How Amidu’s Defense Of Ofori-Atta Questions His Integrity As A Former Special Prosecutor

Many Ghanaians admired Martin A.B.K. Amidu for the boldness he displayed when he resigned as a special prosecutor. He claimed that President Akufo-Addo was obstructing his work and preventing him from prosecuting corrupt officials within the New Patriotic Party (NPP). His famous description of Akufo-Addo as the “mother serpent of corruption” convinced many Ghanaians, including myself, that he was a man of rare courage who valued justice above political loyalty. I even wrote articles praising him for taking such a principled stand.

However, his recent publication titled “The Continued Political Witch-Hunt Against Ken Ofori-Atta In The Media Is Nauseating” has forced me to confront a painful truth: perhaps I was wrong about him. This is not the first time I have been convinced that Amidu is not sincere. The tone, arguments, and emotional energy he invested in defending Ken Ofori-Atta, a former finance minister widely associated with financial mismanagement, conflict of interest, and questionable dealings, raise serious questions about his integrity as a former special prosecutor.

The article does not read like the work of a man committed to justice. It reads like the work of someone protecting a political ally. Amidu’s article contradicts the very foundation of the image he built for himself. A man who claimed he resigned because he was prevented from prosecuting corrupt NPP officials now passionately defends one of the most controversial figures in the Akufo-Addo administration.

Instead of acknowledging the legitimate concerns raised by civil society, the media, and ordinary Ghanaians about Ofori-Atta’s stewardship of the economy, Amidu reframes everything as a political witch-hunt. This is not the language of a neutral anti-corruption advocate. It is the language of someone who has chosen a side. No political failure can transform a crime into innocence.

Amidu has no basis to defend wrongdoing simply because the NDC did not pursue accountability. The contradictions become even more troubling when one considers the seriousness of the allegations surrounding Ofori-Atta. Under his leadership, Ghana’s debt ballooned to unprecedented levels, the banking sector collapsed, and Databank, his private company, benefited from government bond transactions.

These issues are not inventions of political opponents; they are documented realities that affected millions of Ghanaians. Yet Amidu’s article glosses over them entirely, focusing instead on technicalities such as immigration proceedings and INTERPOL notices. None of these foreign processes absolve Ofori-Atta of accountability in Ghana, and Amidu knows this better than anyone.

By choosing to defend Ofori-Atta so vigorously, Amidu inadvertently reveals a pattern of selective justice. He attacks civil society organizations for demanding accountability. He accuses the media of bias for reporting on corruption allegations. He portrays Ofori-Atta as a victim rather than someone who must answer the law.

These positions do not align with the principles of fairness, transparency, and impartiality that a special prosecutor is expected to uphold. Instead, they suggest sympathy, bias, and a willingness to protect certain individuals while condemning others. This raises a difficult but necessary question: if Amidu can defend Ofori-Atta today, what else did he overlook, ignore, or excuse during his tenure as special prosecutor?

His article makes it difficult to believe that he resigned purely out of frustration with presidential interference. A more convincing interpretation is that he saw the corruption within the government, did not benefit from it, and walked away, only to later defend the same individuals he once claimed were shielded by the “mother serpent of corruption.”

His own words have now become the strongest evidence against him. The man who once positioned himself as a fearless crusader against corruption now appears to be aiding, abetting, and rationalizing the very crimes he claimed to oppose. His article does not strengthen his legacy; it weakens it. It does not reinforce his credibility; it erodes it. It does not portray him as a principled defender of justice; it exposes him as a man whose motivations may not have been as pure as many of us once believed.

Martin Amidu’s article defending Ken Ofori-Atta has fundamentally damaged his credibility as a former Special Prosecutor. It exposes contradictions in his public posture and raises legitimate questions about his integrity, impartiality, and motivations. After writing such an article, it becomes extremely difficult for him to convince Ghanaians that he resigned because Akufo-Addo obstructed his work.

His own writing has now made it nearly impossible for him to reclaim the moral high ground he once occupied.