The Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service is expected to invite Supreme Court judge, Justice Emmanuel Yonni Kulendi and Richard Jakpa, former military officer and now Director of Operations at the National Security Secretariat for questioning following a petition filed with the CID by Daniel Ofori-Atta.
Ahead of the CID invitation to the two, Daniel Ofori-Atta has been interrogated by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) following his petition calling for investigations into alleged misconduct by Justice Yoni Kulendi, a Justice of the Supreme Court, and Mr. Richard Jakpa.
Speaking in an interview after the meeting on Wednesday (8 October) Mr. Ofori-Atta confirmed that he was invited by the investigator assigned to the case to meet the Deputy Director-General of the CID and the Director of Operations for the Police CID.
He appeared with his lawyer, Kwame Boateng, and was made to submit a detailed written statement and several supporting documents.
“I went there with my counsel, lawyer Kwame Boateng, and I was made to submit a written statement. I also presented the various documents that I had to establish and buttress the case I have made against Justice Yoni Kulendi and Mr. Richard Jakpa,” he indicated.
According to Mr. Ofori-Atta, the documents included a High Court ruling, an application filed by the three accused persons during mistrial proceedings, and court proceedings dated 18 June and 20 June 2024.
He explained that those proceedings, particularly under cross-examination by the Director of Public Prosecutions, revealed what he described as “critical admissions” by Mr. Jakpa, suggesting collusion and conspiracy between him and Justice Kulendi to interfere with ongoing legal proceedings.
He further disclosed that he submitted WhatsApp exchanges between Mr. Jakpa and the then Attorney-General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, which he said were crucial to his case.
“The document shows that in all, 68 WhatsApp messages were sent. And the content would indicate that Mr. Jakpa admitted, when he was cross-examined, that he obtained the WhatsApp number of Godfred Dame from Justice Yoni Kulendi,” Mr. Ofori-Atta stated.
Kulendi Invitation
Sources close to the CID told newsmen that the Mr. Kulendi will definitely be questioned but the law enforcement agency was now considering asking the learned Supreme Court Judge to appear at their offices or extend some courtesy to Justice Kulendi to rather send them a written statement detailing clearly what he knew about the criminal; complaints against him.
This is the first time a sitting justice of the Supreme Court has been embroiled in such criminal allegations warranting further investigation by the CID. “Yes, this is untidy regarding the people involved but as a specialist branch dealing with the law, we are colour or status blind.” The source disclosed.
The CID, he said, acknowledged receipt of the documents and expressed appreciation for his cooperation, assuring him that investigations would continue.
Background
Mr. Daniel Ofori-Atta’s petition stems from developments during the Ambulance Procurement Trial, in which Richard Jakpa was a co-accused alongside the Finance Minister Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson, then Minority Leader.
During cross-examination in June 2024, Mr. Jakpa made statements suggesting that he had been in direct contact with the then Attorney-General, exchanges that were later presented as WhatsApp messages in court.
The revelations sparked controversy, prompting widespread calls for an independent inquiry into potential judicial and prosecutorial interference.
Mr. Ofori-Atta subsequently petitioned the CID to probe the alleged conduct of Justice Yoni Kulendi and Mr. Jakpa, arguing that their actions undermined the integrity of the justice system.
The petition provides detailed allegations supported by the trial record. Mr. Ofori-Atta writes that on January 18, 2022, after Jakpa had been arraigned, he “solicited the help of his cousin, Justice Yonny Kulendi, to procure the assistance of the then Attorney-General to facilitate the release of Richard Jakpa when he had not satisfied the conditions of the bail granted to him.”
The letter claims that Justice Kulendi “actually went to the office of the former Attorney-General, Godfred Dame, to request that his cousin be permitted to go home.”
According to the petition, under cross-examination, Jakpa admitted to obtaining Mr. Dame’s telephone number from Justice Kulendi, after which he “confidently attempted to meet with Mr. Dame and inundated him with many WhatsApp messages.”
All of these were “tendered in evidence at the trial on 18th June, 2024,” the letter states, and it is on record that “Mr. Dame refused Richard Jakpa’s invitation to meet with him.”
Mr. Ofori-Atta alleges that when Mr. Dame turned down Jakpa’s overtures, Justice Kulendi “in breach of the Code regulating his work as a Superior Court Judge, lured the then Attorney-General into meetings at his (Justice Kulendi’s) residence on no less than four occasions.”
The letter states that Justice Kulendi “would then secretly invite Richard Jakpa to come over to his house, and interfere in the legal proceedings pending against Jakpa by impressing upon Mr. Dame to stop the prosecution of the former, or ensure that the prosecution would let him go free at the submission of no case stage of the trial.”
The petitioner emphasizes that “apart from inside the courtroom and the house of Justice Yonny Kulendi, Mr. Godfred Dame has never met Mr. Richard Jakpa anywhere.”
He indicated that the conduct of Justice Kulendi and Jakpa demonstrates “a calculated effort to interfere in the prosecution of the criminal case filed against Richard Jakpa by the Republic of Ghana,” describing it as “not only dishonourable but also borders on the commission of crimes in accordance with the Criminal and Other Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29).”
Mr Ofori-Atta further requests that the CID “conduct an investigation into the conduct of Justice Yonny Kulendi and his cousin, Richard Jakpa, to unravel all acts of criminality disclosed by their conduct, and take such prosecutorial action as is consistent with law.”
