DETAILS OF SECRET RECORDING OF A-G’S CONVERSATION IN A SUPREME COURT JUDGE’S HOUSE

Investigations have uncovered a diabolical strategy by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) to use a secretly recorded conversation that took place in the residence of a Supreme Court Judge between the Supreme Court Judge, the 3rd accused person in the Ambulance Trial, Richard Jakpa and the Attorney-General as the main weapon to stop the prosecution of the Minority Leader, Cassiel Ato Forson and two others for causing financial loss to the State.

There has been incessant pressure on the Attorney-General to discontinue the Ambulance prosecution but the A-G has remained firm and stuck to his grounds adducing evidence in the form of many documents at the trial to back his case in court. Pressure has come from many persons including former President Mahama, the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, the leadership of the minority in Parliament and some senior members of the NPP.

It has been revealed that Former President Mahama had stated the discontinuance of the Ambulance Trial as a condition to get members of the minority in Parliament to agree to the recent recall of Parliament from recess. The former President has on other occasions, also stated it as a condition for the cooperation of the minority in Parliament. The Attorney-General had also alleged in a press release, that Honourable Cassiel Ato Forson himself had been to the house of the A-G to negotiate a discontinuance of the prosecution.

Investigations have disclosed that on the fateful day on which the secret recording was made, the Attorney-General had been invited by a Justice of the Supreme Court of Ghana to come to his house for a discussion. He obliged as would be expected. In the course of the conversation with the Justice of the Supreme Court, the third accused, Richard Jakpa, whom the Judge introduced as a cousin, came over to visit.

The Supreme Court Judge then enquired about the status of the plea bargaining proposal submitted by the accused and whether it was possible for same to be accepted. Jakpa also claimed at the meeting that he was not guilty and that the A-G should stop prosecuting him.

The Attorney-General at the meeting explained the reason why the plea bargaining proposal had not yet been accepted by the prosecution. The A-G actually attributed the failure of the plea bargaining process to the strategies adopted by the accused persons. This plea bargaining proposal to the Office of the Attorney-General, from our investigations, is reflected in letters dated 16th April, 27th April, 16th May and 30th May 2023 submitted to the A-G.
Richard Jakpa, in the presence of the Supreme Court Judge, accused the A-G of being too difficult and that the A-G had something against him. He stated that the A-G was the main hindrance to the settlement efforts and that if the A-G was really inclined, the case would have been settled long ago. The A-G said at the meeting that he had taken this position because, Ato Forson, the 1st accused in the matter, had been to the A-G’s house in the company of a senior Member of Parliament and pleaded with the A-G to stop prosecuting him. The A-G had told him that the only way out was for Ato Forson together with the other accused persons, to submit a plea bargaining proposal. Even though Ato Forson accepted to do this, he was not prepared to explicitly acknowledge on paper that he had offered to do plea bargaining with the A-G, since he thought to do so would imply acceptance of wrongdoing on his part. Unknown to the A-G, the whole conversation in the Supreme Court judge’s house was being recorded.

Our investigations further reveal that the Attorney-General assured the Justice of the Supreme Court that he did not really have a problem with the 3rd accused and that if plea bargaining was what he wanted, it was just for him to come clean and indicate unequivocally that, he wanted same.

Mr Jakpa is reported to have said at the meeting that, despite all the A-G had stated, he was still pursuing him and that the A-G really meant to secure his conviction. The A-G was compelled to assure Jakpa in the presence of the Justice of the Supreme Court once again, that he had nothing against him, and that, in his case, if he was truthful when testifying and did not attempt to be “clever” or evasive, it would facilitate an acceptance of a plea proposal by him.

The Attorney-General stated that all he would require of Jakpa, to facilitate a plea negotiation was for him to cooperate by being truthful and faithful to the record of the transaction. The A-G told Jakpa in the presence of the Justice of the Supreme Court that, for instance, when he is cross-examining Jakpa, he would show him the Cabinet approval for the transaction (which the prosecution had already tendered at the trial) and ask whether Big Sea Company was mentioned in the Cabinet approval. The answer. obviously, must be “No” because this is borne out by the record. The A-G will proceed to ask whether Big Sea was mentioned in the Parliamentary approval (which the prosecution had already tendered at the trial). The answer, clearly, must also be “No”. Jakpa should not think that by answering “No” or seeming to confirm the A-G’s position, he would be implicating himself or that the A-G is putting him into any trouble. Jakpa will only be confirming the truth as is clear from the record.

The A-G also said that he would ask Mr Jakpa about a letter written by Madam Sherry Aryittey, former Minister for Health (which the prosecution had already tendered at the trial). Sherry Aryittey, by that letter, had indicated to Big Sea that her Ministry, the Ministry of Health, did not have funds to establish the Letters of Credit (LCs), by which the transaction was paid for, and therefore Big Sea should stop producing the ambulances. In spite of this, the Ministry of Finance through the 1st accused, Ato Forson, proceeded to establish the LCs and directed the amount to be charged to the Ministry of Health’s account.

The 3rd accused sharply disagreed with the obvious interpretation of the letter written by Sherry Aryittey and claimed that by agreeing with the A-G, he would be “implicating” the 1st accused. Our investigations reveal that the 3rd accused said so, because, apparently, he was recording the conversation.

Soon thereafter, the A-G told the Justice of the Supreme Court that he wanted to leave, and he left the house of the Justice of the Supreme Court. He left the 3rd accused in that house.

The following day, the A-G called the 3rd accused on the telephone and indicated that he desired an adjournment as he had to respond to a very pressing issue in Cabinet. The A-G called the 3rd accused because he had failed to reach his lawyer on the phone. Jakpa expressed his inability to be absent from court since the trial judge had, at the previously adjourned date, issued a bench warrant for Jakpa’s arrest since he had been absent from proceedings without reasonable cause. Unknown to the A-G, Jakpa recorded that conversation as well.

It has emerged that, subsequently, the A-G got through to the counsel for the 3rd accused and told him exactly what he had told the 3rd accused on phone. Counsel for the 3rd accused also later came over to meet the A-G and held discussions with him regarding the plea bargaining proposal of the 3rd accused.

Our investigations show that the A-G had never met the 3rd accused anywhere apart from the residence of the Supreme Court Judge. The meeting at the Supreme Court Judge’s house, apparently, was a set-up as the 3rd accused knew that it was definitely not possible for him to meet the A-G anywhere and secretly record him.

The A-G had never been influenced by the introduction to Jakpa by the Supreme Court Judge, or any representation made by Jakpa, to stop the prosecution. The A-G had not been influenced by the strong pressure piled on him by the other accused persons, particularly, the 1st accused, Ato Forson, who had even visited the A-G in his house to plead. The A-G had kept his focus and proceeded to build a strong case against all the accused persons.

The A-G had apparently relied solely on documents existing in the public service, i.e. the various Ministries and Departments. The Court had, on 30th March 2023, actually ruled that a prima facie case had been made by the prosecution against all the accused persons and that, they ought to open their defence.