The Head of Chambers at The Law Office of Clinton Consultancy, Amanda Clinton, has called for greater adherence to constitutional safeguards in Ghana’s extradition process following the transfer of Ghanaian national Frederick Kumi, popularly known as Abu Trica, to the United States to face charges of alleged wire fraud and money laundering.
While emphasising that Ghana must continue to cooperate with international efforts to combat transnational crime, Ms Clinton argued that such cooperation should never come at the expense of the due process guarantees enshrined in the country’s Constitution and extradition laws.
In an article on Saturday, July 11, titled “A Ghanaian Passport Must Mean Something”, she maintained that every Ghanaian citizen, irrespective of the allegations levelled against them, was entitled to the protection of Ghanaian courts before being surrendered to another jurisdiction.
“It must represent more than a travel document. It must signify that every Ghanaian citizen, regardless of the allegations against them, is entitled to the full protection of Ghana’s Constitution, our courts, and the rule of law before being surrendered to another jurisdiction,” she stated.
Due process concerns
Ms Clinton stressed that her concerns were not intended to defend individuals accused of serious offences such as cybercrime, organised crime or international fraud.
“This is not an argument against fighting cybercrime, organised crime or international fraud. Nor is it a defence of anyone accused of those offences. Ghana must never become a refuge for romance fraudsters, money launderers or transnational criminals. If there is a legitimate case to answer, then that case must indeed be answered,” she said.
However, she argued that due process remained a fundamental constitutional principle that should not be sacrificed in the pursuit of international cooperation.
“But there is an equally important principle that cannot be sacrificed in the pursuit of international cooperation: due process,” she added.
According to her, recent developments had raised questions about whether Ghana was preserving the integrity of its extradition system or allowing it to become “little more than an administrative conveyor belt for foreign prosecutions”.
Ms Clinton acknowledged the importance of collaboration between Ghana and the United States in tackling cybercrime and other transnational offences.
She referred to the Attorney-General’s visit to Washington on June 17, during which United States officials commended Ghana’s cooperation on extradition matters.
According to her, American officials had noted that Ghana had carried out nine extraditions within a year under the current administration, describing the achievement as “extraordinary”.
While welcoming such cooperation, she cautioned against what she described as unquestioning compliance.
“International cooperation deserves praise. Automatic compliance does not,” she stated.
She further argued that the same American officials who praised Ghana’s collaboration also emphasised the importance of the rule of law.
“That commitment cannot operate only when it benefits foreign prosecutors. It must also require unwavering respect for Ghana’s own legal processes,” she said.
‘What was the rush?’
A central concern raised by Ms Clinton relates to the timing of Mr Kumi’s extradition.
She contended that if the accused had been committed to prison on July 2 pending surrender, Ghana’s Extradition Act provided a statutory period within which a habeas corpus application could be filed.
“By any reasonable calculation, that protection extended until 17 July. Yet by 10 July, the accused had already appeared before a United States federal court and entered a plea of not guilty,” she stated.
She questioned the urgency surrounding the extradition.
“The obvious question is one that has still not been adequately answered. What was the rush?” she asked.
According to her, waiting until the expiry of the statutory period would not have prevented the extradition if all legal requirements had been satisfied.
“Waiting until 17 July would not have prevented extradition if the legal requirements were ultimately satisfied. A judge would simply have been given the opportunity to determine whether the detention and surrender complied fully with Ghanaian law. If the application failed, the extradition could still have proceeded. That is precisely how due process is supposed to work,” she argued.
Constitutional safeguards
The legal practitioner described due process as a cornerstone of constitutional democracy rather than an obstacle to international law enforcement.
“Due process is not an inconvenience to be bypassed when international pressure intensifies. It is the very mechanism that distinguishes constitutional democracies from systems governed by executive discretion,” she said.
She noted that extradition represented one of the most intrusive powers exercised by a state over its citizens because, once surrendered to another country, the protection afforded by Ghanaian courts effectively ceased.
“That moment should never arrive before every safeguard provided by Ghanaian law has been exhausted,” she stressed.
Drawing comparisons with other jurisdictions, Ms Clinton observed that extradition proceedings in countries such as the United States and several European nations often involve extensive judicial scrutiny and multiple procedural safeguards before an individual is surrendered.
She questioned why Ghana should adopt what she considered a lower standard.
“Why should Ghana adopt a lower standard for its own citizens than many other democracies apply to theirs?” she asked.
Beyond the legal questions, Ms Clinton said the debate touched on Ghana’s sovereignty and national dignity.
“A sovereign nation is not measured by how quickly it complies with requests from powerful allies. It is measured by how faithfully it upholds its own Constitution while honouring its international obligations,” she stated.
She maintained that effective international cooperation and strict observance of domestic legal procedures were compatible objectives.
“Ghana can be an effective partner in combating global crime while insisting that every extradition complies meticulously with Ghanaian law. In fact, insisting upon proper judicial process strengthens international cooperation because it reinforces confidence that extraditions are grounded in law rather than expediency,” she said.
She also cautioned that no diplomatic engagement should create the perception that Ghana’s judicial processes could be accelerated to satisfy foreign expectations.
“Justice must never appear negotiable,” she stated.
Concluding her statement, Ms Clinton said every extradition should be assessed against three fundamental questions:
“Was the law followed?
Were judicial safeguards fully respected?
Can every Ghanaian citizen have confidence that their passport still carries the protection of the Republic before they are placed on a plane to face justice elsewhere?”
She argued that if uncertainty remained regarding any of those questions, Ghana should pause before proceeding.
“If the answer to any of those questions is uncertain, then Ghana must pause. Because a Ghanaian passport must mean something. And so must Ghana’s sovereignty,” she concluded.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
