In a significant development in the ongoing ambulance case, Justice Afia Serwah Asare-Botwe, the trial judge, has today, Thursday, June 13, admitted an audio recording involving the Attorney-General and businessman Richard Jakpa as evidence.
Justice Asare-Botwe reiterated that the reasons for admitting the recording during the mistrial application on June 6, 2024, remain valid. She emphasized that in the interest of fairness, the pendrive containing the recording has been admitted, as it would have been if presented by the prosecution.
The controversy arose when lawyers representing Minority Leader Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson sought to introduce the audio recording into evidence. This move was met with objection from the Attorney General, who raised concerns about the foundation and relevance of the recording.
The audio recording, previously admitted and pivotal in the trial judge’s decision regarding a mistrial, is now being tendered again by defense lawyers. They argue that it forms a crucial basis for the charges of causing financial loss to the state against the Attorney General.
Lead counsel for Dr. Forson, Dr. Aziz Bamba, emphasized that the 16-minute recording pertains to the agreement between the Ghanaian government and a subsequent Letter of Credit. Dr. Bamba argued that the Attorney General’s conduct in the recording amounts to oppression of the accused, undermining the integrity of the trial process.
Dr. Bamba contended that the audio recording is relevant as it suggests the case was not pursued in good faith, highlighting procedural irregularities in the Attorney General’s handling of the matter.
In response, the Attorney General objected to the recording’s admission, asserting that its relevance was not sufficiently supported. The AG referenced the trial judge’s previous dismissal of the mistrial application, which relied on the recording, as evidence of its limited relevance to the case.
However, in her ruling today, Justice Asare-Botwe disagreed with the Attorney General and admitted the recording into evidence. This decision marks a significant development in the trial, setting the stage for further deliberation on the case’s merits.