The recent decision by the Attorney-General (AG) to discontinue certain court cases against officials of the previous Mahama administration has sparked debate, with some calling it a dangerous precedent. However, a deeper look at the situation reveals that this move is not about political favoritism but about ensuring justice is not weaponized for political gain.
Eight Years of Prosecution with No Convictions—A Political Agenda?
The key question critics fail to ask is this: if these cases truly had strong evidence of corruption, why did the previous administration, after eight years in power, fail to secure convictions? It is one thing to allege corruption and another to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. The law courts operate on evidence, not political narratives. The fact that these cases have dragged on for nearly a decade without success suggests they were more about political persecution than genuine justice.
Why Continue Politically Motivated Cases?
Justice is not about keeping cases alive just to tarnish reputations. Some of these cases were clearly driven by political motivations rather than solid legal foundations. A notable example is when a defendant offered to repay the money allegedly lost to the state, but the previous AG refused the offer simply because he wanted convictions at all costs. This refusal suggests that the goal was not recovering state funds but rather imprisoning political opponents for political points.
Accountability vs. Selective Justice
The author of the original article argues that discontinuing these cases weakens accountability. But true accountability does not mean holding people in court indefinitely without conclusive evidence. Genuine accountability requires fair trials based on facts, not political witch-hunts. If an administration weaponizes the judiciary to settle political scores, should the next administration continue this cycle of selective justice?
A New Approach to Fighting Corruption
If the Mahama administration truly wants to fight corruption, it must adopt a fresh, non-partisan approach—one based on solid investigations and evidence, not old political trials. Operation Recover All Loot (ORAL) can only work when justice is pursued fairly, not when it is entangled in political agendas. The government should focus on building credible institutions to prevent corruption rather than wasting time on cases that have yielded no results after years of litigation.
Conclusion: Time to Move Forward
Ghana must move beyond politically motivated prosecutions and focus on strengthening institutions to prevent corruption before it happens. The decision to discontinue these cases is not a “dangerous precedent” but rather a necessary reset to ensure justice is not used as a tool for political revenge. After all, justice delayed is justice denied—both for the accused and for the state.
