Court of Appeal Prevented Embarrassment; High Court Let Us Down by Continuing Ambulance Case – Kpebu

Private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu criticized the High Court for not halting the trial of Ato Forson and Richard Jakpa in the ambulance case, especially after it became known that Attorney-General Godfred Dame was in discussions with the third accused, Jakpa.

Kpebu expressed his disappointment with the trial judge, Justice Afia Serwah Asare-Botwe, for proceeding with the case. During an appearance on TV3’s Key Points on Saturday, August 3, regarding the Court of Appeal’s acquittal and discharge of Ato Forson and Jakpa, he said, “It is a welcome decision because the trial judge had disappointed us. The tape should have been enough to stop the trial.”

He further stated, “The Court of Appeal’s decision is stellar; it saved us from embarrassment.”

The High Court was scheduled to sit on Tuesday, July 30, but on the same day, the Court of Appeal upheld an appeal by Minority Leader and former Deputy Finance Minister, Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson, overturning the Financial and Economic Court’s decision.

In March 2023, the High Court had ordered Dr. Forson to open his defense after the Attorney General’s office established a prima facie case against him in the 2.37 million Euro ambulance case. Along with Dr. Forson, Sylvester Anemana, a former Chief Director at the Ministry of Health, and businessman Richard Jakpa were also directed to open their defense.

The trio was charged with willfully causing financial loss to the state in connection with the purchase of ambulances that were not fit for their intended use.

Dr. Forson’s lawyers filed a submission of no case after the prosecution closed its case, but on March 30, 2023, Justice Afia Serwah Asare Botwe ruled that the accused should open their defense.

On July 30, the Court of Appeal set aside the High Court’s decision, stating that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence. The trial judge was found to have erred in requiring Dr. Forson to open his defense, with the panel noting that the evidence was based on impermissible speculations and lacked a clear connection to the accused.

The panel of three justices acquitted and discharged all accused in the case, further stating that any financial loss was due to the Ministry of Health’s recklessness and should be attributed to the Ministry. They concluded that both appellants had made a compelling case for acquittal and discharge.