President John Dramani Mahama has clarified that the government has no influence over the extradition proceedings involving former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta, stating that the matter is now exclusively within the purview of the United States judicial system. Speaking to the press, the President emphasized that while Ghana has submitted a formal extradition request, the final outcome rests entirely with American courts.

“I cannot comment on the extradition of our former Finance Minister because it is in a different jurisdiction,” President Mahama stated. He urged the public to exercise patience, noting that Ghana must wait for the legal process to unfold in the U.S. “We just have to be patient for the law to play out in that jurisdiction. It is not within our jurisdiction, but the American judiciary,” he added.

The President also drew a distinction between two separate legal issues surrounding Ofori-Atta’s current situation in the United States. According to Mahama, the former minister’s recent arrest by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was primarily for an immigration status violation, which is distinct from Ghana’s extradition request. “There are two parallel issues. One is the extradition request by Ghana, and the other is the immigration issue,” he explained.

Ofori-Atta, who served as Finance Minister under the previous administration, is facing investigations related to alleged financial irregularities during his tenure. While the government has signaled its intent to have him face legal proceedings in Ghana, President Mahama’s latest remarks underscore the limitations of local jurisdiction once a suspect is on foreign soil. The administration has indicated it will respect the legal processes in the U.S. while awaiting the resolution of the extradition bid.

The Supreme Court has imposed a GHS10,000 fine on actor Kwadwo Nkansah, popularly known as Lil Win, citing his repeated disrespect toward the judicial system in the protracted defamation case brought against him by actress Martha Ankomah. The ruling comes after a series of legal delays and a conspicuous absence by the actor and his legal team during a crucial hearing. The apex court’s decision marks the latest development in a contentious legal battle that has seen the actor employ multiple procedural maneuvers, ultimately drawing the ire of the judiciary for what justices described as an abuse of court process.

The legal dispute originated when Martha Ankomah filed a GHS5 million defamation suit against Lil Win at the High Court in Accra. While the parties initially reached a settlement, the agreement quickly unraveled when the actor reportedly failed to honor the terms. As part of the aborted resolution, Lil Win was expected to present an apology before the High Court on April 1, 2025, for the judge’s approval. However, his failure to appear on that date, coupled with a subsequent absence on April 15 despite a final warning, prompted the High Court to abandon the settlement framework and push the case toward higher judicial intervention.

In an effort to stall proceedings, Lil Win challenged the High Court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the case should be heard in Kumasi rather than Accra. After that motion was dismissed, he escalated the matter by filing for a stay of proceedings at the Court of Appeal, which was also rejected. Undeterred, he took his bid for a stay to the Supreme Court, with the matter scheduled for March 31, 2026. However, reports indicate that neither Lil Win nor his legal representatives appeared before the panel on the specified date, a move that the justices viewed as a direct affront to the authority of the nation’s highest court.

The Supreme Court panel, expressing outrage over the actor’s conduct, awarded costs of GHS10,000 against Lil Win, characterizing his absence as disrespectful to the apex court. The fine comes despite reports that the two parties were making progress toward another potential settlement. With the court now actively penalizing the actor for procedural delays, legal observers note that the judiciary appears determined to bring the prolonged case to a close, holding Lil Win accountable for what they describe as a pattern of delay tactics and non-compliance with court directives.

In a case that has sparked intense debate over Ghana’s extradition practices, the legal team for Abu Trica has argued that their client is being unjustly pursued by US authorities over what they describe as a $13,000 sting operation, rather than the $8 million fraud initially suggested by state agencies. According to defense sources, the case originated when an FBI informant approached Abu Trica, claiming to expect a $50,000 transfer and requesting assistance in securing a bank account. In exchange for providing an account, Abu Trica was promised $13,000—a payment he ultimately received from undercover agents after facilitating the transaction. His legal representatives contend that this transaction constitutes the entirety of the evidence against him.

The defense has raised serious procedural concerns, alleging that the initial public narrative surrounding the case was misleading. Before the matter proceeded to court, the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) issued a press statement claiming that Abu Trica had defrauded victims of $8 million—a figure his lawyers vehemently dispute. “There is no $8 million anywhere. We are here because of $13,000,” a member of his legal team stated. Following his arrest, investigators reportedly approached Abu Trica for the identity of the account holder, a request he declined to fulfill. He was subsequently charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud.

In challenging the extradition, Abu Trica’s counsel submitted an 80-page legal brief before the magistrate, tracing the history of the Ghana-US Extradition Treaty and arguing that the offense of conspiracy is not an extraditable offense under the treaty’s provisions. Despite the extensive legal arguments, the magistrate ruled against the defense. Speaking on condition of anonymity due to the ongoing appeal, a source close to the case expressed frustration with the judicial handling, stating, “In my whole life I have never met a judge so eager to extradite a person before. Complete refusal to follow due process. Her mind was made up, from day one.”

The case has also drawn attention to what critics describe as a troubling pattern in Ghana’s extradition record. According to the defense, out of 200 extradition requests received by Ghana from the United States, all 200 have been granted by the courts. “America coughs, we catch a cold,” one source remarked, characterizing the judiciary’s posture as overly deferential to US authorities. The legal team argues that this record reflects a reluctance to independently scrutinize extradition requests, effectively rendering the judicial process a formality rather than a substantive review.

With the matter now under appeal, Abu Trica’s legal team remains hopeful that the higher court will break from precedent. “If our courts are willing to follow the law, not be afraid of America, Abu’s case will be 200-1,” a defense source concluded. As the appeal unfolds, the case has become a focal point for broader discussions about judicial independence, the interpretation of extradition treaties, and the balance between international cooperation and the protection of individual rights within Ghana’s legal system.