The Kumasi High Court delivered a significant verdict on May 26, 2025, acquitting and discharging Alexander Kwabena Sarfo Kantanka, President Nana Akufo-Addo’s 2021 nominee for Juaben Municipal Chief Executive (MCE). The case stemmed from a controversial incident in late 2021, where Sarfo Kantanka was captured on video demanding refunds from assembly members after failing to secure their votes for his confirmation as MCE. This video became the focal point of a corruption trial that began in May 2022, with the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) charging him with 26 counts related to corruption in a public election. The prosecution’s case hinged on the video and witness testimonies, arguing that Sarfo Kantanka’s payments to assembly members constituted an attempt to influence the voting outcome.
The crux of the prosecution’s argument centered on the alleged distribution of money by Sarfo Kantanka to assembly members prior to the confirmation votes. It was alleged that he had given GH¢5,000 to each elected assembly member and GH¢2,500 to each government appointee. The prosecution contended that these payments were made with the explicit intention of securing their votes, thus corrupting the democratic process of electing an MCE. The viral video, showing Sarfo Kantanka demanding the return of these funds after his failed confirmation attempts, was presented as compelling evidence of his corrupt intent. The prosecution painted a picture of a quid pro quo arrangement where votes were being bought and sold, undermining the integrity of the election.
However, the defense team vehemently contested the prosecution’s narrative, arguing that the video, while depicting Sarfo Kantanka requesting the return of money, did not definitively prove that the funds were intended as bribes. They emphasized that the mere act of giving money to assembly members did not automatically imply a corrupt motive. The defense posited that the money could have been given for various reasons, unrelated to securing votes. They argued that the prosecution had failed to establish a direct link between the payments and the intent to influence the voting process, thereby falling short of the burden of proof required for a conviction.
Presiding over the case, Justice Priscilla Dikro Ofori meticulously examined the evidence presented by both sides. After a thorough review, she determined that the prosecution had failed to demonstrate conclusively that the payments made by Sarfo Kantanka were intended to corrupt the MCE confirmation process. Justice Ofori specifically addressed the video evidence, stating that while it showed Sarfo Kantanka demanding money back, it did not unequivocally prove that the original payments were bribes. The court emphasized the importance of establishing a clear connection between the payment and the intent to influence the vote, a connection that the prosecution, in the court’s view, had failed to establish.
The court’s decision to acquit and discharge Sarfo Kantanka underscores the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” and the high standard of proof required in criminal cases. While the video and allegations generated significant public attention and raised concerns about potential corruption, the court ultimately ruled that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This case highlights the complexities of proving corruption, particularly in instances where intent plays a crucial role. The court’s verdict signifies that mere suspicion or allegations, even when supported by seemingly incriminating evidence like the video, are not enough to secure a conviction unless the prosecution can demonstrate a clear and unambiguous link between the alleged act and the criminal intent.
This case also serves as a reminder of the importance of due process and the right of the accused to a fair trial. Despite the public pressure and the seemingly damning nature of the video evidence, the court adhered to legal principles and insisted on a rigorous examination of the evidence. The acquittal of Sarfo Kantanka, while potentially controversial given the public perception of the case, reaffirms the importance of the judicial system’s role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring that individuals are not unjustly convicted based on incomplete or circumstantial evidence. The court’s decision underscores the principle that the burden of proof lies squarely with the prosecution, and in this instance, they failed to meet that burden.
