Ambulance case: Some decisions made by trial judge are unlawful in my opinion – Sammy Gyamfi
The National Communications Officer of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Sammy Gyamfi, praised the trial judge for providing a thorough judgment in the ongoing ambulance purchase trial involving Minority Leader Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson and the third accused, Richard Jakpa.
However, Mr. Gyamfi also expressed reservations about certain decisions made by the judge, stating that the NDC does not agree with them.
Speaking to the media on Thursday, June 6, the NDC Communications Officer said; “As a student of law, as a lawyer interested in the development of the law, I am excited and it is something that we need to encourage.
“Now as to the certain decisions that the trial judge made, which in our opinion were totally wrong because those decisions are not borne out by the law and the fact that were before her,” he said.
His remark follows the High Court Judge, Justice Afia Serwah Asare-Botwe, recommending that the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Godfred Yeboah Dame, step down from the ambulance procurement case due to accusations of professional and prosecutorial misconduct.
According to JoyNews’ Latif Iddrisu, Mr. Dame rose to explain himself, but the judge held firm in her position.
This decision came after separate motions filed by the first accused, Dr. Forson, and the third accused, Richard Jakpa.
The motions sought various orders, including an investigation into the Attorney-General’s conduct, citing Jakpa’s allegations that the Attorney-General had been contacting him at unusual hours.
However, the judge declared that the request for an inquiry into the Attorney-General’s behavior in the ongoing ambulance case lacked merit.
In response, Mr. Gyamfi emphasized that the NDC disagrees with the judge on several rulings.
Addressing the issue of mistrial, where the judge indicated she found no legal grounds to grant the relief the applicants sought, Mr. Gyamfi commented, “It is one of the points we disagree with the trial judge on.”
“We think that the court had the jurisdiction and the power to make an order for mistrial or an order for an inquiry into the conduct of the Attorney-General.”
He contended that according to Article 140 of the Constitution, the High Court, within the limits set by the Constitution, holds authority over all criminal and civil cases.
He emphasized that once such authority has been granted to the High Court, unless there exists a specific law that explicitly removes the court’s jurisdiction to issue orders for mistrial or inquiry, the NDC holds the view that the court possesses that inherent jurisdiction.
“You have the jurisdiction in all criminal matters and so in hearing a criminal matter, the court has the responsibility to ensure that these processes are not abused and the rights of the accused persons are respected and the prosecution is done in good faith,” he said.
The NDC Communications Officer further stated that when issues are presented to the court indicating a breach of prosecutorial conduct by the Attorney General, these should be the concerns the court focuses on, emphasizing that the court exists to ensure justice.
tigpost.co
Leave A Comment