The Minority Caucus in Parliament has launched a fierce challenge against the Attorney-General (AG), Dr. Dominic Akuritinga Ayine, following his contr
The Minority Caucus in Parliament has launched a fierce challenge against the Attorney-General (AG), Dr. Dominic Akuritinga Ayine, following his controversial decision to discontinue the criminal prosecution of former UniBank CEO, Dr. Kwabena Duffuor, and seven others.
The AG’s decision, described by the Minority as a blow to the fight against economic crime, has triggered demands for full disclosure, parliamentary oversight, and possible legal redress.
At a press conference held in Accra on July 28, 2025, Minority MPs expressed outrage over the AG’s entry of nolle prosequi—a legal term that halts a prosecution without a conviction. The decision followed an official statement from the Deputy Attorney-General, who cited a “60% recovery threshold” of alleged financial losses as justification for abandoning the high-profile case.
The prosecution of Dr. Duffuor and others was a key component of the Akufo-Addo administration’s post-2018 financial sector reforms, which sought to address widespread mismanagement, regulatory breaches, and alleged criminal conduct in Ghana’s banking industry.
The collapse of UniBank was emblematic of the crisis, with GH¢5.7 billion in depositor funds reportedly lost or misappropriated.
Duffuor, a former Finance Minister and Bank of Ghana governor, faced multiple charges, including fraudulent breach of trust, money laundering, and criminal misapplication of funds.
His trial was seen as a litmus test for Ghana’s ability to hold powerful financial figures accountable.
Minority Demands Clarity and Justice
In their statement, the Minority raised several questions over the legal and ethical basis of the AG’s action:
Conflict of Interest: Was Dr. Ayine, now Attorney-General, previously legal counsel for Dr. Duffuor? If so, did he properly recuse himself from the matter to avoid ethical violations?
Legal Standing of “60% Recovery Policy”: The caucus questioned the origin, legality, and transparency of this purported threshold. “Who approved this policy? Does it have legal backing? And why was Parliament not informed?” they asked.
Mathematical Discrepancies: The Minority also challenged the AG’s claim that GH¢800 million represented 60% of the GH¢5.7 billion allegedly lost.
“What formula was used? Is this the new ‘goat-thief’ approach to justice—recover part and forget the rest?” one MP retorted.
Oversight Mechanisms Ignored?
The Minority further accused the Attorney-General of sidestepping lawful procedures for restitution under Section 35 of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459), which allows financial compensation in lieu of conviction—but only under court supervision and with a guilty plea or agreement.
“No court approved a restitution plan, and the accused never pleaded guilty,” the MPs noted. “This flies in the face of our justice system.”
They also highlighted that the new Plea Bargaining Act—Section 162 of the Criminal and Other Offences Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2022 (Act 1079)—provides clear legal frameworks for negotiated settlements, none of which were apparently followed in this case.
Calls for Parliamentary and Legal Action
The Minority is now calling on Parliament’s Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee to summon the Attorney-General to explain his actions publicly.
They also want the Ghana Bar Association and the General Legal Council to investigate potential breaches of legal ethics.
“If this decision is not reversed within a reasonable timeframe,” they warned, “we will explore judicial options to challenge the legality of the discontinuation.”
According to the Minority, the implications go far beyond Dr. Duffuor.
“This is about the integrity of Ghana’s justice system. We cannot have one standard for the powerful and another for the powerless,” they concluded.
Government’s Position
While the Attorney-General’s office maintains that the decision was in the public interest—arguing that continued prosecution was not viable given partial recovery—the response has done little to quell criticism.
Many legal analysts, civil society actors, and political observers fear the precedent may weaken future efforts to prosecute white-collar crime.
COMMENTS