Attorneys for the former deputy minister for finance have claimed that the prosecution of Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson, the minority leader, constitutes an abuse of prosecutorial authority.The attorneys claimed that the State was operating like a Leviathan, disregarding the rights and liberties of its inhabitants, in a submission of no case before the court.

0

The lengthy legal brief outlined the reasons why the trial must come to an end, with the attorneys presenting the court with a variety of justifications.“We maintain that, in a reasoned decision, a court has a duty to clearly set out the legal principles and the evidence upon the decision is based.

1

“In addition, an adversarial system like ours, where the role of the court is primarily that of an umpire, places an additional duty on the Court to explain why it prefers one piece of evidence or argument to the other after carefully weighing the evidence relied on by the prosecution and the defence,” excerpts of their legal submission stated.

2

They also rejected the allegations by the state that Dr Ato Forson authorised or caused letters of credit to be established.According to the lawyers, this claim is patently false.The Minority Leader’s lawyers argued that the prosecution failed to adduce sufficient evidence to back this charge.

3

“We submit that, to the extent that the evidence on record do not support but contradict these material allegations in the particulars of offences for Counts 1 and 5, the prosecution has failed to adduce sufficient evidence on key ingredients of the offences in Counts 1 and 5. Consequently, A1 must be acquitted and discharged.

4

“Contrary to the assertions in the particulars of offence of Counts 1 and 5 that A1 ‘authorized’ or ‘caused’ irrevocable letters of credit to be established it is clear from the evidence on record that AI never ‘authorized’ or ‘caused irrevocable’ letters of credit to be established nor did A1 act in any manner without due cause and authorization.

5

“Exhibits A and B1, which bear the signature of AI were transmitted to the Bank of Ghana under the authority of and on behalf of the Minister of Finance as confirmed by Exhibit 5 for A1....That claim is patently false.”

6