It must represent more than a travel document. It must signify that every Ghanaian citizen, regardless of the allegations against them, is entitled to the full protection of Ghana’s Constitution, our courts, and the rule of law before being surrendered to another jurisdiction.

This is not an argument against fighting cybercrime, organised crime or international fraud. Nor is it a defence of anyone accused of those offences. Ghana must never become a refuge for romance fraudsters, money launderers or transnational criminals. If there is a legitimate case to answer, then that case must indeed be answered.

But there is an equally important principle that cannot be sacrificed in the pursuit of international cooperation: due process.

Recent events have raised serious questions about whether Ghana is preserving the integrity of its extradition system or gradually allowing it to become little more than an administrative conveyor belt for foreign prosecutions.

The United States is entirely justified in pursuing individuals accused of serious cybercrime and transnational criminal activity. International cooperation is indispensable in a world where crime crosses borders with the click of a button. Ghana should remain a committed partner in that effort.

Indeed, during the Attorney General’s visit to Washington on 17 June, officials from the United States praised Ghana’s cooperation, noting that nine extraditions had taken place within a single year under the current administration. They described this as an “extraordinary achievement.”

International cooperation deserves praise. Automatic compliance does not.

The same American officials who applauded Ghana’s cooperation also spoke about upholding the rule of law. That commitment cannot operate only when it benefits foreign prosecutors. It must also require unwavering respect for Ghana’s own legal processes.

Our extradition laws exist for a reason.

If, as appears to be the case, the individual concerned was committed to prison on 2 July pending surrender, Ghana’s Extradition Act provides a statutory period during which a habeas corpus application may be brought. By any reasonable calculation, that protection extended until 17 July.

Yet by 10 July, the accused had already appeared before a United States federal court and entered a plea of not guilty.

The obvious question is one that has still not been adequately answered.

What was the rush?

Waiting until 17 July would not have prevented extradition if the legal requirements were ultimately satisfied. A judge would simply have been given the opportunity to determine whether the detention and surrender complied fully with Ghanaian law. If the application failed, the extradition could still have proceeded.

That is precisely how due process is supposed to work.

Due process is not an inconvenience to be bypassed when international pressure intensifies. It is the very mechanism that distinguishes constitutional democracies from systems governed by executive discretion.

Extradition is among the most intrusive powers a state exercises over its own citizens. Once an individual boards that aircraft and enters another jurisdiction, Ghana’s courts can no longer meaningfully protect their rights.

That moment should never arrive before every safeguard provided by Ghanaian law has been exhausted.

Other democracies understand this well.

In the United States itself, extradition proceedings frequently take years. Even uncontested cases can involve lengthy judicial scrutiny. Across Europe, extradition often requires multiple layers of review involving courts, ministers and extensive procedural protections. Sierra Leone similarly maintains structured safeguards within its own extradition framework, recognising that surrendering a citizen or resident to another state is an exercise of sovereign authority, not administrative routine.

Why should Ghana adopt a lower standard for its own citizens than many other democracies apply to theirs?

This debate is also about national dignity.

A sovereign nation is not measured by how quickly it complies with requests from powerful allies. It is measured by how faithfully it upholds its own Constitution while honouring its international obligations.

These two principles are not incompatible.

Ghana can be an effective partner in combating global crime while insisting that every extradition complies meticulously with Ghanaian law. In fact, insisting upon proper judicial process strengthens international cooperation because it reinforces confidence that extraditions are grounded in law rather than expediency.

There is another question that deserves careful reflection.

Following the Attorney General’s visit to Washington, observers naturally began asking whether broader discussions may have included reciprocal legal cooperation or other diplomatic understandings. Such questions are inevitable whenever governments describe bilateral meetings as exceptionally successful while significant extradition decisions closely follow.

Whether or not any reciprocal arrangement exists is ultimately beside the point.

No diplomatic understanding should ever create even the appearance that Ghana’s judicial processes can be accelerated or diminished to satisfy foreign expectations.

Justice must never appear negotiable.

None of this diminishes the seriousness of cybercrime.

The FBI is right to pursue sophisticated international criminal networks. Every nation has an interest in dismantling fraud syndicates that steal billions of dollars from victims across the world.

But consistency matters.

Global law enforcement cannot project uncompromising determination in some cases while appearing hesitant in others involving allegations of equally significant financial crime and organised criminal conduct. Public confidence depends upon the perception that justice is pursued evenly rather than selectively.

For Ghana, however, the central issue remains domestic.

The question is not whether alleged offenders should face justice abroad.

The question is whether Ghana will always insist that justice begins at home—with Ghanaian judges applying Ghanaian law before Ghanaian citizens are surrendered beyond the reach of Ghanaian courts.

This is not about shielding alleged criminals.

It is about protecting constitutional principles that exist precisely for difficult cases.

Rights that survive only when the accused are popular are not rights at all.

The measure of a mature constitutional democracy is not how firmly it punishes wrongdoing. It is how faithfully it preserves due process while doing so.

Every extradition should therefore satisfy three tests.

Was the law followed?

Were judicial safeguards fully respected?

Can every Ghanaian citizen have confidence that their passport still carries the protection of the Republic before they are placed on a plane to face justice elsewhere?

If the answer to any of those questions is uncertain, then Ghana must pause.

Because a Ghanaian passport must mean something.

And so must Ghana’s sovereignty.

By: Amanda Cinton

Head of Chambers at The Law Office of Clinton Consultancy