The third accused person in the ambulance case trial, Richard Jakpa, has provided testimony asserting that the letter from the first accused, Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson, concerning the establishment of Letters of Credit (LCs), was appropriately addressed to the Bank of Ghana (BoG) and not to the Controller and Accountant-General’s Department (CAGD).
Mr. Jakpa, the third accused, highlighted that the letter authorizing the establishment of LCs for the procurement of ambulances was addressed to the BoG and was issued on behalf of the then Finance Minister, Seth Terkper.
He argued that this detail is crucial for understanding the context and appropriateness of the authorization process.
Jakpa’s testimony served as a defense against allegations that Dr. Ato Forson acted improperly in the ambulance procurement process.
He emphasized that the procedure followed by Dr. Forson was consistent with standard governmental practices and that directing the letter to the BoG aligns with the usual protocols for such financial transactions. This, he argued, should mitigate claims of wrongdoing attributed to Dr. Ato Forson.
The controversy surrounding the procurement of the ambulances has seen Dr. Ato Forson accused of financial malfeasance, with prosecutors alleging that he bypassed established procedures.
However, Jakpa countered this by stating that addressing the letter to the BoG was not only appropriate but also necessary for the timely and efficient execution of the procurement.
Jakpa explained that the BoG is the correct entity for handling such transactions, as it oversees the country’s monetary policy and financial operations.
He detailed how the BoG, rather than the CAGD, is typically responsible for issuing LCs due to its role in managing the nation’s foreign exchange and international financial transactions.
This distinction, he noted, is critical in ensuring that financial processes adhere to proper channels, reinforcing that Dr. Ato Forson’s actions were in line with standard practices.
However, the prosecution argued that the seal on the document indicates the authority of the former Deputy Minister, not the Minister. This contention remains a focal point in the case as the trial continues to unfold.