The Deputy Attorney General Dominic Ayine has shredded the ruling which acquitted and discharged Alfred Woyome and had some few harsh words for the sitting judge.
Describing the ruling as a “travesty of justice” the Deputy AG is convinced Justice John Ajet-Nasam had made up his mind already in whose favour the ruling will go even before the case started.
Speaking on Joy FM’s news analysis programme Newsfile Saturday, the Deputy Minister said the ruling reminded him of a tutor in his High School days who had the inscription “My mind is made don’t confuse me with the facts” boldly written in his office.
Justice John Ajet-Nasam’s “mind was made up from day one,” Ayine stated adding his “ruling is a prime example of poor judicial reasoning leading to conclusions that are totally untenable.”
The judge in his ruling said the prosecution failed to prove beyond every reasonable doubt that Alfred Woyome indeed defrauded the state by false pretence and willfully caused financial loss to the state.
He was even more disappointed that the prosecution failed to bring key witnesses who were central in the payment of the 51 million cedis judgment debt to Woyome to testify as prosecution witnesses.
He said the prosecution’s case was “shoddy.”
But the Attorney General has reacted to the ruling. Marrietta Brew-Oppong shortly after the ruling said she disagreed with the ruling and hinted of an appeal. She has since tendered in a notice of appeal to the Woyome and the court.
While the AG was diplomatic in her criticism of the judge’s ruling her deputy Dominic Ayine was a little less diplomatic.
He said judgment lacked fairness and rubbished it in many respects.
Contrary to the assertions that the Attorneys did a shoddy job, Dominic Ayine said the lawyers who handled the state’s case did a good job to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the charges preferred were sustainable.
Citing the no case application filed by Woyome, the Deputy Attorney General said Ajet-Nasam gave a lucid ruling which said there was a prima facie case against Woyome to which the accused person must answer to.
He found it intriguing that the same judge would later turn around and accuse prosecution of not proving its case against the accused person.
He said when a judge tells a party to open a defence what it means is that the burden now shifts to the defence a reasonable probability that his case was true.
Surprisingly, Dominic Ayine said the judge was selective in his ruling punched holes into the addresses of the prosecution and did not make any reference to the addresses or arguement of the defence.
He insisted their charges of causing financial loss to the state and defrauding by false pretence were spot on and they will pursue the matter on appeal.
The evidence on record showed very clearly that the question is did he lead evidence sufficient enough to cast doubt on the evidence
Ace Ankomah who was also a panel member on the show said the judge has to be selective because with the tonnes of information given to him, he had to sift through them and arrive at a conclusion which would be his judgment.
“He is paid to be selective,” he indicated but added he does not have to be prejudicial.
This article has 0 comment, leave your comment.