A growing political and legal controversy is unfolding in Ghana following comments and actions involving prominent political figures and legal procedures surrounding trial in absentia.
In a studio discussion on Kessben Maakye today, Nana Frimpong Ziega, the resident analyst – Kessben Maakye, questioned remarks attributed to Kissi Agyabeng, Ghana’s Special Prosecutor, who suggested that former Finance Minister, Ken Ofori Atta, could not be tried in absentia because he had not been formally charged or served. This position has sparked debate, especially in light of past cases where similar legal measures were applied.
According to Ziega, the case of Madam Sedinam Tamakloe, former Chief Executive officer (CEO) of Microfinance And Small Loans Center, (MASLOC ) who is now being extradicted from the United States of America to face her ten years sentence, was tried in absentia, arguing that precedent exists and should be applied consistently.
He questioned why the same legal standard cannot be enforced in Ofori Atta’s situation, particularly when he has reportedly failed to honor multiple court summons.
According to legal provisions under Article 19(3) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, individuals charged with a criminal offense are entitled to a fair hearing, Ziega noted.
However, legal experts note that trial in absentia may be permissible under specific circumstances, particularly when a defendant deliberately refuses to appear before the court.
Further reference was made to the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, C.I. 47, which outline conditions under which proceedings may continue despite the absence of a party.
This has raised additional questions about whether due process was adequately followed, especially during Ofori Atta’s periods of detention under ICE arrangements. In lieu of this, the analyst argued that Kissi Agyabeng must be dismissed as soon as Sedinam touches ground because he seems to be playing with the minds of Ghanaians.
Meanwhile, observers are calling for clarity and consistency in the application of the law, emphasizing that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.
The unfolding developments continue to attract public interest, as citizens and stakeholders closely monitor how the legal system navigates the complex intersection of law and politics.
