Let us approach this matter with candour and objectivity, unencumbered by bias. For eight years, the state has expended scarce resources and time on certain prosecutions. Regrettably, these trials have lingered for years due to the state’s failure to establish sufficient facts in law, and some instances failed to establish a prima facie case.
The Ato Forson case, for instance, was dismissed for lack of merit, only to be appealed. Similarly, the Oponi case has been protracted due to the paucity of merit in the state’s case.
In my considered opinion and respectfully, the Oliver case was just a ‘necessary’ measure to curb his perceived nuisance (commonly referred to as a political measure to silence him). Although I am not a lawyer, I was convinced that the case lacked merit and would ultimately be dismissed by the court.
The new Attorney General Dr. Dominic Ayine has astutely observed that pursuing these cases would be an egregious waste of time, potentially resulting in the state being sanctioned for abusing the court’s process. Consequently, the decision to discontinue prosecution as a prudent option.
Let us be fair and impartial – what is objectionable about this decision? I respectfully suggest that the Attorney General’s office should, in the foreseeable future, provide a public explanation for the decision to discontinue prosecution of these cases, supplemented by measures to enhance the efficiency and timeliness of the justice delivery system.
Furthermore, to prevent similar scenarios in the future, the Attorney General’s office should also establish mechanisms to set thresholds and benchmarks for receiving and evaluating facts and evidence. This would enable the office to expeditiously sift out cases that do not meet the requisite threshold and benchmarks for prosecution, thereby streamlining the justice delivery process and conserving valuable resources.
Source: mywordfmonline.com