Ofori-Atta case delayed again as service and extradition remain unresolved

The criminal case involving former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta and seven co-accused has been pushed to 23 April 2026 after prosecutors told the court they had still not completed steps to serve two of the accused with the relevant court documents.

The adjournment was announced on Thursday after the prosecution said efforts to serve criminal summons and charge sheets on Mr Ofori-Atta and the second accused, Ernest Darko Akore, were still ongoing. The court was also informed that the separate process to extradite Mr Ofori-Atta from the United States had not yet been concluded.

That left the case unable to proceed to the expected case management stage, despite the presence in court of the remaining accused persons: Emmanuel Kofi Nti, Ammishaddai Owusu-Amoah, Isaac Crentsil, Kwadwo Damoah and Evans Adusei. Strategic Mobilisation Ghana Limited, also charged in the matter, was represented as well.

Principal State Prosecutor Adelaide Kobiri-Woode told the court that the US Department of Justice had requested additional information through mutual legal assistance channels to support the extradition process and that the requested details had already been supplied.

When Justice Francis Apanga Achibonga asked whether the prosecution might consider pressing ahead against the accused already before the court while setting aside the case against Mr Ofori-Atta and Mr Akore for now, the State declined. The prosecutor said the government remained committed to pursuing the matter against all accused persons and stressed that serving the summons and charge sheets was a priority.

The court also heard that the prosecution had filed three fresh witness statements on 25 March, but those had not yet been served on the defence. The judge directed that they be served.

Lawyers for the accused then pressed for relief.

Speaking for the defence team, Professor Kwame Gyan asked the court either to discharge the third to eighth accused persons or, at the very least, grant a substantially longer adjournment. He argued that no one could say with certainty when the processes relating to service and extradition would be completed, making repeated court appearances unfair to those who had consistently complied with every order.

He told the court that, apart from the first and second accused, the others had appeared faithfully each time and had also reported regularly to the Office of the Special Prosecutor as required. Continuing to bring them to court month after month, he argued, would impose an unnecessary burden.

Another defence lawyer, Mr Addo Atuah, supported that position and said the cost of criminal proceedings should be kept as manageable as possible, particularly for accused persons who are now retired. In his view, discharging them temporarily, or at least spacing out the adjournments, would ease that pressure.

The prosecution resisted the request, though it accepted that the outstanding processes should be handled with urgency. State lawyers maintained that the case had not dragged on to the point where a discharge was warranted.

In his ruling, Justice Achibonga said it remained the prosecution’s decision how to structure its case, while the court’s role was to ensure justice was done. He declined to discharge the third to eighth accused, but agreed to grant a longer adjournment.

The matter will now return on 23 April 2026 for a case management conference, by which time the prosecution is expected to have taken further steps on service and extradition.