…Defends Sedina Tamakloe Attionu’s conviction, but quiet on Ken Ofori-Atta
The New Patriotic Party (NPP) has come under scrutiny for what critics describe as a contradictory stance on accountability and the administration of justice, following its strong defence of the conviction of former MASLOC Chief Executive Sedina Christine Tamakloe-Attionu, while largely remaining silent on former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta’s refusal to submit himself to ongoing corruption investigations and prosecution.
In a statement issued by the party’s Constitutional and Legal Affairs Policy Committee, co-chaired by Member of Parliament (MP) Asante-Akim Central, Kwame Anyimadu-Antwi, the NPP accused the National Democratic Congress (NDC) government of weakening the rule of law, applying justice selectively and using state institutions to target political opponents.
Central to the party’s concerns was the case of Mrs Tamakloe-Attionu, who was convicted on multiple counts, including stealing, conspiracy, causing financial loss to the state, money laundering and procurement-related offences. She was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment after a trial conducted in absentia and was recently extradited from the United States to Ghana to serve her sentence.
The NPP insisted that the conviction must be respected and warned against any political or administrative intervention that could overturn the judgment outside the established appellate process.
“We caution against any extra-judicial intervention, whether administrative, political or discretionary, to neutralise a final sentence outside the appellate process,” the party stated.
The party argued that undermining the conviction would damage public confidence in anti-corruption efforts and set a dangerous precedent for future prosecutions.
However, the NPP’s firm position on the Tamakloe-Attionu case has prompted questions about its response to the ongoing legal difficulties facing former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta.
The former minister remains under investigation by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) for a number of alleged financial irregularities, including claims that a contract awarded to Strategic Mobilisation Limited (SML) resulted in a loss of more than GH¢1.4 billion to the state.
The OSP has repeatedly sought Mr Ofori-Atta’s appearance for questioning and, in 2025, initiated processes to secure an INTERPOL Red Notice after he allegedly failed to honour invitations from investigators. The notice was subsequently removed by INTERPOL.
Despite the NPP’s insistence that convicted persons must face the consequences of the law and that accountability should not be compromised, the party has not mounted a similarly forceful public campaign urging its former Finance Minister to return to Ghana and cooperate with investigators.
One of the few senior NPP figures to publicly address the issue has been Mpraeso MP Davis Ansah Opoku, Vice-Chairman of Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee.
Speaking on the sidelines of the 2026 Governance and Anti-Corruption Summit, Mr Opoku argued that Mr Ofori-Atta should make himself available to state authorities and suggested that legal proceedings could continue even in his absence.
“If Ken Ofori-Atta has questions to answer, I think that he needs to avail himself to the authorities of the state and answer them,” Mr Opoku said.
He further argued that Ghanaian law permits the prosecution of individuals regardless of their nationality or immigration status and questioned the wisdom of delaying legal proceedings until the former minister physically returns to the country.
“So, the bit about waiting for Ken Ofori-Atta to come before he is prosecuted, I find it a bit problematic because we can try him in absentia. Even in his absence, something can be done,” he stated.
Mr Opoku’s comments stand in contrast to the broader silence within the party on the matter and have fuelled debate over whether the NPP is applying different standards to political allies and opponents.
The contrast is particularly striking because the NPP has repeatedly cited the Sedina case as evidence that the justice system should be allowed to operate without interference. Yet the same principle would appear to require full cooperation from any public official facing criminal investigations, regardless of political affiliation.
Critics argue that while the NPP is demanding strict enforcement of Mrs Tamakloe-Attionu’s conviction, it has been less vocal about Mr Ofori-Atta’s obligation to submit himself to questioning by Ghanaian authorities.
Supporters of the former Finance Minister, however, point to his recent legal victory in the United States, where an immigration court approved his application to adjust his immigration status.
According to his lawyer, Frank Davies, the court considered issues surrounding the criminal investigations in Ghana and reportedly raised concerns about aspects of the OSP’s handling of the matter.
The ruling does not affect the criminal investigations or any future proceedings in Ghana, where the substantive allegations remain unresolved.
The juxtaposition of the two cases has intensified public debate about consistency in the fight against corruption and whether political parties apply the same standards of accountability to their own members as they demand of their opponents.
As the NPP continues to accuse the government of selective justice, observers say the party itself faces growing questions about whether its defence of the rule of law extends equally to all public officials, including some of its most prominent former office-holders.
Meanwhile, the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) has distanced itself from the Ofori-Atta case, saying it was not involved in immigration proceedings in the United States concerning the former Minister of Finance.
The Office said its involvement in matters relating to Mr Ofori-Atta was limited to extradition proceedings being pursued through the Attorney-General, who serves as Ghana’s central authority in such matters
A statement issued by the OSP said it had taken note of media reports and a publication attributed to a law firm in Ghana claiming that Mr Ofori-Atta had been granted permanent residency in the United States following an immigration court finding that the criminal charges filed against him by the OSP were not credible.
The OSP said it was not a party to the immigration proceedings and had no role in the conduct or outcome of those hearings.
Ofori-Atta’s lawyers, Minkah-Premo, Osei-Bonsu, Bruce-Cathline & Partners, in a statement issued yesterday, confirmed that his Green card 1-485 petition has been granted by the US Immigration Court.
The court heard evidence relating to actions taken by Ghana’s Office of the Special Prosecutor, including the OSP’s earlier decision to declare Mr Ofori-Atta a fugitive from justice at a time when he was reportedly undergoing medical treatment in the United States and while his lawyers remained in communication with investigators in Ghana.
Justice Kusi-Minka Premo, who signed the state by the lawyer, stated that “the Court finds the criminal charges in Ghana not credible. However, the court’s ruling was made within the context of a United States immigration proceedings. The court’s decision was focused on whether Mr Ofori-Atta met the legal requirements for adjustment of status”.
However, the OSP’s statement explained that the extradition request and supporting documents submitted in respect of Mr Ofori-Atta were not before the immigration court.
“The extradition packet is not before the immigration court, and the credibility or otherwise of the criminal charges against Mr Ofori-Atta would be determined by the courts in Ghana, which have jurisdiction to determine his guilt or innocence,” the statement said.
The Office maintained that the legal process concerning the charges it had filed against the former Finance Minister remained within the jurisdiction of the Ghanaian courts.
It further said Mr Ofori-Atta remained a citizen of Ghana and continued to be amenable to extradition to Ghana should the extradition court in the United States so decide.
The OSP reiterated its commitment to pursuing its mandate in accordance with the law and due process, adding that it would continue to engage the appropriate legal channels in matters relating to the extradition proceedings.
