Prominent legal practitioner Edudzi Tamekloe has publicly questioned the legal arguments advanced by his senior colleague, Samuel Atta Akyea, in defense of a former state official facing criminal charges related to the misappropriation of public funds.
In a strongly worded social media post, Mr. Tamekloe challenged the reliance on the Security and Intelligence Agencies Act, 2020, in the ongoing prosecution of the former director of a national security agency.
He pointed out that the offences being prosecuted allegedly occurred in January and March 2020, while the Act in question was not assented to until October 2020.
“Clearly, at the time the accused person entered into the contract with the Israeli company, this Act was not in existence. So how are you relying on this Act for prior conduct?” Tamekloe queried.
He criticized the defense strategy, urging fellow lawyers to uphold ethical responsibilities by properly advising their clients rather than complicating their legal woes.
According to Mr. Tamekloe, the prosecution’s case is straightforward: the accused, while serving as director of a state agency responsible for the “soft side” of national security, entered into a contract in January 2020 with an Israeli firm to supply and install security equipment.
Around the same time, he allegedly incorporated a private company with a similar name to the state agency and diverted public funds into this private entity.
Tamekloe argued that this act of appropriation — the transfer of state funds into a private company — forms the basis of the charge of stealing, stressing that it was done “dishonestly.”
He further dismissed any claims of later payments to Members of Parliament as irrelevant to the core of the prosecution’s case, stating that such actions, reportedly occurring during the 2024 election period, amount to an afterthought and cannot negate the alleged dishonesty behind the original appropriation.
Concluding his remarks, Tamekloe advised the accused’s legal team to consider negotiating a sentence reduction, implying that a conviction could result in a prison term of up to 25 years.
The case continues to draw significant public and legal interest, given its implications for national security, governance, and the ethical standards expected of public officers.
Source : www.kumasimail.com
