Selective Justice or Political Theatre? The Inconsistencies We Refuse to Address

Sedinam Tamakloe’s case is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of record. She was charged, tried, and convicted by a Ghanaian court for her role in the GYEEDA scandal, a case involving the misapplication of millions of cedis of public funds meant for youth employment programmes. In July 2017, the High Court found her guilty on multiple counts, including causing financial loss to the state, and sentenced her to ten years in prison. At the time of judgment, she was already outside the jurisdiction of Ghana, reportedly residing in the United States. The court proceeded in her absence because she had been duly notified and had chosen not to appear. That conviction still stands.

Ken Ofori-Atta’s situation is fundamentally different. He has not been charged with any criminal offence. He has not been arraigned before any court. There has been no trial, no findings of fact, and no judgment. What exists are allegations, political statements, and claims of wrongdoing repeated in public spaces. From a legal standpoint, he remains a suspect at best, not an accused person, and certainly not a convicted one.

This contrast matters. In Sedinam’s case, the state gathered evidence, filed charges, prosecuted the matter, and secured a conviction. In Ken Ofori-Atta’s case, the same state actors insist they have evidence yet have not taken the most basic step required by law, which is to file charges in court. Instead, the country is treated to a daily media trial, with conclusions already drawn and guilt assumed.

Those who argue that Ken Ofori-Atta cannot be tried unless he returns to Ghana are ignoring both law and precedent. Ghanaian courts have already demonstrated that physical presence is not an absolute requirement when a defendant has been properly notified and deliberately stays away. Sedinam’s conviction in absentia confirms this. If the evidence against Ken is as strong as claimed, nothing prevents the Attorney General from initiating prosecution and allowing the court to determine the matter.

The extradition argument further exposes the weakness of the current posture. Extradition processes are built around formal judicial outcomes. Countries cooperate more readily when there is a conviction or at least an active prosecution supported by court documents. Sedinam’s case meets that threshold. She has been convicted and sentenced. Pursuing her extradition should therefore be more straightforward and defensible before United States authorities. Yet there is little sustained pressure or visible urgency to secure her return.

Ironically, securing Sedinam’s extradition would strengthen Ghana’s hand in any future extradition effort involving Ken Ofori-Atta, should he ever be charged and convicted. It would show consistency, seriousness, and respect for due process. Instead, the reverse approach is being taken, loud accusations first, legal action later or perhaps never.

Some suggest that public pressure is meant to force Ken Ofori-Atta back into the country. That argument collapses under scrutiny. The law does not rely on public outrage to function. Courts do not need hashtags to assume jurisdiction. If public pressure were effective, Sedinam would not still be abroad years after her conviction.

The most troubling claim is that the state has evidence but cannot act until Ken returns. Evidence does not become unusable because a suspect travels. Jurisdiction does not disappear because someone seeks medical care or stays abroad. Either the evidence meets prosecutorial standards or it does not. Maintaining this ambiguity only feeds the perception that the issue is political, not legal.

What we are witnessing is selective outrage and selective application of principles. A convicted person remains outside the country with minimal public noise, while an uncharged individual is treated as though judgment has already been passed. That is not how justice works in any serious democracy.

Until the same legal standards are applied across all cases, regardless of party, personality, or public sentiment, the fixation on Ken Ofori-Atta will continue to look less like a fight against corruption and more like a personal and political vendetta dressed up as accountability.

By Victor Raul Puobabangna Plance from Eggu in the Upper West Region of Ghana

#Puobabangna