Former Deputy Attorney General Joseph Kpemka has cautioned Attorney General Dr. Dominic Ayine against making public comments that delve into the merits of ongoing criminal cases, warning that such remarks violate the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence.
His caution follows Dr. Ayine’s public disclosure of details from certain criminal cases during a Government Accountability Series held on Wednesday, October 22.
Speaking on Eyewitness News after the event, Mr. Kpemka urged Dr. Ayine to refrain from discussing the merits and facts of active cases, arguing that such commentary prejudices public perception and undermines the rights of accused persons.
“If you have heard what happened this afternoon, and you go through social media, people have concluded that the person who is alleged to have committed the offence indeed committed the offence and is guilty of the same.
And if you read the commentary being run, it is as if judgment has been passed by the court and the accused person has been found to be guilty, but that is not the case at all. We must avoid discussing the merit of the case,” he said.
Mr. Kpemka acknowledged that the Attorney General has the right to update the public on cases under prosecution, but cautioned that sharing too many details could mislead the public and create confusion if the eventual verdict differs from public expectations.
“The facts of the case you can put out, but to discuss the merits and say, for example, you won’t go to court if you are not convinced that the crime has been committed—and therefore it is only when you know that you will get conviction that you go to court—you have already determined the issue. That is where the details and the nitty-gritty you have actually churned out to the public will create mischief tomorrow.
It is good that you can come out and enlighten the public that you are prosecuting someone who is facing ten charges and has been put before the court. But the details as to how you will strategise and execute the prosecution should be reserved for the courtroom,” he stated.
Mr. Kpemka emphasised that such commentary breaches Article 19(2) of the 1992 Constitution, which guarantees every accused person the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
“The danger is very clear, and the presumption of innocence in the Constitution—Article 19(2)—was not put there for nothing. It was to ensure that people who are put before a court and haven’t been convicted are not treated as though they are convicted. Discussing the details and merits of the case, for me, will be a sin as far as the Constitution is concerned,” he added.
Buffer Stock scandal: Allegations by AG are false and damaging – Former CEO