Kofi Bentil, a lawyer and Senior Vice President of IMANI-Africa, has voiced significant reservations regarding the overwhelming number of charges filed against former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta and his co-accused. Speaking on Newsfile on Saturday, December 20, Bentil characterized the filing of 78 separate criminal charges as inappropriate and indicative of a lack of seriousness on the part of the prosecutor. He argued that no experienced prosecutor would pursue such a voluminous indictment, as it could jeopardize the smooth progression of the trial and undermine the integrity of the eventual verdict. Bentil stated that focusing on such a large number of charges, especially against a primary individual while involving many others, diverts from a laser-focused approach and makes it unlikely that more than a handful of charges would ultimately succeed.

The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) initiated this extensive indictment earlier in the year, alleging a pattern of criminal conduct linked to controversial dealings between the Government of Ghana and Strategic Mobilisation Limited (SML). Mr. Ofori-Atta, along with other business figures and former public officials, faces a broad spectrum of counts, encompassing corruption and breach of public trust. Despite the OSP's assertion that the breadth of the charges reflects the complexity and gravity of the alleged misconduct, Mr. Bentil maintains that this strategy is likely to be counter-productive, warning that such an approach could lead to the case being lost, allowing Ofori-Atta to prolong the legal proceedings significantly.

Adding another layer of complexity to the case, Kofi Bentil described the potential extradition of former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta as a “small miracle,” citing the legal intricacies involved and the high-calibre defense team Ofori-Atta is expected to engage. He explained that the Attorney-General, Dr. Dominic Akuritinga Ayine, implicitly managed public expectations by highlighting the challenges posed by past events that could serve as Ofori-Atta’s defense, coupled with the formidable legal representation he would secure. Bentil interpreted Dr. Ayine’s comments as an acknowledgment that the extradition process would be exceptionally challenging, with the U.S. legal system meticulously scrutinizing every aspect before taking action.

Further complicating the international legal process, Professor Kwadwo Appiagyei-Atua, an International Law and Human Rights scholar at the University of Ghana’s School of Law, suggested that Ken Ofori-Atta might assert a political persecution argument if the United States considers Ghana’s extradition request. Prof. Appiagyei-Atua noted that such claims are not uncommon in high-profile international extradition cases involving political figures.

The extradition request, formally submitted on December 10, was transmitted via Ghana’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the United States Department of Justice. This request seeks to bring Ofori-Atta and his former Chief of Cabinet, Ernest Darko Akore, to face the 78 corruption-related charges filed by the Office of the Special Prosecutor. The U.S. judiciary is tasked with assessing whether the legal threshold for extradition has been met, but any claim of political persecution could significantly impede or complicate the proceedings, as U.S. courts would examine both procedural correctness and potential political motivations behind the request. This development continues to draw considerable attention from legal experts monitoring Ghana’s international legal engagements.

Bentil has consistently warned that the current prosecutorial approach is unlikely to yield a successful outcome. He stressed that the strategy employed so far makes the case vulnerable to legal challenges and is unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny. He reiterated that given the strong defenses available to Ofori-Atta and the caliber of his legal representation, the prosecution requires a much more deliberate and carefully considered strategy. Bentil emphasized that missteps in such a high-profile case could not only result in a legal defeat but also erode public confidence in the judicial system.