The saying, “You can only wake up the person who is truly sleeping, not the one who pretends to be sleeping,” is particularly apt when analyzing Frank Davis’s recent defense of his former colleague, Godfred Yeboah Dame. It’s as if Davis has chosen to turn a blind eye to the complexities and improprieties surrounding Dame’s actions. As a seasoned lawyer, Davis should understand that one misstep, like a strand of hair falling from the head, does not make it bald and stop his overzealous defense of Dame.
Firstly, the Ministry of Justice is fully equipped to defend its officials without the need for intervention from a politically branded lawyer. Davis’s attempt to shield Dame seems unnecessary and overcompensating. His intervention can be likened to “medicine after death,” a futile effort that only serves to make him appear foolish. Must Davis defend everything just for the sake of defense?
Can Mr Davis tell us why his man, Dame outrightly refused a plea bargain in this case? Is Plea bargaining, not a legitimate legal tool that can serve justice? Does this not suggest an agenda beyond mere prosecution? When comparing this case with Ato Essiem’s, where plea bargaining was accepted, it appears there might be different laws for different people. This inconsistency is troubling and undermines the principle of equal justice under the law, thus suggesting a possible mission of persecution rather than prosecution.
The perception that Godfred Dame might have been coaching witnesses is alarming. Lawyers, by the standards of their practice, should never coach their clients, let alone those they are prosecuting. This behavior if true, compromises both the integrity of the judiciary and Dame’s credibility.
Godfred Yeboah Dame, Ghana’s AG
His clandestine conversations with those he is prosecuting are highly inappropriate. Such actions imply a manipulation of the judicial process, casting a dark shadow over the judiciary’s integrity. This strategy is alien to proper lawyering and may further explain why Dame replaced Gloria Akufo, who likely adhered more strictly to ethical standards.
It is laughable that Frank Davis, once an Executive Member of the Bar Association which sought to remove Chief Justice Abban on grounds of lacking morals and integrity, would now mount a defense for an Attorney General who has admitted meeting with a third accuse in an ongoing trial negotiate. What has changed? Or the facts are not the same? The recent Bar Association appears impotent, failing to uphold the standards it once championed. The Bar is certainly occupied with empty bottles.
In those days, the judges who sat on the case against Chief Justice Abban agreed unanimously that the GBA’s case lacked merit and used the wrong forum to seek removal. Despite their agreement, each judge provided different texts and bases for their decisions.
The question now is, if Jakpa were unrelated to Yoni, would he have intervened for him?
To whom much is given, much is required. Dame, as the Leader of the Bar Association, ought to know that much is expected of him. His actions and decisions must reflect the highest standards of integrity and impartiality. The judiciary’s credibility depends on the unwavering commitment of its members to uphold ethical standards and avoid actions that could undermine public trust.
Frank Davis’s defense of Godfred Dame is misguided and raises significant concerns about judicial propriety and transparency. Dame’s actions, including his refusal of plea bargaining and inappropriate interactions with witnesses, suggest a troubling deviation from ethical standards. Both Davis and Kulendi must address these concerns fully and openly to restore some confidence in the judiciary and uphold the principles of justice they are sworn to protect because the President I know will not do anything about it.
