On December 11^th, 2025, news broke about the arrest of a Ghanaian National, Frederick Kumi, also known as Abu Trica. The arrest was triggered when a federal grand jury returned a 2-count indictment charging the Ghanaian National with defrauding elderly victims out of over 8 million dollars, dating back to 2023, and is expected to be extradited to the United States to stand trial. Before this latest arrest, four Ghanaian nationals Isaac Oduro Boateng also known as “Dada Joe Remix,”, Inusah Ahmed, Derrick Van Yeboah, and Patrick Kwame Asare were extradited to the United States over their alleged roles in various crimes, including wire fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and romance scams and inheritance schemes targeted elderly American victims and others around the world. Since news broke about the suspects' extradition processes, there has been public commentary on the matter. A section of the public have expressed concern about how cybercrimes, such as those in which the suspects are alleged to be involved, tarnish Ghana’s global reputation. Some also question the legitimacy of the extradition process; some further assert that Ghana’s economic dependence on foreign countries makes it possible for Ghanaian nationals to be extradited to countries like the United States, which undermines Ghana’s sovereignty. This article explores the legal framework, principles, challenges, and practice in Ghana’s extradition regime.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

What then is an Extradition? It is the formal process which allows one country to surrender a person accused or convicted of a crime so they can face prosecution or serve a sentence in another jurisdiction. Extraditions are the cornerstone of international criminal justice cooperation.
Ghana’s extradition laws trace their origins to British colonial rule, where the Fugitive Offenders Act of 1881 governed returns within the Empire. Post-independence in 1957, Ghana retained and adapted these mechanisms. The pivotal legislation, the Extradition Act, 1960 (Act 22), was enacted to formalise procedures for surrendering fugitive criminals, drawing from earlier bilateral treaties like the 1931 UK-US agreement applicable to Ghana via its Commonwealth status. This Act remains the cornerstone; over time, Ghana has integrated international obligations, such as those under the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), though implementation gaps persist for broader crimes against humanity.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Ghana’s extradition regime is anchored in the 1992 Constitution. According to Article 14(f) of the 1992 Constitution, it provides in the manner that:

1. Every person shall be entitled to his personal liberty, and no person shall be deprived of his personal liberty except in the following cases and in accordance withthe procedure permitted by law
2. for the purpose of preventing the unlawful entry of that person into Ghana, or of effecting the expulsion, extradition or other lawful removal of that person from Ghana or for the purpose of restricting that person while he is being lawfully conveyed through Ghana in the course of his extradition or removal from one country to another.

Flowing from the above, we can deduce that the 1992 Constitution explicitly permits deprivation of liberty for extradition purposes, provided it follows lawful procedures, ensuring alignment with fundamental rights like fair trial and protection from torture.

The core statute governing extradition in Ghana is the Extradition Act, 1960 (Act 22), one of the oldest legal instruments on this topic in the country’s statute books. Extradition Act, 1960 (Act 22). Act 22 lays out the procedures for surrendering fugitives (suspects) to requesting states and for backing warrants issued by foreign jurisdictions. 

Key Features of the Act

• Application by treaty or agreement: The Act applies when there is an arrangement or treaty between Ghana and another country for extradition; such an arrangement must be formalised through an order and laid before Parliament. As stated in the Extradition Act, 1960 (Act 22) section (1) (2):

Section 1—Application of Part I. (1) Where an arrangement has been made with any country with respect to the surrender to that country of any fugitive criminals, the President by legislative instrument may order that this Act shall apply in the case of that country, subject to such conditions, exceptions, and qualifications as may be specified in the order, and this Part shall apply accordingly. 

(2) An order under subsection (1) shall recite or embody the terms of the arrangement, and shall not remain in force for any longer period than the arrangement.

• Surrender of fugitives: It details procedures for issuing warrants and hearing evidence on whether a suspected fugitive should be surrendered. 
• Political offences excluded: A key restriction is that a person shall not be surrendered if the offence is of a political character, or if it appears the request is made to punish someone for political reasons. 
• Reciprocal backing of warrants: The law also allows Ghana to act on foreign warrants under certain rules, including provisional arrest and return conditions. 

EXTRADITION OF GHANAIANS

The laws permit a citizen of Ghana who is a fugitive criminal to be extradited. Section 30 of Act 22 defines a “fugitive criminal” as follows: –

fugitive criminal means any person accused or convicted of an extradition crime committed within the jurisdiction of any other country who is in or is suspected of being in Ghana.

Further, in the case Republic v Director of Prisons; Ex Parte Allotey & Anor [1973] 2 GLR at page 481, the High Court speaking through Apaloo Acting CJ (as he then was) held that: –

“By section 30 of the Extradition Act, 1960, the definition of “fugitive criminal” was wide enough to include a citizen of Ghana who was on Ghanaian soil. The international practice of surrendering fugitive offenders was based on the maxim Aut Punire Aut Dedere, which meant that the offender must be punished by the state of refuge or surrendered to the state which could and would punish him.

Ghana courts had no power to invoke criminal sanctions against Ghanaians who committed fraud by false pretences abroad in respect of property in which the Government of Ghana had no interest, and the government had, by legislation,n opted for the British principle of no discrimination in favour of its own nationals. The first applicant,t therefore, although a Ghanaian, was liable to extradition.

The above statement reinforces the point that a Ghanaian can be extradited for an offence committed in another State. In the same vein, a Ghanaian living in another state can be extradited to Ghana for crimes committed in the country. The condition for the extradition process is that the act for which it is sought must constitute a crime punishable in both the requesting and receiving states. Despite the legal differences between nations, there are several principles on extradition that are common to most countries. 

Section 2(3) (a)(i) of the Extradition Act, 1960 (Act 22) states as follows: –

A fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered to any country unless provision is made by the law of that country or by arrangement: –

(a) that the person claimed shall not be proceeded against, sentenced or detained with a view to the carrying out of a sentence or detention order, or otherwise restricted in his personal freedom, for any offence committed before his surrender, other than that for which his surrender is requested, except in the following cases—

(i) with the consent of the Government of Ghana

So essentially, the State requesting a fugitive to be surrendered can be done by diplomatic arrangement; however, the request should state the particular sentence, detention, restriction or offence it is seeking to impose on the fugitive.

EXTRADITION OF NON-GHANAIANS

The process involving another State seeking the extradition of its national living in Ghana is allowed. This is either by way of treaty or diplomatic means. This is observed in the case of State v Director of Prisons; Ex Parte Schumann [1966] GLR 703, CA, where a German was extradited to face prosecution for a charge of murder with the Nazi regime during World War II. The Court of Appeal spoke the wisdom of the court through LASSEY J.A held that;

“The offences charged against the appellant were not committed against the numerous victims in the course of any open conflict or rebellion between the agents of the Nazi party and the lunatics in Musingen Institute or the Jews in Auschwitz. These offences are clearly extraditable. Finally, in extradition cases like the present one it is often very easy for the fugitive offender who is charged and sought to be extradited to excuse his individual conduct by pleading by way of defence that he was forced to commit the offences charged in deference to the commands of his superior officers; howsoever that plea or defence may on the particular facts be offensive and repugnant to any civilized morality like our own, it is certainly according to our rules of procedure and practice a matter for the consideration of the trial court in Germany. If German municipal law exonerates the agent of a crime from responsibility because he was justified in obeying and executing orders from above, which are manifestly illegal and therefore punishable, it is up to the appellant to avail himself of that defence in the appropriate tribunal in Germany and not in the courts in Ghana”.

Following a diplomatic request to the Government of Ghana, extradition proceedings were commenced for his arrest as a fugitive criminal. He was brought before the court, and upon being satisfied that the provisions of the Extradition Act, 1960 (Act 22), the court ordered his extradition.

EXTRADITION FOR INTERNATIONAL CRIME

In respect of the principle governing extradition, some Countries decline invitations to surrender their own citizens. These Countries include France, Russia, China, Japan, Israel, etc., 

To the extent there are constitutional provisions which prohibit the extradition of their citizens. For example, in Russia under article 61(1) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation which explicitly states that: 

“A citizen of the Russian Federation may not be deported from Russian or extradited to another state”

This constitutional provision makes the refusal mandatory for Russian nationals.

 Furthermore, in France, Article 696-4 of the French code of Criminal procedure (code de procedure penale) states that:

“Extradition is not granted when the requested person has French nationality, with nationality assessed at the time the offence was committed.

This provision makes the refusal mandatory for French nationals in standard extradition procedures. Also in China under article 8 of the extradition law of the People’s Republic of China states that:

“An extradition request made by a foreign state to the People’s Republic of China shall be refused if the person sought is a national of the People's Republic of China determined under Chinese law.”

When it comes to public international law, there is no general rule that makes it mandatory for countries to extradite persons who commit serious international crimes against humanity, such as genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity. The key principle of (Aut Dedere Aut Judicare) aims to prevent impunity by ensuring alleged perpetrators face justice, but it gives countries a choice to either extradite if requested or prosecute domestically; it is not a standalone requirement to extradite. 

In the case of R v Bow St Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate; Ex Parte Pinochet. [2000] 1 AC 61, the matter concerned the extradition of a former Chilean President to Spain to face prosecution for various international crimes. The House of Lords made the following remarks with respect to the extradition request by Spain: –

In general, a state only exercises criminal jurisdiction over offences which occur within its geographical boundaries. If a person who is alleged to have committed a crime in Spain is found in the United Kingdom, Spain can apply to the United Kingdom to extradite him to Spain. The power to extradite from the United Kingdom for an “extradition crime” is now contained in the Extradition Act 1989.

That Act defines what constitutes an “extradition crime”. For the present case, the most important requirement is that the conduct complained of must constitute a crime under the law both of Spain and of the United Kingdom. This is known as the double criminality rule. Since the Nazi atrocities and the Nuremberg trials, international law has recognised a number of offences as being international crimes. Individual states have taken jurisdiction to try some international crimes even in cases where such crimes were not committed within the geographical boundaries of such states.

Following this decision of the court, any person accused of an international crime would either be liable and tried in the country within whose jurisdiction he finds himself or would be extradited to the requested country.

EXCEPTIONS TO EXTRADITION

However, Political offences are exceptions because both domestic law and international agreements emphasize that persons should not be extradited for alleged crimes of a political nature. This important protection ensures that extradition is not used to punish dissent or political opponents under the guise of criminal prosecution. 

According to section 4 of the UN Model Law of Extradition, an extradition shall not be granted if the offence for which it is requested is an offence of a political nature. Relying on section 2 of Act 22, Ghana shall not surrender a fugitive criminal involved in a political crime. Subsection (2) of the section states as follows: –

A fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered if the offence in respect of which his surrender is requested is one of a political character, or if it appears to the Court or the National Liberation Council that the requisition for his surrender has in fact been made with a view to try or punish him for an offence of a political character.

What constitutes the offence of political crime was explained by the Austrian Supreme Court in the Austro-Hungarian (Deserter) 1868-1914 case. The court is reported to have said:

The political motive of a criminal offence does not in itself prove that the offence is political. The crime becomes a political offence only where it serves a political purpose; i.e., where the offence is intended to bring about a change of political circumstances, and not where it serves a personal purpose, albeit one influenced by political motives.

In this regard, any other criminal offence would not amount to political crime to refuse extradition. In the case of Republic v Director of Prisons; Ex Parte Yeboah [1984-86] 1 GLR at page 92, the Court of Appeal in dismissing the appeal proceeded to make these remarks regarding the offence of political crime: –

The charges brought against [the accused] only related to his office as a banker and the evidence showed that he engaged in dishonest activities which damnified his employers, namely the Security Pacific National Bank of Los Angeles and which activities amounted to punishable offence under Ghana’s law and the criminal code of the USA. Consequently, it would be plainly contrary to the facts to contend that Y’s extradition was sought because he had committed a political offence or that the true object of the US Government was to punish him for an offence of a political character.

In light of the foregoing, unless the offence is in the nature of a political character, a criminal fugitive will be extradited.

THE EXTRADITION PROCESS

The process under Extradition Act, 1960 (Act 22) is judicially supervised yet executive-driven, ensuring checks against abuse.
1. Request Initiation: A foreign state submits a requisition via diplomatic channels to Ghana’s Minister of Justice (or equivalent). For reciprocal arrangements, warrants can be endorsed directly.
2. Provisional Arrest: If urgency exists, a magistrate issues a warrant based on prima facie evidence, detaining the suspect for up to 15 days pending formal request.
3. Hearing and Committal: The suspect appears before a District Magistrate within 24 hours. Evidence (authenticated depositions or statements) is reviewed; if sufficient to justify committal as if the crime occurred in Ghana, the suspect is remanded. Habeas corpus appeals are available.
4. Ministerial Decision: Post-hearing, the Minister issues a surrender warrant after 15 days, allowing transfer. If not executed within two months, discharge follows.
5. Return and Specialty: The receiving state cannot prosecute for non-extradition offenses without Ghana’s consent (Act 22, Section 2(3)(a)(i).

EXTRADITABLE OFFENCES

Without prejudice to the terms of agreement in Ghana’s extradition treaties, Act 22 does not provide any list of offences which are extraditable. However, section 3 of the UN Model Law of Extradition gives the scope of extraditable offences. It states that a person is extraditable, if:

1. the offence is punishable under the laws of the requesting state. This is also known as the principle of double criminality.
2. The offence if committed in the transferring state is punishable by imprisonment.

However, it goes without saying that under section 4 of the UN Model Law of Extradition and section 2 of Act 22, a request for extradition involving an offence of a political character shall not be granted.

GHANA’S EXTRADITION TREATIES

According to the Institute for Security Studies (ISS), Ghana has extradition agreements with a number of countries including USA, Britain, Nigeria, Togo and Benin. Ghana has also signed the Convention on Extradition which is in force among the States within the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). Hence a person, whether Ghanaian or not, living in any of these countries, may be extradited to Ghana through the diplomatic request by the Ghanaian Mission in the country.

THE CASE OF FORMER FINANCE MINISTER

Recent developments in Ghana’s legal and political landscape highlight how extradition law plays out in practice. In 2025, Ghanaian authorities and institutions — including the Attorney-General’s Department and the Office of the Special Prosecutor have clashed over the potential extradition of a former finance minister Ken Ofori Attah from the United States of America. The debate centers on whether the legal conditions and treaty obligations have been met to trigger an extradition request. Law experts have underscored that for the United States to act on any request, there must be a solid legal case with clear charges that are criminal in both jurisdictions and not political in nature. 

CHALLENGES AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS TO EXTRADICTION

While Ghana’s extradition framework is grounded in long-standing law and international cooperation, several challenges remain:

• Legislative Reform: Much of Ghana’s extradition law dates from 1960, and modern criminal threats — such as cybercrime and transnational organized crime — have complicated enforcement. This raises questions about updating statutes to reflect contemporary realities.
• Human Rights Alignment: As global norms around human rights evolve, Ghana continues to navigate how extradition requests intersect with protections against torture, inhumane treatment, and fair trial rights.
• Institutional Coordination: Ongoing cases illustrate how different state agencies must coordinate effectively to ensure extradition processes are legally sound and free from political interference.

CONCLUSION
Extradition in Ghana rests on a blend of statutory law, constitutional protections, and treaty obligations. The Extradition Act, 1960 remains the foundation, supplemented by regional and bilateral agreements, an extradition is for the mutual benefit of the comity of nations to promote peace and security. Legislative updates are essential for fuller alignment with international standards as transnational threats evolve, strengthening these mechanisms will enhance Ghana’s role in global justice so far as the offence meets legal criteria including double criminality and non-political character a Ghanaian citizen may be extradited.

the writer is a Private Legal Practitioner at DANEZRA LAW GROUP PRUC) TESANO – Accra

REFERENCES

Extradition Act, 1960 (Act 22),

Republic v Director of Prisons; Ex Parte Allotey & Anor [1973] 2 GLR 480

Republic v Director of Prisons; Ex Parte Yeboah [1984 – 86] 1 GLR 92

State v Director of Prisons; Ex Parte Schumann [1966] GLR 703.

R v Bow St Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate; Ex Parte Pinochet. [2000] 1 AC 61

Austrian Supreme Court in the Austro-Hungarian (Deserter) 1868-1914

United Nations Model Treaty on Extradition adopted by UN General Assembly resolution 45/116 on December 1990.

UN Model Law of Extradition (2004)

An insight into extradition of political fugitives, by Micheal Sumail, February 11, 2025.