By: Valentia Tetteh
The Minority in Parliament has strongly criticized the Attorney-General’s decision to enter a nolle prosequi in the case of The Republic v. Dr. Kwabena Duffour and 7 Others, describing the move as a serious affront to accountability and the rule of law.
At a press briefing in Parliament on Monday, July 28, 2025, Ranking Member on the Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee, Kwame Anyimadu-Antwi, raised concerns about the legal justification and implications of the decision, calling for greater transparency and answers to what they describe as unanswered questions surrounding the matter.
The Attorney-General, Dr. Dominic Ayine, on July 22, 2025, issued a press release on behalf of the Attorney-General’s office, announcing the discontinuation of the case. The statement explained that the decision was informed by significant progress in asset recovery claiming a 60% recovery of losses as well as the complex legal nature of the prosecution.
Quoting from the release, the Attorney-General’s office stated: “The central objective of these prosecutions has been to ensure accountability for public funds and, more importantly, recover losses occasioned to the State. Following prolonged negotiations and engagements, the accused persons have met this recovery threshold. Accordingly, the Attorney-General has satisfied himself that continuing with the prosecution will not serve any additional public purpose.”
However, the Minority challenged the validity of this rationale, noting that the financial scandal involving UniBank which reportedly cost the state over GHS 5.7 billion should not be brushed aside under what they termed a “discretionary recovery benchmark.”
Addressing journalists, the Minority queried: “Is the Attorney-General constitutionally empowered to unilaterally set a 60:40 recovery benchmark as a basis for abandoning prosecutions? When was this policy introduced, under what legal authority, and was it ever debated in Parliament?”
They further demanded clarity on the figures involved: “Can the Attorney-General confirm that GHS 1 billion has actually been recovered from the accused? From our checks, only GHS 800 million has been mentioned. How then does this amount to 60% of the original GHS 5.7 billion loss?”
The Minority further noted, “Ghanaians would want the Attorney-General to explain the full extent of the conflict of interest in having Dr. Dominic Ayine act both as a former defense counsel and now a Deputy Attorney-General responsible for this case.”
Furthermore, they invoked Section 35 of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459), which outlines legal procedures for restitution in criminal cases involving economic losses to the state.
According to the Minority: “The Attorney-General appears to have sidestepped Section 35 entirely. That provision makes room for restitution within the judicial process, not outside of it through administrative fiat.”
They also questioned whether the AG’s decision falls under the newly introduced plea bargaining framework under Section 162 of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, as amended.
Calling for accountability, the Minority emphasized:
“The Attorney-General must come clean with the people of Ghana. Is this truly about public interest or a dangerous precedent that allows those with financial influence to escape the full force of the law?”
The Minority says they may challenge the decision through appropriate legal and parliamentary channels if answers are not provided.
