Lawyers Allege OSP Deceived Public Over Ken Ofori-Atta’s INTERPOL Red Notice “Redaction”

Updated analysis of the controversy surrounding former Ghana Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta’s INTERPOL Red Notice removal, OSP statements, and lawyers’ rebuttal. Learn the facts on INTERPOL procedures, CCF reviews, and allegations of public deception.

Introduction

In a heated legal and political dispute in Ghana, lawyers representing former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta have accused the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) of misleading the public regarding the status of his INTERPOL Red Notice. Dated November 24, 2025, their letter claims the OSP’s November 19, 2025, press release falsely portrayed the notice’s disappearance from INTERPOL’s website as a routine “redaction” pending review by INTERPOL’s Commission for the Control of Files (CCF). Instead, the attorneys assert it was a full removal following a rigorous legal evaluation.

This controversy highlights key aspects of international law enforcement cooperation, including how INTERPOL Red Notices function, the role of the CCF in ensuring compliance, and potential human rights concerns in politically charged cases. For those searching for details on “OSP deceived public Ofori-Atta Red Notice” or “Ken Ofori-Atta INTERPOL removal,” this guide provides a clear, step-by-step explanation grounded in verifiable facts.

What is an INTERPOL Red Notice?

To understand the stakes, note that an INTERPOL Red Notice is a request to law enforcement worldwide to locate and provisionally arrest a person pending extradition or similar legal action. It is not an international arrest warrant but a tool for cooperation. Notices must comply with INTERPOL’s Constitution, particularly Articles 2 and 3, which mandate respect for human rights and prohibit politically motivated actions.

Analysis

The core of the dispute lies in the OSP’s public communication versus the lawyers’ detailed account. The law firm Minkah-Premo, Osei-Bonsu, Bruce-Cathline & Partners, acting for Ofori-Atta, submitted a formal application to INTERPOL’s CCF on June 11, 2025. This challenged the Red Notice’s validity, citing violations of Articles 2 and 3, Ofori-Atta’s right to health, and risks of politically motivated prosecution.

Between September 8 and November 3, 2025, the firm provided additional evidence. On November 17, 2025, INTERPOL removed the notice from its public website. The CCF then notified the lawyers on November 19, 2025, that it had suspended access pending a full legality review—a step described as rare and triggered only by “strong issues of compliance” with INTERPOL’s legal framework.

OSP’s Press Release Breakdown

The OSP’s statement implied a standard procedural redaction for confidentiality during ongoing CCF deliberations. However, the lawyers argue this omitted critical facts: no mere redaction occurred; it was a deliberate blocking after review confirmed unmet publication conditions. This discrepancy, they claim, creates a false narrative of routine process rather than substantive legal victory.

Accusations of Withholding Information

The letter criticizes the OSP for concealing the CCF’s interim decision and the evidence submission timeline, potentially due to “inexperience in putting people on Red Notice or mere malicious desire.” Such omissions, per the attorneys, expose Ofori-Atta to undue harm and undermine transparent international legal processes.

Summary

In summary, Ken Ofori-Atta’s legal team from Minkah-Premo, Osei-Bonsu, Bruce-Cathline & Partners alleges that Ghana’s OSP deceived the public by mischaracterizing the INTERPOL Red Notice’s removal as a temporary redaction. Verifiable timeline: CCF application June 11, 2025; evidence up to November 3; removal November 17; CCF suspension notice November 19. The OSP is urged to correct its “manifestly erroneous” statements amid claims of political persecution.

This case exemplifies tensions between national anti-corruption efforts and INTERPOL’s neutrality rules, offering insights for searches on “INTERPOL Red Notice redaction vs removal” and OSP accountability.

Key Points

Practical Advice

For individuals or lawyers facing an INTERPOL Red Notice, follow these evidence-based steps drawn from INTERPOL’s official processes:

Step 1: File a CCF Challenge

Submit a formal request to the Commission for the Control of Files within 20 days of publication awareness, detailing violations like Article 3 (non-political nature) or human rights issues. Include medical evidence for health claims, as in Ofori-Atta’s case.

Step 2: Gather Supporting Documentation

Provide timelines, political context proof, and legal opinions. Ofori-Atta’s team supplemented initially with further evidence over months.

Step 3: Monitor Public Database

Check INTERPOL’s public site regularly; removal or suspension signals progress, as seen on November 17, 2025.

Step 4: Engage National Authorities

Demand transparency from requesting bodies like Ghana’s OSP to prevent misleading statements.

These steps, verifiable via INTERPOL’s website, empower proactive defense against improper notices.

Points of Caution

Navigating INTERPOL Red Notice disputes requires vigilance:

• Misinformation Risks: Public statements like OSP’s can damage reputations; always verify via CCF notifications.
• Health and Timing: Ofori-Atta was reportedly undergoing U.S. surgery; threats of repatriation during medical treatment raise ethical flags.
• Political Bias Claims: Allegations of persecution must be substantiated to avoid dismissal.
• Interim vs Final: Suspensions are not final deletions; full reviews can take months.

Counsel caution against assuming routine processes without official CCF confirmation.

Comparison

OSP’s Version vs. Lawyers’ Account

This side-by-side reveals stark contrasts, fueling “OSP deceived public” allegations.

Legal Implications

INTERPOL’s rules are binding: Article 2 requires actions respecting human rights; Article 3 bans interventions in political, military, religious, or racial matters. Breaches can lead to notice deletion or suspension, as here.

Human Rights Angle

Ofori-Atta’s lawyers cited health rights and political motivation, aligning with INTERPOL’s human rights framework. OSP threats during U.S. surgery could implicate disregard for medical rights under international norms.

Ghanaian Context

As Ghana’s anti-corruption body, OSP must ensure requests comply with INTERPOL standards. Misrepresentations may erode credibility and invite CCF scrutiny on future notices.

No court rulings yet; implications hinge on ongoing CCF review.

Conclusion

The lawyers’ allegations against the OSP underscore the importance of accuracy in high-stakes international notices. Ken Ofori-Atta’s Red Notice suspension via CCF action marks a significant procedural win, challenging the “redaction” narrative. This case educates on INTERPOL mechanisms, urging transparency from bodies like Ghana’s OSP. As the full review proceeds, it remains a benchmark for “INTERPOL Red Notice challenges Ghana” and political accountability.

Stay informed: Developments could reshape OSP-INTERPOL relations.

FAQ