Former Deputy Minister for Finance, Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson is urging the High Court in Accra to acquit and discharge him in the case in which he is standing trial for allegedly supplying the State with vehicles unworthy to be used as ambulances in 2015.
According to him the evidence adduced by the four prosecution witnesses including the current Minister for Health Kweku Agyeman Manu falls short of the standard proof that warrant that he is called upon to answer to charges.
Dr. Forson together with Sylvester Anemana, a former Chief Director of the Ministry of Health and Richard Dzakpa are standing trial for five charges including willfully causing financial loss to the state to the tune of over 2 million euros.
Prosecution led by the Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame has called four witnesses to close their case and has held that sufficient evidence has been adduced by their witnesses and a case has been made for the accused persons to open their defence.
In a written submission filed through his lawyers on March 16, 2023, Dr Ato Forson said no sufficient evidence has been adduced to establish a prima facie case against him.
Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson, who is currently the Minority Leader in Parliament is urging the Court presided over by Justice Afia Serwah Asare-Botwe to acquit and discharge him.
The Member of Parliament for Ajumako-Enyan-Esiam constituency has been charged with two (2) counts, being : willfully causing financial loss to the Republic contrary to section 179A(3)(a) of the Criminal Offences Act 1960 (Act 29); and intentionally misapplying public property contrary to section 1(2) of the Public Protection Act, 1977 (SMCD 140).
He has pleaded not guilty to both counts.
Tral commenced on May 31 last year when the prosecution opened its case and after calling five(5) witnesses closed its case.
*Submission of no case to answer*
In his written submission to the court through his lawyers led by Dr Abdul Aziz Basit Bamba on the submission of no case to answer stated that “we demonstrate that the prosecution at the close of its case has woefully failed to adduce sufficient evidence, which should compel A1 (Dr Forson) to open his defence.”
The lawyers stated further that “We state that the weight and quality of evidence adduced by the prosecution falls short of establishing a prima facie case against A1 pursuant to section 173 of Act 30.
Consequently, they said “we pray this Honourable Court to acquit and discharge A1 on both counts.”
*Summary of arguments*
In their summary of evidence to the court, Dr Forson states that, “this Honourable Court pursuant to paragraph 5(2)(a) of the Practice Direction ( Disclosures and Case Management in Criminal Proceedings) 2018 is required to render a ‘reasoned decision’ on A1’s submission of no case to answer.”
The lawyers state that “We maintain that, in a reasoned decision, a court has a duty to clearly set out the legal principles and the
evidence upon the decision is based.
“In addition, an adversarial system like ours, where the role of the court is primarily that of an umpire, places an additional duty on the Court to explain why it prefers one piece of evidence or argument to the other after the Court has carefully weighed the evidencerelied on by the prosecution and the defence,” the Lawyers submitted.
“The duty cast on the Court entails a concomitant duty on the part of the
A1/Applicant to assist the Court by providing a careful, fair, balanced and dispassionate assessment of the evidence on record.
“Mindful of this duty, it is the humble submission of A1 that when all relevant evidence on record is considered at the close of the case of the prosecution, in
the light of the legal tests for a submission ofno case, it is plain that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima f a c e case to warrant A1 being called upon to open his defence.
“Secondly, the law is well settled that the prosecution must fail on a submission ofn o case if: “(a) there had been no evidence t oprove an essential element in the crime; or (b) the evidence adduced by the prosecution had been so discredited as a result of cross-examination; or (c)the evidence was so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable tribunal could safely convict upon it or (d) the evidence was evenly balanced in the sense that it was susceptible to two likely explanations,one consistent with guilt, and one with innocence.”
The lawyers state that “applying these tests, it is irrefutable that there is no conduct (actus reus) engaged in by Al that has caused financial loss to the Republic or resulted in the misapplication of public property, much less for this supposed conduct to have been willful or intentional.”
“Thirdly, contrary to the assertions in the particulars of offence of Counts 1 and 5 that AI ‘authorized’ or ‘caused’ irrevocable letters of credit to be established, it is clear from the evidence on record that A1 never ‘authorized’ or ‘caused irrevocable letters of credit to be established nor did Al act in any manner without due cause and authorization.
To buttress their argument stated that “Exhibits A and B1, which bear the signature of A1 were transmitted to Bank of Ghana under the authority of and on behalf of the Minister of Finance as confirmed by Exhibit 5 for Al.
Therefore, assuming for the purpose of argument (which is denied that A1 authorized or caused the setting up of the Letters of Credit, the claim
that this was done without due cause and authorization is patently false.
“We submit that, to the extent that the evidence on record does not support but rather contradict these material allegations in the particulars of offences for Counts 1 and the prosecution has failed to adduce sufficient evidence on key ingredients o f the offences in Counts 1 and 5.
Consequently, they urged that “A1 must be acquitted and discharged.”
*Kweku Agyeman Manu’s vindication*
Again the lawyers state that, Exhibits A & BI, which constitute the fulcrum of the case of the prosecution against A1 make it clear that those letters are the acts of the Minister of Finance and factually and legally attributable to him and not the personal acts of A1.
“We observe that PW3 (the current Minister of Health), who has substantial experience in government and the public service, was emphatic in his evidence that a subordinate officer or deputy minister could not be held responsible for an act done in the name or on behalf of a minister unless they engaged in such act without the authorization of the minister.
“Indeed, in Exhibit 5for Al the then Minister of Finance, confirmed that ti was the Ministry that requested the Bank of Ghana to set up the Letters of Credit (Exhibit A & BI). This fact was also corroborated by PW2 in his statement to the Police (Exhibit 1for A3) and by the testimony of PW 5,” the lawyers state.
*Conclusion*
The lawyers conclude their submission by saying “We rely extensively on our submission on the offence of causing financial loss to the Republic mutatis mutandis and submit that there is
no prima face case that A1 intentionally misapplied €2,370,000 for the same reasons and grounds canvased in support of our case that no prima facie case has been established against Al on Count 1.
“We contend that no prima f a c e case has been made against A1 for the
intentional misapplication of €2,370,000 to warrant him to open his defence.
“We accordingly urge the Honourable Court to acquit and discharge Al on Count 5 as well.
“In the light of the above submissions, we pray the Honourable Court to acquit and discharge A1 on the offencesofcausing financial loss to the Republic and intentionally misapplying public property,” the lawyers urged the court.
According to EIB Network’s Legal Affairs Correspondent, Murtala Inusah, Justice Afia Serwah Asare-Botwe is expected to rule on the submission of no case on Thursday, March 30, 2023.
If the court upheld the submission of no case, Dr Forson and the two others would be acquitted and discharged.
However, should the reverse happens, the accused persons would be ordered to open their defence and respond to the charges.
Source: Kasapafmonline.com/Murtala Inusah
