I have taken my time this morning to listen carefully to the Attorney General of Ghana’s submission on Newsfile.

The posture he advanced was clear. He suggested that his office has been working closely with United States authorities and that this cooperation explains the arrest and detention of Ken Ofori-Atta by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The clear implication was that Mr. Ofori-Atta’s encounter with U.S. immigration authorities was not merely an immigration matter but the result of a coordinated effort by Ghanaian prosecutors and American law enforcement to secure his return to Ghana to face criminal proceedings. That claim requires careful correction.

The United States legal system does not operate in that manner. Immigration enforcement in the U.S. is structurally and jurisdictionally distinct from criminal prosecution. Immigration courts are civil tribunals. They do not adjudicate criminal guilt or enforce foreign criminal processes. America is not Ghana, and U.S. immigration law is not a proxy for criminal extradition.

It is, therefore, misleading to suggest that a criminal process initiated in Ghana could, by itself, lead to detention in the United States absent a formal extradition request grounded in treaty law, judicial oversight, and due process. No such process occurs through ICE custody.

That said, it is important to clarify one point to avoid confusion. Agencies within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security do share information internally. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and ICE each perform different functions, but they draw on shared immigration records and databases.

As a result, ICE may be placed on notice of an individual’s immigration status through routine administrative review, compliance checks, or internal alerts. That information sharing, however, does not transform immigration enforcement into criminal prosecution, nor does it validate claims of foreign prosecutorial control.

This inter-agency information sharing could plausibly explain ICE involvement in Mr. Ofori-Atta’s case in a far more ordinary way. For example, ICE may have been alerted to the expiration of his authorized period of stay under U.S. immigration law. The duration of a visa’s validity is not the same as the period a person is lawfully permitted to remain in the United States.

A person may hold a five-year B1/B2 visa and still be admitted for only six months, as reflected on their Form I-94. If that allowable stay expires and the individual remains in the United States even for medical reasons, humanitarian circumstances, or administrative delays, that overstay alone can trigger visa revocation and ICE enforcement action. That is standard practice in U.S. immigration law.

Alternatively, if Mr. Ofori-Atta’s visa was indeed revoked months ago, as the Attorney General claims, and no adjustment of status application was filed on his behalf during that period, the revocation itself could have created a time lag during which he remained in the United States without lawful status. That circumstance alone would justify ICE action, entirely independent of any criminal allegations in Ghana.

Conversely, if an adjustment of status application was filed on his behalf and contained misrepresentation, fraud, or material omissions, the matter would again fall squarely within immigration compliance and adjudication. It would not support the Attorney General’s claim that criminal proceedings in Ghana triggered U.S. detention. In fact, it would defeat that narrative altogether.

Mr. Ofori-Atta was reportedly picked up by ICE and placed in an ICE detention facility. ICE detention is, by definition, civil immigration custody. He is not being held in a federal prison, nor has he been charged in a U.S. criminal court. Even where allegations of fraud exist, immigration detention remains civil unless a separate federal criminal indictment is filed.

What follows in such cases is a bond or bail hearing, which may proceed concurrently with the substantive immigration case. At that stage, the legal test is narrow and well settled: whether the individual is a flight risk or a danger to the community. The government may argue that Mr. Ofori-Atta is a Ghanaian resident, a former minister of state, and a person facing legal challenges at home. But those factors alone are insufficient to justify prolonged detention.

The defense will argue countervailing considerations, such as medical necessity, the ability to post bond, the lack of danger to society, and the willingness to comply with court processes. Immigration judges weigh these factors carefully and independently. Given Mr. Ofori-Atta’s reported medical condition, which the court would now be on notice of, and the availability of bond, it is entirely plausible that he could be released after a first or second appearance.

At this stage, public commentary remains speculative. But one fact is firm and unavoidable: Mr. Ofori-Atta’s current engagement with U.S. authorities is a civil immigration matter, not a criminal one. There is no extraterritorial jurisdiction at play. Whatever criminal allegations exist in Ghana are legally irrelevant to an American immigration judge’s determination. That judge will not adjudicate Ghanaian criminal responsibility. They will adjudicate immigration status only.

If the Government of Ghana wishes to compel Mr. Ofori-Atta to answer for his stewardship or any alleged offenses, there is only one lawful path: a formal extradition request pursued through treaty obligations, judicial review, and due process.

It cannot be achieved indirectly. It cannot be accomplished through narrative alignment, nor can it be secured by recasting a visa revocation or ICE detention as a triumph of cross-border criminal enforcement. Visa revocation is not extradition. ICE detention is not criminal custody. And immigration enforcement is not a substitute for prosecutorial jurisdiction. The law does not work that way. Not in the United States.

By: Dr. Manaseh M Mintah

The writer is a legal scholar and environmental governance specialist with advanced training in law, international development, and environmental policy.