The criminal trial of former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta is expected to resume on Thursday, 27 August 2026, following a Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutional validity of the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959).
Mr Ofori-Atta is standing trial on 28 counts of corruption and corruption-related offences arising from the Office of the Special Prosecutor’s investigation into revenue-assurance contracts between Strategic Mobilisation Ghana Limited and the Ghana Revenue Authority.
The former minister was initially charged alongside seven other persons on 78 counts in November 2025. The charges were subsequently amended, leaving Mr Ofori-Atta to face 28 counts, while the remaining accused persons face separate charges connected with the case.
Those also brought before the courts include former GRA Commissioners-General Emmanuel Kofi Nti and Ammishaddai Owusu-Amoah; former Customs Commissioners Isaac Crentsil and Kwadwo Damoah; SML Chief Executive Officer Evans Adusei; and Mr Ofori-Atta’s former Chief of Cabinet, Ernest Darko Akore.
The prosecution alleges that the accused persons participated in acts of corruption and corruption-related offences connected with the SML–GRA revenue-assurance arrangements. These are serious allegations. They must be examined seriously, openly and fairly.
But two equally serious questions remain in the minds of many Ghanaians. Is This a Political Witch-Hunt?
That question cannot simply be dismissed as partisan propaganda. It has arisen from the history and handling of the case.
First, INTERPOL reportedly raised concerns about the predominantly political character of the matter involving Mr Ofori-Atta. Observations made during proceedings before a United States immigration court also appeared to question the evidential basis presented against him.
Second, in the proceedings concerning Mr Ofori-Atta’s immigration status, the judge reportedly found him credible and raised serious concerns about the affidavit submitted by the OSP. The affidavit was described as lacking persuasive evidence connecting him to criminal conduct, while the allegations were characterised as conclusory and unsupported by sufficiently reliable facts.
These observations did not determine the criminal case pending in Ghana, and they should not be presented as an acquittal. Nevertheless, they are far too serious to be brushed aside. Together with the position taken by the opposition New Patriotic Party, they have strengthened the perception that the pursuit of Mr Ofori-Atta may have a political dimension.
The conduct of state agencies has also generated legitimate unease.
Mr Ofori-Atta’s residence was reportedly raided by armed persons. The state initially denied responsibility, but following the emergence of CCTV footage, the incident was acknowledged and an apology was offered. Whatever explanation may be given, that episode set the tone for those who already suspected that this was not an ordinary criminal investigation.
Then came the sustained media campaign. Public accusations appeared to move faster than the legal process itself. Yet when the authorities had the opportunity to initiate formal extradition proceedings, the process was delayed.
The Attorney-General subsequently stated that his office had not received the necessary documentation to commence the extradition process in the United States. Even after the public was told that the process had been completed and that Mr Ofori-Atta was to be returned to Ghana, the judge in the United States proceedings reportedly observed that no extradition request had been filed at the relevant time.
The court then allowed additional time for Ghanaian authorities to act while Mr Ofori-Atta remained in immigration custody. Yet the anticipated filing still did not materialise within that period.
These are not trivial procedural lapses. They go directly to the credibility, preparedness and purpose of the state’s actions. If the evidence is compelling and the prosecution is ready, why did the formal legal process appear to lag behind the public campaign?
That is the question many Ghanaians continue to ask. Can the Public Be Confident of a Fair Trial?
The second question is even more fundamental: will the process be sufficiently fair, transparent and independent to command broad public confidence?
Recent political and judicial developments have deepened this concern. The conviction and imprisonment of the NPP’s Ashanti Regional Chairman, Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, have been described by his party and sections of the public as politically motivated.
Allegations have also circulated that political actors knew or predicted the outcome before the judgment was delivered.
Such allegations have not been established as fact. But they are not insignificant. When allegations of political interference reach the point where citizens claim that judgments are being written outside the courtroom, the credibility of the justice system itself comes under strain.
The removal of the Chief Justice has added another layer of suspicion. The government maintained that the prescribed constitutional process was followed, while the former Chief Justice denied the allegations made against her.
However, earlier public statements by some members of the governing party suggesting that she would be removed created an appearance that has proved difficult to erase.
It is not for this writer to pronounce on the truth of every allegation or to determine Mr Ofori-Atta’s guilt or innocence. That responsibility belongs to the court.
But justice does not operate in a vacuum. It depends upon public confidence, procedural fairness and the visible independence of the institutions entrusted with administering it.
The concerns raised by INTERPOL, the United States immigration proceedings and the reported findings made during Mr Ofori-Atta’s permanent-residency hearing have already cast a shadow over the case. The Ghanaian proceedings must therefore meet a particularly high standard of openness and fairness.
The public must be shown real evidence—not slogans, press conferences or political accusations. The prosecution must prove its case through admissible evidence. The defence must be given every
reasonable opportunity to challenge that evidence. The court must act independently and without fear, favour or political pressure.
If Mr Ofori-Atta committed the offences alleged against him, the evidence must establish that according to law. If the evidence does not support the charges, he must be vindicated without hesitation.
Nothing less will do.
Given the enormous publicity generated by the state and the intense public interest surrounding the case, there is also a respectable argument for allowing the proceedings to be televised, subject to the court’s rules and the protection of witnesses. Transparency would allow Ghanaians to hear the evidence directly instead of receiving selective interpretations from political communicators on either side.
The courtroom must not become a theatre for political equalisation. No Ghanaian should be prosecuted or imprisoned merely to satisfy party supporters, settle political scores or provide the appearance of action against corruption.
The pursuit of justice is too important for that. The liberty and reputation of a citizen are too important for that. The integrity of the Republic is too important for that.
Let the evidence be tested. Let the defence be heard. Let the court be independent. Let the process be open, fair and free from blemish.
At the end of it all, justice not politics; must be seen to have carried the day.
