The 20-year prison sentence imposed on the Ashanti Region New Patriotic Party (NPP) Chairman Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, has triggered renewed calls for former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta to return to Ghana and face prosecution.
Wontumi was convicted by the Accra High Court on charges relating to the unauthorised assignment of mineral rights and the facilitation of an unlicensed mining operation.
The two 20-year custodial sentences will run concurrently, meaning he will serve 20 years unless the conviction is overturned on appeal.
The NPP has rejected the judgment, described him as a “political prisoner,” and announced its intention to appeal (Graphic Online).
Some people are now asking: if Wontumi remained in Ghana and submitted himself to the judicial process, why should Ken Ofori-Atta remain abroad?
But perhaps we should examine the question from another angle.
Rather than using Wontumi’s conviction to justify demands for Ken Ofori-Atta’s return, should it not cause us to understand why some people advised the former Finance Minister not to return?
Does it not strengthen the concerns of those who have consistently maintained that his case is politically motivated? And could his situation not have ended even worse than the Wontumi saga?
Chairman Wontumi remained in Ghana and placed his faith in the system. He appeared before the court, defended himself, and trusted that the judicial process would protect his rights.
Yet, following his conviction and lengthy sentence, his party and supporters now argue that the judgment relied excessively on assumptions and circumstantial evidence and that he has become a victim of political prosecution.
The prosecution and the trial judge obviously reached a different conclusion, and the judgment must be respected unless it is overturned. However, Wontumi’s right to appeal must equally be respected.
His conviction should not prevent Ghanaians from discussing the wider concerns it has raised about public confidence in our justice system.
The growing crisis of confidence
These concerns did not begin with Wontumi’s conviction.
They began with the removal of former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo following a constitutionally established inquiry. One cannot overlook the comments made by the then candidate and former President, as well as his appointees, about removing the Chief Justice, together with warnings directed at some people, including those in the security services, before the general elections were won.
These issues fuel controversy and lend weight to the arguments of those who believe the Government was on a mission to use every possible means to weaken the judiciary.
Justice Torkornoo denied the allegations brought against her and described the process as politically motivated.
Although the constitutional process was followed and a committee recommended her removal, critics continue to hold the view that, no matter how proper the process appeared, it carried the smell of a witch-hunt and was motivated by a desire to weaken and control the judiciary.
Whether one agrees with that position or not, the perception cannot simply be ignored.
The judiciary is the third arm of government and the final place of protection for citizens who believe they are being pursued by political authorities or powerful interests.
Once a significant section of society begins to believe that the institution responsible for protecting citizens has itself become politically compromised, the consequences for democracy can be severe.
The recent arrests and prosecutions of social-media commentators, often on one side of the political divide, have deepened this perception.
Many social-media commentators have been arrested since the Government took office, including TikToker Camilla Alhassan, who was sentenced to one year in prison after pleading guilty to charges arising from false claims about President John Dramani Mahama.
Critics say she was intimidated into pleading guilty and that the entire process was designed to allow the authorities to have their way.
Mahama Aminat was also arrested over alleged threats directed at the President and the First Lady. Media-freedom organisations have questioned whether criminal sanctions and imprisonment are proportionate responses to speech-related offences (Media Foundation for West Africa).
No responsible person should defend threats, deliberate falsehoods or defamatory attacks against anybody—not even in the name of political free speech. However, the law must be applied consistently.
There are social-media commentators associated with the governing party who are accused of making similarly degrading remarks about opposition leaders, their spouses and traditional authorities. Some have used deeply offensive and unprintable language against former Second Lady Samira Bawumia and even the Asantehene, Otumfuo Osei Tutu II.
When people perceived to be sympathetic to the opposition are arrested and prosecuted, while those perceived to support the governing party appear to escape similar treatment, the impression of selective justice becomes difficult to dismiss.
The Government and the security agencies must therefore demonstrate that the law is blind to political colour. Justice must not only be done; citizens must be able to see that the same standards apply to the NDC, the NPP and everybody else.
What the US immigration judge actually found on Ken Ofori-Atta
The growing public debate makes the June 15, 2026 proceedings before the Annandale Immigration Court particularly important.
The court was determining Ken Ofori-Atta’s application for adjustment of status; not conducting a Ghanaian criminal trial. That distinction must be acknowledged.
However, it would be equally misleading to pretend that the US judge made only a technical immigration decision without examining the allegations against Ken Ofori-Atta.
According to the transcript, the court considered the testimony, the criminal charges, the OSP’s affidavit, the KPMG report, expert evidence concerning INTERPOL and other documentary materials. The judge stated:
“The court has considered all of the testimony and evidence [and] considered the arguments by all the attorneys.”
After examining that evidence, the court found Ken Ofori-Atta and the INTERPOL expert to be credible:
“The respondent and Dr. Bromund both testified credibly in support of the applications.”
The judge added that their evidence was consistent and that nothing in their conduct suggested an attempt to mislead the court:
“Both witnesses were candid and responsive.”
The judge then addressed the central question of whether Ken Ofori-Atta had been credibly connected to criminal wrongdoing as a public official. His conclusion was emphatic:
“The respondent has established that he did not engage in wrongdoing, criminal or otherwise.”
After reviewing the OSP’s affidavit, the judge stated:
“The affidavit is lacking in any persuasive proof or evidence.”
The court also found no persuasive evidence that Ken Ofori-Atta personally benefited from his public office:
“There was also no evidence that the respondent personally profited from anything that he did as the Minister of Finance.”
The judge was especially critical of the manner in which the OSP’s allegations were presented:
“The OSP affidavit is full of conclusory allegations without any description of credible or reliable facts.” The court further concluded:
“The respondent has not been credibly charged or credibly been shown to engage in any wrongdoing in Ghana.”
These were not comments made by an NPP communicator, Ken Ofori-Atta’s family or a Ghanaian political activist. They were findings made by an independent judge in an adversarial proceeding in which the United States Government was represented and argued against granting him favourable discretion.
The INTERPOL and extradition questions
The immigration court also examined INTERPOL’s decision to delete the Red Notice issued against Ken Ofori-Atta.
According to the transcript, the judge observed:
“The Red Notice that was issued, because of the charges in Ghana, was found to be predominantly political.”
The judge did not simply mention the deletion of the notice. He considered it relevant to the credibility and evidential strength of Ghana’s case.
The court also addressed the fact that the United States Department of Justice had reportedly possessed Ghana’s extradition request for a significant period without filing an extradition complaint. The judge concluded that this suggested difficulty in identifying credible evidence supporting the allegations.
His words were direct:
“The Department of Justice also has trouble finding any indication of any credible claims of criminal wrongdoing.”
The judge ultimately found as a matter of fact the following:
“The respondent has established that he did not engage in any criminal wrongdoing in connection with his work as the Minister of Finance.”
The court consequently granted Ken Ofori-Atta’s application for adjustment of status.
These findings do not constitute an acquittal by a Ghanaian criminal court. But neither can they be dismissed as irrelevant. An independent foreign court examined the materials placed before it and identified serious deficiencies in the evidential case presented against him.
Was Ken Ofori-Atta wrong to remain abroad?
This brings us back to the calls for his return following Wontumi’s conviction.
If prominent opposition figures and sections of the public now believe Wontumi was politically prosecuted, can they honestly dismiss Ken Ofori-Atta’s concerns as cowardice or an attempt to escape justice?
If INTERPOL’s reviewing body reportedly found the Red Notice predominantly political, and an independent US judge subsequently found the OSP’s allegations unsupported by persuasive evidence, is it unreasonable for the former Finance Minister to question whether he would receive a fair process after returning?
Ken Ofori-Atta’s continued stay abroad may therefore be viewed not simply as an attempt to avoid accountability, but as a decision influenced by concerns about his health, liberty and the credibility of the process awaiting him.
That does not mean he is above Ghanaian law. It means Ghanaian authorities carry a serious responsibility to demonstrate that the process is lawful, evidence-based and free from political direction.
If the Government and the OSP have stronger evidence than what was placed before the US immigration court, they should have presented it in support of the long-sought extradition. Yet the extradition has not been granted, and that, for me, should bring this issue to an end. Accusations, wanted notices, press conferences and damaging political labels cannot take the place of evidence.
The Official OSP Response to the Ken Ofori-Atta Hearing News
The OSP quickly responded to the news concerning the hearing. I had hoped that its response would acknowledge the serious concerns raised and demonstrate a willingness to examine what may have gone wrong. Perhaps silence would even have been better because, to many of us, the judge’s findings represent a considerable embarrassment to the Office. This is why, in my opinion, the OSP’s response deserves closer examination.
The OSP’s response is legally correct in one important respect, but it does not address the most damaging aspect of the immigration judge’s findings.
The OSP is correct that these are three separate proceedings:
- The US immigration proceedings concerned Mr Ofori-Atta’s immigration status.
- Any extradition proceedings would determine whether he should be surrendered to Ghana.
- Only the Ghanaian criminal court can determine his guilt or innocence.
It would therefore be inaccurate to claim that the US immigration court “acquitted,” “cleared” or declared Mr Ofori-Atta innocent of the charges pending against him in Ghana. I have already acknowledged this in the preceding paragraphs.
However, the OSP’s response does not directly rebut what the US judge reportedly said. The real issue is not whether the immigration judge had the authority to acquit Mr Ofori-Atta. Clearly, he did not.
The real issue is that the judge examined an affidavit from the OSP concerning its allegations against Ken Ofori-Atta. For the purpose of this discussion, and in the absence of any categorical denial from the OSP regarding the authenticity of that affidavit, I proceed on the reasonable basis that it was an official document containing the case the OSP sought to present through the appropriate channels.
After examining that affidavit and the other information placed before the court, the judge reportedly found that:
- Mr Ofori-Atta testified credibly;
- the allegations against him were largely conclusory;
- the affidavit lacked credible or reliable facts demonstrating criminal wrongdoing; and
- the charges brought against him in Ghana were not shown to be credible based on the information before the court.
An immigration court may not determine criminal guilt, but it can assess the credibility and evidential weight of foreign allegations when those allegations are relevant to the immigration application before it. The distinction between immigration, extradition and criminal proceedings therefore does not make the judge’s assessment of the OSP’s affidavit irrelevant.
The OSP must tell Ghanaians what that affidavit contained. If it did not represent the substance of its case against Ken Ofori-Atta, then what was its purpose, and why was it sent to the United States? If it did represent the OSP’s case, then the judge’s conclusion that it was largely conclusory and unsupported by credible or reliable facts becomes extremely significant.
A whole Office of the Special Prosecutor, supported by the Attorney-General and the wider legal apparatus of the State, cannot reasonably claim that it did not know what information would be required by the United States authorities in a matter of this magnitude. If clarification was needed, the necessary consultations should have taken place to ensure that the strongest available evidence was presented through the appropriate channels.
It is therefore reasonable to believe that what was contained in the affidavit represented the evidence the OSP had available and considered capable of supporting its allegations. If the OSP possessed stronger and more persuasive evidence, why was it not included? Why would the State send an affidavit containing something less than its best available material when seeking the cooperation of a foreign government?
The judge’s reported assessment consequently cannot be dismissed merely by saying that the OSP was not a party to the immigration proceedings or that the extradition request was not before that particular court. Those points may explain the limits of the immigration court’s jurisdiction, but they do not answer the concerns raised about the quality of the OSP’s own affidavit.
The OSP’s response therefore amounts mainly to this:
“The immigration judge’s findings do not bind the Ghanaian criminal court.”
That is legally correct. But it does not answer the more damaging question:
“Why did a US judge, after examining the OSP’s affidavit, reportedly find that it contained largely conclusory allegations and lacked credible or reliable facts demonstrating criminal wrongdoing?”
The OSP’s notice also contains two notable weaknesses.
First, it describes the transcript as “purported” but does not categorically state that it is false, fabricated or inaccurately quoted. If the OSP disputes its authenticity, it should say so clearly and identify the portions it considers false or inaccurate.
Second, the OSP says it was not involved in the immigration proceedings. That may be technically correct, but it does not remove responsibility for the affidavit placed before the court. The OSP may not have appeared as a party, but its allegations and its affidavit were examined by the judge. It must therefore respond to the substance of the
judge’s findings rather than rely solely on jurisdictional distinctions.
Is the OSP suggesting that the Attorney-General submitted its affidavit without consulting it? Is it suggesting that the State presented something less than the best available evidence? If the affidavit did not contain the substance of the OSP’s case, why was it submitted at all? If it did, then Ghanaians deserve an honest explanation of why a US judge found it so weak.
Let us be honest: separating the immigration, extradition and criminal proceedings may explain what the US immigration judge could or could not legally decide. It does not answer the serious questions raised about the
contents of the OSP’s affidavit, the quality of its evidence and the enormous difference between the strength of its public accusations and the weakness reportedly identified by the judge.
The Need for Reflection Going Forward
The Wontumi conviction, the prosecution of social-media commentators, concerns surrounding changes within the judiciary, INTERPOL’s action and the findings of the US immigration court are collectively creating a dangerous impression of selective and politically influenced justice in Ghana.
The Government may disagree with that interpretation, but it cannot afford to ignore it.
Every arrest perceived to be selective, every prosecution that appears politically imbalanced and every public
statement that presumes guilt before trial further damages confidence in Ghana’s institutions. That damage will not end with the current administration. Future governments may inherit and use the same weakened institutions
against today’s officeholders.
The solution is not to prevent lawful investigations or grant political figures immunity from prosecution. It is to restore public confidence through consistency, transparency, credible evidence and strict respect for due process.
Those who insult or threaten public officials should face the same legal standards, regardless of their political affiliation. Those accused of corruption must be investigated based on evidence, not political campaigns. Courts must remain independent, and security agencies must never appear to act as enforcers for the governing party.
It must be clearly acknowledged that the statements made by the US immigration judge do not constitute a verdict on the substantive case against Ken Ofori-Atta in Ghana. They neither acquit him nor prevent the OSP from pursuing any legitimate case supported by credible evidence. Nevertheless, findings of this nature by a foreign court cannot simply be dismissed. While they may not be legally binding on a Ghanaian court, they could be considered in related proceedings and may significantly weaken public confidence in the OSP’s case.
More importantly, the judge’s observations offer a clearer and more sober perspective on the case than the public spectacles and sustained media campaign to which Ghanaians have been subjected. If the OSP possesses compelling evidence against Ken Ofori-Atta, one would reasonably have expected that evidence to feature prominently in its affidavit and representations to the relevant United States authorities. Given the opportunity to present its case, the OSP should have been able to make a stronger and more persuasive argument to support its efforts to secure his return to Ghana.
The reported findings of the judge therefore raise a legitimate and troubling question: Does the OSP possess evidence strong enough to justify the serious allegations and intense public campaign that have surrounded this case?
After years of public accusations and media theatrics, some of us are both taken aback and deeply disturbed by the possibility that the public may have been led to believe that a compelling case existed when the available evidence and processes did not justify that conclusion. Many Ghanaians appear to have been conditioned to hate and condemn one man without first seeing the evidence required to make a fair and informed judgment. Political expediency may have taken the place of due process, while public opinion has been shaped long before any court has determined his guilt.
This must serve as a wake-up call. We must pause and reflect on how hatred has been created and sustained against one individual for years when the public has neither seen the substantive evidence nor witnessed a credible judicial process upon which to base its judgment.
The consequences extend far beyond Ken Ofori-Atta. They affect the credibility and integrity of our institutions and reinforce perceptions of political interference in, and manipulation of, investigative and judicial processes to punish political opponents and imprison dissenting voices.
Has our justice system created sufficient confidence for a politically exposed person who fears political persecution to believe that returning home will guarantee him an independent, impartial and evidence-based hearing? Is Ghana still perceived as a safe place in which to live, invest and conduct business, considering the current political environment, judicial processes and growing concerns about judicial independence? Will we continue to attract people and investment, or could we be driving them away because of the reputation we have lately been building for ourselves?
Until these questions can be answered convincingly, the Wontumi judgment and the findings from the US immigration proceedings may strengthen, rather than weaken, the arguments of those who advised Ken Ofori-Atta to remain abroad, as well as those who perceive the pursuit of the former Finance Minister as a political witch-hunt driven more by hatred than by a genuine desire to hold him accountable for any alleged crimes or mismanagement during his tenure.
