Security Analyst Colonel Festus Aboagye (Rtd) is demanding more clarity from the Ghana Armed Forces (GAF) regarding the dismissal of Richard Jakpa.
Mr Aboagye is questioning the authenticity of the evidence presented by the Military Secretary in court last week, which was solely a letter purportedly confirming Jakpa’s dismissal.
Colonel Aboagye, joining the criticism of the GAF’s handling of the case, follows retired Lieutenant Colonel Larry Gbevlo-Lartey, who previously raised concerns about the confidential nature of the dismissal report and its disclosure to the Attorney-General.
The Military High Command recently confirmed Jakpa’s dismissal due to persistent misconduct, a claim Jakpa denies, stating he never received any dismissal letter during his 17-year absence from the military.
On June 27, Deputy Attorney General Alfred Tuah-Yeboah introduced the dismissal letter as evidence, but Jakpa’s legal team contends that this move is an attempt to undermine his credibility in the trial involving Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson.
In court on July 18, Air Commodore Nana Adu Gyamfi, the Military High Command’s Secretary, rejected Jakpa’s claims of not receiving a dismissal letter.
He justified Jakpa’s dismissal on grounds of inefficiency and misconduct.
Colonel Aboagye, speaking on JoyFM’s Top Story on July 18, emphasized that military dismissal involves several procedural steps and documentation.
He expressed concern that presenting only a letter as evidence suggests something might be amiss.
“In that disciplinary court Marshal, witnesses will be called so a number of the things that are been referenced, he owed the regimental fund, he owed this, he owes that, he did not pass his promotion exams, all of these are documentary evidence.
“All of this would be recorded and at the end, the president of the disciplinary court martial will write a report with recommendations and because the commanding officer cannot dismiss or release an officer from the service, reference will be made to the appropriate superior authority.
“So it is that appropriate superior authority who has to approve the sentence. In this case, the dishonourable or whatever release that would be documentary evidence. It must exist. If it does not exist and the letter that is being referenced is only a letter written by my good friend, Col Okyere then I think something would have been missing,” he said.
Addressing the question of whether the alleged misconducts were detailed in the dismissal document and provided to Mr. Jakpa, Nana Adu Gyamfi clarified that the military does not include specific details of offenses in release instructions.
“Before such a letter would be written about an officer, he would have been taken through a series of processes. When officers commit offences, there are several interviews conducted. These interviews are documented and kept on record. These records are kept, and if nothing happens again, the records are discarded. But if the conduct continues then, the document is referred to in sanctioning the officer. Formal and informal interviews of the accused did not yield any results, hence his dismissal”, he explained.
He continued, “Upon persistent offenses and misconducts, such a letter is written. The misconduct of the said officer will be at the officer’s unit before the unit will write to the general administration.”
Nana Adu Gyamfi stated that Mr. Jakpa’s behavior within the regiment over time was deemed unacceptable and indicative of indiscipline.
He detailed a series of misconducts that were documented in Mr. Jakpa’s records.
The conduct of Mr Jakpa in the regiment over the period, he said, was not only unacceptable but smacked of indiscipline.
He recounted a series of misconducts kept on the records of Mr Jakpa.
“Mr Jakpa, failed to return to his unit after taking part in officers’ promotion exams. After attending the course in Accra, he failed to return to the unit. In addition to these acts, he was indebted to the tune of 400 dollars involving a Lebanese, an act that became notorious in his unit and the whole military command, because of his refusal to repay the money to the businessman. This was settled by an officer.”
Asked whether Mr Jakpa was given a copy of the letter, the Air Force Officer, confirmed that “Lieutenant Jakpa”, the third accused was given a copy of that report, also revealed what was contained in one report which he said Mr Jakpa had a copy of.
“He was granted a loan of $400 from the unit PRI. The money was granted to the officer (Richard Jakpa) when he was in financial difficulties. Upon persistent demands, he failed to pay the loan. In 2007, the money was converted into cedis and was deducted from his salary.”
The document of his indebtedness in 2004, was tended into evidence by the prosecution. The court, thus, admitted the document on his indebtedness into evidence.
The witness, Air Commodore Nana Adu Gyamfi, was discharged. Upon his discharge, counsel for the accused contended that they still needed the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) himself to answer some questions. This was objected to by the Attorney General, saying the CDS at this material moment is not a material witness.
But the court indicated that judging from the nature of the case being criminal, if the accused says he needed the CDS, their wishes should be granted.
The case was adjourned to tomorrow, Tuesday, July 23, 2024, after the list of persons who have been invited to testify before the court was thoroughly discussed.
The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin; Alex Segbefia, and Samuel Silas Mensah are among the persons due to mount the witness box.
Godfred Yeboah Dame and his team, had been pushing the report against Jakpa in court during the ambulance purchase case to attest to Jakpa’s character, including how he failed his promotional exams.
The document detailed that Jakpa, lagged in his military career, unable to progress from Lieutenant to Captain and Major, therefore, was dismissed.
However, Gbevlo-Lartey, an ex-senior military officer, suggested the document was not a dismissal letter as some claimed, but merely a “recommendation from Army HQ to GHQ (COS) with confidential security classification.”
He emphasized that “not even the officer affected was to see this document.”
With a picture of the one-page document, on his Facebook wall on Friday, June 28, Gbevlo-Lartey stated in parts that “GHQ (COS) owes the Ghana Armed Forces an explanation on how the document became public.”
“The document was a recommendation from Army HQ to GHQ (COS) with confidential security classification. Not even the officer affected was to see this document. GHQ (COS) owes the Ghana Armed Forces an explanation on how the document became public,” wrote Lt Col. Gbevlo-Lartey, a widely respected Infantry Officer.
Currently, Larry Gbevlo-Lartey practices law privately and holds the position of Executive Chairman at the Human Security Research Centre of the University of Ghana, where he also lectures. He previously served as the African Union Chairperson’s Special Representative for Counter Terrorism in Algiers before being replaced by Yaw Donkor during President John Dramani Mahama’s tenure.
In the ongoing ambulance trial at the Accra High Court, a document revealing Richard Jakpa’s dismissal from the Ghana Armed Forces (GAF) in 2007 for “unsatisfactory conduct” was introduced into evidence. Jakpa faces allegations of causing a €2.37 million financial loss in an ambulance deal with Minority Leader Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson.
On June 27, 2024, Deputy Attorney-General Alfred Tuah-Yeboah presented a letter purportedly detailing Jakpa’s 2007 dismissal, which included claims of misconduct and breaches of military protocols.
Jakpa’s legal team, led by Thaddius Sory, challenged the relevance of the letter, but Justice Afia Serwah Asare-Botwe admitted it into evidence, noting that the witness had acknowledged the document and its relevance.
The letter, signed by the late Brigadier General M.K.G. Ahiaglo, then Commander of the Southern Command of the GAF, outlined Jakpa’s unsatisfactory service, marked by consistent failures, indiscipline, and financial mismanagement.
It noted Jakpa’s inability to progress in rank and his problematic conduct, which the letter suggested was detrimental to both the GAF and himself.
