Minority serves notice to challenge Gov’t in Court over Nolle Prosequi in Kwabena Duffour case if……

The Minority Parliament has served notice to challenge Government in Court over Nolle Prosequi in Kwabena Duffour case if the AG has not overturned the decision within a reasonable time.

- Advertisement -

At news conference led by Kwame Anyimadu-Antwi Member of Parliament for Asante Akim North, to response to the press release by the Deputy Attorney General on behalf of the Attorney General on the 22nd of july, 2025 said “finally, may this press conference also serve as a formal notice to the AG, Hon Dr. Dominic Akuritinga Ayine, that if his decision is not reversed within a reasonable time, the minority will consider its option of proceeding to court to challenge his decision in its entirety”, adding that “let it be known that justice must not only be done, but it must be manifestly be seen to be done”.

Below is the full statement:

PRESS CONFERENCE AS A RESPONSE TO THE PRESS RELEASE BY THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL ON BEHALF OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ON THE 22ND OF JULY, 2025

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Press Good Afternoon!

- Advertisement -

This press conference has become necessary, because the decision of the Attorney General in this country, to enter a nolle prosequi in the case of The Republic v. Kwabena Duffour & 7 Others calls for serious scrutiny having regard to the entire circumstances of the said case; which we set to outline in this press conference for the good people of Ghana to better appreciate its unacceptable repercussions on the country. 

Ladies and gentlemen, to better understand the case under reference, permit us the minority to make reference to the press release dated 22/07/2025 that has emanated from the attorney general as reproduced here below:

 “The Honourable Attorney-General has, today, entered a nolle prosequi in the case of The Republic v. Kwabena Duffour & 7 Others.

While the exercise of this prosecutorial discretion requires no explanation under law, the Attorney-General, in the spirit of accountability and transparency, considers it appropriate to provide the public with the rationale behind this decision:

1. As may be recalled, The Republic v. Kwabena Duffour & 7 Others case formed part of a broader set of prosecutions arising out of the financial sector clean-up exercise which the State has been undertaking since the year 2018.
2. The central objective of these prosecutions has been to (a) ensure accountability for public funds and, more importantly, (b) recover losses occasioned to the State through various alleged acts of financial impropriety.
3. In pursuit of this objective, the Office of the Attorney-General, in collaboration with other relevant State agencies, established a threshold of 60% recovery of the alleged losses to the State as a condition for reconsidering prosecution in specific cases.
4. Following prolonged negotiations and engagements, the accused persons in The Republic v. Kwabena Duffour & 7 Others case have met this recovery threshold. Accordingly, in furtherance of public interest, and considering the significant recoveries made for the State, the Honourable Attorney-General has satisfied himself that continuing with the prosecution will not serve any additional public purpose.
5. This decision, however, does not imply an absence of wrongdoing nor a vindication of any conduct. It is a pragmatic step in line with the overarching national interest of recovering State resources.
6. The Honourable Attorney-General remains resolute in his commitment to upholding the rule of law, protecting the public purse, and pursuing justice in all matters of national importance.”

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The press release arose against the following background:

UniBank was one of the financial institutions that was affected by the financial sector clean-up by the Bank of Ghana. Thus, following the banking clean-up exeercise, the Bank of Ghana detected that, a whooping amount of depositors’ funds totalling GHS 5.7 billion had become due but the said amount was not available at all material times for payment accordingly. Subsequently, Investigations revealed that, Duffour and Co, transferred the said funds to some related and connected businesses and that in the end; UniBank was rendered insolvent.

It is instructive to note that, these criminal activities were uncovered after the revocation of licence of UniBank and the subsequent appointment of a receiver by the Bank of Ghana, consequently, the charges of fraudulent breach of trust, money laundering, among others were brought against Dr kwabena Duffour and some seven (7) others.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In view of the above, Ghanaians, including, we, the minority in parliament, have since been wondering the legal basis for the entry of a nolle prosequi in the suit under reference by the Learned Attorney-General and therefore we deem it appropriate to raise questions produced below for the Attorney General to answer for the benefit of the good people of Ghana:

 Question 1

• Has Dr Dominic Akuritinga Ayine in the past acted for Dr Kwabena Duffour in the case of The Republic vrs Kwabena Duffour and 7 others??
• Is Dr Dominic Ayine now the Attorney General that the Deputy refers to in the press release?
• Ghanaians would want the Attorney General to explain to us the full extent of conflict of interest using Dominic Ayine as defence counsel and Dominic Ayine as the Attorney General??

Question 2

• Does the Attorney-General have the right (suo motu) to free offenders at his own discretion or is he obliged by law to prosecute and punish offenders in the country, especially in cases involving grave financial crimes against the state?
• Is he not legally and constitutionally obligated to ensure prosecution and punishment of those who commit economic crimes?
• What prevented the Attorney General from continuing with the prosecution of the Republic vs Kwabena Duffour and Seven others, especially when the prosecution had far advanced its case before the court?

Question 3

• Transparency as indicated in the press release demands the Learned Attorney General to explain to Ghanaians the principle of 60:40.
• Is it a new policy directive?
• When was this introduced into our criminal jurisprudence?
• What happens to the remaining 40 percent? The Attorney General informs us today that he is using the proverbial goat theft approach to claim 60% and let the 40% go to waste
• The press release makes reference to a 60% recovery threshold as a benchmark for reconsidering prosecutions. When was this policy introduced, and under what legal authority?
• Was this benchmark made public or debated in Parliament? Or was it quietly introduced post-2024 to lower the standards of accountability?
• For a case involving GHS 5.7 billion, can the Attorney-General confirm that GHS 1 billion (60%) has indeed been recovered, and provide documented proof of this recovery? It is strange that the Attorney-General is insisting that an amount of GHS800m recovered from Dr Duffour constitute 60%. How did the AG review the amount from GHS507bn to GHS1.2bn by a mere administrative fiat
• The best we heard from him today is to make arrangements for the amount to be paid into public funds

Question 4

Did the Attorney General consider section 35 of the courts Act 1993, Act 459 in coming out with the 60-40 threshold? For the avoidance of doubt section 35 of Act 459 states as follows:

“Offer of compensation or restitution (1) Where a person is charged with an offence before the High Court or a Regional Tribunal, the commission of which has caused economic loss, harm or damage to the State or a State agency, the accused may inform the prosecutor whether the accused admits the offence and is willing to offer compensation or make restitution and reparation for the loss, harm or damage caused. (2)  Where an accused makes an offer of compensation or restitution and reparation, the prosecutor shall consider if the offer is acceptable to the prosecution. (3)  If the offer is not acceptable to the prosecution the case before the Court shall proceed. (4)  If the offer is acceptable to the prosecution, the prosecutor shall in the presence of the accused, inform the Court which shall consider if the offer of compensation or restitution and reparation is satisfactory. (5)  Where the Court considers the offer to be satisfactory, the Court shall accept a plea of guilty from the accused and convict the accused on that plea, and in lieu of passing sentence on the accused make an order for the accused to pay compensation or make restitution and reparation. (6)  An order of the Court under subsection (5) is subject to the conditions directed by the Court. (7) Where a person convicted under this section defaults in the payment of the money required of that person under this section, or fails to fulfil a condition imposed by the Court under subsection (6), the amount outstanding shall become due and payable and upon failure to make the payment, the Court shall [proceed to] pass a custodial sentence on the accused.”

Why did the Attorney General turn a blind eye on the above institutional provision?

• Would the AG’s principle of restitution be under the Plea Bargain under section 162 as amended under the criminal and other offences (procedure) Act, 30 and 1079? He clearly stated this morning in his press conference that he ignore that as well
• One will doubt whether the attorney general considered any of the above processes in coming out with the principle of 60-40

Question 5

• Why was the accused person not convicted even when he agreed to pay 60% in line with the plea bargain agreement or section 35 of the Courts Acts?
• For plea bargain to be accepted by the court there are a lot of options opened to the parties including a conviction. However, any such process must be supervised by the court.
• So how does the AG allow the accused persons to walk free without a conviction and without the supervision by the Court? That definitely cannot be under a plea bargain agreement.
• And if it isn’t a plea bargain agreement what are the conditions under which an accused person returns 60% of the funds and walks free?

The learned AG has obviously forgotten the theories of prosecution and punishment. If he had not, he would have appreciated that deterrence is very crucial.

A Call to Action

Ladies and gentlemen,

As we conclude, we would like to take this opportunity to call on all voices of conscience in our society especially, lawyers, judges, civil society, clergy, and traditional leaders, not to sit down and watch on unconcerned while the very   A-G trusted with the office responsible to uphold the rule of law, on the contrary, pursue rather a destructive agenda to the detriment of the good people of Ghana

Accordingly, we call on:

• The Parliament of Ghana, particularly its Select Committee on Constitutional, Legal, and Parliamentary Affairs, to summon the Attorney-General to answer these questions publicly.
• The Legal Council and Bar Association to investigate potential breaches of legal ethics and professional misconduct: and
• All patriotic Ghanaians to stand up against what appears to be the erosion of justice and the dangerous politicization of the prosecutorial process.

Finally, may this press conference also serve as a formal notice to the AG, Hon Dr. Dominic Akuritinga Ayine, that if his decision is not reversed within a reasonable time, the minority will consider its option of proceeding to court to challenge his decision in its entirety.

Let it be known that justice must not only be done, but it must be manifestly be seen to be done.

Thank you.