Richard Jakpa, the third defendant in the ambulance trial involving Minority Leader Ato Forson, has stated that the Court of Appeal’s ruling on Ato Forson’s submission of no case validates his belief that he has been unjustly persecuted.
Speaking to journalists in court on Tuesday, July 30, Jakpa asserted that the ruling reaffirms his innocence in the trial.
“My enemies and detractors have been put to shame. I have been vindicated and all those allegations that they put against me trying to dent my integrity because of the conduct of the Attorney General hasn’t worked.
“I’ve always sad that I am an innocent man and I am being persecuted for political reasons and the Court of Appeal has vindicated me on that stand, “ Jakpa stated.
On Monday, July 30, the Court of Appeal upheld Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson’s appeal against the Financial and Economic Court’s decision.
In March 2023, the High Court instructed Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson to present his defense after the Attorney General’s office established a prima facie case against him in the 2.37 million Euro ambulance case.
Seth Anemana, a former Chief Director at the Ministry of Health, and businessman Richard Jakpa, who were also on trial with Dr. Forson, were similarly directed to open their defenses.
Dr. Forson and the two others have been charged with willfully causing financial loss to the state amounting to 2.37 million Euros due to the purchase of ambulances that failed to perform their intended function.
After the prosecution closed its case, Dr. Ato Forson’s lawyers filed a submission of no case. On March 30, 2023, Justice Afia Serwah Asare Botwe ruled that the accused should open their defense.
However, the Court of Appeal’s decision on July 30 overturned the High Court’s ruling, stating that the prosecution had failed to present sufficient evidence.
The Court found that the trial judge erred in instructing Dr. Forson to open his defense, citing a lack of substantiated facts and evidence based on impermissible speculation.
“There is no link between the evidence heard and what happened for the third accused to be called to open defence.”
The panel of three justices also acquitted and discharged the accused persons. In its decision, the court noted:
“Any financial loss should be attributed to the recklessness of the Ministry of Health. If the Ministry had acted in the interest of the state, the entire issue with the ambulances would have been addressed properly.”
“Both appellants have made a case for them to be acquitted and discharged.”
