Lawyer and Senior Vice President of IMANI Africa, Kofi Bentil, has described former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta's acquisition of a United States green card as "a victory" for him, while insisting that it does not protect him from possible extradition proceedings.

Speaking on JoyNews' Newsfile on Saturday, June 20, Mr Bentil said that many people have misunderstood the significance of the green card, saying that permanent residency in the United States is not immunity from legal processes.

"The green card is not an antidote to extradition. People should be clear," he said.

He explained that even American citizens have been extradited to face prosecution abroad.

"U.S. citizens are extradited. As late as 2025, they extradited a U.S. citizen. So the green card is by no means an assurance that Ken will not be extradited."

Despite that, Mr Bentil believes the decision by US authorities to grant Ofori-Atta permanent resident status represents an important development in his favour.

"But this is what it is. It's a victory for Ken," he stated.

According to him, US immigration authorities would have carefully assessed Ofori-Atta's circumstances before approving his application.

"When he did not have a green card and was fighting this and fighting the extradition and everything, the U.S. authorities don't just get up and give it to you. They look at everything in totality."

He said that after reviewing all the available information, the authorities chose to strengthen Ofori-Atta's immigration status.

"And when they looked at everything, they decided we have to change your status to make it stronger. It is a rebuke of sorts. It's a win for Ken."

The IMANI Vice President also defended Ofori-Atta's decision to remain outside Ghana, saying that it was influenced by the atmosphere surrounding the case rather than fear of prosecution.

"He went to the hospital. He chose or opted not to come back, not because he was afraid, but because of the environment that had been created," he said.

He added that no experienced legal practitioner would advise his client to return under such circumstances.

"If he hasn't said so, fine. But that is where I said, again, that no serious lawyer will advise him to come back into this kind of atmosphere."

Mr Bentil maintained that the case has suffered from procedural shortcomings and called for a more careful approach to bring it to a proper conclusion.

"There's a right way to do things. There's a wrong way to do things. And what we are seeing is the effect of some of the things I talked about. You can argue till the cows come home, but what we are seeing is the effect."

While expressing confidence that Ofori-Atta could defend himself against the allegations, Mr Bentil said the legal process should be allowed to determine the truth.

"As far as I am concerned, if Ken were in this country and were safe, he would be able to stand and defend himself against those charges."

He questioned whether prosecutors would be able to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that similar corruption cases have taken years to conclude.

"When you read them, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he engaged in the things that he is said to have engaged in for his personal benefit as a corrupt enterprise and all those things, we have sat here and seen lesser charges go for eight years."

Mr Bentil said that the matter should not remain unresolved indefinitely and called for a process that would provide certainty for all parties.

"This thing has been botched so badly. We need to step back, take another look, and see how we can bring closure to it."

He added that true closure would require Ofori-Atta to answer the allegations through a judicial process.

"Closure also includes Ken answering the questions. If I were Ken, I would want a settlement of this matter. I want it to be clear that I am culpable or I'm not culpable."

"And so we will never end it until we have some sort of trial process."

Mr Bentil also said that legal proceedings had already begun and recalled previous debates over whether the former Finance Minister could be tried in his absence.

"The trial process was started. Again, I said here, and a lot of people argued with me that, 'Why try in absentia? The man must be here before he can be tried."