By Issah Olegor
As Ghana approaches the festive season, political analysts and legal commentators are raising serious concerns over the conduct of Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Dr. Dominic Ayine, accusing him of engaging in statements and actions that may prejudice ongoing prosecutions and undermine public confidence in the justice system.
Observers note a sharp contrast between the conduct of Attorney-Generals under previous administrations and the current officeholder.
Under the New Patriotic Party (NPP) government in 2001, Attorney-Generals refrained from holding press briefings to publicly discuss corruption cases, yet prosecutions proceeded effectively, with multiple officials successfully convicted.
In comparison, the National Democratic Congress (NDC) administration, now one year into office, has held frequent press briefings concerning corruption investigations, often characterized by dramatic language and media spectacles, raising questions about propriety and impartiality.
Critics argue that Dr. Dominic Ayine has repeatedly employed inflammatory phrases such as “this is where it gets serious,” “rumble in the jungle,” and “thriller in Manila” during press engagements.
They assert that such statements risk prejudicing public perception, implying guilt before cases are fully adjudicated.
The principle of presumption of innocence, they contend, is central to Ghana’s legal system and must guide the conduct of the Attorney-General in public communications.
Furthermore, Dr. Ayine has publicly referenced the challenges posed by high-powered defense teams, notably in cases such as efforts to extradite Ken Ofori-Atta, stating that the quality of lawyers abroad could impede prosecution.
Critics describe such statements as “defeatist” and argue they undermine both the prosecutor’s role and the integrity of the judicial process, suggesting an overemphasis on public theatrics rather than courtroom efficacy.
Since his appointment, Dr. Ayine has also faced scrutiny over the discontinuation of certain high-profile corruption cases, particularly those involving NDC-leaning figures.
Political commentators highlight claims that initial oral promises of prosecution, once touted publicly, have allegedly transformed into settlements or discontinued proceedings, a practice some describe as “chop-chop” deals—a term used by Fifi Fiavi Kwetey, NDC General Secretary, to describe alleged selective enforcement.
While Dr. Ayine has expressed confidence in possessing “watertight evidence,” the public disclosure of investigative strategies and case weaknesses risks compromising legal outcomes.
By addressing the media in a manner that blurs the line between prosecution and commentary, the AG is perceived to have deviated from standard prosecutorial discretion and professional decorum expected of his office.
Observers warn that sustained engagement in such practices could erode public trust in the anti-corruption efforts and create perceptions of bias or incompetence at the highest levels of the justice system.
The critiques stress that the Attorney-General’s primary responsibility is to prosecute cases through the courts, not the media, ensuring that justice is both done and seen to be done.
