Red Notice Cancellation: OSP Official Challenges Ofori-Atta Attorneys’ Claims

Introduction

A significant legal and diplomatic dispute has emerged following the cancellation of an INTERPOL Red Notice for former Ghanaian Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta. The conflict centers on the characterization of INTERPOL’s decision, pitting the narrative of his legal team against the public rebuttal from a senior official within Ghana’s Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP). This case serves as a critical real-world example of the complex interplay between national investigations, international law enforcement mechanisms like INTERPOL, and the high-stakes arena of public legal communication. Understanding the nuances requires a clear examination of what a Red Notice is, the strict rules governing its use, the specific legal context in Ghana, and the substantive disagreement over the interpretation of INTERPOL’s administrative action. This article provides a comprehensive, fact-based breakdown of the situation, its background, and its broader implications for international legal cooperation and political accountability.

Key Points

Background

To understand the significance of this public clash, one must first grasp the mechanisms of INTERPOL and the domestic legal proceedings that triggered this international dimension.

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 person pending extradition, surrender, or similar legal action.” It is a tool for international police cooperation, disseminated through INTERPOL’s secure global information system. Crucially, Red Notices are subject to INTERPOL’s stringent rules on data processing, which mandate strict neutrality and prohibit any involvement in matters of a political nature (per Article 3 of its Constitution). The Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF) is an independent, judicial-type body that reviews the compliance of information in INTERPOL’s databases, including Red Notices, with these rules. Individuals can challenge the validity of a Red Notice directly before the CCF.

INTERPOL’s Political Neutrality Rule

The cornerstone of INTERPOL’s operational integrity is its absolute neutrality. Article 3 of INTERPOL’s Constitution explicitly states: “It is strictly forbidden for the Organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.” This rule is interpreted broadly. A Red Notice may be deemed “political” if the underlying investigation is perceived as being initiated or pursued for reasons of political persecution, discrimination, or if the requesting country’s judicial system lacks independence. The CCF’s review process examines whether the facts provided by the requesting National Central Bureau (NCB) present a genuine ordinary law crime or if the predominant character is political.

The Ghanaian Context: OSP Investigation and Extradition

The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) is an independent Ghanaian institution established to investigate and prosecute specific high-level corruption and corruption-related offences. Its investigation into Mr. Ofori-Atta pertains to his period as Finance Minister (2017-2024), focusing on alleged financial and procurement irregularities. This domestic investigation led the Ghanaian NCB (part of the Ghana Police Service) to request a Red Notice from INTERPOL to secure his location and provisional arrest abroad.

Separately, following his arrest in the United States on January 6, 2024, on visa-related charges, extradition proceedings were initiated. U.S. extradition law, governed by the bilateral treaty between the U.S. and Ghana and the U.S. Extradition Act, requires a judicial hearing to determine if there is probable cause to believe the person committed the offense and if the offense is dual-criminal (a crime in both countries). The operational purpose of a Red Notice—to alert authorities and seek provisional arrest—was arguably fulfilled upon his U.S. arrest. The extradition process itself is a separate, lengthy judicial procedure that continues independently of INTERPOL’s administrative file management.

Analysis

The crux of the current public dispute is not the deletion itself—a routine administrative outcome when a notice is found non-compliant—but the interpretation and spin placed on that deletion by the parties involved.

The Attorneys’ Claim: A Finding of “Political Persecution”

Ofori-Atta’s lead counsel, Justice Kusi-Minkah Premo, issued a statement announcing the deletion. The statement attributed a specific, forceful conclusion to the CCF: that the Red Notice “appears of a predominantly political character” and that INTERPOL “does not endorse political persecution.” This language is powerful. It frames the OSP’s entire investigation as politically motivated from an international perspective, potentially undermining its legitimacy and casting Ofori-Atta as a victim of persecution rather than a suspect. The statement quoted the CCF as saying the data from Ghana’s NCB “were not compliant with INTERPOL’s regulations.” This is a standard finding for a deletion, but the attorneys’ framing elevates it to a judgment on the nature of the case.

The OSP’s Rebuttal: A Demand for Documentary Evidence

Samuel Darko, Director of Strategy, Research, and Communication at the OSP, responded on Facebook with a piercingly simple question: “Can someone ask Mr. Ofori Atta’s lawyers for me: which page or paragraph is the quote they attributed to Interpol verbatim be found or they can explain?” This is a classic rhetorical and legal tactic. Darko is not necessarily denying the deletion but is challenging the accuracy and sourcing of the attorneys’ specific quotation. He implies the attorneys may be extrapolating a general legal conclusion (non-compliance) into a more dramatic, specific finding (political persecution) that INTERPOL’s CCF may not have explicitly stated in those terms. The CCF’s decisions are typically concise and focused on legal compliance, not on making broad pronouncements on national politics. Darko’s query seeks to force a clarification: Is this a direct quote from the CCF’s decision, or a lawyer’s characterization? The distinction is critical for public perception and legal record.

Legal Significance of the Deletion vs. the Underlying Case

It is paramount to separate two distinct legal realities:

1. The Status of the INTERPOL Alert: The Red Notice is now permanently deleted from INTERPOL’s system. This means INTERPOL will no longer circulate the alert or assist in his provisional arrest based on that specific request. Other INTERPOL member countries, upon checking, will see no active notice.
2. The Status of National Proceedings: The deletion does not dismiss or stay the OSP’s criminal investigation in Ghana. The OSP can continue its evidence gathering, analysis, and potential prosecution in Ghanaian courts. Furthermore, the U.S. extradition proceedings are governed by U.S. federal law and the extradition treaty. The U.S. court will examine the evidence provided by Ghana under the “probable cause” and “dual criminality” standards. The INTERPOL CCF’s finding on the notice’s political character may be raised as an argument by Ofori-Atta’s U.S. legal team to contest extradition, but it is not binding on the U.S. judicial authority. The U.S. judge will make an independent determination based on the treaty and U.S. law.

This separation is why the OSP can maintain its investigative posture while INTERPOL corrects a procedural defect in how the request was formulated or supported.

Practical Advice

This high-profile clash offers lessons for various stakeholders in the realm of international law and public legal strategy.

For Individuals Subject to International Alerts

If you are the subject of a Red Notice, understand that:

• Challenging the Notice: You have the right to submit a challenge directly to INTERPOL’s CCF, arguing non-compliance with INTERPOL’s rules (e.g., political character, lack of sufficient detail, human rights concerns). Legal counsel specializing in international criminal law and INTERPOL procedures is essential.
• Deletion is Not Acquittal: A successful challenge resulting in deletion only removes the international alert. It does not invalidate a national arrest warrant or stop a domestic prosecution. You must still address the underlying charges in the requesting country’s courts or through diplomatic/extradition channels.
• Public Statements: Be wary of how legal victories are framed. A technical procedural win (deletion for non-compliance) is different from a substantive finding of innocence or a judgment of political persecution. Scrutinize the exact language from the deciding body (the CCF).

For Legal Practitioners andCommunications Teams

When announcing outcomes from international bodies:

• Quote Precisely: Always provide the exact citation (page, paragraph) from the official decision. Characterizations, even if logically derived, can be contested and damage credibility if they misrepresent the tribunal’s language.
• Distinguish Procedure from Substance: Clearly separate the outcome of an administrative or procedural review (the Red Notice was deleted) from the status of the substantive criminal case (investigation ongoing). Overstating the impact of a procedural win can lead to public confusion and strategic errors.
• Anticipate Counter-Narratives: Opposing counsel will exploit any ambiguity. Draft press releases with precision to leave no room for a “which page?” challenge.

For Governments and Law Enforcement Agencies

When requesting Red Notices:

• Rigorous Internal Review: Ensure requests are meticulously crafted, fully supported by evidence that demonstrates the ordinary law nature of the crime, and free from any indicia of political motivation. The requesting NCB bears the burden of initial compliance.
• Prepare for CCF Scrutiny: Anticipate that the CCF will examine the file for neutrality and procedural correctness. Inadequate or politically charged submissions will lead to deletion, damaging international credibility and potentially hindering future cooperation.
• Coordinate Communications: Align public statements with the technical reality of INTERPOL’s decisions. If a notice is deleted on procedural grounds, official responses should reflect that nuance to maintain the integrity of the ongoing domestic case.

FAQ