Ambulance Case: Was Attorney-General entrapped?

The National Democratic Congress (NDC) is set to play a tape recording involving a Supreme Court judge, Mr Richard Jakpa, an accused person in the ongoing trial of ambulance purchases, and Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame.
It is suspected that the secret recording was made at the residence of the Supreme Court judge and a phone call Mr Dame placed to Mr Jakpa.
National Communications Officer of the NDC Sammy Gyamfi, in a facebook post served notice that the NDC will this week put out the true facts about Mr Dame’s unprofessional conduct.
The NDC plans to use the tape to argue that Minority Leader Cassiel Ato Forson and two others on trial for causing financial loss to the state in the purchase of ambulances are being persecuted.
Several prominent individuals, including former President John Mahama, Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin, and the leadership of the minority in Parliament, have openly called for the discontinuation of the prosecution.
It is also claimed that some senior members of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) want the prosecution discontinued.
However, Attorney-General Dame has ignored all these calls.
Information indicates that the Attorney-General was invited by a Justice of the Supreme Court of Ghana to his house for a discussion, which he attended.
According to the account, during the conversation with the Supreme Court Justice, the third accused, Mr Jakpa, who the judge introduced as a cousin, appeared at the house.
The claim is that the Supreme Court Judge then inquired about the status of the plea bargaining proposal submitted by the accused and whether it could be accepted.
During the meeting, Mr Jakpa claimed he was not guilty and that the Attorney-General should stop prosecuting him.
The Attorney-General reportedly attributed the failure of the plea bargaining process to the strategies adopted by the accused persons.
Letters indicate that plea bargain proposals were submitted to the Office of the Attorney-General on April 16, April 27, May 16, and May 30, 2023.
Mr Jakpa, in the presence of the Supreme Court Judge, accused the Attorney-General of being too difficult and claimed the Attorney-General had something against him.
He also blamed the Attorney-General for being the main hindrance to the settlement efforts, stating that if the Attorney-General was inclined, the case would have been settled long ago.
In response, the Attorney-General reportedly said his position was influenced by Dr. Ato Forson, the first accused in the matter, who had brought a senior Member of Parliament to his home to plead for the discontinuation of the case.
The information suggests that Dr. Ato Forson accepted to submit a plea bargaining proposal but was not prepared to explicitly acknowledge on paper that he had offered to do so, fearing it would imply acceptance of wrongdoing.
Unknown to the Attorney-General, the entire conversation at the Supreme Court Judge’s house was being recorded.
The Attorney-General reportedly assured the Justice of the Supreme Court that if Mr Jakpa was willing to come clean, a plea bargain was possible.
Mr Jakpa is reported to have said at the meeting that the Attorney-General was determined to secure his conviction.
In response, Mr Dame is said to have indicated that if Mr Jakpa was truthful when testifying and did not attempt to be “clever” or evasive, it would facilitate an acceptance of a plea proposal from him.
Mr Dame advised Mr Jakpa to cooperate by being truthful and faithful to the record of the transaction to facilitate a plea negotiation.
According to the information, the Attorney-General told Mr Jakpa in the presence of the Supreme Court Judge that during cross-examination, he would show Mr Jakpa the Cabinet approval for the transaction (which the prosecution had already tendered at the trial) and ask whether Big Sea Company was mentioned in the Cabinet approval.
The expected answer must be “no” because this is borne out by the record.
The Attorney-General said he would then proceed to ask whether Big Sea was mentioned in the Parliamentary approval (which the prosecution had already tendered at the trial), and the answer must also be “no” since that is what is on record.
The Attorney-General said Mr Jakpa should not think that by answering “no” or seeming to confirm the Attorney-General’s position, he would be implicating himself or that the Attorney-General was putting him in trouble since Mr Jakpa would only be confirming the truth on record.
The Attorney-General also said he would ask Mr Jakpa about a letter written by Madam Sherry Aryittey, former Minister for Health (which the prosecution had already tendered at the trial).
By that letter, Aryittey had indicated to Big Sea that her Ministry did not have funds to establish the Letters of Credit (LCs) by which the transaction was paid for and therefore Big Sea should stop producing the ambulances.
Despite this, the Ministry of Finance, through Dr. Ato Forson, proceeded to establish the LCs and directed the amount to be charged to the Ministry of Health’s account.
Mr Jakpa disagreed with the obvious interpretation of Aryittey’s letter and claimed that by agreeing with the Attorney-General, he would be “implicating” Dr. Ato Forson.
Soon thereafter, the Attorney-General left the house of the Supreme Court Justice.
The following day, the Attorney-General called Mr Jakpa on the telephone and indicated that he desired an adjournment as he had to respond to a pressing issue in Cabinet.
The Attorney-General called Mr Jakpa following the inability to reach Mr Jakpa’s lawyer on the phone.
Mr Jakpa told the Attorney-General that he couldn’t be absent from court since the trial judge had, at the previously adjourned date, issued a bench warrant for his arrest for not attending court without reasonable cause.
Unknown to the Attorney-General, Mr Jakpa is suspected to have recorded that conversation as well.
Subsequently, the Attorney-General got through to Mr Jakpa’s counsel and told him exactly what he had told Mr Jakpa on the phone.
Counsel for Mr Jakpa later met the Attorney-General and held discussions regarding the plea bargaining proposal.
The information suggests that Mr Dame had never met Mr Jakpa anywhere apart from the residence of the Supreme Court Judge.
On March 30, 2023, the Court ruled that a prima facie case had been established by the prosecution against all the accused persons and that they ought to open their defense.