ghananlpcommunity/ghana-gov-speeches-sentences huggingface dataset:
So, the question of how much was disbursed by the State during Collins Dauda’s tenure as Minister for Works and Housing, or the exact amount spent on the buildings when he was Minister, is immaterial.
The real question is whether Collins Dauda authorised the application of the sum of US$200 Million for the purpose lawfully approved for the project, i.e.
the construction of 5,000 housing units.
The answer to this can only be in the negative.
I say that, in any event, if the Attorney-General was of the considered view that the sum of US$200 Million mentioned under the count of misapplying public property should have been US$94 Million, all he had to do as a good prosecutor acting in good faith, was to amend the count.
The remedy is not a discontinuation of the entire case, especially when that offence of misapplying public property constituted only one out of seventy (70) charges filed in the case .
What happens to the other sixty-nine (69) charges that Dr.
Ayine does not fault, and did not talk about.?
With the greatest respect, the State should be seriously worried if her Attorney-General demonstrates such ignorance of the basic principles in criminal law and ingredients of offences which border on the protection of State funds or public property.
The second factor cited by Dr.
Ayine for the withdrawal of the Saglemi case is the alleged failure of the prosecution to charge other Ministers who took office after Mr.
Collins Dauda left office.
This is another palpable falsehood.
The State charged all those whose roles in the Saglemi Housing Scheme implied criminal liability.
This included Kwaku Agyeman-Mensah who signed and authorised the payment of money and who was John Mahama’s Minister after Collins Dauda until January, 2017.
It also included a Chief Director, Alhaji Ziblim, who was in office until 2017 (covering a part of the tenure of Mr.
Atta Akyea as Minister) and signed and authorised payment of money.
Ayine raises issue with the failure to join Hon.
Samuel Atta Akyea as an accused person in the matter.
It ought to be made clear that the prosecution of crime is not an arena to achieve political equalisation.
A careful check of the facts would have disclosed to Dr.
Ayine that Hon.
Samuel Atta Akyea never authorised any payment for the Saglemi project.
Atta Akyea was rather the one who called attention to the bizarre circumstances of the project and wrote a letter seeking the advice of the then Attorney-General, Ms.
Gloria Afua Akuffo in or about 2019 for an urgent termination of the contract, a decision which stopped the State from unnecessary financial haemorrhage.
The sum of US$5 Million that Dr.
Ayine alludes to, was authorised to be paid by the then Chief Director, Mr.
Solomon Asoalla, and not Mr.
Atta Akyea.
The decision by the prosecution team not to charge Mr.
Solomon Asoalla but rather to use him as a prosecution witness was, because a scrutiny of the record showed that, Mr.
Asoalla in truth, tried to save the Saglemi housing project from total collapse.
The sum of US$5Million was authorised by Mr.
Asoalla to be utilised for the project to save the project.
Further, he assisted in shedding light on the relevant facts of the project.
Hence our decision to use him as a prosecution witness.
THE PROSECUTION OF DR.
JOHNSON PANDIT ASIAMA The narration given by the Attorney-General about why he discontinued the two different cases against Mr.
Johnson Pandit Asiama disclosed a litany of untruths, half-truths and a skilful manipulation of the facts.
Be that as it may, as it is with any manipulation of facts, the truth is always laid bare on being subjected to careful analysis.
THE REPUBLIC V. KWABENA DUFFUOR & OTHERS - THE UNIBANK CASE This case involved an approval by Dr.
Johnson Asiam of the sum of GHC450Million for the benefit of Universal Merchant Bank.
Part of that sum of was GHC300Million Cedis which was an unsecured facility approved by Johnson Pandit Asiama for Universal Merchant Bank for the benefit of Unibank Limited.
The sum of GHC300Million formed the basis of a charge of making approvals in contravention of the Banak of Ghana law.
The remaining amount of GHC150Million formed the basis for the offence of wilfully causing financial loss.
It is necessary to state that, contrary to Dr.
Ayine’s claim, the sum of GHC150Million to date, remains unpaid.
I must indicate that I find the line of thinking of Dr.
Ayine that simply because an alleged loss to the State is recoverable after the offence has been committed or the charge filed, the offence of wilfully causing financial loss is rendered invalid very strange and insupportable.
Also, an amount paid in violation of a law, when subsequently recovered, does not clear the person who gave the approval to be made of criminal wrongdoing in the first place.
The anchor of Dr.
Ayine’s explanation for discontinuing the cases against Johnson Pandit Asiama is a memorandum allegedly delivered to my good self by attorneys at the Office of the Attorney-General purportedly “ recommending that the charges against him be dropped ”.
Let me state for the record, that, to the best of my knowledge, no such memorandum exists .
I do not recall receiving any such memo from the Prosecutions Division.
Ayine to produce such a memo for the examination of the public as he has touted same to the public at a press conference as the basis for his impugned actions.
Curiously, when probed further on that issue in the “Questions” session of his press conference, Dr.
Ayine claimed that I might have disagreed with the memo, and that, he is yet to know the exact comments I made on the memo.
This is bewildering and casts doubts on Dr.
Ayine’s assertions that a memo was presented to me on the issue.
Will my comments or the position I took on the memo not be expressed on the memo?
How can Dr.
Ayine see the memo but not see my comments in the memo?
Clearly, the Attorney-General set out to throw dust into the eyes of Ghanaians who, in his view, are a bunch of unanalytical people.
Ghana deserves better than the tales of Dr.
Ayine.
Assuming for argument purposes that a memo was prepared for the consideration of the former Attorney-General (by some state attorneys whose ranks the current Attorney-General does not specify and on a date he does not indicate), is such a memo binding on the Attorney-General?
Is the view of the state attorney binding on the Attorney-General?
Ayine himself alleges that he had some discussions with the DPP before withdrawing the cases in issue.
Where he disagreed, he made it known to the DPP.
Was the DPP’s view binding on Dr.
Ayine?
Was it not his view of the charges he withdrew which prevailed?
Ayine could form a view of the charges he withdrew from the court in spite of what the DPP told him, how can he castigate Godfred Dame in the media for whatever views Godfred Dame took on a memo allegedly presented to him by some state attorneys who Dr.
Ayine cannot name, on a date he cannot specify and affecting some accused persons he could not specify.
(Mind you, there are 6 accused persons in the matter.
Did the memo touch on all 6?
Ayine fails to tell).
I say that Dr.
Ayine, should with the greatest respect, be bold to fully accept responsibility for his action in withdrawing and filing nolle prosequi in all the cases, rather than purporting to blame former Attorneys-General for his decisions.
REPUBLIC VRS.
JOHNSON PANDIT ASIAMA & 5 OTHERS - THE UT BANK CASE Dr.
Ayine lumps up the facts of the two cases against Johnson Asiama and contends that the alleged memo presented to the former Attorney-General which discussed an amount of GHC450 Million the subject matter of charges against the gentleman in the Unibank case also covered the UT Bank case.
This is another falsehood.
The sum of GHC450Million was in respect of only the Unibank case.
The UT Bank case involved the grant of approval by Dr.
Johnson Asiama of GHC460Million facility to UT Bank in violation of the single obligor limits.
Be that as it may, it suffices to note that Dr.
Ayine provides absolutely no justification for a withdrawal of the charges in the UT Bank matter, save the allegation that an alleged memo was presented to me.
It is also important to note that the Attorney-General conceals the simple fact that the prosecution had closed its case in the UT Bank case.
Thus, by virtue of the notice of withdrawal filed by the Attorney-General, Johnson Pandit Asiama was acquitted and discharged.
Ayine therefore secured, through the backdoor, a whitewash and clearing of sins of Johnson Pandit Asiama forever.
REPUBLIC V. STEPHEN OPUNI & 2 OTHERS The reasons given by the Attorney-General for the withdrawal of the case against the three accused persons in the Stephen Opuni case and the consequential whitewash and cleansing of sins through an acquittal and discharge, again recounts the misconceived perspective of defence lawyers on the charges.
That case involved the loss of GHC271Million to the State.
Once again, the media would observe that the Attorney-General only presented to the public the same stories that had formed the line of defence of counsel for the accused, completely abandoning the formidable case built by the prosecution.
The Attorney-General completely disregards the fact that the prosecution had been adjudged by all the courts in the Superior Courts architecture – the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court- as having established a case for the accused to answer.
Opuni had closed his case.
Seidu Agongo had called about 10 witnesses.
Ayine, in the face of the holdings of the various courts that there was a case for the accused to answer in respect of the over 27 charges filed in the Opuni case, proceeded to embark on a scathing attack on the work of the Prosecutions Division of the Office of the Attorney-General over which he is now superintending, as a ruse to justify his withdrawal of the case.
The simple question that begs for answer is this: why would the Attorney-General who is supposed to be acting in interest of the Republic be arguing strenuously in favour of the defence counsel and against the Republic when all the Superior Courts had stated that Dr Opuni and two others had a case to answer?
If the new Attorney-General, was of the view that the accused had a strong case and would be acquitted, why did he not wait for the accused to establish this through the trial?
Is it the case that counsel for the accused told him after his extensive discussions with them, that they were not sure of securing the acquittal of their clients and therefore, they would prefer the A-G to bail them out through a withdrawal of the charges?
DISPARAGEMENT OF THE JUDICIARY AS A PLOY TO DEFEND THE WRONG WITHDRAWAL OF THE OPUNI CASE Fellow Ghanaians, in purported rationalisation of the Government’s decision to withdraw the Opuni case, the Attorney-General, most bizarrely, attacked the integrity of a retired Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Clemence Honyenuga and the Honourable Chief Justice, albeit unjustifiably.
Ayine claimed that a perjury application filed by Dr.
Stephen Kwabena Opuni against a witness was not heard by Justice Honyenuga and that “ this is most unacceptable ”.
Regrettably, this is another falsehood in Dr.
Ayine’s press statement.
The trial court ruled on the said perjury application.
The applicant proceeded to the Court of Appeal.
I repeat that the tendency of an Attorney-General to peddle untruthful allegations against the prosecuting team and judges sitting on cases being prosecuted by his Office, is highly unprofessional.
This is what we see from Dr.
Ayine three weeks into his tenure!
His actions constitute an attack on the very Office he is now head of.
Ayine stated further in his press statement that, “ when, in accordance with law and practice, Justice Anokye Gyimah decided he was going to hold a de novo trial in the same Opuni case, he was instantly transferred to Kumasi and the case was allocated to a new judge who then proceeded to adopt the proceedings ”.
This is another plain falsehood and a rehash of the unfounded allegations made by NDC commentators in the media space.
Ayine had taken pains to examine the file in the Opuni matter, as he should have done, he would have found that it was not a new trial judge who adopted the proceedings for the trial to continue.
The then Attorney-General, my good self, was compelled to file an appeal against the order of Justice Anokye Gyimah for the proceedings to start de novo or afresh after the close of the prosecution’s case and the defence had opened their case.
The Court of Appeal allowed the Attorney-General’s appeal and ordered that the proceedings be adopted before the trial court.
It took about three months for the appeal to be heard and determined.
Before the conclusion of the appeal, the Hon.
Chief Justice in exercise of her powers under the Constitution, at a time that the proceedings in the Opuni matter had effectively been stayed owing to the pendency of the appeal, transferred the Justice Anokye Gyimah to the High Court, Kumasi.
The display of unfamiliarity by the current Attorney-General of facts regarding cases he withdraws from the courts and speak about in the media, is shocking.
Ghana must be seriously worried.
Ladies and gentlemen, I deem the press conference hurriedly assembled by the Attorney-General, Dr.
Dominic Ayine, as a knee jerk reaction to genuine concerns raised by well-meaning Ghanaians on the attempt by the NDC Government to white wash the crimes of persons who served in the NDC government and as far as the law would allow, clothe them with perpetual immunity from being prosecuted for offences committed against the Republic of Ghana.
The posture adopted by the Hon.
A-G threatens to undermine Ghana’s democratic and good governance structures.
I am however reassured by the fact that Ghanaians are discerning enough to discover the illegitimate motives for the discontinuance of the cases in question.
The President, through his Attorney-General, has in a spectacular fashion, become the clearing agent to indemnify their allies who have duly been put before the courts for commission of crimes.
God bless us all!!!!
GODFRED YEBOAH DAME IMMEDIATE PAST ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE 14/02/2025
I am particularly delighted to speak to you on the first morning of this truly unique forum, the 39 th Cambridge Symposium on Economic Crime.
My sincere thanks go to the University of Cambridge, in particular, the founder, the Co-Chairman of the Symposium, and sometime Fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge, Prof.
Barry Rider, for inviting me.
I salute his extraordinary efforts in sustaining this remarkable activity over the past forty (40) years.
This is my second appearance here – the first in 2017, in my previous capacity as Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice of Ghana.
I have found the organisation of this forum simply amazing.
Recording at least 2000 participants from over 100 countries annually since 1982 and drawing leading personalities in law enforcement, politics and government all over the world, the Cambridge Symposium on Economic Crime has provided a platform for analysis and examination of the never-ending and ever-evolving threats facing the global financial system as a result of criminal and other nefarious activity.
It is correct to say that the Cambridge symposium has established itself as not just a talk shop but has earned the enviable track record of being a global platform that delivers practical solutions to economically motivated crime and misconduct worldwide.
The breadth of topics to be discussed at this year’s symposium covers the complexity of the criminal and subversive activity, which exposes the global financial sector to grave danger.
Issues like reinforcing corporate integrity, breaches of trust, asset recovery, international cooperation, irregular immigration, corporate criminal responsibility, non-conviction-based forfeiture, and the role of banks in the control and interdiction of corruption reflect the multi-dimensions of economic crime.
A discussion of them will reinforce the reputation of this forum for unravelling and getting to the bottom of the intricate and sophisticated schemes deployed to commit or facilitate improper conduct in the global financial space.
The theme for this year’s forum “ Selling status – insider crime and abuse ”, addresses a very practical reality in the financial world today.
Recent phenomenon of economic crime in Ghana As Ghana’s Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, I am constitutionally responsible for the initiation and conduct of all prosecutions of criminal offences in the Republic.
I superintend agencies of state involvement in the fight against economic crime and corruption and collaborate with Cabinet colleagues in this regard.
Since the last time I was here, in 2017, Ghana has had its fair share of threats to the financial sector.
There has been a banking sector crisis which shook the foundations of the financial system in Ghana.
Between August 2017 and January 2020, Ghana was hit by a severe banking crisis that affected several indigenous banks, as a result of which the central bank ordered the take-over of some of the banks by another indigenous Ghanaian bank, the Ghana Commercial Bank.
The central bank cited the insolvency of the banks in question as the major reason for the revocation of the operating licences of the affected banks.
In addition to the take-over of some banks, five indigenous banks were consolidated to form a new bank called the Consolidated Bank Ghana Limited.
A deeper examination of the banking sector crisis that rocked the financial environment in Ghana showed that poor corporate governance, non-performing loans, breach of directors’ fiduciary obligations, credit risk and regulatory lapses were responsible for the vulnerabilities the banks were exposed to.
Internal auditors who were required to superintend proper accounting practices had become complicit in illicit practices and heavily immersed in cover-ups for executive directors.
All this led to insolvency and under capitalisation of the banks.
The recent Ghanaian banking sector crisis held ramifications for the entire economy of Ghana.
It was the most severe economic crisis to affect Ghana since its independence in 1957.
The COVID-19 pandemic dealt a further devastating blow to the economy.
The crisis was a vivid manifestation of the devastation that can be unleashed on an economy by a poorly regulated financial system.
To deter a reoccurrence of the situation, 20 individuals and companies have been put on trial for offences bordering on stealing, fraudulent breach of trust, money laundering, dishonestly receiving and wilfully causing financial loss to the state.
Another phenomenon that afflicted the financial sector of Ghana between 2018 and 2020 was the emergence of many unlicensed entities operating illegally.
The leaders of such entities often lived a lavish lifestyle on the proceeds of their illicit activities.
Prominent among such entities was an amorphous organisation operating a microfinance institution under the guise of – guess what - gold trading and illegally using the name of a bank.
It called itself Menzbank.
Apparently, Menzgold, as it was also called, had been dealing in the purchase and deposit of gold collectibles from the public and issuing contracts with guaranteed returns to clients without a licence from the relevant authorities.
Against caution from the Central Bank, tens of thousands of individuals got hooked on the scheme devised by the company.
Following the close down by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the customers could not retrieve their funds.
The company relied on the greed and ignorance of thousands of otherwise hardworking Ghanaians who were prepared to pay their life savings to the suspects in the case, resulting in losses worth millions of dollars.
The situation caused misery and distress to many homes and unleashed a social crisis as riots and demonstrations broke out on the streets of Accra and other parts of the country.
In real terms, people lost their homes, and some marriages have even broken up as a result of the Menzgold saga.
Indeed, one lawyer suggested that the story of Menzgold could cause a civil war in Ghana in a manner akin to the civil war in Albania in 1997 caused by aggrieved customers of a Ponzi scheme.
By the Grace of God, Ghana was saved from such a situation as a result of the prompt action taken by authorities at the helm of the financial system.
I am happy to state that after painstaking investigations, dockets on that financial crime are almost ready for prosecution to commence in earnest.
The Office of the Attorney-General is prosecuting other high-profile cases involving the offences of wilfully causing financial loss to the State, stealing, corruption, fraud, procurement breaches, and money laundering.
These cases have as their sole object the principle of holding public officers to account and involve sums of over $850 million.
Important Ghanaian legislation to combat economic crimes The current Government led by Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo recognises that the most enduring way to fight corruption and protect the financial sector is by strengthening the regime for so doing.
In this regard, with a clear understanding that corruption thrives in an atmosphere conducive to its concealment and that access to information is a vital tool in the fight against corruption, the Government ensured the passage of the Right to Information Act 2019 (Act 989).
Other bold legislations introduced by the Government to curb official wrongdoing in the public sector are: the Witness Protection Act, 2018 (Act 975) Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2020 (Act 1044), Corporate Restructuring and Insolvency Act, 2020 (Act 1015), Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992), Revenue Administration (Amendment) Act, 2020 (Act 1029) State Interests and Governance Authority Act, 2019 (Act 990) and Real Estate Agency Act, 2020 (Act 1047).
The new Companies Act, in particular, represented a giant step in the quest for sound corporate governance in Ghana.
By virtue of a variety of measures introduced by the Companies Act to ensure the verification of information entered on the Companies Register, the duty to provide particulars of beneficial owners under the Act, among others, the recently established Office of the Registrar of Companies has become a legitimate partner of the government in its effort to stamp out corruption and financial indiscipline.
Chairman, the complexity of modern-day economic crimes has necessitated the introduction of more non-custodial sentences and, in appropriate cases, non-conviction-based punishments.
As Attorney-General, I have sought to introduce legislation which, if properly applied, can speed up the administration of justice and ease congestion in our courts.
A few weeks ago, Parliament enacted an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act of Ghana to introduce plea bargaining into Ghana’s criminal jurisprudence.
To the extent that economic crimes are not exempted from an application of plea bargaining procedures, the nation stands to avoid long and costly trials which have no guarantee of compensation and restitution for victims of the offences, through a sound application of those procedures.
International effort and cooperation to tackle economic crimes I will conclude by suggesting that the multiple manifestations of economic crime show that there is no single structure under which wrongdoers operate.
Wrongdoers exploit differences between countries to further their objectives, enriching their organisations, expanding their power and avoiding detection or apprehension.
They gain influence in government, politics and commerce through corrupt and illegitimate means.
The need for states to cooperate in combating the threat of economic crimes is, therefore, more than imperative.
In Africa, the launch of the Africa Continental Free Trade Area (AfCTA), whilst presenting Africa with its greatest opportunity to show to the world the strength of its potential and the entrepreneurial spirit of the people, has unleashed a new set of issues of concern to law enforcement authorities.
These take the form of migratory problems, social integration challenges, the good old phenomenon of corruption, money laundering and environmental challenges.