Deputy Attorney-General (AG) nominee Justice Srem-Sai has doubled down on his claim that he reviewed a memo advising the discontinuation of criminal charges against Bank of Ghana Governor Dr. Johnson Asiama, despite fierce denials from former AG Godfred Dame.
The contentious issue dominated Srem-Sai’s parliamentary vetting on Wednesday, reigniting debates over transparency and accountability in high-profile prosecutions.
“I stand by my comment—I saw the memo,” Srem-Sai told lawmakers during his confirmation hearing before Parliament’s Appointments Committee. When pressed to produce evidence, he clarified, “I am unable to provide the memo due to my current status, but I saw electronic trails of it in my capacity as a private citizen.” His remarks directly contradict former AG Dame, who has repeatedly dismissed the memo’s existence and challenged critics to substantiate the claim.
The controversy stems from a decision by former Deputy AG Dr. Dominic Ayine to drop charges against Asiama, who was implicated in a financial misconduct case linked to Ghana’s banking sector clean-up. Ayine, who briefly served as AG in 2025, asserted that his review of the case revealed “fatal flaws” in the evidence. He cited an internal memo from the AG’s Prosecutions Division, allegedly sent to Dame, which recommended terminating the case due to weak prospects of conviction.
“My attention was drawn to an internal memo prepared by the prosecutions division… which recommended that the charges against [Asiama] be dropped,” Ayine told journalists earlier this month. “This was pivotal to my decision.”
But Dame has vehemently rejected these assertions. At a press conference last week, he stated, “No such memorandum exists. I challenge Dr. Ayine to produce it for public scrutiny.” He accused Ayine of fabricating the memo to justify what he termed an “unlawful” discontinuation of the case.
The clash has raised questions about the integrity of Ghana’s legal processes, particularly in sensitive cases involving high-ranking officials. Asiama, once a defendant, now leads the central bank—a twist critics argue underscores the need for clarity on how such prosecutions are handled.
Srem-Sai’s testimony amplifies calls for transparency within the AG’s office, especially regarding internal communications that influence prosecutorial decisions. Legal analysts note that if the memo exists, its contents could shed light on whether the discontinuation was legally sound or politically motivated. If it does not, Ayine’s credibility—and by extension, Srem-Sai’s—faces serious scrutiny.
The nominee’s inability to produce the memo, citing his “current status,” has also sparked speculation about potential restrictions on disclosing classified government documents. Meanwhile, civil society groups demand an independent audit of the AG’s records to resolve the dispute.
As Parliament deliberates Srem-Sai’s appointment, the controversy threatens to overshadow his confirmation process. Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have demanded further investigation, with opposition members framing the issue as a test of the government’s commitment to judicial accountability.
For now, the public is left with conflicting narratives—and a lingering question: Who is telling the truth? The answer could redefine trust in Ghana’s legal institutions.
