Ayine Defends Dropped Cases: ‘Some Charges Defied Common Sense’
Attorney General cites ethical concerns, lack of evidence, and judicial misconduct in discontinuing high-profile prosecutions
- Some cases were dropped due to defective charges and lack of logical basis
- Evidence raised reasonable doubts about the guilt of accused persons
- Misconduct by some judges influenced the decision to terminate proceedings
Dr. Dominic Ayine, Attorney General and Minister of Justice, has defended his decision to discontinue several high-profile cases, citing legal, ethical, and evidentiary shortcomings.
Addressing journalists on Wednesday, February 12, Dr. Ayine responded to criticisms surrounding his decision to drop cases linked to the previous Mahama administration.
These included the Saglemi Housing Project, charges against Bank of Ghana Governor Johnson Asiama, the Democracy Hub case, and the prosecution of Stephen Opuni in the COCOBOD matter.
Explaining his rationale, Dr. Ayine stated, “For ethical and professional reasons, I couldn’t in good conscience continue to prosecute some of the cases. Some charges, upon review, were defective and defied plain common sense.”
He further revealed that in several instances, the evidence was insufficient to justify prosecution. “In some of the cases, the evidence presented so far raised reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused persons. No prosecutor should pursue a case in the face of overwhelming doubt,” he explained.
Dr. Ayine also criticized the conduct of some judges presiding over these cases, suggesting that their actions undermined the integrity of the judicial process.
He emphasized that the discontinuation of these cases was guided solely by constitutional and legal principles, dismissing claims of political interference. “All accused persons in these cases have been acquitted and discharged, and my decision was grounded in professional integrity and legal requirements,” he concluded.
The move has sparked debate, with some commending his adherence to ethical standards and others questioning the implications for justice in high-profile corruption cases.
