Dame Denies Jakpa's Claims: Ambulance Case Brouhaha Continues

Former Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame has strongly refuted allegations made by Richard Jakpa, Director of Special Operations at the National Security, claiming he fabricated evidence in the controversial US$2 million ambulance case. Dame dismissed Jakpa's complaint to the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) as “totally baseless” and stemming from Jakpa's “fertile imagination.”

In a detailed 50-page response, Dame asserted that there's no evidence to support the claim that he acted improperly during the trial. He emphasized, “I did not fabricate any evidence led in that criminal trial. I have not been shown any piece of evidence adduced in the matter, either by the prosecution or the defence, which is alleged to be fabricated by me.”

Jakpa, who was the third accused person in the ambulance case, had petitioned the CID, alleging that Dame attempted to persuade him to testify in a specific way to implicate Dr. Ato Forson and to provide false testimony. He accused Dame of attempting to procure a false excuse duty, constituting the crime of fabrication of evidence.

Dame vehemently denied these accusations, stating, “Further, I never attempted to influence the testimony of Richard Jakpa, and indeed, he was not influenced at all when giving evidence in the case in question.” He argued that Jakpa's allegations fail to meet the threshold for the offence of fabrication of evidence.

The ambulance case has been a subject of intense public scrutiny, and this latest development further fuels the debate. It remains to be seen how the CID will proceed with Jakpa's petition in light of Dame's strong rebuttal. The public awaits further investigations and clarity on this complex legal matter.

Key Arguments from Dame's Response:

  • No evidence of fabrication.
  • No attempt to influence Jakpa's testimony.
  • Jakpa's claims are baseless and imaginative.

What's Next?

The CID is expected to review Dame's response and determine the next course of action. This case highlights the importance of due process and the need for thorough investigations in high-profile legal matters in Ghana.

Compartir artículo