AG hints at appeal as Court of Appeal frees Ato Forson, Jakpa

The Court of Appeal has acquitted and discharged Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson, a former Deputy Minister of Finance, and Richard Jakpa, a businessman, of all charges brought against them by the state. This decision came in a 2:1 majority ruling, upholding the submission of no case filed by the defendants in the High Court’s Ambulances Trial.
The Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Mr. Godfred Yeboah Dame, has announced plans to appeal the decision, describing it as erroneous and detrimental to the fight against impunity and abuse of public office. He argued that the ruling was grossly unfair to the nation and contradicted the substantial evidence presented by the prosecution.

Case background
The case involved allegations that Dr. Forson and Mr. Jakpa were part of an operation that imported ambulances failing to meet required specifications, causing financial loss to the state. Previously, the High Court had ordered Dr. Forson and two others to open their defense after establishing a prima facie case against them.

Court of Appeal ruling
Justice Kweku Tawiah Ackah-Boafo, a member of the Court of Appeal panel, stated that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence and that the trial judge erred in calling Dr. Forson and Mr. Jakpa to open their defense.
Justice Bright Mensah, another member of the panel, added that apart from the letters written by Dr. Forson, there was not enough evidence to implicate him.
He emphasized that the Ministry of Health was responsible for pre-inspection of the ambulances, and the current presence of the ambulances at the port could not be blamed on Dr. Forson.
Regarding Mr. Jakpa, the judge noted that there was no evidence to require him to answer the charges, and any financial loss was due to the recklessness of the Ministry of Health.
The judge concluded that the appeal by Dr. Forson and Mr. Jakpa succeeded, leading to their acquittal and discharge.
Justice Alex Poku Acheampong, presiding, said the trial judge did not err by holding that accused should answers.

Attorney-General’s response
Following the ruling, Mr. Dame issued a statement expressing dissatisfaction with the decision, labeling it as perverse and against the pursuit of public accountability and the rule of law. The Attorney-General highlighted that the vehicles, purported to be ambulances, were imported in violation of the contract governing the transaction.
He mentioned that the Ministry of Health had cautioned against the importation, yet Dr. Forson instructed the issuance of Letters of Credit for payment, leading to the shipment of substandard vehicles.
The statement emphasized that the vehicles were not fit for purpose and that reports indicated they could never be converted into ambulances.
The Attorney-General’s office maintains that the prosecution had provided cogent evidence substantiating all charges against the accused persons and that the Court of Appeal’s decision undermined these efforts.

Next steps
The Attorney-General has vowed to appeal the decision to ensure public accountability and uphold the rule of law.
The appeal aims to nullify the effects of the Court of Appeal’s ruling and reinforce the prosecution’s case against Dr. Forson and Mr. Jakpa.

Relevant facts of the matter
The relevant facts of the matter, as borne out by the undisputed evidence led so far, show that the vehicles purporting to be ambulances were imported into the country in December 2014 in violation of the contract governing the transaction.
It said the then Minister of Health, Ms Sherry Aryittey, had cautioned in writing against the importation of vehicles into the country.
The statement said there was thus no request by the Ministry of Health for the vehicles to be imported into the country, or for the Letters of Credit (LC) which were the means of payment for the vehicles under the contract to be established.
“With no request from the Ministry of Health or any authorisation whatsoever, and at a time that the period for supply of the ambulances under the contract had even lapsed, Dr Forson, by letters dated August 7 and August 14, 2014, instructed the Bank of Ghana and the Controller and Accountant-General to issue Letters of Credit (LC) for the payment for the vehicles,” it said.
The statement said the LCs were consequently established on August 18, 2014, and 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 LC.
It said when the vehicles arrived, they were not of the kind specified in the contract and apart from the absence of basic parts and equipment required for an ambulance, the National Ambulance Service and the Ministry of Health noted serious defects with every material part of the vehicles.
It said such was the fundamental nature of the defects that Dr Alex Segbefia, a former Minister of Health, described the vehicles as “ordinary vans” not fit for purpose.
It said in fact, a report on the vehicles by the authorised dealers in Mercedes Benz, commissioned by the Ministry of Health in 2015 to assess the vehicles (tendered in evidence by the prosecution), said the vehicles could never be converted into ambulances.
It said 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.
The High Court on March 30, 2023, ordered Dr Forson and two others to open their defence after a prima facie case had been established them.
Two are Dr Sylvester Anemana, a former Chief of Director at Ministry of Health, and Mr Jakpa.
Dr Forson, Dr. Anemana and Jakpa are charged with causing financial loss to the State.
The State later filed a nolle prosequi to discontinue the charges leveled against Dr Anemana, who is currently out of the country for medical treatment.
Dr Forson was granted a self-recognisance bail of GH¢3million for allegedly wilfully 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).”