Before We Accept the Claims About Ken Ofori-Atta’s U.S. Immigration Case, Let Us Read the Judgment

A recent Graphic Online report on statements by lawyers for former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta has generated considerable public interest. According to counsel, a United States Immigration Court found the criminal charges pending against Mr. Ofori-Atta in Ghana to be “not credible,” a conclusion said to have contributed to the approval of his permanent residency application.

It is a striking claim. In an age where legal decisions rapidly become political narratives, a technical immigration ruling can easily be transformed into a broader commentary on the credibility of domestic institutions. Before that narrative hardens into accepted fact, however, one simple question deserves an answer:

Where is the judgment?
There is a vital distinction between what a court decides and what others say the court decided. That distinction is more than legal formality; it is the cornerstone of responsible public discourse. Advocacy, however persuasive, is not evidence.

Graphic Online properly reported the position of Mr. Ofori-Atta’s lawyers. That is the role of responsible journalism. But there remains an important difference between counsel’s interpretation of a judicial decision and the words of the court itself. One is advocacy; the other is adjudication.

To date, the written judgment has not been placed in the public domain. Without it, no independent observer can determine whether the court expressly found the Ghanaian charges “not credible” or merely concluded that Mr. Ofori-Atta met the statutory requirements for permanent residency under U.S. immigration law.

The distinction is significant.
Immigration courts exist to interpret and apply American immigration law. In carrying out that function, they may consider allegations or legal proceedings from other jurisdictions. But consideration is not adjudication. Evaluating foreign allegations for immigration purposes is not the same as pronouncing upon the validity of another country’s criminal process. To suggest otherwise risks attributing to the court a conclusion it may never have reached.

This is not about defending or condemning Ken Ofori-Atta. Nor is it about prejudging Ghana’s prosecutorial authorities. It is about fidelity to evidence. If the court indeed found the charges “not credible,” then the judgment should be released so the public can examine its reasoning. If it did not, then intellectual honesty requires that the decision be described in terms that faithfully reflect what the court actually held.

A grant of permanent residency is not a criminal acquittal. A lawyer’s submission is not a judicial ruling. And repetition, however confident, cannot substitute for documentary proof.

In every society governed by the rule of law, courts speak through their judgments—not through press statements, legal arguments or public commentary.

Until the judgment itself is made available, the most important question remains the simplest:

Where is the judgment?
About the Author
Seth Kwame Awuku is the Principal and Founder of Sovereign Advisory Co. Ltd., Takoradi. He holds an LL.B, a B.A. (Hons) in Political Science, and is an M.A. candidate in Legislative Drafting. A former immigration and refugee law practitioner in Canada, he writes on constitutionalism, governance, and public policy.

Email: [email protected]