Adu Boahene's Lawyers Accuse AG of Presenting a Biased, Unverified Position to the Press

Lawyers representing Kwabena Adu Boahene, the former Director of the National Signal Bureau (NSB), and his wife, Angela Adjei Boateng, have issued a stern criticism of Attorney-General Dr. Dominic Akuritinga Ayine, accusing him of bypassing legal procedures and conducting a “trial by media.” The legal team contends that the AG’s public remarks have undermined the principles of due process and violated their clients’ rights to a fair trial.

The strongly worded legal letter, dated March 24, was issued by the law firm Zoe, Akyea & Co., expressing deep concern over the Attorney-General’s recent press conference. In this event, Dr. Ayine publicly referred to their clients as “state looters” despite the fact that investigations by the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) were still ongoing. According to the lawyers, the AG’s public pronouncement of guilt in the absence of formal charges and without any definitive legal proceedings represents a flagrant disregard for due process.

The letter sharply criticizes the AG for tarnishing the integrity of the press conference by prematurely declaring their clients guilty in the eyes of the public. The lawyers argue that this act is a clear violation of constitutional protections, which safeguard individuals from being judged in the court of public opinion before any formal charges are made or evidence is presented in a court of law.

According to the legal team, Dr. Ayine’s actions were unprofessional, as he presented unverified and prejudicial information as if it were definitive evidence. This approach, they argue, has the potential to poison public perception, making it exceedingly difficult for their clients to receive a fair trial. “The Learned Attorney-General has cheapened the press conference by pronouncing our clients guilty in the court of public opinion,” the letter states. It goes on to highlight that the AG’s comments serve to influence public opinion in a manner that prejudices the entire legal process before it has even begun.

The lawyers also express concern over the AG’s seeming disregard for the fundamental constitutional rights that protect suspects from being prejudged. The letter questions how the Attorney-General could feel comfortable presenting such unsubstantiated claims to the media, especially when there is no proof beyond reasonable doubt to support these accusations. This, they argue, is not only legally improper but also undermines the credibility of the legal system itself.

Further, the legal team highlights the serious ethical implications of Dr. Ayine’s actions. They argue that the AG’s approach represents a shift from impartial prosecution to a politically charged form of persecution. The lawyers contend that a key distinction exists between prosecution, which is based on evidence and legal proceedings, and persecution, which is driven by bias, public opinion, and political motivations. By engaging in this media trial, they claim, the AG has crossed the line between the two.

The letter strongly criticizes the political nature of the AG’s conduct, pointing out that such actions reflect poorly on the integrity of the legal process. The lawyers contend that the AG’s behavior is politically motivated, suggesting that the press conference was less about the pursuit of justice and more about gaining public support for a particular political agenda. “When a case from the highest level of the Attorney-General is tried in the press, it degenerates from prosecution—which must be impartial—to persecution,” they argue.

Additionally, the legal team stresses that the approach adopted by the Attorney-General undermines the rule of law and the constitutional principles that should govern the legal process. They assert that a change of government through constitutional means should not result in a shift toward a “reset version” of the rule of law, where the media is fed with biased, one-sided, and untested positions from the very leader of the Bar. The lawyers emphasize that this type of conduct, with its defamatory consequences, will be addressed in the appropriate legal forum.

In closing, the legal letter makes it clear that the lawyers will not stand by as their clients’ reputations are tarnished through unfounded media campaigns. They assert that their clients will vigorously defend themselves in court, and any defamatory or prejudicial actions taken outside the courtroom will be met with legal action. The letter reflects their commitment to ensuring that justice is served through proper legal channels and not through media manipulation.