AG appeals Court ruling acquitting Ato Forson in ambulance case
The office of the Attorney General has filed an appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision to acquit and discharge Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson and Richard Jakpa in the high-profile ambulance case.
In the notice of appeal submitted on August 8, 2024, the Attorney General’s office argued that the Court of Appeal’s majority decision misapplied the rule concerning the standard of proof required to determine whether a case had been sufficiently made for the accused to answer.
The prosecution contends that the court overly focused on potential defenses for the accused when deciding if they should be required to respond to the charges.
The appeal further claims that the Court of Appeal’s consideration of possible defenses at the end of the prosecution’s case was “unfair,” asserting that the prosecution had already discredited those defenses during cross-examination.
According to the appeal, the court’s majority “failed to appreciate the relevant factors in determining whether a prima facie case had been established.”
Additionally, the Attorney General’s office challenged the court’s ruling that letters of credit issued under the contract did not constitute payment, calling this finding “contrary to the evidence” and “untenable.”
The appeal also disputes the court’s conclusion that the Ministry of Health was responsible for the financial loss, arguing that this finding is based on “fundamental errors” and led to a “substantial miscarriage of justice.”
The prosecution highlighted that the court failed to consider critical evidence, including the Ministry of Health’s directive to Big Sea Trading LLC to halt ambulance production before shipment.
The appeal also criticized the court for not recognizing that the Ministry of Health never requested authorization from the Ministry of Finance for the Bank of Ghana to establish the letters of credit used for payment.
Furthermore, the Attorney General’s office argued that the court’s decision failed to correctly apply the essential elements of the offenses with which the accused were charged.
The appeal claims that the court’s ruling on the regularity of the letters of credit authorization is “fraught with grave errors” and caused a “substantial miscarriage of justice.”
The prosecution also disputed the court’s view that acting in an official capacity is a valid defense against charges of willfully causing financial loss to the state.
The appeal emphasized that in criminal law, acting under superior orders is not a defense available to Dr. Forson.
The Attorney General’s office concluded that the Court of Appeal’s decision was unreasonable in light of the evidence presented and is requesting that the Supreme Court overturn the acquittal and discharge, ordering the accused to continue with their defense.