Dela Coffie, a vocal National Democratic Congress (NDC) activist has called on the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Godfred Yeboah Dame, to confront the fundamental truths of the legal case involving the Minority Leader and former Deputy Finance Minister, Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson.

Highlighting the details of the Appeal Court’s ruling, Dela Coffie emphasized that the court made it unequivocally clear that Dr. Forson did not authorize any payments for the contract under scrutiny.

Again, Dela Coffie indicated that the court by its decision rejected the assertion that authorizing Letters of Credit equates to authorizing payments.

“In a deft move, the Court of Appeal in a two-to-one decision ruled on Tuesday that the former Deputy Finance Minister, Dr Ato Forson cannot be held liable for his role in the establishment of a Letter of Credit in the ongoing ambulance trial, foreclosing a very acrimonious legal challenge the minority leader has been saddled with in the last two years”.
Dela Cooffie, NDC Activist

He referenced the view of one of the trial judges, Justice Ackaah-Boafo, arguing that the learned judge’s views emphasized that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to link Dr. Forson to the alleged offenses.

According to him, Justice Bright Mensah, in a concurring opinion also questioned why Dr. Forson was on trial, highlighting that the ambulance deal primarily fell under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health.

He pointed out that according to Justice Mensah, apart from requesting the Bank of Ghana to issue the Letters of Credit for the ambulances, Dr. Forson had no significant role in the process.

Ministry of Health’s Responsibility

Given the above, Dela Coffie, the NDC activist contended that the Court of Appeal established that it was the Ministry of Health’s duty to conduct the necessary pre-shipment inspections and ensure that the imported ambulances met the required specifications.

In his statement, Dela Coffie stated that Justice Mensah pointed out that the Ministry of Health, as the applicant and beneficiary of the Letters of Credit, was responsible for ensuring value for money, not Dr. Forson.

“The court held that the contract in question has nothing to do with the Ministry of Finance and that the then Finance Minister – Seth Terkper, represented by his deputy, Dr Ato Forson merely facilitated the contract by authorizing the Letter of Credit – Additionally, there were conditions precedent upon which payment ought to have been made and it’s none of Dr Ato Forson’s business to insist that those conditions are met”.
Dela Coffie, NDC Activist

In effect, Dela Coffie argued that the Appellate court said any financial loss to the state and criminal burden, arising out of the ambulance contract ought to be placed at the doorsteps of the Ministry of Health, and not the Ministry of Finance for merely authorizing the Letter of Credit.

Highlighting the broader legal implications of the Court of Appeal’s decision, Dela Coffie pointed out that the verdict underscores the need for prosecutorial precision and due process in legal proceedings.

According to him, the court stressed that the Attorney General must present robust evidence to support allegations, rather than relying on assumptions or political motivations.

“The whole case turned on the issue of whether Dr Ato Forson as Deputy Finance Minister got authorisation from the substantive Minister of Finance, Hon Seth Terkper in the establishment of the letter of credit from the Bank of Ghana.
“The Court of Appeal made it clear that it is not enough for the Attorney General to allege that Dr Ato Forson acted on his own, and not prove what he alleges – Indeed, it was up to the person alleging to prove his case but the Attorney General failed to prove that Dr Ato Forson acted without the consent of his boss regarding the establishment of the letters of credit”.
Dela Coffie, NDC Activist

Additionally, Dela Coffie posited that the ruling serves as a stark reminder that prosecutors are responsible for building strong cases based on evidence, not conjecture.

He also added that the ruling reinforces the principle that judges must decide cases based on the law and the merits of the evidence presented, free from political influence.

Dela Coffie, in conclusion, lauded the appellate court’s ruling, viewing it as a critical juncture in the pursuit of justice.

He emphasized that the decision highlights the judiciary’s commitment to upholding due process and not succumbing to political pressures, adding that the appellate court’s ruling in favor of Dr. Ato Forson, is a significant legal victory, reinforcing the necessity of evidence-based prosecution and judicial independence.

Dela Coffie stressed that for the Attorney General, the decision is a wake-up call for him to reassess his approach to high-profile cases and ensure that legal arguments are grounded in solid evidence.

“More than anything for me, this decision just confirmed that the judiciary is never really going to be railroaded into a side-stepping due process for political expediency’, Dela Coffie ended.