Private legal practitioner Abraham Amaliba has openly declared his preference for Dr. Dominic Ayine over Godfred Dame, citing what he describes as a clear difference in their commitment to justice and ethical conduct.
Amaliba’s comments, made during an appearance on The Big Issue on Channel One TV, highlight what he sees as a troubling pattern in Dame’s handling of sensitive cases compared to Ayine’s principled approach.
“I would trust Dominic Ayine’s credibility over Godfred Dame’s any day,” Amaliba stated emphatically. “Ayine has prosecuted his own government appointee, his colleague. That tells you something about his integrity—true or false?”
Amaliba contrasted this with Dame’s record, accusing the former Attorney General of shielding allies from accountability. “Godfred Dame is on record to have discontinued the investigation of a colleague—true or false?” he asked. “This inconsistency raises serious questions about his commitment to impartial justice.”
The lawyer also delved into the ethical dilemmas faced by legal practitioners, noting that perspectives on issues like witness tampering can vary widely. “If one lawyer believes witness tampering is unacceptable and undermines a case, while another sees nothing wrong with it, their conclusions will naturally differ,” Amaliba explained.
He pointed to the Jakpa case as a prime example of what he considers Dame’s ethical lapses. “In the Jakpa case, the Attorney General’s actions were so egregious that, in some jurisdictions, he could have been debarred,” Amaliba asserted. “That’s how serious this is.”
Amaliba also defended the decision to discontinue the Jakpa case, referencing the Court of Appeal’s ruling that there was no case to answer. “When you have all this evidence before you as Attorney General, and the court has clearly stated there’s no basis for prosecution, how do you justify continuing?” he questioned. “The ethical thing to do is to drop the case.”
For Amaliba, the contrast between Ayine and Dame is not just about their legal decisions but about their moral compass. Ayine’s willingness to hold his own side accountable, even at personal cost, sets him apart in Amaliba’s view. “Different lawyers have different views on ethics,” he acknowledged, “but Ayine’s actions demonstrate a level of integrity that is hard to ignore.”
Amaliba’s remarks come at a time when public trust in Ghana’s justice system is under scrutiny. The conduct of high-profile legal figures like Ayine and Dame, he suggests, will have lasting implications for the credibility of the nation’s institutions. As debates over prosecutorial ethics continue, Amaliba’s critique serves as a reminder that justice is not just about the law—it’s about the principles that guide its application.
