The ongoing legal tussle between former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta and Special Prosecutor Kissi Agyebeng has taken a new turn, marked by accusations of “showboating” and threats of further legal action. The core of the dispute revolves around the Special Prosecutor’s declaration of Mr. Ofori-Atta as a wanted fugitive, a move that the former minister contends is unlawful and a violation of his constitutional rights. Mr. Ofori-Atta’s legal team, represented by lawyer Frank Davies, has criticized Mr. Agyebeng for what they perceive as unnecessary public displays and a failure to adhere to proper legal procedures. They argue that the Special Prosecutor should respond to the lawsuit filed against him rather than engaging in what they term “knee-jerk reactions” and attention-seeking behavior.
The controversy began with the Special Prosecutor’s office (OSP) declaring Mr. Ofori-Atta a wanted fugitive through a media briefing. This declaration, according to Mr. Ofori-Atta’s legal team, oversteps the OSP’s statutory authority and infringes upon his fundamental human rights. The former minister has subsequently filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of this declaration and seeking an injunction to prevent the OSP from repeating such actions. He argues that the proper legal procedure was not followed and that the public declaration was a prejudicial act designed to tarnish his reputation. This legal challenge seeks to clarify the boundaries of the OSP’s powers and ensure that due process is followed in all investigations.
In response to the lawsuit, the OSP has doubled down on its position, insisting that Mr. Ofori-Atta must appear before the office by June 2, 2025, or face being re-declared a wanted fugitive. This ultimatum has further escalated the tension between the two parties, with Mr. Ofori-Atta’s legal team accusing the OSP of grandstanding and attempting to influence public opinion. They maintain that the OSP should address the legal arguments presented in the lawsuit rather than issuing public pronouncements. The OSP’s stance, however, is that Mr. Ofori-Atta’s failure to appear would justify further action, including the issuance of an Interpol Red Notice and extradition proceedings.
The OSP’s insistence on Mr. Ofori-Atta’s appearance stems from ongoing investigations into several alleged corruption-related cases involving the former minister. These include the SML scandal and the procurement of ambulance spare parts, both of which have drawn significant public scrutiny. The OSP contends that Mr. Ofori-Atta’s cooperation is crucial to the investigations and that his refusal to appear would obstruct the pursuit of justice. However, Mr. Ofori-Atta’s legal team argues that the manner in which the OSP is conducting the investigation is itself a violation of due process and that their client should not be subjected to undue pressure or public humiliation.
The central issue in this legal battle is the balance between the OSP’s investigative powers and the protection of individual rights. Mr. Ofori-Atta’s legal team argues that the OSP’s actions have crossed the line and infringed upon his fundamental rights, while the OSP maintains that it is acting within its mandate to investigate allegations of corruption. The court will ultimately decide whether the OSP’s declaration of Mr. Ofori-Atta as a wanted fugitive was lawful and whether the subsequent threats of further action are justified. This case has significant implications for the future conduct of the OSP and the protection of individual rights in Ghana.
The ongoing dispute raises important questions about the role of public pronouncements in legal proceedings and the potential for such statements to prejudice the outcome of a case. Mr. Ofori-Atta’s legal team contends that the OSP’s public statements are designed to sway public opinion and exert undue pressure on their client. They argue that the proper forum for addressing these issues is the court of law, where legal arguments can be presented and evaluated impartially. The outcome of this case will have far-reaching consequences for the balance of power between investigative bodies and individual rights in Ghana, setting a precedent for future investigations and potentially shaping the legal landscape for years to come.
