Constitutional lawyer Justice Srem-Sai remarked that the Court of Appeal’s verdict in the ambulance trial, acquitting and discharging the accused, was not unexpected, citing revelations from discussions between Attorney General Godferd Dame and third accused Richard Jakpa as indicative of the A-G’s lack of confidence in the case.
Speaking on News Central on Tuesday, July 30, Srem-Sai asserted, “The decision did not surprise me; it was predictable.
The conversation between the A-G and Jakpa commenced after the High Court dismissed the submission of no case.”
Given these conversations, Srem-Sai posed a rhetorical question, questioning the A-G’s confidence in his case. He emphasized that the Court of Appeal’s decision effectively concludes proceedings at the High Court level.
The Court of Appeal’s ruling on July 30 overturned a previous decision by the Financial and Economic Court, which had ordered Dr Cassiel Ato Forson and his co-accused, including Richard Jakpa, to present their defence against charges related to a 2.37 million Euro ambulance procurement scandal.
In its judgment, the Court of Appeal criticized the prosecution for failing to substantiate its claims adequately.
The panel of justices highlighted errors by the trial judge and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to justify continuing the trial against the accused.
The court further attributed any financial losses to recklessness within the Ministry of Health rather than deliberate misconduct by the defendants, a finding that should prompt caution in similar cases, and led to their acquittal.
The decision marks a significant turn in a case that has drawn attention for its implications on governmental accountability and legal proceedings.
The Court of Appeal’s decision affects the immediate parties involved. It sets a precedent for future cases, potentially influencing how governmental accountability is upheld and legal proceedings are conducted in similar situations.
