Controversial Ghanaian broadcaster Kevin Taylor has launched a blistering attack on Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Dr Dominic Ayine, questioning his handling of the high-profile Gifty Oware-Mensah prosecution and suggesting that the country’s chief prosecutor is becoming increasingly comfortable with individuals and lawyers associated with the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP).
Taylor’s latest criticism has brought renewed attention to the GH¢38 million National Service Authority (NSA) ghost names scandal, with particular emphasis on the role of defense counsel Gary Nimako Marfo and what the broadcaster alleges is an unusually close personal relationship between the lawyer and the Attorney-General.
According to Taylor’s allegations, the relationship between Dr Ayine and Gary Nimako is sufficiently close to raise questions about the Attorney-General’s posture towards the prosecution of Oware-Mensah.
He has also questioned why, during the legal vacation, when other major criminal matters were reportedly receiving attention, the progress of the Oware-Mensah case appeared to be a subject of concern.
For Taylor, these developments raise uncomfortable questions about whether the Attorney-General is demonstrating the same prosecutorial urgency expected of an office that has repeatedly promised accountability and justice in cases involving alleged financial impropriety.
THE GARY NIMAKO CONNECTION
Perhaps the most explosive aspect of Taylor’s criticism is his allegation concerning the personal relationship between Dr Ayine and Gary Nimako Marfo, who is leading the defence team for Oware-Mensah.
Taylor’s suggestion that the two are very close friends introduces a potentially sensitive dimension to the public debate.
While professional relationships between lawyers and public officials are not inherently improper, the perception of personal familiarity in a politically sensitive prosecution can generate legitimate questions about transparency and public confidence.
However, no independently established evidence has emerged to demonstrate that any personal relationship betw6een the two has influenced the conduct of the prosecution.
The Attorney-General’s office must therefore be judged by its documented decisions and actions rather than speculation about personal associations.
THE LEGAL VACATION CONTROVERSY
Taylor has also drawn attention to the apparent lack of progress in the case during the legal vacation, questioning why the matter did not appear to receive the attention expected of a prosecution involving such a substantial alleged financial loss.
The controversy is particularly significant because the Chief Justice had authorised selected criminal matters to proceed during the vacation, with the Gifty Oware-Mensah case among those mentioned in court proceedings.
The question Taylor’s criticism brings to the fore is whether the prosecution has demonstrated sufficient urgency in pursuing the matter.
Indeed, the case has experienced a series of procedural battles, including applications by the defence seeking to halt proceedings and challenge aspects of the criminal trial’s case-management requirements.
The High Court dismissed an application seeking to halt proceedings, while the Supreme Court subsequently rejected another attempt to suspend the trial in May 2026.
AYINE’S CREDIBILITY ON THE LINE?
The bigger political question is whether Dr Ayine’s approach to prosecuting individuals associated with the previous NPP administration is consistent with the government’s promise to pursue accountability without political favouritism.
The Attorney-General has previously defended decisions to discontinue certain inherited prosecutions, arguing that some cases lacked sufficient evidence to secure convictions.
But that explanation also places greater responsibility on his office to demonstrate that cases which proceed are handled diligently, transparently and without unnecessary delays.
For Taylor, the Gifty Oware-Mensah matter appears to have become another example through which he is challenging the Attorney-General’s approach to politically sensitive prosecutions.
And while the allegations of personal friendship remain unsubstantiated, the broader question of prosecutorial consistency deserves public scrutiny.
The Attorney-General’s office cannot afford to allow perceptions of political accommodation to overshadow its constitutional responsibilities.
Ultimately, Ghanaians are entitled to expect that the pursuit of justice will not depend on political connections, professional friendships or the identities of those standing in the dock.
For Dr Ayine, the challenge is straightforward: demonstrate through the conduct and progress of the prosecution that the government’s promise of accountability applies equally to everyone.