By Kwame Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jr., Ph.D.

After the promise of apocalyptic fire-and-brimstone prosecutorial justice by the Attorney-General, in the wake of alleged adverse findings by a commission of inquiry against Messrs. Charles Wereko-Brobby and Kwadwo Mpiani, an Accra High Court judge on Tuesday, August 10, 2010 was reported to have acquitted the two gentlemen on charges of causing financial loss to the Ghanaian state (See “It’s Not Over Yet, Wereko-Brobby, Mpiani Will Be Back In The Dock – Deputy A-G” MyJoyOnline.com 8/10/10).

In disposing of the case, Justice Samuel Marfo-Sau properly and emphatically noted that the Attorney-General could not “prosecute the accused on the [mere] basis of adverse findings by a commission of inquiry” And here, we must promptly recall the fact that Messrs. Wereko-Brobby and Mpiani, key organizers of Ghana’s 50th independence anniversary celebrations, were accused by the Atta-Mills government of “deliberately over-spending in excess [sic] of what was approved by Parliament, as well as contracting loans without approval from Parliament.”
What makes this case especially interesting is the fact of its being primarily predicated on a motive of vendetta, the need for the traditionally vengeful National Democratic Congress to even out political scores with the now-opposition New Patriotic Party. Needless to say, a grim recognition of this fact very likely informed the verdict of Justice Marfo-Sau.
It is also significant to note that Ghanaians have yet to be fully informed about government expenditure on the year-long, circus-like centenary birthday celebration of just one transitioned (or dead) Ghanaian citizen, deposed dictator and first president, Mr. Kwame Nkrumah. And so in terms of accountability, it is not clear whether by its actions thus far the Atta-Mills government intends to strongly signal Ghanaians that the NDC stands well above the noble laws of our land.

It is also not clear whether the commission of inquiry that faulted Messrs. Wereko-Brobby and Mpiani with fiscal malfeasance was legally binding. The correct answer appears to be that it most probably was not; and this is precisely why the presiding judge castigated the Attorney-General for an apparently sloppy prosecutorial performance. In other words, it appears that all that Mrs. Betty Mould-Iddrisu and her lieutenant, Mr. Ebo Barton-Oduro, had done was simply to collect the findings of the aforesaid commission of inquiry and present the same as evidence before Justice Marfo-Sau.

If the preceding has validity then, clearly, the Attorney-General may be equally guilty of causing financial loss to the state, in the event that she decides to retry the same case. For in evidently presenting raw data before Justice Marfo-Sau, without having exerted the requisite legal expertise in the preparation of its case, the proverbial Ghanaian taxpayer’s money has literally been flushed down the drain. Consequently, any attempt at “re-presenting” the same case before another court will be tantamount to prosecutorial witch-hunting. And this is precisely where the judicial concept of “Double-Jeopardy” enters the equation.
Now, before I proceed any further, let me readily own my complete lack of professional legal knowledge and expertise. I also plead ignorance in regard to what the laws of Ghana have to say about the decision or attempt by the Attorney-General to trying the accused for a second time on the same charges of which the latter have already been tried and acquitted by a legitimately constituted court of law.
At best, what the government’s supreme legal representative could do will be to reclassify the charges preferred against Messrs. Wereko-Brobby and Mpiani from their initial criminal classification/category of causing financial loss to the state, to one of purely civil classification, in which the judicial or prosecutorial endgame primarily entails the recovery of deliberately frittered public dole. Even so, this tack, or strategy, may not be quite as simple as it appears.
Furthermore, the fact that between 2007 and 2008 the Ghanaian parliament evidently saw nothing wrong with the spending regime, or style, of Messrs. Wereko-Brobby and Mpiani vis-à-vis Ghana’s golden jubilee celebrations cannot be ignored. In other words, what is it that makes Ghana’s parliament between 2007 and 2008 any less legitimate than the current one? And also, why had the Ghanaian parliament between 2007 and 2008 not referred the matter at issue to the country’s justice department?
Ultimately, what is even more flagrantly risible is to have people whose outrageous criminal past has had to be shrouded by indemnity clauses conveniently and deviously inserted into our Fourth-Republican Constitution, haughtily assume a higher moral ground over and above those whose epic generosity they cannot hope to repay in a millennium.

*Kwame Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jr., Ph.D., is Associate Professor of English, Journalism and Creative Writing at Nassau Community College of the State University of New York, Garden City. He is a Governing Board Member of the Accra-based Danquah Institute (DI) and author of 21 books, including “Ghanaian Politics Today” (Atumpan Publications/Lulu.com, 2008). E-mail: okoampaahoofe@optimum.net.
###