecution witnesses,” he added.

He assured the public that justice will be served.

“No individual found culpable will be shielded from accountability,” he emphasized.

Source: AdomOnline

ALSO READ:

• Three in NIB’s grips over ‘bribe’ for National Service postings [Audio]

• NSA scandal: I’m ready to clear my name in court – Mustapha Ussif

• NSA Scandal: 12, including Mustapha Ussif and Gifty Oware-Mensah to face prosecution 

The report, submitted by the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), Dr Christian Tetteh Yohuno, details violent incidents that marred both elections, including shootings and clashes between political party supporters and security personnel.

According to the findings, eight people were killed during the 2020 elections, while three others lost their lives in the 2024 polls. Several others sustained injuries across various constituencies.

The IGP’s report was submitted in response to a directive issued by President Mahama shortly after taking office. This follows sustained calls from civil society organisations for accountability and transparency in addressing politically motivated violence.

By referring the report to the Attorney-General, President Mahama aims to ensure justice for the victims and to explore legal measures that will help prevent similar occurrences in future elections.

The presidency has reaffirmed its commitment to upholding the rule of law and restoring public confidence in Ghana’s democratic institutions.

Source: Myjoyonline

READ ALSO:

• I’ll return Sammy Gyamfi’s $800 gift and even double it – Agradaa
• Obomeng chief cuts sod for new clinic at Kwadwo Nkansah-Buabeng

The Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Dr. Dominic Ayine, revealed at a press conference on Monday that Mr. Asamoah is currently hiding in Senegal. Dr. Ayine explained that Mr. Asamoah first traveled to South Africa on February 2, before making his way to Senegal.

“We tracked him first to South Africa, and now he is in Senegal. When we contacted him, he told us he would not return to Ghana until three months from now, and we are patiently waiting for him. If he does not return, he will be tried in absentia,” Dr. Ayine stated.

However, the Attorney-General made it clear that this will not prevent his office from prosecuting Mr. Asamoah, even if the trial proceeds in his absence.

He emphasized that Prof. Ameyaw Ekumfi, who acted with Mr. Asamoah to facilitate the payment, remains in the country, and the legal process will continue.

In discussing the $2 million payment, Dr. Ayine confirmed that it was made at the request of the GIIF Board Chairman, Prof. Ekumfi, and CEO Asamoah, without the board’s approval.

“There was no board approval for the transaction, and the conditions precedent to disbursement had not been met,” Dr. Ayine disclosed. “Our review of the board’s minutes confirmed that other board members had no knowledge of this transaction. One member even questioned why GIIF was in a hurry to make the payment, but no significant answer was given by the two individuals responsible for transferring the funds to a non-existent company in Mauritius.”

The funds were transferred to a company based in Mauritius, which has since been found to be non-existent, according to further investigations.

“We tracked the company to Mauritius, and a lawyer there has confirmed that it does not exist. But that is still a developing story,” Dr. Ayine added.

Meanwhile, Prof. Ekumfi has already been questioned by the National Investigations Bureau (NIB).

ALSO READ:

• Sky Train project followed due process – Ghartey to NIB

• Covid-19 forced us to abandon Sky Train project – Joe Ghartey

This follows his arrest on Thursday, March 20, 2025, as part of ongoing investigations into alleged financial misconduct.

Speaking at a press conference on Monday, Dr. Ayine warned that the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) is actively monitoring all accounts belonging to Mr. Adu Boahene and his wife. He stressed that any failure by financial institutions to comply with the directive would have serious consequences.

“All banks are also warned that if we see any wire transfers or cash withdrawals from the accounts of Mr. Adu Boahene and his companies, the Bank Managers and any employees involved will be arrested,” Dr. Ayine stated.

The minister also disclosed that authorities had traced substantial amounts of money tied to suspected illicit transactions involving Advantage Solutions Limited and BNC Communications Bureau Limited.

“Investigations have established that funds, mostly proceeds of crime from Advantage Solutions Limited and BNC Communications Bureau Limited, have been suspiciously moved through the bank accounts of these companies,” he added.

Additionally, investigations revealed at least ten companies linked to Mr. Adu Boahene and his wife, all of which were allegedly controlled by Advantage Solutions.

“For the purposes of the ongoing investigations, we will not disclose the names of these companies,” Dr. Ayine noted.

He further warned the executives and employees of these companies against attempting to move any assets, saying, “If they attempt to move assets, we will track them, arrest, and prosecute them.”

ALSO READ:

• Adu Boahene accused of laundering over $2m in real estate

• Adu Boahene arrested for diverting $7m into private accounts – Attorney-General

Kwabena Adu Boahene, the former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau (NSB), has been accused of embezzling state funds and laundering them through real estate investments in Accra.

The Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Dr. Dominic Ayine, revealed the allegations at a news conference on Monday, March 24, 2025.

Dr. Ayine disclosed that Mr. Adu Boahene invested a total of $2,217,815 million in landed properties both in Ghana and abroad.

The charges follow Mr. Adu Boahene’s arrest, which is connected to financial misconduct involving a $7 million cyber defense system contract.

The contract, signed on January 30, 2020, between the Ghanaian government, the National Security Ministry, and the Israeli firm RLC Holdings Limited, was intended to enhance the country’s ability to detect, prevent, and respond to cyber threats and data breaches.

In his capacity as NSB boss, Mr. Adu Boahene signed the contract but also created a private business that closely mirrored the operations of the NSB, which he ran with his wife.

Mr. Adu Boahene was arrested on Thursday, March 20, 2025, at Kotoka International Airport upon his return from London, and he remains in detention.

ALSO READ:

• EOCO arrests Kwabena Adu Boahene at Airport
• Adu Boahene arrested for diverting $7m into private accounts – Attorney-General

Addressing the press on Monday, Dr. Ayine declared that he has the authority of President John Mahama to prosecute individuals found culpable after investigations.

The minister cited the case of the former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau (NSB), Kwabena Adu Boahene, who is currently in custody over the diversion of $7 million of public funds into his private accounts.

The minister explained that the funds were intended for the procurement of cybersecurity infrastructure.

According to him, the country was turned into a crime scene for eight years, and the Mahama-led administration is committed to uncovering the crimes.

“This is a warning to everyone in public office who is listening to me that if you do anything like what suspect Adu Boahene did, I will come after you. I have the authority of the President to come after you; I’ll not wait, I’ll come after you,” he warned.

Dr. Ayine further commended the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) for its efforts in the fight against corruption and the recovery of looted assets.

ALSO READ:

• No one should be deemed guilty until proven – Srem Sai on Adu Boahene’s…
• Adu Boahene arrested for diverting $7m into private accounts – Attorney-General

Speaking at a press conference on Monday, March 24, 2025, Dr. Ayine disclosed that his office had obtained evidence of financial transactions involving top executives of the NSS, vendors, and private individuals.

“Indeed, we now have evidence of payments that were made into the accounts of the top executives of the National Service by vendors, private vendors, and staff of the scheme.

“We also have evidence that in November 2024… the CEO of the National Service Scheme and others paid a Ghanaian MP to kill the story in the media, and to defend them. Now, this is a developing story, and more of it will come out very soon,” he stated.

The Attorney General, however, did not disclose the identities of the individuals involved.

Investigations into the NSS uncovered that previous officials had bypassed mandatory validation processes, allowing thousands of nonexistent names to be added to the payroll.

This scheme facilitated the siphoning of millions of Ghana cedis meant for national service personnel.

The irregularities were detected during a Ministry of Finance-led headcount of active National Service personnel as part of efforts to clear allowance arrears dating back to August 2024.

Following the verification exercise, GH₵226,019,224 was disbursed to pay 98,145 personnel—far lower than the 180,030 names initially submitted.

ALSO READ:

• NIB questions former NSA boss over ghost names scandal

• NSA Scandal: ‘Top people begged on their knees’ – Martin Kpebu alleges

The Minister of Government Communications, Felix Kwakye Ofosu, announced this in a Facebook post.

On February 10, President John Mahama directed Dr. Ayine to immediately commence investigations into corruption cases captured in the ORAL report.

The directive followed the President’s receipt of the report, which contains 2,417 complaints from the ORAL team led by North Tongu MP, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa.

ALSO READ:

• ORAL Committee is a dangerous precedent for the country – Kyei Mensah-Bonsu [Video]

• I’ll sue if my name or property is included in ORAL findings – Afenyo-Markin

ALSO READ:

• NDC discontinued cases to whitewash corrupt officials – Godfred Dame

• I take full responsibility; Mahama didn’t direct me to drop cases – Attorney General

At the press conference, Dr. Ayine sought to provide reasons for his discontinuation of certain criminal cases filed against certain persons, most of whom were leading members of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and persons who served in the NDC Government that exited office in January 2017.

As the public would observe, throughout my tenure as Attorney-General, I never made any comment or passed judgment on the work of any of my predecessors in office even though I was often at the receiving end of many unsavoury remarks from sections of the populace, particularly, personalities in the NDC.

Since leaving office, I have also stayed clear of subjecting the work of my successor to any form of assessment, leaving that to discerning Ghanaians to do.

Before this morning, I had made absolutely no statement or comment whatsoever about the conduct or performance of the new Attorney-General, Dr. Dominic Ayine. However, at the press conference of the Honourable Attorney-General, in a rather unconventional manner, he proceeded to malign my good self, immediate past Attorney-General, and peddled a host of untruths, half-truths and misinformation, a trajectory which is not only unfortunate but begs the question as to the actual motive and justification for his decisions.

The Judiciary was not spared the brush of the Attorney-General’s unwarranted scathing attacks, as some members were subjected to similar disparaging attacks under the guise of Dr. Ayine’s strained exercise of “assigning reasons” for decisions he has taken as Attorney-General.

I consider the attack on the Judiciary as part of the stratagem of the NDC to blame others for their resolve, long before they assumed power, to clear all of John Mahama’s appointees of any criminal liability for past acts by withdrawing criminal cases pending against them. Indeed, Dr. Ayine’s decisions are in furtherance of the RESETTING AGENDA of the NDC.

The material facts will bear this out. Dr Ayine was sworn in as Attorney-General on Wednesday, 22^nd January, 2025. On Friday, 24^th January, 2025, he caused to be filed a notice of abandonment of the appeal by the State in Republic vrs. Ato Forson and 2 Others. On Tuesday, 28^th January, 2025, he withdrew the case against Dr. Stephen Opuni and 2 Others, resulting in the complete white wash of their crimes by an acquittal and discharge through the backdoor.

On 29^th January, 2025, he entered another withdrawal in Republic Vrs. Ofosu-Ampofo & Another, again resulting in an acquittal and discharge of the accused. On 30^th January, 2025, Dr. Ayine withdrew two different cases against Dr. Johnson Pandit Asiama, resulting in his acquittal and discharge in one and a discharge in the other. There were more withdrawals and nolle prosequi to be entered by the NDC Government through the Attorney-General in the subsequent days. Indeed, what broke the trend of “one day, one withdrawal”, was the occurrence of weekends.

Fellow Ghanaians, these developments irresistibly point to only one conclusion – a calculated, preconceived ploy on the part of the NDC to wipe out all criminal cases pending against its leading members and officials of the John Mahama Government and clear them of wrongdoing, not by the courts, but through their Attorney-General.

Remarkably, there is no precedent for this kind of conduct in the Fourth Republic. Throughout the two 8-year terms of the NPP in Government, no Attorney-General appointed by either President J. A. Kufuor or President Akufo-Addo withdrew criminal charges or filed nolle prosequi in cases involving leading members of the NPP or senior members of the government.

By the time the NPP assumed power in 2017, all the cases filed by the erstwhile NDC Government against some Ministers and appointees of the Kufuor Government had been contested fully in the courts and won.

We secured acquittals through the courts, and not by resorting to delay tactics in the hope that an Akufo-Addo appointed Attorney-General would come and withdraw the cases and procure an acquittal. I speak from experience as I personally conducted some of the cases. Other lawyers within our ranks including my Deputies also handled some.

I must state that it is clearly unprecedented for an Attorney-General to hold a press conference and subject his predecessor-in-office to abuses and peddle falsehood in the manner displayed by Dr. Dominic Ayine. I am constrained, to set the records straight, to unveil the half-truths and manipulation of facts for well-meaning Ghanaians to decipher the true intentions of the NDC Government acting through the current Attorney-General in withdrawing charges against leading members of the NDC.

1. It is necessary to indicate at the outset that, the decision to charge a person with a criminal offence, especially in the high-profile cases in issue which held serious implications for the public purse, involved a prosecutorial discretion exercised pursuant to painstaking investigations conducted by duly authorised investigative authorities of State, inquiries and extensive deliberations  by career prosecutors in the Office of the Attorney-General, who indeed proceeded to conduct the cases. I continue to be grateful for the advice I received from the hardworking Attorneys at the A-G’s Office, investigators and my able Deputies, Mr. Alfred Tuah Yeboah and Ms. Diana Asonaba Dapaah, on the cases we personally initiated in office and the many others that had been commenced by my distinguished predecessor, Madam Gloria Afua Akuffo, which we continued. I cherish the robust discussions and debates we had while professionally moving forward with each of those cases.

• The nation would note that Dr. Ayine and other leading figures in the NDC and the Government of the day were counsel in many of the cases he has discontinued.  I say that, indeed, it is not uncommon for defence counsel, as Dr. Ayine and other NDC personalities were, looking at the same set of facts to come to different conclusions informed by their varying understandings of the law and the undeniable political considerations they hold. However, I daresay that in taking decisions as monumental as withdrawing those cases, the only consideration had to be the national interest and not that of defence counsel. The analysis I make of the reasons advanced by Dr. Ayine will expose the questionable intent behind the withdrawal of the criminal cases.

• Dr. Ayine’s unfounded allegation insinuating unethical conduct on my part in the conduct of the Ambulance Trial – Republic vrs. Cassiel Ato Forson is highly disingenuous and rather unfortunately, recaps the series of falsehoods persistently published by foot soldiers of the NDC and other uninformed members of society. I must say that I find it quite ironical for Dr. Ayine, who is the subject of disciplinary proceedings for professional misconduct still pending at the General Legal Council, filed by the Hon. former Chief Justice himself, to accuse me of unethical conduct. In the interest of the nation, the case of professional misconduct pending against Dr. Ayine at the General Legal Council, should have been determined before the parliamentary assessment of his suitability or otherwise for the high office of the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice of our dear Republic.

• The facts relating to the allegation by Dr. Ayine that I interfered with an accused person in the Ambulance case are well within the public domain and have been adumbrated in court proceedings. The record shows that there has been a judicial determination of that unfounded allegation frequently made by foot soldiers of the NDC and other uninformed people. Shockingly, Dr. Ayine, the current Attorney-General, ignored this fundamental fact in his 10-page Press Statement and over an hour conference with the media, for the simple reason that he knew that his allegation had been flatly debunked by the court when same was put to strict scrutiny.

If you would recall, the accused persons in the Ambulance Trial, filed an application for mistrial, hinging same on the alleged interference with one of the accused persons. On 6th June, 2024, the High Court coram Her Ladyship Justice Afia Serwaa Asare-Botwe dismissed the application. You would all remember the learned Justice of the Court of Appeal, who sat as an additional High Court Judge, say that she had listened to the tape in question about ten (10) times and found nothing to warrant a mistrial. Specifically, she stated at page 24 of her ruling:

“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 on Exhibit CAF2. These words were uttered by A3 at about minute 09:00 to 10:00. In the same vein, the declaration that A3 was innocent and “going through ordeal” but was being asked to help make the case of the AG better 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 …” at minute 10:30.

The statement made that “You and I, you’ve been meeting me at my cousin’s place …” (at minute 10:45) etc. when closely, together with A3’s alleged attack of conscience did not proceed from the mouth of the Attorney-General”. The judge proceeded to state at page 32 of her ruling that “the 3rd Accused by any stretch of imagination be seen to be the one procuring new evidence or cowed by the conversation”.

• In the face of this clear judicial determination of no wrongdoing as to warrant a mistrial, it completely defies logic and good reason why the Hon. Attorney-General of Ghana would say to the public that I was culpable of a “disgraceful and unethical conduct” in the Ambulance trial. Ghanaians want to know rather, how the current Attorney-General, Dr. Dominic Ayine, will deal with the complaint of professional misconduct pending at the General Legal Council against him made by no less a person than the Chief Justice of Ghana in 2021.

RELIANCE ON DEFENCE COUNSEL TO WITHDRAW CASES AND ENTER NOLLE PROSEQUI

• Ladies, and gentlemen, in a chilling twist, the nation heard Dr. Ayine confessing to speaking with lawyers for the defence and engaging them on the cases that were pending against the leading members of the NDC before exercising his discretion to file nolle prosequi or withdraw the charges. He indicated that in Republic vrs. Gyakye Quayson, the lawyer for the accused person expressed an inclination to go on and prove the innocence of his client, and therefore, he decided not to enter nolle prosequi. Respectfully, what this betrays clearly, is that, the exercise of Dr. Ayine’s discretion to continue with the prosecution of cases or not is informed principally by the disposition of counsel for the accused in cases that the Republic is prosecuting against their clients. Thus, if counsel for the accused is in the position to strongly defend the interests of his client in court, the Attorney-General of the Republic will not enter nolle prosequi. Where the counsel for the accused are not convinced about the likelihood of success of their defence in court, Dr. Ayine would immediately enter a withdrawal (if the prosecution has closed its case), or nolle prosequi (if the prosecution has not closed its case).

• As I will show in an examination of each of the specific cases cited in Ayine’s press statement, the Hon. Attorney-General quite reprehensibly, relied solely on the case for the defence before exercising his discretion to discontinue the actions. He did not engage in any meaningful consultation with the Prosecutions Division of the Office of the Attorney-General before instructing the filing of the withdrawals and nolle prosequi in the cases against the senior members of the John Mahama Government and other leading members of the NDC. The dates of the filing of the said processes buttress the assertion I make here. I challenge Dr. Ayine to show any memorandum presented to him by the Prosecutions Division of the Office of the Attorney-General advising or indeed, expressing a view on the continuation, discontinuation or “termination”, as he calls it of any of the criminal cases in question. I can say without any fear of contradiction, that, there is none. He should also show evidence of consultation on any of the charges he held with the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) before discontinuing the cases. You can be assured he cannot produce any.

• Listening to Dr. Ayine, one gets the distinct and chilling confirmation that he relied solely on the version of the facts of the case as presented by counsel for the accused as well as their erroneous views of the law on the subject matters in question. It is for this reason that the claims of alleged defects with the various charges only re-echo positions articulated by the defence counsel throughout the proceedings. In effect, Dr. Ayine came to narrate to the Ghanaian public on Wednesday, the perspective of defence counsel on the charges their clients had been charged with. The media would notice that, for each of the cases, the explanations of the Attorney-General for the withdrawal filed were only a rehash of argument already reported in the media as having been made in the court room by counsel for defence. Is that a reasonable manner of the exercise of the Attorney-General’s discretion to enter nolle prosequi and withdrawal of criminal cases?

• The people of Ghana should be very scared if we have an Attorney-General whose prime consideration for the discontinuation of criminal cases involving the loss of billions of Ghana Cedis is, the position of defence lawyers on charges preferred against their clients rather than the interests of the Republic in the prosecution of crime.

1. Even more scary and bizarre is the claim of Dr. Ayine that he did not consult the former President , John Dramani Mahama before taking the monumental decision to discontinue the criminal cases. The cases involved the loss of colossal sums of taxpayers’ money and some related to the banking sector crisis which affected the Ghanaian economy. The people of Ghana should indeed be extremely concerned and afraid by the vesting of prosecutorial authority in a person who can discontinue the prosecution of such important and high-profile cases without discussing with the President of the Republic and members of the Cabinet. Even defence counsel he consulted, how much more the President?

1. But Ladies and gentlemen, we ought to ask ourselves – is it true that Dr. Ayine did not consult the President or his Cabinet about the decision to discontinue the various criminal proceedings? A careful examination of the facts shows that this claim is palpably untrue. The nation has not forgotten the loud claims made by President John Mahama and the NDC that the NPP rather, was responsible for a collapse of the banking sector and that on assuming power, the John Mahama government will restore all the banking licences which were revoked. The withdrawal of the cases in question is only the first step of the clearing or whitewashing process of those whose acts led to the crisis that plagued the banking sector. Ghanaians are certainly more discerning than the NDC and Dr. Ayine think.

I proceed to examine Dr Ayine’s reasons for withdrawing some of the criminal cases Dr. Ayine mentioned in his Press Statement. I find, generally, that all his explanations are laden with contradictions and inconsistencies and betray the questionable motives for his actions.

1. REPUBLIC V. CASSIEL ATO FORSON & ANOTHER

1. The firs reason assigned by the Attorney-General for the discontinuance of the appeal is “ethical and professional”, since he was deeply involved in the conduct of the defence of Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson. According to him, he could not “in good conscience” continue the conduct of the appeal. This explanation is a sham as the Attorney-General’s prosecutorial authority under article 88(4) of the Constitution is exercised by himself or “any other person authorised by him in accordance with any law”. Pursuant to this, the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30) permits attorneys of the Office of the Attorney-General and other persons, including even private legal practitioners, to whom the Attorney-General may delegate his powers through an executive instrument enacted pursuant to Act 30, to prosecute. Thus, the fact that he, Dr. Dominic Ayine, found himself in a conflict of interest situation did not imply that the entire appeal had to be abandoned.

Dr. Ayine characterises the prosecution of the Ambulance case as a political witch hunt. I wholly disagree. The facts show that vehicles purporting to be ambulances were imported into the country in December, 2014 in violation of the contract governing the transaction. In the absence of any request by the Ministry of Health, and at a time that the period for supply of the ambulances under the contract had even lapsed, Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson, by letters dated and 7^th and 14^th August, 2014, instructed the Bank of Ghana and the Controller and Accountant-General to issue letters of credit which was the agreed means of payment for the vehicles.

The letters of credit were consequently established on 18^th August, 2014. Big Sea General Trading LLC, the suppliers of the vehicles based in Dubai, whose contract had no parliamentary approval, proceeded to ship the vehicles on receipt of the letters of credit. When the vehicles arrived, they were not of the kind specified in the contract and had serious defects with every material part of the vehicles which rendered them unfit to be described as ambulances. Indeed, a John Mahama appointed Minister for Health at the time, Dr Alex Segbefia described the vehicles as “ordinary vans” not fit for purpose.

The defects were so irremediable that from the time the vehicles started arriving in December, 2014 up to January, 2017 when the erstwhile John Mahama administration left office, they could not be converted into ambulances. To date, they cannot be converted into ambulances and the John Mahama Government is back in pwoer.

I am of the honest view that the split 2 – 1 decision of the Court of Appeal, far from confirming Dr. Ayine’s opinion that the case was flawed, was erroneous and the Republic’s chances of having same set aside by the Supreme Court was very high. If Dr. Ayine was convinced that his position would prevail on appeal, why did he not allow the appeal to run its course for a vindication of his views? What did he or his former client, Dr. Ato Forson stand to lose by a determination of the appeal by the Supreme Court? Ladies and gentlemen, I observe that the real reason for a discontinuance of the appeal by Dr. Ayine was that he did not wish to deepen the woes of Dr. Ato Forson any further.

• REPUBLIC V. OFOSU AMPOFO & ANOTHER

1. Dr. Ayine did not advance any reason whatsoever for the withdrawal of this matter save that he was on record as counsel for the defence. I have already pointed out above the absurdity of such a position. I would not recount same. The self-serving nature of Dr. Ayine’s decision is too apparent for the people of Ghana to see.

• REPUBLIC V. COLLINS DAUDA & OTHERS

1. The reason advanced by the Attorney-General for the entry of nolle prosequi in the case filed against Mr. Collins Dauda and 4 Others for their roles in the Saglemi Housing Scheme, is that in his view, the charges were defective. He claimed that the prosecution wrongly charged the former Minister, Collins Dauda with the offence of misapplying public property (funds) in the sum of Two Hundred Million United States Dollars (USD200million). In Dr. Ayine’s view, the prosecution should taken account of the fact that part of the US$200m was used to construct the houses at Saglemi. With the greatest respect, this analysis by Dr. Ayine portrays a complete misapprehension of the ingredients of the offence of misapplying public funds. The offence of intentionally misapplying public property consists in wrongly applying public property, which is defined under the Public Property Protection Act, 1977 (SMCD 140) for a purpose other than as lawfully approved. It is different from the offence of wilfully causing financial loss to the State whose defining ingredient is the actual loss occasioned the State through one’s wilful acts. In this case, Mr. Collins Dauda was charged with the offence because he intentionally misapplied the sum of US$200 Million for the construction of 1,412 housing units instead of the 5,000 housing units lawfully approved by Cabinet, the Parliament of Ghana and the Public Procurement Authority to be constructed. So, the question of how much was disbursed by the State during Collins Dauda’s tenure as Minister for Works and Housing, or the exact amount spent on the buildings when he was Minister, is immaterial. The real question is whether Collins Dauda authorised the application of the sum of US$200 Million for the purpose lawfully approved for the project, i.e. the construction of 5,000 housing units. The answer to this can only be in the negative.

I say that, in any event, if the Attorney-General was of the considered view that the sum of US$200 Million mentioned under the count of misapplying public property should have been US$94 Million, all he had to do as a good prosecutor acting in good faith, was to amend the count. The remedy is not a discontinuation of the entire case, especially when that offence of misapplying public property constituted only one out of seventy (70) charges filed in the case. What happens to the other sixty-nine (69) charges that Dr. Ayine does not fault, and did not talk about.? With the greatest respect, the State should be seriously worried if her Attorney-General demonstrates such ignorance of the basic principles in criminal law and ingredients of offences which border on the protection of State funds or public property.

1. The second factor cited by Dr. Ayine for the withdrawal of the Saglemi case is the alleged failure of the prosecution to charge other Ministers who took office after Mr. Collins Dauda left office. This is another palpable falsehood. The State charged all those whose roles in the Saglemi Housing Scheme implied criminal liability. This included Kwaku Agyeman-Mensah who signed and authorised the payment of money and who was John Mahama’s Minister after Collins Dauda until January, 2017. It also included a Chief Director, Alhaji Ziblim, who was in office until 2017 (covering a part of the tenure of Mr. Atta Akyea as Minister) and signed and authorised payment of money.

Dr. Ayine raises issue with the failure to join Hon. Samuel Atta Akyea as an accused person in the matter. It ought to be made clear that the prosecution of crime is not an arena to achieve political equalisation. A careful check of the facts would have disclosed to Dr. Ayine that Hon. Samuel Atta Akyea never authorised any payment for the Saglemi project. Mr. Atta Akyea was rather the one who called attention to the bizarre circumstances of the project and wrote a letter seeking the advice of the then Attorney-General, Ms. Gloria Afua Akuffo in or about 2019 for an urgent termination of the contract, a decision which stopped the State from unnecessary financial haemorrhage.

The sum of US$5 Million that Dr. Ayine alludes to, was authorised to be paid by the then Chief Director, Mr. Solomon Asoalla, and not Mr. Atta Akyea. The decision by the prosecution team not to charge Mr. Solomon Asoalla but rather to use him as a prosecution witness was, because a scrutiny of the record showed that, Mr. Asoalla in truth, tried to save the Saglemi housing project from total collapse. The sum of US$5Million was authorised by Mr. Asoalla to be utilised for the project to save the project. Further, he assisted in shedding light on the relevant facts of the project.  Hence our decision to use him as a prosecution witness.

• THE PROSECUTION OF DR. JOHNSON PANDIT ASIAMA

1. The narration given by the Attorney-General about why he discontinued the two different cases against Mr. Johnson Pandit Asiama disclosed a litany of untruths, half-truths and a skilful manipulation of the facts. Be that as it may, as it is with any manipulation of facts, the truth is always laid bare on being subjected to careful analysis.

• THE REPUBLIC V. KWABENA DUFFUOR & OTHERS – THE UNIBANK CASE

1. This case involved an approval by Dr. Johnson Asiam of the sum of GHC450Million for the benefit of Universal Merchant Bank. Part of that sum of was GHC300Million Cedis which was an unsecured facility approved by Johnson Pandit Asiama for Universal Merchant Bank for the benefit of Unibank Limited. The sum of GHC300Million formed the basis of a charge of making approvals in contravention of the Banak of Ghana law. The remaining amount of GHC150Million formed the basis for the offence of wilfully causing financial loss. It is necessary to state that, contrary to Dr. Ayine’s claim, the sum of GHC150Million to date, remains unpaid.
2. I must indicate that I find the line of thinking of Dr. Ayine that simply because an alleged loss to the State is recoverable after the offence has been committed or the charge filed, the offence of wilfully causing financial loss is rendered invalid very strange and insupportable. Also, an amount paid in violation of a law, when subsequently recovered, does not clear the person who gave the approval to be made of criminal wrongdoing in the first place.

1. The anchor of Dr. Ayine’s explanation for discontinuing the cases against Johnson Pandit Asiama is a memorandum allegedly delivered to my good self by attorneys at the Office of the Attorney-General purportedly “recommending that the charges against him be dropped”.

Let me state for the record, that, to the best of my knowledge, no such memorandum exists. I do not recall receiving any such memo from the Prosecutions Division. I challenge Dr. Ayine to produce such a memo for the examination of the public as he has touted same to the public at a press conference as the basis for his impugned actions.

Curiously, when probed further on that issue in the “Questions” session of his press conference, Dr. Ayine claimed that I might have disagreed with the memo, and that, he is yet to know the exact comments I made on the memo. This is bewildering and casts doubts on Dr. Ayine’s assertions that a memo was presented to me on the issue. Will my comments or the position I took on the memo not be expressed on the memo? How can Dr. Ayine see the memo but not see my comments in the memo? Clearly, the Attorney-General set out to throw dust into the eyes of Ghanaians who, in his view, are a bunch of unanalytical people. Ghana deserves better than the tales of Dr. Ayine.

• Assuming for argument purposes that a memo was prepared for the consideration of the former Attorney-General (by some state attorneys whose ranks the current Attorney-General does not specify and on a date he does not indicate), is such a memo binding on the Attorney-General? Is the view of the state attorney binding on the Attorney-General?

Dr. Ayine himself alleges that he had some discussions with the DPP before withdrawing the cases in issue. Where he disagreed, he made it known to the DPP. Was the DPP’s view binding on Dr. Ayine? Was it not his view of the charges he withdrew which prevailed? If Dr. Ayine could form a view of the charges he withdrew from the court in spite of what the DPP told him, how can he castigate Godfred Dame in the media for whatever views Godfred Dame took on a memo allegedly presented to him by some state attorneys who Dr. Ayine cannot name, on a date he cannot specify and affecting some accused persons he could not specify. (Mind you, there are 6 accused persons in the matter. Did the memo touch on all 6? Dr. Ayine fails to tell).

I say that Dr. Ayine, should with the greatest respect, be bold to fully accept responsibility for his action in withdrawing and filing nolle prosequi in all the cases, rather than purporting to blame former Attorneys-General for his decisions.

• REPUBLIC VRS. JOHNSON PANDIT ASIAMA & 5 OTHERS – THE UT BANK CASE.

• Dr. Ayine lumps up the facts of the two cases against Johnson Asiama and contends that the alleged memo presented to the former Attorney-General which discussed an amount of GHC450 Million the subject matter of charges against the gentleman in the Unibank case also covered the UT Bank case. This is another falsehood. The sum of GHC450Million was in respect of only the Unibank case.

• The UT Bank case involved the grant of approval by Dr. Johnson Asiama of GHC460Million facility to UT Bank in violation of the single obligor limits.

• Be that as it may, it suffices to note that Dr. Ayine provides absolutely no justification for a withdrawal of the charges in the UT Bank matter, save the allegation that an alleged memo was presented to me. It is also important to note that the Attorney-General conceals the simple fact that the prosecution had closed its case in the UT Bank case. Thus, by virtue of the notice of withdrawal filed by the Attorney-General, Johnson Pandit Asiama was acquitted and discharged. Dr. Ayine therefore secured, through the backdoor, a whitewash and clearing of sins of Johnson Pandit Asiama forever.

• REPUBLIC V. STEPHEN OPUNI & 2 OTHERS

• The reasons given by the Attorney-General for the withdrawal of the case against the three accused persons in the Stephen Opuni case and the consequential whitewash and cleansing of sins through an acquittal and discharge, again recounts the misconceived perspective of defence lawyers on the charges. That case involved the loss of GHC271Million to the State.

• Once again, the media would observe that the Attorney-General only presented to the public the same stories that had formed the line of defence of counsel for the accused, completely abandoning the formidable case built by the prosecution. The Attorney-General completely disregards the fact that the prosecution had been adjudged by all the courts in the Superior Courts architecture – the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court- as having established a case for the accused to answer. Dr. Opuni had closed his case. Seidu Agongo had called about 10 witnesses.

• Dr. Ayine, in the face of the holdings of the various courts that there was a case for the accused to answer in respect of the over 27 charges filed in the Opuni case, proceeded to embark on a scathing attack on the work of the Prosecutions Division of the Office of the Attorney-General over which he is now superintending, as a ruse to justify his withdrawal of the case. The simple question that begs for answer is this: why would the Attorney-General who is supposed to be acting in interest of the Republic be arguing strenuously in favour of the defence counsel and against the Republic when all the Superior Courts had stated that Dr Opuni and two others had a case to answer?

If the new Attorney-General, was of the view that the accused had a strong case and would be acquitted, why did he not wait for the accused to establish this through the trial? Is it the case that counsel for the accused told him after his extensive discussions with them, that they were not sure of securing the acquittal of their clients and therefore, they would prefer the A-G to bail them out through a withdrawal of the charges?

DISPARAGEMENT OF THE JUDICIARY AS A PLOY TO DEFEND THE WRONG WITHDRAWAL OF THE OPUNI CASE

• Fellow Ghanaians, in purported rationalisation of the Government’s decision to withdraw the Opuni case, the Attorney-General, most bizarrely, attacked the integrity of a retired Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Clemence Honyenuga and the Honourable Chief Justice, albeit unjustifiably. Dr. Ayine claimed that a perjury application filed by Dr. Stephen Kwabena Opuni against a witness was not heard by Justice Honyenuga and that “this is most unacceptable”. Regrettably, this is another falsehood in Dr. Ayine’s press statement. The trial court ruled on the said perjury application. The applicant proceeded to the Court of Appeal.

I repeat that the tendency of an Attorney-General to peddle untruthful allegations against the prosecuting team and judges sitting on cases being prosecuted by his Office, is highly unprofessional. This is what we see from Dr. Ayine three weeks into his tenure! His actions constitute an attack on the very Office he is now head of.

• Dr. Ayine stated further in his press statement that, “when, in accordance with law and practice, Justice Anokye Gyimah decided he was going to hold a de novo trial in the same Opuni case, he was instantly transferred to Kumasi and the case was allocated to a new judge who then proceeded to adopt the proceedings”. This is another plain falsehood and a rehash of the unfounded allegations made by NDC commentators in the media space. If Dr. Ayine had taken pains to examine the file in the Opuni matter, as he should have done, he would have found that it was not a new trial judge who adopted the proceedings for the trial to continue. The then Attorney-General, my good self, was compelled to file an appeal against the order of Justice Anokye Gyimah for the proceedings to start de novo or afresh after the close of the prosecution’s case and the defence had opened their case. The Court of Appeal allowed the Attorney-General’s appeal and ordered that the proceedings be adopted before the trial court. It took about three months for the appeal to be heard and determined. Before the conclusion of the appeal, the Hon. Chief Justice in exercise of her powers under the Constitution, at a time that the proceedings in the Opuni matter had effectively been stayed owing to the pendency of the appeal, transferred the Justice Anokye Gyimah to the High Court, Kumasi. The display of unfamiliarity by the current Attorney-General of facts regarding cases he withdraws from the courts and speak about in the media, is shocking. Ghana must be seriously worried.

• Ladies and gentlemen, I deem the press conference hurriedly assembled by the Attorney-General, Dr. Dominic Ayine, as a knee jerk reaction to genuine concerns raised by well-meaning Ghanaians on the attempt by the NDC Government to white wash the crimes of persons who served in the NDC government and as far as the law would allow, clothe them with perpetual immunity from being prosecuted for offences committed against the Republic of Ghana. The posture adopted by the Hon. A-G threatens to undermine Ghana’s democratic and good governance structures. I am however reassured by the fact that Ghanaians are discerning enough to discover the illegitimate motives for the discontinuance of the cases in question. The President, through his Attorney-General, has in a spectacular fashion, become the clearing agent to indemnify their allies who have duly been put before the courts for commission of crimes.

God bless us all!!!!

GODFRED YEBOAH DAME

IMMEDIATE PAST ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE

14/02/2025

Mr. Dame said the decision was preconceived and orchestrated to whitewash corrupt officials of the National Democratic Congress (NDC).

This comes after Dr. Ayine stated that he could not, in good conscience, continue with the prosecutions because some of the cases lacked merit and were politically motivated.

However, at a press conference on Friday, Mr. Dame disagreed.

He predicted that more cases would be discontinued by the Attorney General in the coming days, arguing that it was part of a calculated move by the NDC to clear its officials standing trial.

Mr. Dame stressed that the New Patriotic Party (NPP), in its governance under former Presidents John Kufuor and Nana Akufo-Addo, never discontinued any cases involving former appointees standing trial.

Instead, he noted, they allowed the courts to rule on such matters, which eventually led to the acquittal of those officials.

According to him, the Attorney General’s actions are unprecedented, adding that Dr. Ayine’s press conference was fraught with lies and unwarranted personal attacks on him.

ALSO READ:

• I couldn’t in good conscience continue some of the cases – Dr. Ayine

• I take full responsibility; Mahama didn’t direct me to drop cases – Attorney General

The Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Godfred Dame, has announced that he will not review the criminal case against Assin North Member of Parliament (MP), James Gyakye Quayson.

According to him, Mr. Quayson is determined to prove his innocence.

Bolgatanga East MP and former Deputy Attorney-General, Dr. Dominic Ayine, disclosed this at a press conference on Wednesday.

He explained that his decision was influenced by the stance taken by Mr. Quayson’s lawyer, Tsatsu Tsikata.

“Lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata told me that he wants to soldier on and prove the innocence of his client. I respect that decision,” he said.

Gyakye Quayson is currently facing trial on charges of forgery and perjury, accused of misrepresenting his Canadian citizenship status in the run-up to the 2020 elections.

He has pleaded not guilty to five counts, including forgery of passport or travel certificate, knowingly making a false statutory declaration, perjury, and false declaration for office.

At a press conference, Dr, Ayine cited legal and ethical concerns, stressing that his good conscience could not allow him to continue some of the cases.

“For ethical and professional conscience, I couldn’t in good conscience continue to prosecute some of the cases.

“The second was that some of the cases, in my own review and analysis, showed clearly that the charges were defective and some were far against the promptness of commonsense,” he stated.

The Minister added that some of the cases lacked sufficient evidence to warrant continued prosecution.

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

“In most of the cases, I had terminated proceedings, the conduct of some of the individual judges left so much to be desired,” he explained.

Dr. Ayine emphasized that all the accused persons in the discontinued cases had been acquitted and discharged.

Meanwhile, he stressed that his decision was not influenced by external pressure but was in line with constitutional and legal requirements.

The clarification follows criticisms against Dr. Ayine discontinuing the prosecution of cases including the ambulance purchase trial, Ofosu Ampofo’s alleged leaked tape, the Bank of Ghana’s new governor, Dr. Johnson Asiamah’s alleged role in the collapse of Unibank and UT Bank, and the Saglemi Housing case.

ALSO READ:

• Saglemi housing project: A-G drops charges against Collins Dauda, four others

• Kwakye Ofosu defends A-G’s dropped prosecutions

Mr. Kpebu asserted that it was unbecoming of Mr. Dame to target certain individuals for prosecution, citing the alleged coup plot against ACP Benjamin Agordzo.

The Attorney General on Wednesday, January 29, 2025, issued a notice of abandonment on the case against Dr. Forson and Mr. Jakpa.

The Court of Appeal had previously acquitted and discharged Dr. Ato Forson and Mr. Jakpa in July 2024. Additionally, the court overturned the trial court’s order for Dr. Ato Forson to present his defense.

ALSO READ:

• Ambulance case: Ato Forson was unfairly targeted – Bright Simons
• Ambulance Case: A-G discontinues case against Ato Forson and Richard Jakpa

The meeting will seek to review the committee’s progress and evaluate data collected on misappropriated public assets.

The Bolgatanga East MP has noted that the meeting’s outcome will determine the recovery initiative.

“The ORAL Committee and I will meet early next week, most likely on Monday, and I will be briefed on the information gathered so far. I intend to take over their findings for further action,” he stated.

The minister emphasized the need for a collaborative effort and expressed his commitment to using the committee’s insights to propel meaningful progress.

Meanwhile, the committee tasked with investigating alleged corruption and verifying claims of embezzled state resources has so far received over 700 petitions.

ALSO READ:

• I see ORAL as a channel to report corruption directly to Mahama – Prof…

• ‘Go to court if you think ORAL is unlawful’ – Domelevo challenges critics

• ORAL team receives over 700 petitions

The Bolgatanga East MP has said he will safeguard Ghana’s interests in all international contracts and legal transactions.

The former Deputy Attorney General gave the assurance during his vetting on Monday, January, 13, 2025, highlighting

“I can assure the house that if they are [legal contracts] before the London Court of International Arbitration, I’m quite familiar with that tribunal.

“I have appeared before that tribunal several times. I can assure you that I will put in the measures that will ensure that the interest of the public is not compromised,” he declared.

ALSO READ:

• He is the best choice for Ghana at this point – Former MP on…

• Afenyo-Markin walks out during Dominic Ayine’s vetting [Video]

Speaking on JoyNews‘ Newsfile on October 19, Dr. Ayine argued that the Court’s intervention was legally flawed and driven by a hasty attempt to assert its authority.

Dr. Ayine noted that the stay-of-execution mechanism only applies to judicial or quasi-judicial orders, which usually require an appeal to trigger the process.

However, in this case, there was no formal appeal or notice of appeal because the Speaker of Parliament did not allow a challenge, following parliamentary procedures.

Dr. Ayine argued that the absence of a pending judicial order meant the Court had no legal grounds to issue a stay.

“The Supreme Court in its ruling, in haste to assert its authority, grossly erred… When he [Alexander Afenyo-Markin] wanted to challenge Mr Speaker he was told no, he was going to give him leave to do so. So there was no appeal, there was no notice of appeal before any court of competent jurisdiction for there to have been a stay of execution.” he said.

His comments come after the Supreme Court issued a stay of execution on Speaker Alban Bagbin’s ruling, which declared four parliamentary seats.

He explained that the Constitution assigns jurisdiction over parliamentary seat vacancies to the High Court under Article 99(b).

According to him, the Supreme Court’s role would only arise indirectly, as a referenced jurisdiction. This would occur if the High Court while handling the case, needed clarification on constitutional interpretation and referred the matter to the Supreme Court.

“At best, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in this matter would be a referenced jurisdiction… The High Court would stay its hand, and the matter could be referred to the Supreme Court for interpretation.”

Dr. Ayine also cited concerns about the nature of the case brought before the Supreme Court. He explained that Mr. Afenyo-Markin’s suit, which was filed before the Speaker’s ruling, involved a hypothetical situation rather than an actual controversy.

“In Billson and Apaloo, the court was very clear that the Supreme Court does not deal with hypothetical situations but actual controversies.”

He added “the Supreme Court clearly erred, did not jurisdiction in this matter.”

ALSO READ:

• There is constitutional crisis – Dr Ayine on Supreme Court order on 4 MPs

• Freddie Blay urges Bagbin to seek Supreme Court interpretation on vacant seats ruling

According to him, the order shows there is a constitutional crisis.

“This is a very disturbing development, for them to obtain an ex-parte motion, meaning the parliament was not notified. The order of the Supreme Court means parliament goes back to what it was before the Speaker’s ruling.

“Basically, you have tied the hands of Mr Speaker and Parliament, that shows that it is interfering with the work of legislature. There is a constitutional crisis,” he said in an interview with Accra-based TV3.

In a ruling on Friday, a five-member panel presided over by Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, held that declaration goes against the rights of the affected MPs’ constituents.

It followed an ex parte application filed by the New Patriotic Party (NPP) MPs led by Alexander Kwamena Afenyo-Markin, the Majority Leader in Parliament.

By this decision, the vacant seats have been reinstated.

The court has also ordered Parliament to file its statement of case and memorandum of issues within seven days.

His comments come after reports surfaced of protesters engaging in fisticuffs with law enforcement during a demonstration organised by the Democracy Hub, leading to arrests and subsequent detention.

Speaking in an interview with TV3 on Saturday, September, 28, Dr Ayine emphasised that while the right to protest is protected under the constitution, violence should never be a part of such activities.

He stressed that peaceful demonstrations are an essential part of democracy, but the actions of some protesters who resorted to violence undermine the cause they are advocating for.

According to him, such behaviour only escalates tensions and complicates the relationship between citizens and law enforcement.

The clashes occurred during a three-day protest aimed at pressuring the government to address concerns about corruption, mismanagement, and illegal mining.

The event, which saw the arrest of 53 protesters, quickly turned confrontational, leading to physical confrontations between some demonstrators and police officers.

Dr Ayine expressed regret over the incident and called for more constructive ways of expressing grievances.

“The blocking of traffic is something that is condemnable, the attempt to engage in fisticuffs with police is something that we should condemn. Having said that, I do not think that the activities they engaged in are sufficient reasons you say they should be detained without bail. That is where my concern is where.”

“The denial of bail in this case is tantamount to punishing them, it is tantamount to judicial abuse of the rights of the citizens,” he said.

He stated that the possession or trafficking of any narcotic drug, including cannabis, is a criminal offense under the laws of Ghana.

On Thursday, a Legislative Instrument laid by the government through the Interior Minister on the legalization of cannabis matured.

This L.I. will actualise the law passed to legalize the use of cannabis for industrial and medicinal purposes.

Minority Chief Whip, Governs Kwame Agbodza warned that if the Narcotics Control Commission law is passed by Parliament, ‘wee’ would be abused.

“And none of you is talking about the potential of abuse and how that can degenerate into mental health problems we already have in this country. Why are we pretending that this is going to solve our problem? Minister? Do you even know how many people in this country are smoking weed?” he quizzed.

But Dr. Dominic Ayine was of a different view.

He argued that the new law provides for sanctions against persons who abuse the substance.

 “It goes on to say that a person who commits an offence in sub-section one for use is liable on summary conviction to a fine imposed in accordance with the penalty specified in the second schedule and an additional term of imprisonment specified in the second schedule if the fine is not paid.”

Meanwhile, the Vice Chair of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee, Sarah Adwoa Safo supported this position.

“We’re not talking about just a leaf in someone’s backyard, we’re talking about a whole industry that is been created. And if we have our fertile lands here, and we can grow and make sure that the right framework is in place, I don’t see why we can’t take advantage of it,” she said.

ALSO READ:

• Parliament approves industrial cannabis cultivation management regulation

• Narcotics Control Commission intercepts truck loaded with cannabis

Dr Ayine is accused by the General Legal Council (GLC) of questioning the independence of the judiciary in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Judgement on the 2020 election petition filed by John Mahama.

Dr Ayine in May 2021 participated in a Ghana Centre for Democratic Development (CDD) and Law Faculty of Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) virtual Roundtable/Webinar on the topic “Presidential Election Petitions and their impact on Africa’s Democracy”.

He was asked by the moderator whether or not at the end of the case, his faith In the judiciary had been enhanced or weakened.

The Bolga East MP stated that he had expected the Supreme Court, building on the December 2013 Presidential Election Petition, to be more faithful to legal precedent, more open in the application of the law for purposes of holding the Electoral Commission accountable, and more faithful in its application of the rules of procedure in terms of adducing evidence by the Petitioner in proving his case.

According to him, the fact that all nine Supreme Court judges were unanimous in rejecting almost every application of the Petitioner that he had brought was “telling” in terms of the open-mindedness of the justices as far as the Petition was concerned.

He also expressed concern about the lack of reasons for the rulings given by the Supreme Court. According to him, “at the end of the day, the Petition dampened his hopes with respect to the independence of the judiciary especially its ability to hold the Electoral Commission in particular accountable in election petitions”.

The Chief Justice Kwasi Anin Yeboah on May 25, 2021, directed the Judicial Secretary to make a complaint against Dr Ayine at the Disciplinary Committee of the Council.

The committee invited comments from the former Deputy AG on the complaints and after receiving his response held a preliminary enquiry.

He was slapped with charges including Misconduct in a professional respect, contrary to rule 61(b)(i) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette Rules) 2020(L.I. 2423), Misconduct in a professional respect, contrary to rule 61(bXii) L.I. 2423; and Misconduct in a professional respect, contrary to rule 89(c) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette Rules, 2020 (L.I. 2423).

The Committee after its enquiry concluded that a prima facie case of professional misconduct has been made for which the charges should be levelled against Dr Ayine.

The former Deputy AG however wants Council of State Member Sam Okudzeto out of the panel hearing the matter.

He commences his objection by first pointing out that Mr Okudzeto is a direct appointee of President Akufo-Addo on the Council of State deriving pecuniary benefit.

He notes that Mr Okudzeto on December 16, 2020, granted an interview to Accra based Citi FM.

“During the interview, he scathingly berated and questioned the basis upon which the Petitioner was challenging the outcome of the results of the December 2020 Presidential Election, taking the view that NDC was negligent and therefore could not attack the Electoral Commission on the outcome of the results”, Dr Ayine states in his objection.

He points out that the CDD discussion he participated in was purely a political engagement.

He, therefore, states that any adjudicator who participates in the proceedings against him
“must not only be seen to be neutral, but also removed from, and completely independent of, the politics of the Petition and the two major political parties involved in it.”

He concludes that:

“Mr Samuel Okudzeto also derives prestige and pecuniary benefits from his appointment. In the circumstances, we think, respectfully, that the legality or legitimacy of his appointment to the Council of State is a source of disqualifying bias, apart from the issue of pecuniary benefit.

“Further, a presidential election petition is a direct product of politics at the highest level. The subject matter of the complaint, in this case, is an offshoot of a presidential election petition.

“Mr Samuel Okudzeto comes onto the Panel with a political association, sympathy and link, which, coupled with the public comments that he had made prior to the Petition strongly suggest that he cannot bring an objective judgment to bear on the matter before the Committee.

“He should, therefore, not be sitting on the Panel in judgment over Dr Ayine’s conduct.”

A former Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Dominic Ayine, has rendered an unqualified apology to Justices of the Supreme Court.

The Apex Court initiated contempt of court proceedings against Dr Ayine, who is a Member of Parliament for Bolgatanta East, for a comment he passed against the judges which was deemed scandalous and prejudicial in the ongoing presidential election petition.

Hence, Dr Ayine on Monday, February 22, 2021, appeared before the Apex Court where the Chief Justice, Justice Kwasi Anin-Yeboah said: “Dr Ayine, please you have been summoned here by this court to show course why you should not be committed for contempt.”

The Chief Justice mentioned instances where he drew the attention of Frank Davies,Yaw Oppong, then Marietta Brew Appiah Opong, the learned former Attorney-General to similar acts which they stopped.

Hence, he could not fathom why Dr Ayine also jumped unto such a fray, stating it was least expected of somebody who held a very high office, as the leader of the bar when the Attorney-General was not present.

Dr Ayine, on his part, following the Chief Justice’s comments, apologised to the bench, adding that he has officially submitted an apology at the registry.

RELATED:

• Election petition: Why Dr Ayine was not in court [Audio]

• Election petition: Chief Justice ‘scolds’ Ayine; this is why [Listen]

Lawyers of the contemnor, who were disappointed and expressed similar sentiments to that of the Chief Justice, also pleaded on his behalf.

Dr Ayine was further directed by the court to publicly retract and apologise for his comment after the proceeding.

A directive that saw members of President Nana Akufo-Addo’s legal team show solidarity as they join him on the media podium to apologise.