"The righteous will always triumph :Godfred Dame says. response to Jakpa's audio release

I will run from them even though they have set traps for me because the Lord does not enjoy the pleasure of the wicked. Attorney-General and Minister of Justice Godfed Yeboah Dame responded to proceedings brought against him at the High Court in Accra by saying, "The righteous will always prevail." 

After Richard Jakpa, the businessman on trial alongside Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson, the Minority Leader, claimed in court that he had been receiving calls from the Attorney-General at strange times. 

The accused, who are believed to have caused the state to lose €2.37 million in an ambulance agreement, have submitted four applications before the court chaired by Justice Afia Serwah Asare-Botwe in response to the charge that has sparked a great deal of public discussion. 

The applications include a motion asking the court to drop charges against the businessman, an order of inquiry into the Attorney-General's behaviour in response to Richard Jakpa's claims that the A-G has been calling him at strange hours, an order of mistrial intended to end the case, a stay of proceedings until the application is decided, and an order of inquiry into the Attorney-General's conduct.

The Minority Leader and former Deputy Finance Minister, Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson, submitted three of the petitions, with businessman Mr. Richard Jakpa filing the final one. 

APPLICATION
Dr. Forson argues in his three-pronged application that the uncontested allegations made by Mr. Jakpa show collusion between the businessman and the prosecution, and that there is a deliberate effort to incriminate him and trample on and sabotage the legal process. 

He begged the court to stop the A-G from pursuing the matter, claiming that the A-G's actions demonstrate what he called flagrant abuses of his right to a fair trial and an attempt to thwart the goals of justice. 

"I think the Attorney-General's choice to file the nolle prosequi against a former Chief Director at the Ministry of Health at the time he did, as well as the collusive behaviour now exposed by Mr. Jakpa, are all components of an unhealthy and well-planned plan or endeavour by the Attorney-General that is aimed solely at obtaining my conviction in this case at all costs.

"That I am extremely concerned about the contested behaviour mentioned above and am losing faith in the criminal justice system." I assert that the court has the right to declare a mistrial in this case, use its inherent jurisdiction to stop the prosecution from pursuing this case, or halt proceedings until the serious issues brought up in this case against the A-G are investigated and settled, according to Mr. Forson. 

Jakpa's move 

Jakpa contends in his request for an order to strike out the accusations and end the proceedings that Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame's actions and charges represent a misuse of the legal system and a violation of the 1992 Constitution's requirements.

He argued that the Attorney-General's unwarranted prosecution of him constituted an abuse of his constitutional authority.
Additionally, Mr. Jakpa stated that the Attorney General acknowledged in private discussions that he had no case against him.

A-G's reaction 

In opposition affidavits, the Office of the Attorney General asserts that it is in the public interest to reach a definitive decision in the matter using the reliable evidence that is in front of the court.

The affidavit in opposition to Dr. Forson's case contends that pursuing his prosecution to its logical conclusion would uphold the idea that everyone is equal before the law and dispel the myth that those in positions of power and political connections can get away with crimes by using false accusations and undue pressure.

In response to Jakpa's claims, the affidavit in opposition shows that, despite the fact that he makes numerous false and irrational accusations against the Attorney General in his affidavit in support, none of them cast doubt on the trial court's decisions or actions, undermine the court's ability to deliver justice in this case, or attack the court's integrity.