Former Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Godfred Yeboah Dame, has strongly refuted allegations made against him by businessman Richard Jakpa, describing them as “baseless, malicious, and a desperate ploy to obstruct justice.”
In a comprehensive 50-point statement submitted to the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) on Monday, October 6, 2025, Mr. Dame said the accusations—linked to the ongoing ambulance procurement trial involving Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson, former Majority Leader and current Finance Minister—were entirely without merit and driven by personal resentment.
Mr. Jakpa, now serving as Director of Special Operations at the National Security Secretariat, is the third accused person in the case titled Republic v. 1. Cassiel Ato Forson, 2. Dr. Sylvester Anemena, 3. Richard Jakpa. He has alleged that the former Attorney-General fabricated evidence to secure a conviction.
But Mr. Dame firmly denied the claim.
“I did not fabricate any evidence led in that criminal trial,” he stated.
“I have not been shown any piece of evidence adduced in the matter, either by the prosecution or the defence, which is alleged to be fabricated by me.”
He further stressed that he “never attempted to influence the testimony of Richard Jakpa,” insisting that the businessman’s claims were “nothing but sour grapes born out of frustration over my refusal to yield to his representations to discontinue his prosecution.”
Clarifying the law and allegations
The former Attorney-General explained that fabrication of evidence under Ghanaian law involves the creation of false circumstances, falsified entries, or forged documents intended to mislead a judicial officer.
“No act of mine borders on the doing of anything that will constitute fabrication of evidence,” he said.
According to Mr. Dame, Mr. Jakpa’s complaint rests largely on a “secret recording” of a telephone conversation allegedly held on March 26, 2024—a recording he says is being deliberately misrepresented.
“The telephone conversation actually took place on 9 April 2024, and not 26 March 2024, as he alleges,” he clarified.
“I am unable to respond to an allegation based on an alleged conversation on 26 March 2024 since no conversation took place between us on that day.”
The context of the call
Providing context, Mr. Dame noted that by the time of the phone call, the prosecution had long concluded its evidentiary processes.
“The prosecution had filed and tendered all documents as early as 14th February 2022,” he said.
“By 30th March 2023, the High Court had already ruled that a prima facie case had been established against the accused persons.”
He explained that at that point, Dr. Ato Forson had closed his defence, the second accused’s case had been discontinued on health grounds, and only Mr. Jakpa remained on the stand—having dismissed his lawyer and chosen to represent himself.
Mr. Dame said his only call to Mr. Jakpa was to discuss a court adjournment as he prepared for an international arbitration hearing in London.
“I will produce evidence of this as well,” he added.
“In the course of the discussion, he revived his disagreement over the meaning of the contract and the implications of using Letters of Credit as payment for the ambulances.”
No fabrication, only resentment
Describing Mr. Jakpa’s conduct as “disgruntled and resentful,” Mr. Dame said the complaint was motivated by anger over his refusal to terminate the prosecution.
“This complaint by Richard Jakpa is just sour grapes,” he said.
He also alleged that Dr. Ato Forson personally visited his residence in 2023 to persuade him to discontinue the case—a request he declined.
Encounters at Justice Kulendi’s residence
Mr. Dame confirmed that his only meetings with Mr. Jakpa took place either in open court or at the home of Supreme Court Justice Yonny Kulendi, whom he described as “a respected senior colleague.”
“There would have been no Dame–Jakpa without Justice Kulendi,” he remarked.
“It is inconceivable for a lawyer, more so the Attorney-General, to refuse invitations by a Justice of the Supreme Court to visit or to decline to give him audience when requested.”
He emphasised, however, that those interactions did not compromise his independence.
“I maintained independence of thought on all issues discussed in Justice Kulendi’s house, including matters related to Richard Jakpa’s prosecution.”
High Court ruling vindicated the former A-G
Mr. Dame pointed out that the allegations had already been judicially settled by the High Court’s ruling of June 6, 2024, delivered by Justice Afia Serwaa Asare-Botwe, which found no evidence that he sought to influence Jakpa’s testimony or violated any fair trial rights.
Quoting from the judgment, he said: “After listening to the conversation between A3 and A1, the issue of whether the Attorney-General actually told A3 to implicate A1 is not borne out by the evidence.”
The court further held that: “There is no actual evidence that the Attorney-General, as the prosecutor, has behaved in such an egregious manner that the 1st Accused/Applicant’s right to a fair trial is in jeopardy.”
Mr. Dame, therefore, maintained that the CID has no jurisdiction to reinvestigate a matter already determined by a competent court.
“The instant complaint seeks to relitigate issues already adjudicated upon by the High Court, Accra. The matters in issue have become res judicata,” he stated.
Timeline of contact
Outlining his limited contact with Mr. Jakpa, Mr. Dame said he had never met him outside court proceedings and Justice Kulendi’s residence.
Their first interaction, he recalled, came on January 18, 2022, when Justice Kulendi visited his office to plead for Mr. Jakpa’s temporary release pending bail verification.
“Jakpa later obtained my number from Justice Kulendi and sent me 68 WhatsApp messages, to which I replied only twice—a fact he admitted in court,” Mr. Dame said.
He concluded by reaffirming that the entire complaint was “a fabrication springing from the fertile imagination of Richard Jakpa.”
“My only phone contact with him in April 2024 was procedural, concerning a court adjournment before my trip to London for an arbitration hearing—a case Ghana eventually won,” he stated.
