Court Rejects Cassiel Ato Forson’s Appeal Due to Lack of Merit
The Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal filed by Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson, the Minority Leader in Ghana’s Parliament, seeking to strike out two charges against him related to a financial loss case.
Dr. Forson is accused of causing a financial loss of €2.37 million to the state in a deal to purchase 200 ambulances between 2014 and 2016.
Dr. Forson faces charges of willfully causing financial loss to the state and intentionally misapplying public property.
On March 4, 2022, Dr. Forson filed a motion at the High Court, requesting the dismissal of these charges on the grounds that they lacked sufficient particulars. He argued that the charges did not clearly specify the exact actions that constituted acting “without due cause and authorization.” The High Court, presided over by Justice Afia Serwah Asare-Botwe, denied the request, stating that the charges were sufficiently detailed under the requirements of the 1992 Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30).
Recommended Articles
Ambulance Case: Jakpa Claims Attorney General Targeting Ato Forson
High Court Dismisses Ato Forson’s Motion for Mistrial in Ambulance Case
Dr. Forson appealed the High Court’s decision, contending that the terms “without due cause and authorization” were vague and did not provide a clear understanding of the accusations. He asserted that this ambiguity violated his constitutional right to be fully informed of the charges against him.
The Attorney-General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, argued that the charges were clear and detailed enough for Dr. Forson to understand the accusations. The prosecution maintained that the specifics of the charges were sufficient and not technically
On June 6, 2024, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal, led by Justice Philip Bright Mensah, upheld the High Court’s decision. The panel included Justices Janapare A. Bartels-Kwodwo and Hafisata Amaleboba.
The court concluded that the charges against Dr. Forson contained adequate particulars as mandated by Article 19(2)(d) of the 1992 Constitution and Section 112 (4) of Act 30. The panel found the terms used in the charges were not vague or nebulous and sufficiently informed Dr. Forson of the conduct for which he was being prosecuted.
The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that it lacked merit, affirming the original charges against Dr. Forson.
The dismissal of the appeal means that Dr. Forson will continue to face trial under the existing charges. The ruling reinforces the court’s position that the allegations have been presented with sufficient detail, allowing the prosecution to proceed.
Useful Links
