Dear Wofa P. K.

Yesterday, you invited GOGO to comment on the discontinuation of certain cases. Hereunder, please find a response.

The discontinuation of prosecutions involving seven pro-NDC members is a subject that warrants thoughtful discussion, particularly in the context of governance, the rule of law, and the broader fight against corruption. However, any objective analysis must go beyond political narratives and consider the legal and procedural realities that have shaped these cases.

1. The Passage of Time and the Integrity of Prosecutions

Each of these cases has been in the judicial system for at least seven years. This raises fundamental questions about the efficiency and sustainability of such prosecutions. If a case has been in court for nearly a decade without a conviction, it is reasonable to ask whether the evidence was ever strong enough to meet the legal threshold. The fact that the Court of Appeal dismissed at least one of these cases after a trial judge had ordered the defence to open its case suggests that the prosecution may not have met its burden of proof.

Justice demands efficiency and certainty. Endless prosecutions that fail to yield conclusive results not only erode confidence in the legal system but also place undue strain on defendants, institutions, and public resources. The question, therefore, is not whether prosecutions should continue indefinitely but whether these cases were solidly built from the outset.

2. The Need for Scrutiny of the Prosecution’s Role

While you are clamouring for a focus on the decision to discontinue these cases, you seem disinterested in the prosecution’s conduct.

Why were these cases not successfully prosecuted, even when some claim the courts were favourable to the prosecution? Were they hurriedly initiated? Was the evidence insufficient? Were the charges politically motivated?

I suggest that your quest for good governance and accountability should not only question the decision to abandon these cases but also interrogate why, after seven years, the prosecution was unable to secure convictions. A strong prosecution should not struggle for nearly a decade to make its case.

3. Good Governance should not be confused with endless trials.

Good governance does not mean insisting that prosecutions must continue indefinitely. It means ensuring that justice is pursued fairly, efficiently, and based on solid legal foundations. If cases fail due to weak evidence, procedural flaws, or prosecutorial inefficiencies, the issue is not the decision to discontinue them but the decision to pursue them in the first place without a compelling legal basis.

Are you seriously suggesting that defendants whose cases have been dismissed should still be prosecuted? Are you saying that these trials should extend into a ninth or tenth year with no clear path to conviction? Justice is not served by perpetuating legal uncertainty.

You can google and find my views on the G. Afoko and S. Dondon cases. The cases are not about corruption but I express similar views on endless trials.

4. A More Constructive Discussion

Rather than framing this discussion as a mere political issue, it would be more constructive to ask:

• How do we ensure that politically sensitive prosecutions are built on strong legal foundations rather than expedient narratives?

• What lessons can be learned from these abandoned cases to improve future prosecutions and make them more effective?

• How do we prevent the justice system from being used, by any government, as a tool for prolonged political battles rather than genuine accountability?

We should be focused on systemic reforms that strengthen prosecutorial integrity, improve case management, and ensure that justice is served efficiently. The true measure of a strong legal system is not the length of prosecutions but their ability to deliver fair, timely, and legally sound outcomes.

5. Commitment to Accountability

GOGO remains steadfast in its support for any and all efforts to protect and recover looted public assets. We believe in holding individuals accountable for corruption and financial misconduct, regardless of their political affiliation.

However, we do so in a neutral and principled manner, refusing to politicize the fight against corruption. Our stance has always been that accountability must be pursued through due process, with cases built on solid evidence and prosecuted efficiently within the boundaries of the law.

That said, our commitment to anti-corruption does not equate to endorsing endless prosecutions of cases that are going nowhere.

Justice is not served by keeping individuals in legal limbo for years when cases lack the strength to secure convictions. The rule of law demands not only the pursuit of accountability but also efficiency and fairness in legal proceedings.

Best regards,

GOGO