The Office of the Attorney General has filed a notice of appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment that acquitted and discharged Dr Cassiel Ato Forson and Richard Jakpa in the ambulance case.
In the notice of appeal filed on August 8, 2024, the office cited as grounds of appeal that the majority decision misdirected itself in the application of the rule on the standard of proof required in determining whether a case has been made for the accused to answer.
According to this ground of appeal, the prosecution alleges that “the majority of the court of Appeal unnecessarily dwelt on the possible defences for the accused in determining whether a case has been made for the accused to answer.”
For the office of the Attorney General, the consideration of the possible defences at the close of the prosecution’s case was “unfair to prosecution since the prosecution had indeed discredited the possible defences in cross-examination of witnesses called by the accused at the time of the judgment of the court of appeal.”
The prosecution notes that the majority decision “failed to appreciate the relevant factors in determining whether a Prima Facie case has been established for the accused persons to answer.”
The notice of the appeal further states that the majority decision that the letters of credit did not constitute a payment under the contract is contrary to the evidence in the case and untenable.
The appeal also states that the finding of the majority decision stating that the Ministry of Health caused the financial loss is laced with fundamental errors and occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice
The prosecution providing particulars of the errors stated that the majority failed to consider the evidence on record that the Ministry of Health ordered Big Sea Trading LLC to stop producing the ambulances before the vehicles were shipped.
It also noted that the majority decision “failed to consider the fact that the Ministry of Health never requested the Ministry of Finance to authorize Bank of Ghana to establish the letters of credit which were used to pay for the vehicles.”
The appeal is also anchored on the belief of the prosecution that the majority decision failed to appreciate and correctly apply to the evidence, the essential ingredients of the offences with which the accused were charged.
The appeal also alleges that the holding by the court of appeal that the authorisation for the letters of credit was regular is “fraught with grave errors and occasioned a substantial miscarriage of Justice.”
To the prosecution, the court of appeal failed to appreciate the fundamental point that acting in an official capacity “is no defence to the offence of willfully causing financial loss to the state.”
The office of the Attorney General further indicated that the majority decision equally failed to appreciate that in criminal law acting under superior orders is no defence available to Dr Forson.
The prosecution also deems as unreasonable the determination by the majority decision that the prosecution ought to have proven that the minister of Finance did not authorize the letters of credit
For the office of the Attorney General, the judgment is unreasonable having regard to the evidence on record.
The prosecution is asking the Supreme Court to thus set aside the acquittal and discharge and order the accused to continue with their defence.
