At exactly 12:05 pm, Godfred Yeboah Dame, Minister for Justice and Attorney-General (A-G), walked into the Financial and Economic Division 2 of the Accra High Court.
The court, as usual, was full to capacity and a bench meant for six people was occupied by nine. The front rows of the court were heavily occupied by members of the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC), who stole glances and kept on looking at the A-G as he entered the courtroom.
The lawyers at the time had finished introducing themselves and the focus was on Justice Afia Serwah Asare-Botwe, a Court of Appeal judge sitting with an additional responsibility of the High Court.
The sitting started with the judge requesting Thaddeus Sory to raise his objection to the A-G’s affidavit in opposition to a motion filed to discontinue the trial of his client, Richard Jakpa.
Godfred Dame’s arrival in court
Justice Asare-Botwe paused, upon noticing the arrival of the A-G and ordered the recorders to record the time that Mr. Godfred Yeboah Dame arrived, at 12:05 pm.
The judge indicated that four applications filed by the accused persons, Dr. Cassiel Baah Ato Forson, first accused (A1) and Richard Jakpa (A3), are before her, but the court will take the objection of Sory only.
Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson, former Deputy Minister for Finance and the Minority Leader in Parliament, through his lawyers, had file three applications – Stay of Proceedings, an Order for Enquiry into the conduct of the Attorney-General and Order of Mistrial.
Mr. Sory has filed a single application for the court to make an order to strike out the charges against Mr Jakpa.
The judge held that she will not take oral submission on the other three applications, but will give her ruling on them, come this Thursday.
She pointed out that she would base her ruling on the applications and attached affidavit.
With Mr. Sory given the leeway to raise his objection, he argued that the A-G’s affidavit in opposition to strike out the charges against A3 failed to disclose the deponent’s source of information.
He told the court that they are objecting to the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent on May 31, 2024 on two grounds.
Mr Sory’s objection
First of all, that affidavit fails to disclose the source of the information in respect of the matters contained in the affidavit, specifically the matters relating to the third accused person’s direct interactions with the Honourable A-G and for that matter…contains matters, which are not in his personal knowledge and are, therefore, inadmissible on grounds of hearsay.
My lady’s attention is specifically drawn to paragraphs 13, 16 and 20 of the affidavit in opposition and the deposition of which is paragraph 1.
Paragraph 1 of the affidavit says, “he says he has the authority of the A-G to depose to the affidavit in the course of …”
Our submission is that that deposition does not disclose the source of the information, which is contained in this affidavit in opposition.
Being a PSA at A-G’s office does not mean that you have personal knowledge of direct interactions that took place between the A-G and Jakpa. He referred to matters that took place in chambers, where he wasn’t presence.
Paragraph 15, in which the despondent talks about meetings held between the third accused person and the A-G at the house of a Justice of the Supreme Court, where he was not present.
Paragraph 16, most importantly, there is paragraph 20 which he says that the A-G has never replied or read any of the messages the accused sent him.
Rule 20 of High Court Civil Procedure Rule and it’s very clear that the despondent to an affinity must depose to matters of which he has personal knowledge…
A-G’s opposition
Mr. Dame, in response said the objection was completely unfounded and without any merit, adding that the manner in which the objection itself has been raised defeats the requirements of fairness. He argued that Mr. Sory curiously did not state any particulars of the objection.
He continued that it is not accurate for counsel for A3 to say that the despondent did not disclose his source of information.
“I refer to paragraph 1 of the affidavit. He indicated that they came to his knowledge in the course of his work —that’s the source.”
According to him, the authorities that were cited by Mr. Sory are completely irrelevant because the authorities are civil while the instant trial is criminal.
The A-G noted that paragraph 16 also says the A-G has never met Jakpa, he is supposed to dispute through a supplementary affidavit. It is a material allegation I have made and he must refute with affidavit and not on point of law. Mr Dame stated that he has met Jakpa at the Supreme Court judge, Yoni Kolendi’s house, only once.
Background
The applications are in respect of a tape recording alleging that the A-G had a telephone conversation with A3, an exposē, which follows A3’s testimony of May 23, 2024, that the AG has been impressing upon him to cooperate with him to secure a sentence against A1.
Charges
Jakpa is the founder of japka@business, a local representative Of Dubai based company, Big Sea, which was contracted by the Government of Ghana to supply ambulance to support the health sector.
Thirty out of the 200 ambulance supplied were said not to be fit for purpose and thus occasioning financial loss to the state to the tune of €2.3 million
