Ato Forson's letter for the establishment of LCs was addressed to BoG not CAGD - Jakpa

In the ongoing ambulance trial, the third accused person has testified that the letter from the first accused, Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson, regarding the establishment of Letters of Credit (LCs), was addressed to the Bank of Ghana (BoG) and not to the Controller and Accountant-General's Department (CAGD).

Richard Jakpa highlighted that the letter authorizing the establishment of Letters of Credit (LCs) for the procurement of ambulances was addressed to the Bank of Ghana (BoG) on behalf of the then Finance Minister, Seth Terkper.

This detail, he argued, is crucial in understanding the context and appropriateness of the authorization process.

Jakpa's assertion came as a defense against the allegations that Dr. Ato Forson acted improperly in the ambulance procurement process.

The third accused emphasized that the procedure followed by Dr. Forson was consistent with standard governmental practices, and the letter directed to the BoG aligns with the usual protocols for such financial transactions.

This, Jakpa noted, 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 arguing 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.

He argued that the BoG is the correct entity for handling such transactions, as it oversees the country's monetary policy and financial operations.

In court, Jakpa 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.

He pointed out that this distinction is critical in ensuring that financial processes adhere to proper channels, thus reinforcing that Dr. Ato Forson's actions were in line with standard practices.

However, the prosecution argues that the seal on the document indicates the authority of the former Deputy Minister, not the Minister.