Member of the NPP Communications Team and aspiring national treasurer, Alfred Thompson, has criticised the increasing number of criminal charges filed in high profile cases, arguing that excessive counts often wane the substance of prosecution. He suggested that repeated adjustments in charge sheets undermine clarity and create uncertainty about the direction of legal proceedings.
He said this after the Attorney General refiled criminal charges against Hanan Abdul-Wahab Aludiba, the former Chief Executive Officer of the National Food and Buffer Stock Company Limited. The charges were brought following what prosecutors described as fresh evidence in an ongoing investigation into the alleged misappropriation of public funds.
Thompson explained that legal practice should prioritise precision, noting that lawyers often expect focused charges that clearly define the offence being prosecuted. He argued that when cases begin with numerous counts and later reduce, public confidence in the strength of the case is affected.
According to him, such patterns influence public perception even before courts determine guilt or innocence. He stated that extensive initial charge lists followed by reductions create doubt about consistency in the administration of justice.
“When people start seeing cases being dropped, most lawyers will tell you that when there are too many charges against a person, it often leads to nothing.”
Alfred Thompson
He further noted that fluctuating charge numbers, such as moving from twenty four to twenty or eighteen counts, raises questions about prosecutorial direction. He added that repeated reductions give the impression that cases are not firmly grounded from the outset.
Thompson also raised concern about how public communication from prosecuting authorities determines perception before trial. He argued that early media briefings influences public opinion and frames accused persons in a negative light.
“Anytime the Attorney General comes out, he holds a press conference and criminalises the person before sending them to court. Whenever charges are brought, he criminalises the person in the media before they are taken to court.”
Alfred Thompson
He further stated that justice should not be influenced by negotiated withdrawals or shifting charge strategies after public announcements. Thompson maintained that consistency in prosecution is essential for maintaining public trust in legal institutions.
The NPP Communications Team member argued that investigative outcomes should be driven strictly by evidence rather than political interpretation. Thompson added that public understanding of prosecutorial processes must improve to prevent misinterpretation of legal actions.
Structured Messaging Determines Public Perception And Institutional Investigations
The Member of the NPP Communications Team and aspiring national treasurer, Alfred Thompson, alleged that opposition communication structures are influenced by a deliberate strategy aimed at influencing public perception. He argued that the approach demonstrates a long standing political culture built around structured messaging and persuasion.
Thompson stated that communication systems within the party have historically been designed to deliver coordinated narratives during political engagement. He explained that even when titles change over time, the underlying communication method remains consistent in its intent and delivery.
According to him, the party’s messaging approach can be described as a trained system of political persuasion. He added that such practices form part of what he described as a modus operandi in political communication strategy.
He further claimed that election periods often expose these communication patterns, with strong narratives used to guide public opinion. Thompson argued that these messages tend to follow a consistent direction across different political cycles.
He questioned institutional investigations and access to government systems following leadership changes. Thompson interpreted such actions as political interference, stating that administrative reviews are part of normal governance processes.
He referenced the Buffer Stock Company as an example, noting that leadership transitions often lead to renewed scrutiny of operations. Thompson argued that such reviews are frequently misrepresented as politically driven actions.
He further explained that forensic audits are standard tools used within state institutions to assess accountability and performance. According to him, these audits are initiated to establish facts rather than to support predetermined conclusions.
Thompson stated that in some cases, audits have been conducted across agencies, including the National Homeownership Scheme, without producing significant findings. He used this to argue that not all investigations result in the outcomes publicly anticipated.
He also questioned claims that access to institutional systems by chief executives automatically implies wrongdoing. Thompson argued that oversight mechanisms allow authorised reviews where necessary to ensure transparency.
Concluding his remarks, he stated that communication around governance and investigations requires greater accuracy to avoid public misunderstanding. He added that consistency in both political messaging and institutional accountability remain essential for public confidence.
READ ALSO: MIIF Can Finance Local Ownership of Expiring Mineral Concessions – Prof. Oquaye
