Former Tamale Central Member of Parliament (MP) and lawyer, Inusah Fuseini, has asserted that a United States (US) immigration judge lacked the legal authority to make definitive statements regarding the criminal case involving former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta in Ghana. Mr. Fuseini's comments follow a US immigration judge's ruling that documents presented did not offer sufficient evidence from Ghana’s Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) to link Mr. Ofori-Atta to criminal wrongdoing. This finding ultimately facilitated the approval of Mr. Ofori-Atta’s application for lawful permanent residence, commonly known as a green card, in the United States.
Mr. Fuseini, speaking on JoyNews' Newsfile on Saturday, July 25, maintained that the US judge's mandate was strictly limited to evaluating whether the former minister qualified to adjust his immigration status. This assessment occurred after Mr. Ofori-Atta's permission to remain in the United States had expired. He explained that Mr. Ofori-Atta’s legal team submitted affidavit evidence, including material from the OSP, solely to support the immigration application. This submission was not intended for the US court to determine the merits of criminal allegations still pending before Ghanaian courts.
The former MP stressed that criminal jurisdiction is territorial, meaning a country's courts generally only have authority over crimes committed within its borders. He argued that the US court, therefore, had no legitimate authority over criminal proceedings taking place in Ghana. Mr. Fuseini clarified that countries only assume jurisdiction over criminal matters outside their territories through specific international agreements or treaties. He cited the International Criminal Court (ICC) as an example where states have voluntarily accepted such jurisdiction, noting that the United States itself does not subscribe to the ICC framework.
Mr. Fuseini firmly stated, “For a judge who is simply sitting down looking at whether or not someone qualifies to adjust his immigration status to make conclusive findings on criminal matters pending before Ghanaian courts is totally, totally out of jurisdiction.” He reiterated that the US immigration judge was only required to assess issues directly relevant to immigration status. The judge was not tasked with determining whether Mr. Ofori-Atta had committed any criminal offense in Ghana. This distinction is crucial for understanding the boundaries of international legal authority.
This situation underscores the ongoing debate about the reach of national legal systems in an increasingly interconnected world. The OSP has previously insisted that Mr. Ofori-Atta remains a fugitive from justice in Ghana despite the US court ruling. This divergence in legal interpretations and outcomes highlights potential diplomatic and legal complexities. Ghanaian authorities will likely continue to pursue their investigations and legal processes independently of the US immigration decision. The implications for Mr. Ofori-Atta's legal standing in Ghana remain unchanged by the US immigration court's findings on the criminal allegations.