In the courtroom of the Accra High Court, tensions ran high as the case involving Richard Jakpa and the €3.2 million ambulance scandal unfolded.

Lieutenant General Thomas Oppong-Peprah, Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), took the stand to address the allegations surrounding Jakpa’s military discharge.

General Oppong-Peprah firmly distanced himself from the contentious report concerning Jakpa, which had been issued by the Minister for Defence and submitted to the Attorney-General, Godfred Yeboah Dame.

He stated that the report had not been shared with him, nor had he authorized its release.

The General emphasized that he was not privy to any court orders related to the document’s dissemination.

The core of the dispute lay in the controversy surrounding Jakpa’s military background, following a secret recording that revealed Attorney-General Dame had allegedly advised Jakpa to fabricate an excuse to deceive the court, leading to a significant rift between them.

Jakpa, who once served in the military, had contested the claims made against him, arguing that the document aimed to tarnish his reputation.

Jakpa’s defense, led by Thaddeus Sory, questioned General Oppong-Peprah regarding the nature of Jakpa’s discharge from the military.

Sory questioned the General about the military’s various discharge categories, including inefficiency, misconduct, and medical unfitness.

He pressed the General on whether Jakpa’s release could be considered honorable under these categories, to which the general affirmed it could not.

The General’s testimony revealed that Jakpa’s discharge was classified under inefficiency, citing “continued lack of application or interest” and “unsatisfactory conduct” as reasons.

The general confirmed that the term “honorably released” was reserved solely for discharges due to medical unfitness.

As the cross-examination by Attorney-General Dame continued, the general clarified that the Minister for Defence had the discretion to release documents without necessarily informing the CDS.

He confirmed that, based on the military records, Jakpa’s discharge did not qualify as honorable.

The courtroom buzzed with the implications of these revelations, Jakpa’s defense argued that the minister’s claims of misconduct were inconsistent with the military’s own records, which painted a different picture of Jakpa’s service.

The clash between Jakpa and Dame, set against the backdrop of the ongoing ambulance case, highlighted the deepening divide and the complex interplay of legal and military matters.

With the case dragging on, the courtroom awaited further developments, as the truth behind Jakpa’s discharge and the integrity of the involved officials continued to be scrutinized.