Dr Justice Srem-Sai, a Senior Lecturer at the University of Ghana School of Law, has stated that the recent developments in the ambulance procurement trial demonstrate legal accountability, not mere punishment.
He asserts that the case has shown that individuals cannot simply be punished because they have been brought to court for prosecution.
On Tuesday, July 30, the Court of Appeal acquitted and discharged Minority Leader Dr Cassiel Ato Forson and Richard Jakpa, the third accused, in the Ambulance Case.
This 2:1 decision by the court overturned a previous order from the trial court, which had required Dr. Ato Forson and Jakpa to present their defence.
The two were charged with allegedly causing a financial loss of €2.37 million to the state in a deal to procure ambulances for the Government of Ghana.
In the 2:1 decision, Justice Alex Poku Acheampong, who presided, dissented, while Justice Kweku Tawiah Ackah-Boafo and Justice Philip Bright Mensah granted the pleas of the accused.
Speaking on the Point of View with Bernard Avle on Channel One TV, Dr Srem-Sai argued that the state’s prosecution of Jakpa was misguided because Jakpa was merely an agent of the company that the state claimed had caused a loss to it.
“I think the ultimate message in this case is the fact that there is some law or something wrong has been done, it doesn’t mean that you can just bring anyone to court to be punished for that which has been done wrong. I think that is the ultimate message in the decision.”
“The majority opinion was that look you have a contract between the government of Ghana and another company called Big Sea. Now you claim that Big Sea has supplied substandard items to you for which reason there is a financial loss…Now the person you have a contract with is not before the court rather you went for an agent who you know very well is working for and on behalf of that company and you put the agent before the court to be convicted.”
“So, there was no connection between the person who was brought before the court and the government. The connection is rather between the person who is before the court and the counter which is the principal,” he stated.