Edzudzi Tamakloe, a prominent lawyer, publicly questioned the validity of criminal charges levelled against a former Director of a state agency responsible for national security. Tamakloe’s remarks, which took aim at arguments made by his senior colleague, Samuel Atta Akyea, sparked widespread debate about the ethical responsibilities of legal practitioners and the intricacies of criminal defence in high-profile cases. At the heart of the controversy was a case involving alleged misconduct of the former Director who was accused of entering into a contract with an Israeli company in January and March, 2020, to supply and install security equipment. The prosecution further alleged that around the same period, the accused incorporated a private company with operations strikingly similar to those of the state agency; an act that raised suspicions of diversion of resources or conflicts of interest.
Tamakloe’s critique hinged on a critical legal point: the Security and Intelligence Act, 2020, which the prosecution appeared to rely on, was only assented to in October 2020—months after the alleged offences occurred. “Clearly, at the time the accused person entered the contract with the Israeli company, this Act was not in existence,” Tamakloe argued in a widely circulated statement. “So how are you relying on this Act for prior conduct?” His pointed question cast doubt on the legal foundation of the prosecution’s case, igniting discussions about the principle of non-retroactivity in criminal law, which prohibits punishing individuals under laws that did not exist at the time of their actions.
In a sharp rebuke, Tamakloe emphasized the ethical duties of lawyers, stating, “As lawyers, we have an ethical responsibility to advise our clients well. You don’t make life difficult for the client.” He further underscored that criminal defence is a specialized skill, suggesting that the prosecution’s approach may lack the rigor required in such complex cases.
The prosecution’s case, as outlined by Tamakloe, painted a picture of deliberate misconduct. They alleged that the former Director, tasked with overseeing the “soft side” of national security, abused their position by engaging in private dealings that mirrored the state agency’s mandate. The incorporation of a private company contemporaneous with the contract with the Israeli firm was presented as evidence of potential diversion of resources or improper conduct. However, Tamakloe’s critique suggested that the prosecution’s reliance on the 2020 Act could render their case legally untenable, as the law was not in force at the time of the alleged offences.
Legal experts weighed in, with some describing the case as a litmus test for Ghana’s judicial system. “This is a classic case where the principle of legality is at play,” said Dr. Kofi Mensah, a constitutional law scholar. “No one can be punished under a law that did not exist at the time of the act. If the prosecution’s case hinges on the Security and Intelligence Act, they may face significant hurdles.”
Others, however, argued that the prosecution could pivot to alternative legal frameworks or focus on broader issues of fiduciary duty and public trust. “Even if the 2020 Act is inapplicable, the prosecution might explore other statutes or common law principles related to abuse of office,” noted Ama Serwah, a criminal law practitioner. “The question of whether the Director’s actions constituted a breach of trust could still hold weight.”
The case drew public attention due to its implications for national security and governance. The state agency in question play a critical role in safeguarding Ghana’s security apparatus, and any allegations of impropriety at its helm are likely to erode public confidence. Social media platforms, including X, were abuzz with commentary, with some users praising Tamakloe’s legal acumen and others questioning the motives behind the prosecution.
As the legal battle was unfolding, all eyes were on the courts to determine whether the prosecution could substantiate its claims within the bounds of applicable law. Tamakloe’s bold intervention did not only challenge the prosecution’s strategy but also highlighted the complexities of defending high-stakes criminal cases in Ghana.
