As the diplomatic tug-of-war over former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta intensifies, international law expert Amanda Clinton has provided a definitive roadmap of the legal gauntlet awaiting the embattled ex-minister in the United States.

Following his high-profile detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on January 6, 2026, and the subsequent formal extradition request by the Government of Ghana, the focus has shifted from visa status to the 78 counts of corruption and financial misconduct filed by prosecutors.

Once a powerful personality under the erstwhile Akufo-Addo government, Mr Ofori-Atta has come under scrutiny, with the Ghana government determined to bring him from his US base to face accountability for the stewardship during the tenure of the NPP in office.

Speaking on Joy Prime on Wednesday, January 21, 2026, Ms. Clinton, Head of Clinton Consultancy, clarified that while the sheer volume of charges—linked to the Strategic Mobilisation Limited (SML) revenue assurance contract and the National Cathedral project—serves as the factual bedrock for the request, the U.S. court’s review will be "narrow, legal, and treaty-bound."

Below are seven points presented by Amanda Clinton detailing a breakdown of the legal issues surrounding the case:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Existence of an extradition treaty and recent practice — context

Before any judicial review begins, the court confirms that a valid extradition treaty exists between Ghana and the United States and that the treaty has been recently and actively relied upon in other cases. That recent practice shows both states engaging cooperatively under the treaty, which strengthens the expectation that requests will be processed on their legal merits.

In this context, the judge does not evaluate how many counts there are but focuses on whether the offences alleged would also be recognised as crimes in the United States (dual criminality). The diplomatic backdrop — including any assurances that the treaty obligations will not be blocked — reinforces the legal expectations but does not change the judicial test.

2. Identity — confirming who is before the court

The judge will first confirm that Ken Ofori-Atta is the same person named in the extradition request. This is a factual inquiry and is unaffected by the number of charges or any defence of persecution. Identity must be established before moving to other points.

3. Dual criminality — matching Ghanaian charges to U.S. law

Dual criminality requires that the acts alleged in the 78 counts—such as corruption, abuse of office, or financial misconduct—would also constitute crimes under U.S. law if committed there. The judge will compare the descriptions of conduct, not the detailed local legal labels.

If the core allegations align with broadly similar U.S. offences (like bribery or fraud), that satisfies this test. The exact number of counts (78) does not itself make the request stronger or weaker in legal terms; rather, the focus is on whether the conduct underlying those charges could be criminally prosecuted in the United States.

4. Probable cause — a limited screening exercise

For each extraditable offence, the requesting state must present evidence sufficient to meet the treaty’s probable-cause standard. The judge reviews this to ensure that the request is not based on speculation.

Crucially, this is not a trial. The judge does not evaluate credibility, issue evidence, or decide guilt. This stage is a limited screening to confirm that the requesting state has produced some evidence linking the accused to the alleged conduct.

5. Treaty-based bars — the only place motivations can be examined

Ken’s team may argue that the charges are politically motivated — essentially a claim of persecution. Under extradition law, this argument is considered judicially only if the treaty contains a political-offence exception and the alleged conduct fits that narrow definition.

Modern extradition treaties usually interpret political-offence exceptions very narrowly and typically exclude ordinary corruption or financial misconduct from that category. Absent a specific, applicable exception in the treaty, persecution arguments will not prevent certification at the judicial stage.

So even if a political motive is alleged, it does not give the judge a legal basis to refuse certification unless the treaty expressly provides a defence that fits the case.

6. Certification — not a final order of extradition

If the judge is satisfied as to identity, treaty validity, dual criminality, and probable cause, and finds no applicable treaty bar, the judge will certify Ken as extraditable. This means the judge formally finds the legal requirements are met; it does not mean he is extradited at that moment.

Certification moves the case to the executive branch (e.g., the U.S. Secretary of State), which makes the final decision on surrender. It is at that stage that political, humanitarian, diplomatic, and persecution claims carry real weight.

7. Bond and visa issues remain separate

Bond decisions in extradition matters are exceptional. The judge can grant bail only in “special circumstances,” and the criteria are quite narrow compared to ordinary criminal bail hearings. Visa revocation or immigration status does not directly affect the legal test for extradition — they explain why someone may be in custody but do not determine whether the judge must certify extraditability.

Key point

The 78 charges against Ken Ofori-Atta are the factual basis for Ghana’s request, but in the extradition proceeding they are translated into legal categories (e.g., corruption, fraud) and tested against:
• treaty existence and scope,
• identity,
• dual criminality,
• probable cause,
• and any treaty-specified bar.

The judge will not conduct a full trial on all 78 counts or assess motives outside the narrow treaty bars. Instead, the court’s role is procedural and limited, leaving broader questions — including persecution or political motivation arguments — to the executive branch in the next stage of the extradition process.