Opinion: How the Attorney-General’s Strategy of Turning an Accused into a Witness May Backfire

In Ghana’s criminal justice system, the Attorney-General wields significant prosecutorial power under Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution and section 54 of Act 30, including the discretion to withdraw charges and call a former accused as a prosecution witness. This tactic is often seen as a smart legal move — a way to secure insider testimony that could unravel a complex criminal network. But while legally sound, it is also a double-edged sword that can easily backfire if not managed with caution and transparency.

When the Attorney-General enters a nolle prosequi and transforms a co-accused into a prosecution witness, that person becomes what the law calls an accomplice witness — someone who took part in the crime but now testifies for the State. Such a witness is, in essence, trading testimony for freedom. And therein lies the danger: the same self-interest that motivates cooperation may also distort truth.

When the Attorney-General frees one accused to testify against others, it may look smart — but without solid proof, that move can destroy the entire case. Justice isn’t a game of strategy; it’s a test of truth.

The Danger of a Tainted Witness

Ghanaian courts have long recognised that the evidence of an accomplice, though admissible, is inherently unreliable unless supported by independent proof. The landmark case of R v. Nyanful [1959] GLR 153 laid down the rule that no conviction should rest solely on uncorroborated accomplice evidence. This principle was reinforced in Boateng v. Republic [1989–90] 2 GLR 472, where the Court of Appeal held that a trial judge must warn himself of the risk of convicting on such evidence.

The reason is obvious. An accomplice witness has every reason to paint himself innocent and others guilty — not necessarily because it’s true, but because it’s convenient. A person who turns state witness to escape punishment is not a neutral participant in the justice process; he is a survivor protecting his own skin. His words, therefore, must be weighed with the heaviest caution.

Why the AG’s Strategy Can Backfire

While the Attorney-General may believe that flipping one accused strengthens the case against the others, the strategy carries serious risks:

1. Credibility Collapse:
   Once the defence exposes the witness’s motive for cooperating — whether to avoid jail or secure immunity — the entire testimony can appear tainted. A smart defence counsel will turn the witness into a symbol of dishonesty.

2. Corroboration Challenge:
   If the prosecution fails to produce solid, independent corroboration, the case may collapse. Courts in Ghana are guided by the principle that accomplice evidence cannot stand alone.

3. Public Perception and Fairness:
   The public may view the Attorney-General’s act of freeing one accused as selective justice — a perception that undermines faith in the rule of law. Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done.

Future Legal Risk:
Because a nolle prosequi is not an acquittal, the discharged accused remains legally vulnerable. If the witness later gives false evidence, he can be recharged or prosecuted for perjury — reopening the same legal battle the A-G thought he had ended.

The Judicial Safeguard

Thankfully, Ghana’s judiciary has long erected safeguards against abuse of such prosecutorial maneuvers. Courts insist that accomplice testimony be corroborated and that judges must warn themselves of the danger of convicting based on such evidence. These rules protect the integrity of the criminal process and ensure that justice is not traded for convenience.

Conclusion

Turning an accused into a witness may seem like a clever shortcut to justice, but in truth it can undermine the credibility of the prosecution’s case if not backed by hard evidence. The Attorney-General’s discretion, though constitutionally protected, is not beyond scrutiny. Justice demands not only conviction of the guilty but also fairness in the process.

As the cases of R v. Nyanful and Boateng v. Republic remind us, the word of an accomplice — no matter how eloquent — is a fragile foundation upon which to build a conviction. If the prosecution’s case depends too heavily on such a witness, the strategy meant to secure victory may instead sow the seeds of its own defeat.

By
Komfa Ishmael Ofori
LLB Level 100 Student
Coding Addic

   Comments0