The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) has clarified that the issue of whether former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta can be tried in absentia has not yet arisen, stressing that the constitutional requirements have not been satisfied since formal service of charges has not been completed.
In an explainer, the OSP’s Director of Strategy, Research, and Communications, Sammy Darko, underscored that the legal framework for trial in absentia is narrowly defined and only begins once an accused person has been properly charged and officially served under constitutional procedures.
He described the current public debate as premature.
“Trial in absentia is not triggered by the mere filing of charges,” Darko said. “It is triggered when a person who has been properly charged and properly notified of the proceedings refuses to come before the court.”
Citing Article 19(3) of the Constitution, Darko explained that a person may only be tried in absentia if they have first been “duly notified” of the proceedings and either decline to appear or make their attendance impossible.
He emphasized that “duly notified” requires strict adherence to legal service protocols and cannot be fulfilled through informal 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 said.
According to him, in the Ofori-Atta matter, although charges have been filed and court approval secured to serve the documents in the United States, the process remains incomplete because proof of service has not yet been returned to Ghana through official channels.
“At this stage, what remains is proof that the documents have been served,” he noted, adding that only after verified service and a failure to appear can a court consider proceeding in absentia.
Darko further indicated that once proof of service is filed, the court must still provide the accused with a reasonable opportunity to appear before any additional steps are taken.
Separately, he pointed out that proceedings are also influenced by a pending Supreme Court review of aspects of the OSP’s prosecutorial powers, introducing another layer of legal uncertainty.
Leave a Reply