
Ambulance case: AG appeals acquittal of Forson, Jakpa at Supreme Court
By DL News
Published
Updated
1 min read
In a ten-ground appeal, the AG is praying the apex court to set aside the decision and consequential orders of the Court of Appeal dated July 30, 2024.
The Attorney General's Department has filed an appeal at the Supreme Court against the discharge and acquittal of the accused persons in the ongoing ambulance case at the High Court.
In a ten-ground appeal, the AG is praying the apex court to set aside the decision and consequential orders of the Court of Appeal dated July 30, 2024, and an order directed at the respondents to continue their defense at the High Court.
On July 30, the Court of Appeal in a 2-1 decision, overturned a previous ruling by the trial court presided over by Justice Afia Serwaa Botwe, which ordered the accused persons to open their defense.
Therefore being dissatisfied with the above, the Attorney General indicated its non-acceptance with the outcome and indicated his intention to appeal the same.
In its Notice of Appeal dated August 8, 2024, the Attorney General’s Department indicates among others that the majority of the Court of Appeal misdirected itself in the application of the fundamental principles regarding the standard of proof required in the case they determined.
Also, it notes that the holding by the majority of the Court of Appeal that the establishment of the letters of credit did not constitute payment under the contract, is contrary to the clear evidence in the case and untenable.
Additionally, the AG avers that the Ministry of Health’s default caused financial loss to the state rather than the first accused relative to the authorization for the establishment of the letters of credit was laden with fundamental errors and occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice.
Further, the Attorney General states that the majority on the Court of Appeal was wrong in holding that the trial judge amended the charge sheet for the prosecution.
Moreover, it adds that the judgment is unreasonable having regard to the evidence on record.




