Navigation

© Zeal News Africa

Explosive Legal Battle: Ghana's AG Dame Under Fire Over 'Fabricated Evidence' Claims!

Published 1 month ago3 minute read
Pelumi Ilesanmi
Pelumi Ilesanmi
Explosive Legal Battle: Ghana's AG Dame Under Fire Over 'Fabricated Evidence' Claims!

Former Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Godfred Yeboah Dame, has vehemently denied allegations of fabricating evidence and attempting to influence testimony in the controversial ambulance trial. These accusations were leveled against him by businessman Richard Jakpa, who is the third accused in the case involving current Finance Minister, Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson.

Jakpa, now Director of Special Operations at the National Security Secretariat, filed a petition with the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) on September 23, 2025. In his petition, he accused Mr. Dame of dishonest and unethical actions, including attempting to influence his testimony during the trial to implicate Dr. Forson and encouraging him to obtain a false medical excuse to delay court proceedings. The alleged incident, according to Jakpa’s petition, occurred on March 26, 2024, during a purported phone call where Mr. Dame sought to “tailor his testimony” regarding the Letters of Credit central to the case.

On October 6, 2025, Mr. Dame, accompanied by his legal team including former Deputy Attorney-General Alfred Tuah-Yeboah, submitted a 50-point statement to the CID. He dismissed Jakpa’s complaints as “baseless,” “sour grapes,” and “a desperate ploy to obstruct justice.” Mr. Dame insisted he did not fabricate any evidence nor did he attempt to influence Jakpa’s testimony, emphasizing that Jakpa was not influenced when he gave evidence. He also clarified the legal definition of evidence fabrication, stating that his actions did not align with such an offense.

A key point of contention was the date of the alleged secret telephone conversation. While Jakpa cited March 26, 2024, Mr. Dame stated that the call actually took place on April 9, 2024. He explicitly denied any conversation on March 26, 2024, and therefore could not respond to allegations based on that date. Mr. Dame explained that his sole purpose for calling Jakpa on April 9, 2024, was to discuss the possibility of adjourning court proceedings as he had to finalize preparations for an international arbitration hearing in London, which Ghana subsequently won.

Mr. Dame further argued that by the time of this call, the prosecution had long filed and tendered all necessary documents, with filings dating back to February 14, 2022, and a prima facie case established by March 30, 2023. At this stage, Dr. Ato Forson had already closed his case, and the second accused’s case had been discontinued, leaving only Jakpa to testify after he had dismissed his lawyer.

The former Attorney-General attributed Jakpa’s complaint to personal resentment, stating that Jakpa was “hugely disgruntled and resentful” over his refusal to discontinue the prosecution, despite representations made through Supreme Court Justice Yonny Kulendi. Mr. Dame confirmed that all his interactions with Jakpa occurred either in the courtroom or at Justice Kulendi’s residence, a respected senior colleague. He explained that declining invitations from a Supreme Court Justice would be inconceivable, though he maintained his independence of thought. He also disclosed that Jakpa obtained his contact from Justice Kulendi and sent him 68 WhatsApp messages, to which Mr. Dame only responded twice.

Mr. Dame also revealed that Dr. Ato Forson had personally visited his residence in 2023 to appeal for the cessation of his prosecution, an appeal he refused. He stressed that Jakpa's allegations had already been judicially considered and dismissed by the High Court in a ruling on June 6, 2024. The court concluded, after listening to recordings, that there was “no actual evidence that the Attorney-General as the prosecutor has behaved in such an egregious manner that the 1st Accused/Applicant’s right to a fair trial is in jeopardy.”

Both Mr. Dame and Frank Davies, Chairman of the Constitutional and Legal Committee of the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP), argued that the CID lacked jurisdiction to revisit issues already adjudicated by the High Court, asserting that the matters were

Recommended Articles

Loading...

You may also like...