OSP Goofed: Why Ghana’s Special Prosecutor Must Explain the INTERPOL Red Notice Failure

The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) of Ghana faced a significant institutional setback following the deletion of an INTERPOL Red Notice issued against former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta. Legal professional Frank Davies has publicly stated that the OSP “got it wrong,” emphasizing that the agency owes Ghanaians an apology and a clear explanation. This incident raises critical questions about due process, the politicization of legal tools, and the responsibilities of anti-corruption bodies in adhering to international standards. This article provides a comprehensive, SEO-optimized analysis of the case, its background, legal implications, and lessons for institutional integrity.

Introduction: A Blow to Institutional Credibility

In a decisive ruling that has reverberated through Ghana’s legal and political landscape, the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF) ordered the permanent deletion of a Red Notice targeting former Minister Ken Ofori-Atta. The CCF concluded the notice “appears of a predominantly political character” and violated INTERPOL’s constitution. Responding to this development, prominent legal mind Frank Davies did not mince words: the OSP “goofed” and must “inform Ghanaians the reality.” This episode transcends a single case; it is a pivotal moment for examining the balance between robust anti-corruption enforcement and the sacrosanct principles of due process and international legal cooperation. For a body established to fight corruption with independence, the OSP’s misstep here risks undermining public trust and invites scrutiny of its operational protocols.

Key Points: The Core of the Controversy

Understanding this complex issue requires a clear breakdown of the essential facts and assertions:

• The OSP’s Action: The Office of the Special Prosecutor requested and secured an INTERPOL Red Notice for Ken Ofori-Atta, a tool used to locate and provisionally arrest wanted persons for extradition.
• INTERPOL’s Reversal: The Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF), INTERPOL’s independent oversight body, reviewed the notice and ordered its complete deletion following its 135th session on February 4, 2026.
• Primary Reason for Deletion: The CCF determined the Red Notice had a “predominantly political character,” a direct violation of INTERPOL’s rules, which strictly prohibit involvement in political disputes.
• Procedural Failure: The CCF also found that the information provided by Ghana’s National Central Bureau (NCB) did not meet INTERPOL’s required standards for content and validity.
• Frank Davies’ Critique: The legal expert asserts the OSP’s method was “mistaken and unfair,” demands an apology to Ghanaians, and stresses that due process is not a mere slogan but a practical necessity.
• OSP’s Stance: Following the deletion, the OSP reaffirmed its commitment to acting “guided only by law and evidence” and to the “fair, lawful, and independent prosecution” of corruption cases.
• Core Conflict: The incident pits aggressive anti-corruption efforts against the procedural safeguards and political neutrality required for valid international police cooperation.

Background: Understanding the Tools and the Actors

What is an INTERPOL Red Notice?

An INTERPOL Red Notice is not an international arrest warrant. It is a request to law enforcement worldwide to locate and provisionally arrest a wanted person with a view to extradition. It is a critical tool for international criminal cooperation but operates under a strict legal framework. INTERPOL’s Constitution, in Article 3, explicitly bars the organization from undertaking any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious, or racial character. This neutrality is fundamental to its legitimacy. Each Red Notice is assessed by the CCF to ensure compliance with this rule and with INTERPOL’s data processing rules, which demand accuracy, relevance, and lawful purpose.

The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP): Mandate and Scrutiny

Ghana’s OSP was established under the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959), as an independent specialized agency to investigate and prosecute specific corruption and corruption-related offences. Its mandate includes investigating cases involving persons in the public sector, politically exposed persons, and their associates. The OSP was designed to operate with operational independence to tackle high-level graft, a persistent challenge in Ghana. However, this independence carries a corresponding duty to adhere scrupulously to both domestic law and the international legal standards that govern its actions when seeking cross-border cooperation. The Ofori-Atta case placed this duty under a harsh spotlight.

Ken Ofori-Atta: A Figure of National Prominence

Ken Ofori-Atta served as Ghana’s Minister for Finance from 2017 to 2024 under the New Patriotic Party (NPP) administration. He was a central figure in managing the nation’s economy during a period that included significant debt restructuring and engagement with international financial institutions. His prominence means any legal action against him attracts intense public and media interest, inherently raising the stakes and the potential for perceptions of political motivation. His post-ministerial activities, including alleged dealings abroad, became the subject of OSP investigation, leading to the INTERPOL request.

Analysis: Deconstructing the OSP’s “Goof”

Frank Davies’ blunt assessment that the OSP “got it wrong” is substantiated by the CCF’s ruling. A multi-layered analysis reveals the depth of the institutional failure.

1. The Fatal Flaw: Political Character vs. Criminal Investigation

The CCF’s finding that the Red Notice appeared “predominantly political” is the most damning critique. This determination suggests the OSP’s case, or the manner in which it was presented to INTERPOL, lacked the clear, non-political criminal law foundation required. In anti-corruption cases involving former high-ranking officials, the line between legitimate prosecution and political persecution can appear thin, especially to an external, neutral body like the CCF. The OSP may have failed to sufficiently disentangle its case from the broader political context of Ofori-Atta’s former role and the contentious nature of some economic policies. The burden was on the OSP to demonstrate a purely criminal, law-enforcement purpose. According to the CCF, it failed to meet that burden.

2. Procedural and Evidentiary Shortcomings

The second pillar of the CCF’s decision concerns the failure of Ghana’s NCB submission to meet INTERPOL’s standards. This points to a potential lack of rigor in compiling the request. INTERPOL requires precise, verifiable information, including detailed facts of the case, the specific legal provisions violated, and evidence of the wanted person’s location or activities. A submission deemed substandard indicates the OSP may have rushed the process, provided insufficient documentary evidence, or failed to properly contextualize the allegations within a sound legal framework acceptable to an international body. This is a basic operational error for any agency engaging with INTERPOL.

3. The Reputational Harm and “Court of Public Opinion”

Davies poignantly warned against “condemning suspects in the court of public opinion before cases are properly examined in court.” A Red Notice, once issued, triggers immediate global alerts, asset freezes in some jurisdictions, and severe reputational damage, regardless of the ultimate judicial outcome. By securing a notice later invalidated as politically motivated, the OSP facilitated this very harm. The “reputation punishment” Davies mentions is a real consequence with legal and personal ramifications. This aspect transforms the error from a mere procedural misstep into a potential violation of the subject’s rights and a misuse of a powerful international instrument.

4. The Rule of Law as Practice, Not Slogan

Davies’ central thesis is that “the rule of law and due process is not a term of art. It evolves from established practices and processes.” The OSP’s action, and its subsequent rebuke, is a textbook case study in this principle. Due process requires fairness in procedures, respect for rights, and adherence to governing rules at every stage—from domestic investigation through to international collaboration. The CCF’s ruling indicates the OSP’s process, at the INTERPOL interface, was deficient. For an anti-corruption agency, whose legitimacy is rooted in being above partisan politics, this failure is particularly corrosive. It fuels accusations of selective justice and weaponization of state institutions.

Practical Advice: Lessons for Anti-Corruption Agencies and the Public

This incident offers crucial lessons for institutional actors and citizens alike.

For Anti-Corruption Investigators and Prosecutors:

• International Cooperation Diligence: Before engaging INTERPOL, ensure the underlying case is rock-solid, evidence-based, and demonstrably non-political. Subject the case to a rigorous “political character” stress test.
• Master the Rules: Specialized training on INTERPOL’s Constitution, Rules on the Processing of Data, and CCF jurisprudence is non-negotiable for any officer preparing international alerts.
• Documentation is Paramount: Submissions must be meticulously detailed, legally sound, and supported by verifiable evidence. Assumptions or politically charged language are fatal.
• Institutional Humility: When an independent international body like the CCF rules against you, the appropriate response is a transparent review of process, not just a restatement of commitment. A public explanation or clarification, as Davies suggests, can rebuild trust.

For the Ghanaian Public and Media:

• Presumption of Innocence: Remain vigilant against the temptation to convict individuals in the “court of public opinion” based on Red Notices or arrest warrants alone. These are investigative tools, not proof of guilt.
• Scrutinize Process: Evaluate anti-corruption agencies not just on their targets but on their methods. A win achieved through flawed or politically tainted processes is a loss for the rule of law.
• Demand Accountability: Hold the OSP accountable for its operational failures. An apology, as requested by Davies, is a first step. A public review of what went wrong and how procedures will be reformed is the necessary follow-up.

FAQ: Addressing Common Questions

Q1: Can the OSP Appeal the INTERPOL CCF Decision?

No. The CCF’s decision on the deletion of a Red Notice is final and binding. INTERPOL’s rules do not provide for an appeals process against a CCF ruling. The only recourse would be to submit a completely new, fundamentally different request that rectifies all the deficiencies cited by the CCF, which is highly improbable given the “political character” finding.

Q2: Does the CCF’s Ruling Mean Ken Ofori-Atta is Innocent of All Allegations?

No. The CCF’s ruling is not a judgment on the substantive criminal guilt or innocence of Ken Ofori-Aatta. It is a ruling solely on the validity of the INTERPOL Red Notice. The CCF determined the notice itself violated INTERPOL’s rules due to its political nature and flawed submission. Any ongoing domestic investigations or potential future prosecutions by the OSP within Ghana’s legal system are separate matters that must proceed according to Ghanaian law and evidentiary standards.

Q3: What Happens to the Information Already Circulated from the Red Notice?

Upon the CCF’s deletion order, INTERPOL is required to remove all data related to the Red Notice from its databases. The OSP, as the requesting entity, is also expected to inform any countries that may have acted on the notice of its deletion. However, the reputational and practical damage from the initial global alert may persist, highlighting the irreversible harm of an erroneous notice.

Q4: How Common Are Red Notice Deletions Based on “Political Character”?

While INTERPOL does not publish detailed statistics on deletion reasons, rulings based on “political character” (violation of Article 3) are a recognized and significant category within the CCF’s case law. Such deletions often occur in cases involving former government officials, opposition figures, or individuals in countries with unstable political climates. They underscore INTERPOL’s efforts to guard against becoming a tool for political persecution, though critics argue the system is still sometimes misused.

Q5: What Legal Recourse Does Ken Ofori-Atta Have in Ghana?

The deletion of the Red Notice strengthens his position domestically. His legal team could potentially use the CCF’s finding as evidence of maladministration or abuse of process by the OSP in any ongoing proceedings. He may also have a cause of action for damages for reputational harm caused by the wrongful international alert, though pursuing such a claim against a state institution like the OSP would involve complex legal and sovereign immunity considerations.

Conclusion: Restoring Trust Through Transparency

The deletion of the INTERPOL Red Notice against Ken Ofori-Atta is more than a technical correction; it is a rebuke to the Office of the Special Prosecutor’s operational conduct. Frank Davies is correct in his core assertion: the OSP goofed. The finding of a “predominantly political character” strikes at the heart of the agency’s legitimacy. An apology to Ghanaians, as Davies demands, is a necessary but insufficient first step. The OSP must embark on a transparent, internal review to understand how this error occurred—whether through legal misinterpretation, procedural negligence, or a failure to insulate its work from political context. It must then publicly outline the concrete reforms it will implement to ensure compliance with international standards like those of INTERPOL. For Ghana’s fight against corruption to be credible, it must be unassailably fair. As Davies reminds us, due process is not an abstract ideal; it is the very foundation that separates legitimate law enforcement from the abuse of power. The OSP now has a duty to prove it understands that distinction.

Sources

• INTERPOL. (2026, February 13). Public Notice: Deletion of a Diffused Data. Retrieved from the official INTERPOL website or public records regarding the CCF’s 135th session decision concerning Ken Ofori-Atta.
• Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) of Ghana. (2026). Official Statement in Reaction to the Deletion of the INTERPOL Red Notice. Published on the OSP’s official website and communication channels