The decision by Attorney General Dr. Dominic Ayine to withdraw several high-profile cases has sparked intense legal and political debate, drawing scrutiny from various quarters. While some have defended his actions as legally justified, others argue that his explanations invite further questioning of his motives.
Victor Kojogah Adawudu, a member of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) legal team, has strongly defended the Attorney General’s decision, emphasizing that the law backs his actions. According to Adawudu, anyone who disagrees with the case withdrawals has the right to challenge them in court. Speaking in an interview on Eyewitness News with Umaru Sanda on Friday, February 14, he stated that the Attorney General’s decision was well within the legal framework, and any objections should be tested through legal channels.
He further noted that the Attorney General has the constitutional authority to initiate or discontinue prosecutions as he deems appropriate. According to him, this power is not subject to external interference unless challenged through proper legal procedures. Adawudu insisted that those who disagree with Dr. Ayine’s actions should take the matter to court rather than engaging in public speculation or political accusations.
However, not everyone shares this perspective. Former Deputy Attorney General Alfred Tuah-Yeboah has criticized Dr. Ayine’s approach, arguing that his public justification of the withdrawals has made the matter open to scrutiny. Tuah-Yeboah noted that the Attorney General could have simply filed a nolle prosequi—a formal withdrawal of a case—without offering explanations. He pointed out that past Attorneys General rarely provided reasons for discontinuing prosecutions, and by publicly justifying his decision, Dr. Ayine has invited further questioning.
He emphasized that while the Attorney General has the legal authority to withdraw cases, once he chooses to explain his reasoning, others also have the right to scrutinize the basis of his decisions. He argued that if Dr. Ayine had remained silent and only filed the nolle prosequi, critics would have had no grounds to challenge him. However, since he opted to explain his actions, opponents now have every right to question his motives.
The controversy surrounding the case withdrawals has been further fueled by allegations from former Attorney General and Minister of Justice Godfred Yeboah Dame. Dame has accused his successor of deliberately working to exonerate members of the NDC by discontinuing criminal cases against them. He claims that the pattern of case withdrawals raises concerns about a broader political strategy aimed at shielding NDC officials from accountability.
Dame’s allegations have intensified the debate, with critics arguing that Dr. Ayine’s decisions undermine the rule of law and create the perception that justice is being politicized. Supporters of the Attorney General, however, insist that he is acting within the boundaries of the law and that any legal challenges should be resolved through the courts.
The opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) has been vocal in its criticism of the case withdrawals, accusing the government of using legal technicalities to protect its allies. The NPP argues that the cases being dropped involve serious allegations that deserve to be fully prosecuted, rather than dismissed on what they describe as questionable grounds.
A growing number of legal analysts have weighed in on the matter, noting that while the Attorney General has discretionary powers in criminal prosecutions, the manner in which these powers are exercised can have significant political and public perception consequences. They argue that transparency and accountability are crucial in maintaining public trust in the justice system.
Some legal experts suggest that a more structured and transparent approach to case discontinuations could help prevent accusations of political bias and selective justice. They argue that while the law grants the Attorney General broad powers, public confidence in the judiciary requires that such powers be exercised with caution and fairness.
Additionally, questions have been raised about the criteria used in determining which cases should be withdrawn. Critics argue that while some cases may indeed lack sufficient evidence for prosecution, others appear to have been halted for reasons beyond legal considerations. This perception, they argue, could weaken faith in the judiciary and reinforce concerns about political interference in legal proceedings.
As the controversy unfolds, many are calling for greater clarity and consistency in the handling of criminal cases. Some analysts suggest that independent legal oversight, such as parliamentary reviews or judicial audits, could help ensure that prosecutorial decisions are not influenced by political considerations.
The ongoing debate has also reignited discussions about reforms to Ghana’s legal system, particularly concerning the extent of the Attorney General’s prosecutorial discretion. While some believe that the current framework is sufficient, others argue that additional safeguards should be introduced to prevent potential abuses of power.
Meanwhile, the NDC has defended Dr. Ayine’s actions, arguing that his decisions are based on legal merit rather than political considerations. They contend that past administrations also exercised similar powers, and the current criticisms are being driven by partisan interests rather than genuine legal concerns.
Political analysts predict that this issue will continue to dominate discussions in the coming weeks, especially as the opposition intensifies its push for accountability. Some believe that the debate could even lead to legal challenges, as stakeholders explore judicial avenues to contest the Attorney General’s actions.
For now, the Attorney General remains firm in his stance, maintaining that his decisions align with legal principles and due process. Whether his critics will take their concerns to court or continue to press the matter through public discourse remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the debate over case withdrawals is far from over, and its implications could have lasting effects on Ghana’s legal and political landscape.
