Attorney General (AG) and Minister for Justice, Dr. Dominic Ayine has said he takes full responsibility for the cases that have been dropped while urging critics who are tagging President John Dramani Mahana as a clearing agent to “hasten slowly.”
According to him, decisions to truncate ongoing criminal charges against former government appointees were made with due diligence.
Between January 23, 2025 and February 12, 2025, seven high profile cases including charges against Dr Stephen Opuni, Cassiel Ato Forson, Samuel Ofosu-Ampofo among others have been dropped.
The recent development has raised eyebrows, with many wondering what sets it apart from the previous administration’s actions.
However, justifying his decision to truncate cases, the AG said he is not under any pressure to truncate cases and those tagging the President as a clearing agent to hasten slowly.
“In conclusion, I wish to make it clear that I did not take these decisions lightly. As I indicated above, I consulted widely and reviewed the files diligently before coming to a decision on each of the cases.
“You would note that in some cases, such as the SSNIT case and the banking cases, I withdrew charges against some of the accused persons while others are under consideration.
“I am keenly aware of the need to balance the public interest against the interests and rights of the accused persons.
“Also, as Attorney General, I take absolute responsibility for all the decisions taken so far. I am not under any instructions or pressure to discontinue any case or to bring charges against one
“Those who are in a haste to tag the President as a clearing agent should hasten slowly because he is not responsible for prosecutions and has not directed me to drop any case.
“Moreover, with the exception of one charge of bribery in the Opuni matter in respect of which no evidence was led, none of the persons affected by my decisions so far has looted state resources,” the AG said.
“There is a gulf of difference between the offense of causing financial loss to the state and the offenses of bribery, corruption or that of using public office for private gain.
“In the latter offenses, the individual charged can be accurately labelled as looters; in the former it would be thoroughly unfair and defamatory to label the accused as persons who have looted state resources,” Dr. Ayine stated.
