The trial of the Minority Leader Dr Cassiel Ato Forson relating to the ambulance purchase should not have started in the first place, the flagbearer of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Former President John Dramani Mahama, has said.
He says he had always held the view that Dr Forson was innocent and hence feels vindicated by the court ruling.
“I think that it shows the vindication that [Ato Forson] is innocent. We believe that this prosecution should never have taken place. Indeed, it [Court of Appeal’s decision] came as a surprise because I had quite forgotten about the appeal.
“This appeal was made some time ago when they filed a no-case petition before the court and the High Court rejected it so they went to appeal. So it came as quite a pleasant surprise. But it shows that we still have justice in this country, we can work to make the judiciary that we want it to be,” Mr Mahama said in an exclusive interview with TV3’s Komla Klutse on Tuesday, July 30.
On Tuesday, July 30 the High Court did not hear the Ambulance case in the light of the Court of Appeal’s decision to acquit and discharge the accused persons Dr Cassiel Ato Forson and Richard Jakpa.
The High Court was due to sit on Tuesday July 30 but on that same day, a Court of Appeal upheld an appeal on the Financial and Economic Court’s decision by Minority Leader and former Deputy Finance Minister, Dr Cassiel Ato Forson.
Two others, Sylvester Anemana, a former Chief of Director, Ministry of Health, and Richard Jakpa, a businessman, who were standing trial with Dr Forson were also directed to open defence.
Dr. Forson and the two have been variously charged with willfully causing financial loss to the state to the tune of 2.37 million Euros in the purchase of ambulances, which could not be used for their intended performance.
The Court of Appeal in its decision on July 30 indicated that the High Court’s decision should be set aside since “the prosecution failed to establish sufficient evidence. The trial judge erred in calling on A1(Dr Cassiel Ato Forson) to open his defence. No positively proven facts. Evidence based on Impermissible speculations. There is no link between the evidence heard and what happened for the third accused to be called to open defence.”
The panel of three justices also acquitted and discharged the accused persons in the case.
