Ghana’s Attorney General, Dominic Ayine, is set to hold a press conference in the coming days to explain the government’s controversial decision to discontinue several high-profile court cases, according to Felix Kwakye Ofosu, Minister of State for Government Communication.
The move, described by Ofosu as a corrective measure for past injustices, has ignited debate over alleged political bias in prosecutions under the previous administration.
In a televised interview on Accra-based Channel One TV this week, Ofosu claimed that many of the discontinued cases were politically driven attempts to suppress opposition voices, particularly targeting prominent members of the National Democratic Congress (NDC). Among those cited were former Minority Leader Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson and former NDC National Chairman Samuel Ofosu Ampofo. “The Ato Forson case was clearly designed to silence him during critical debates on the E-Levy bill,” Ofosu argued, referencing a court decision that later dismissed the charges.
The minister also criticized the prosecution of Ofosu Ampofo, linking it to unresolved violence during the 2019 Ayawaso West Wuogon by-election, where state-affiliated actors were accused of instigating attacks. “Why prosecute Ampofo while those responsible for the Ayawaso chaos remain untouched?” he questioned, highlighting perceived inconsistencies in accountability.
The Attorney General’s upcoming address is anticipated to clarify the legal and ethical reasoning behind the discontinuations, amid public skepticism over whether the move represents genuine judicial reform or partisan maneuvering. Observers note that the decision risks polarizing perceptions of Ghana’s justice system, with critics accusing the current government of mirroring the alleged abuses of its predecessors.
The controversy underscores deeper tensions in Ghana’s political landscape, where high-stakes legal battles often intertwine with partisan rivalries. As the Attorney General prepares to speak, the public awaits answers on how the government plans to reconcile its stated commitment to justice with accusations of selective enforcement—a balancing act that could define its legacy in upholding the rule of law.
