Tos, fros of extradition
Greetings to all as I offer my obligatory pleasantries to a faithful and dedicated readership.
Yours truly is really chuffed at the level of interaction and feedback relative to the ‘rants’ on these pages. Your active contributions really help shape and situate the narrative in its proper context.
For instance, a reader pointed out to me the wrongful narration of facts last week regarding the reason why the anti LGBTQ+ bill, which successfully went through all stages of the life of a bill in the last Parliament but did not become an Act of Parliament because it did not receive a Presidential assent.
We had wrongly stated that ex-President Nana Akuffo-Addo declined to sign the bill.
Of course, that was not the case because the bill never reached him.
My unreserved apologies to the ex-President and anyone and everyone who might have been offended by that misstatement of facts.
The searchlight of our focus this week is on two legal issues making the news: the granting of the extradition at the request of Ghana of Sedinam Tamakloe by the United States court and issues relating to the ongoing case in America of Ghana’s request for the extradition of former Finance Minister, Ken Ofori-Atta.
Decision
The decision by the United States court ordering the extradition of former MASLOC boss, Sedinam Christine Tamakloe-Attionu, has brought the law of extradition into the spotlight once again.
The case, together with the ongoing developments involving former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta, provides an opportunity to examine how extradition works and why it has become an increasingly important legal tool in the fight against corruption across borders.
A Nevada-based judge ordered the extradition of the former MASLOC boss to Ghana to serve a 10-year prison sentence imposed by an Accra High Court. She had been convicted in absentia for causing financial loss to the state, conspiracy, stealing and money laundering in relation to activities during her tenure as MASLOC CEO.
In order to have come to that conclusion (extradition), the court must have found that: there was an extradition treaty between Ghana and America; the offences for which she was convicted were extraditable; there was sufficient evidence to support Ghana’s request and that she was the same individual mentioned in the extradition request by Ghana.
The court therefore certified her extradition pending a final decision by the United States authorities. The ruling represents a significant step in enforcing Ghanaian court judgement beyond national borders.
The Sedinam case contrasts with the evolving situation involving the former Finance Minister. Ghana has initiated steps towards possible extradition after corruption-related allegations were made against him while he was abroad.
Reports indicate that Mr Ofori-Atta was recently given conditional bail by an immigration court in the US in matters largely to do with his immigration status in the United States.
Even though the court is strictly adjudicating on his immigration status in the States, the pending and subsisting extradition request from Ghana will invariably feature strongly in any future decision.
The former minister's case has illustrated the protracted nature of extradition proceedings. It is a complex legal process that often involves multiple proceedings in both countries.
Extradition
Extradition is a formal process by which one country requests another country to surrender a person accused of or convicted of a crime so that the person can face trial or serve a sentence.
The key principles in extradition proceedings are: double criminality: the offence(s) must be a crime in both countries; the offence must be a serious one; the requesting country must provide enough evidence to justify surrender; the court must be satisfied with the identity of the person; and more importantly, a person cannot be extradited for purely political offences.
This is a defence which lawyers for Ken Ofori-Atta are deploying, contending that his extradition request is politically motivated.
The country has also been embroiled in extradition matters recently, with the romance scam allegations against Abu Trica, which is currently being heard in Ghana, a telling example of the reciprocal way in which extradition proceedings operate between countries.
The law of extradition reflects an important principle: crime should not pay simply because borders exist.
It is a potent tool in the armoury of countries in the fight against corruption and crime -the reach of the law is increasingly global.
For Ghana, these cases signal a new era in accountability, where individuals accused or convicted of serious crimes may no longer rely on foreign jurisdictions as safe havens.
The writer is a lawyer.
E-mail:
