Legal scholar and democracy advocate Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare has pushed back strongly against claims by Enayat Qasimi, a U.S.-based attorney representing former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta, that the legal proceedings involving his client amount to political persecution.
According to Prof Asare, the suggestion that the case is politically motivated does not withstand scrutiny, particularly given the institutional origins of the prosecution. He stressed that the matter is not being spearheaded by a hostile opposition Attorney-General or a newly installed government intent on settling political scores. Rather, the investigation and charges are being pursued by the Office of the Special Prosecutor—an independent body established and staffed under the same administration in which Mr Ofori-Atta served.
Prof Asare’s remarks followed public comments by Qasimi, who argued that his client’s constitutional rights under Ghanaian law have been violated. The lawyer questioned the necessity of the Interpol red notice issued for Mr Ofori-Atta, noting that Ghanaian authorities had been informed that the former minister was in the United States undergoing medical treatment.
In an interview with the BBC, Qasimi insisted that his client harbors no intention of evading justice. He said Mr Ofori-Atta remains willing to account for his stewardship of the finance ministry and comply with Ghana’s laws. However, he maintained that due process has not been respected and that the actions taken against his client reflect political bias rather than lawful accountability.
Responding in a detailed Facebook post, Prof Asare dismissed those assertions as unconvincing. He argued that prosecutions rooted in financial transactions, procurement systems, contractual arrangements, and institutional decision-making—especially those involving both public officials and private actors—do not fit the profile of a politically driven witch-hunt.
He pointed out that political persecution typically targets opponents based on ideology or party affiliation, often in isolation. In contrast, the current case involves multiple defendants, including individuals and entities with no political standing, all linked by the same alleged financial and administrative conduct. To Prof Asare, this undermines the claim that the prosecution is a partisan exercise.
He further questioned why allegations of persecution are being raised from abroad when other senior figures from the same administration—including a former president, a former vice-president, and several ministers—continue to live openly in Ghana, attend public events, and grant media interviews without alleging harassment or political victimization.
“So what, exactly, is political about this?” Prof Asare asked, suggesting that the label of political motivation appears more like a rhetorical fallback than a substantiated claim.
In his post, Prof Asare also took issue with what he described as selective engagement with the justice system. He argued that professing commitment to Ghanaian law while remaining outside the country and responding through international media interviews weakens the credibility of such claims.
“Accountability is not something that can be outsourced to press appearances,” he wrote, emphasizing that it requires physical presence, submission to jurisdiction, and participation in established legal processes.
Prof Asare concluded by noting that Ghana’s Constitution provides clear mechanisms for challenging flawed or unlawful procedures. If the process is indeed defective, he argued, the appropriate response is to return home and contest it in court. In his view, allegations of political motivation cannot be proven through statements and soundbites abroad but must be tested through lawful and direct engagement with the justice system.
Ending on a sharp note, Prof Asare remarked that, given the timing and the circumstances, the narrative being advanced on Christmas Eve was better suited to satire than serious legal discourse.
Story by Freedom Etsey Lavoe/ahotoronline.com