Ken Ofori-Atta cannot be tried in absentia until properly served with proof – OSP
The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) has clarified that discussions about trying former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta in absentia are premature, insisting that the legal requirements for such proceedings have not yet been satisfied.
According to the OSP, the issue of a trial in absentia can only arise after an accused person has been formally served with court processes and given adequate notice of the proceedings in accordance with constitutional requirements.
Speaking in an explainer on the matter, the OSP's Director of Strategy, Research and Communications, Sammy Darko, stated that although charges have been filed against Mr. Ofori-Atta, the process has not advanced to the stage where a court can consider hearing the case in his absence.
“Trial in absentia is not triggered by the mere filing of charges,” Mr. Darko explained. “It is triggered when a person who has been properly charged and properly notified of the proceedings refuses to come before the court.”
He noted that Article 19(3) of the Constitution permits a trial in absentia only when an accused person has been duly notified of the proceedings and subsequently fails to appear or deliberately makes his or her attendance impossible.
Mr. Darko stressed that the constitutional requirement of being “duly notified” involves strict legal service procedures and cannot be fulfilled through informal means of communication.
“It does not mean notification through social media. It does not mean a phone call. It does not mean merely informing the person's lawyers,” he stated.
He explained that while the OSP has secured court approval to serve court documents on Mr. Ofori-Atta in the United States, the process remains incomplete because official proof of service has not yet been returned through the appropriate legal channels.
“At this stage, what remains is proof that the documents have been served,” he said.
According to him, only after verified proof of service has been filed and the accused person subsequently fails to appear before the court can the question of proceeding in absentia arise.
Mr. Darko further indicated that even after proof of service is established, the court must still provide the accused with a reasonable opportunity to respond to the charges and appear before any additional legal steps are taken.
He also disclosed that the matter is complicated by a separate case currently before the Supreme Court concerning aspects of the OSP's prosecutorial authority, which could have implications for the proceedings.
The clarification comes amid growing public debate over the status of the case involving the former Finance Minister and whether legal proceedings could continue in his absence.