Ken Ofori-Atta Extradition: Is the Attorney General Chasing a Lost Cause? | Matters Arising

[00:00:00]Well, let me welcome my guest to the show. But remember that the AMU review is sponsored by Syntax Pipes and Pegasus Publishing.

[00:00:09]With us today is Wander Victor Couto, Esq., a board member of the Volta River Authority and a member of the National Executive Committee of the NDC, who is vying for the position of Deputy National Public Relations Officer of the NDC. I'm right, right?

[00:00:26]Aha. People tell me you'll win, I don't know, but they say you're winning for sure.

[00:00:30]Little by little, I am a man of the people.

[00:00:32]Experience is the main thing.

[00:00:34]Experience is the key.

[00:00:35]As of now, the term of office of the national leadership was four years.

[00:00:38]I ran for a position in the national leadership. By the grace of God, I took first place.

[00:00:43]Of course.

[00:00:43]And I am proud to have served as a branch organizer and deputy executive director of the board. So we went through all the steps, and experience is key.

[00:00:51]Yes, that's why I didn't immediately go for the position of national officer. Experience, experience and the right moment.

[00:00:57]Good. Is that all?

[00:01:01]It was Wander Victor Couto. And also with us is Professor Smart Sapong, a senior research fellow at the Kumasi University of Technology.

[00:01:08]Professor and researcher with extensive experience.

[00:01:11]Professor, good morning.

[00:01:12]Yes, sir.

[00:01:13]I hope you are well.

[00:01:14]Everything is fine.

[00:01:15]Good.

[00:01:16]Perfectly.

[00:01:16]Maybe we'll come here someday. Let's add something else to the name.

[00:01:20]Yes.

[00:01:21]On Zoom. With us is Dr. Asanti, Head of the Department of European Studies at the University of Ghana. Professor, good morning to you.

[00:01:28]Good morning.

[00:01:29]Good morning, Gujo.

[00:01:30]And good morning to my friends in the studio and of course to my country Ghana.

[00:01:34]OK. Thank you for coming, and good morning to you, our viewer. You are our VIP. Without you, this show wouldn't exist. Today we have a whole bunch of topics: is the search for Ages' extradition a futile endeavor, going beyond the gamut, and after Vondumi—who's next?

[00:01:56]Public Tribunal : A Frightening Reality or Much Ado About Nothing? And public order violations: police raids on sirens, 1,754 cars seized in Greater Accra and the Western Region.

[00:02:10]Okay, let's start with whether the search for Ages' extradition is a futile endeavor.

[00:02:16]Vander, I'll start with you.

[00:02:18]Yes.

[00:02:21]I'm sure you've read the US court ruling that essentially says that the charges against him are baseless and there is no indication that he committed any wrongdoing.

[00:02:34]We ask: is this a futile endeavor? OSP still says charges are pending against him.

[00:02:42]Thank you very much, good morning to Mr. Sapong, Dr. Sapong, our esteemed Professor Sapong and our... And then, Doctor, that's right, and then our dear viewers.

[00:02:57]There are two elements to the issue you raised. We must first consider the case that was before the American judge. The case before the American judge had nothing to do with the crime or charges brought against our former finance minister. Nothing. It was simply an immigration matter regarding adjustment of status.

[00:03:18]Status adjustment.

[00:03:20]Now ask yourself what the requirements are.

[00:03:24]If you want to change your status, what are the necessary conditions?

[00:03:27]So, if you're in the US, of course, since you're already there, you don't go through what we call consular clearance, you go through adjustment of status.

[00:03:39]If you are doing this through marriage, then it must be clear that the marriage was entered into in good faith. If your son, as I understand in the case of the former Minister of Finance, filed the documents on his behalf, if the processes are followed and executed, there would be no reason to deny him this opportunity. However, the US Department of State, when considering whether to approve an applicant's application for change of status, also checks the applicant's criminal history.

[00:04:18]Yes.

[00:04:19]Applicants.

[00:04:23]So you understand what the judge was thinking.

[00:04:25]Yes. As of now, according to our laws, Ken is considered who? An innocent person, according to Article 19.

[00:04:38]He has not been found guilty by any court.

[00:04:46]So the judge probably saw no reason why he should be charged with a crime. And, to be honest, he was n't even tried. Yes, even in absentia. He was not on trial. So, the judge's statement was solely about immigration issues, and as an immigration attorney, I know that when considering such applications, the criminal history of the applicants is taken into account. So clearly, if Ofori -Atta has not been found guilty of any crime in Ghana, it is okay. He is not the first Ghanaian to receive a permanent residence permit. A permanent resident of the US, because the card they give you is green. That's why it's called a " green card." This is not citizenship. This is not citizenship.

[00:05:41]There are actually rules governing this. If the US itself follows its own rules, you cannot stay outside the US for more than 6 months in a row, after 6 months you have to leave, and come back, sorry, you cannot be absent from the US for more than 6 months if you have a green card. If you leave the US after 6 months, your green card will be checked continuously; you must be in the USA.

[00:06:11]So, on the issue of extradition, we must pay attention to the grounds for refusing an extradition request. This is what we need to consider.

[00:06:29]First, if the offense for which a country requests extradition is political, this may be grounds for refusing such a request, or if it is a war crime, or if the offense involves a human rights violation. If they believe that the person would be persecuted on account of religion, race or political views upon returning to their home country, the extradition request may be rejected.

[00:07:05]But we must ask ourselves: are the issues surrounding the Cenopathies related to persecution on the basis of race, religion, or political views? We have to ask ourselves: this is a man, a former finance minister, who ran the public affairs of this country for almost 8 years, but as you said, they don't run our taxes. You want to investigate, right? OSP says they want him to help with the investigation, right?

[00:07:37]Do you really need his physical presence to ask him the questions you want?

[00:07:45]You see, we need to be honest with ourselves. Good. If we believe in this democracy, if we are to believe in it and respect it, don't you think it's appropriate that the man who ran the taxes...yes, the tax system of this country for almost 8 years should be in the country to account for it?

[00:08:06]In fact, when he left, he left for health reasons. Yes.

[00:08:10]This was recorded in the parliament transcript. A minority even provided a timeline for when the medical treatment, surgery or something similar would be completed and he would return to Ghana because they know the importance of accountability. So what is this? Yes, okay.

[00:08:28]But no, I'm just saying: let's, even from a policy perspective, even if he can be questioned via Zoom and all the technology, let's ask ourselves: from a policy perspective, does the person who managed the resources of this country, who took out a lot of loans or, I mean, managed our country, our taxes, we entrusted him with our finances for 8 years, does this same person not want to come to Ghana even for a day?

[00:08:59]after being dismissed from office, does this make sense, especially since his own MPs, the then majority MPs from the NPP government, about 88 of them, demanded his removal from the ministerial post. You see, but if they demand it, it doesn't mean that a crime has been committed. I'm not...I'm trying to give you the context of whether something is wrong or not. I'm talking about politics and perception.

[00:09:28]If he were doing everything right, if he were managing the economy correctly, would his own deputies demand his removal? And, in fact, this is the first time that majority deputies have demanded the removal of the Minister of Finance in this Fourth Republic, and since he was a protégé of the then president, the president left him in office.

[00:09:49]He destroyed this country. The same Finance Minister told this country that if the E-levy is implemented, Ghana will not approach the IMF. We were told that if the E-levy is adopted, Ghana will not go to the IMF.

[00:10:03]In fact, they insisted on adopting the E-levy. After the reception, they even baked a cake, cut it, and celebrated that our problems were solved.

[00:10:13]Now that E-levy has been adopted, what happened?

[00:10:16]In the end, even after the adoption of the E-levy, they brought us to the IMF.

[00:10:22]They brought us to the IMF. So, if you have a person like that, if you have a person like that who has managed the resources of this country, and you are asked to come and report. Why should you do this?

[00:10:40]But listen to the court.

[00:10:41]Listen to the court. The court says: let me start with what he says: for you.

[00:10:47]And the court also takes into account the fact that the US Department of Justice has had an extradition request from the Ghanaian government for a long time.

[00:11:02]Yet the U.S. Department of Justice has not filed any extradition complaint based on Ghana’s request and the OSP’s demand for prosecution, which the court says is not surprising given that the court’s own review of the OSP affidavit indicates no compelling evidence of criminal wrongdoing on the part of the defendant, and given the removal of the Interpol Red Notice. But this again, the absence of any criminal complaint for extradition purposes suggests that the Department of Justice is also having difficulty... finding any signs of credible allegations of criminal wrongdoing by the defendant. This court is saying that they have examined all the evidence that was provided by the US. They do not see or find any violations. Well, I just told you.

[00:11:54]that any U.S. immigration officer reviewing an application for adjustment of status will check the applicant's criminal history. Basically, this has nothing to do with Holly Kennata. Yes, I have been involved in and filed applications for change of status, adjustment of status for individuals in the US, and I know that criminal profiling is being conducted.

[00:12:20]That is why the court is referring to the document and I have stated here that Ken Fonaka has not been found guilty of any crime in Ghana.

[00:12:27]Yes.

[00:12:28]In fact, according to Article 19 of this Constitution, a person is considered to be what?

[00:12:33]Innocent.

[00:12:34]Innocent until proven guilty for the sake of justice.

[00:12:37]Do you understand what I mean? M- hm. So the judge, obviously reading and considering the OSP affidavit, came to those conclusions, but the issue that concerned the judge was related to the immigration issue, and he took into account the concerns and so on.

[00:12:56]Yes.

[00:12:56]Let's say M-hm. Suppose Ken had been found guilty, properly tried, and sentenced, the judge would not have made such remarks.

[00:13:07]Yes, you get the point.

[00:13:10]But he was not found guilty.

[00:13:13]Yes, you understand. So, read ask his lawyer, his lawyers went to court on the grounds that one of the arguments is political persecution.

[00:13:24]You should, and if you were a judge, you would be worried. Okay, you should be worried that someone who has been in charge of state affairs for 8 years, who has left this country due to ill health, and in fact, the minority leader in parliament, Captain Hazard, has clearly stated the timing of when he will finish the operation or whatever, and when he will return to Ghana. The management stated all this you should be worried that the person who managed the taxes of this country for 8 years is not ready to return for reporting.

[00:13:59]Very soon you will see manifestos of political parties. I'm sure that starting next year, when the political atmosphere seems to intensify, you will see manifestos from political parties. I'm glad he's here; he is one of the MPP committees.

[00:14:12]They put forward manifestos. I am sure that accountability, the fight against corruption, and all that will be reflected in the manifestos of all political parties. It's always there, accountability. So if we don't care that the former finance minister who ran this country's economy is n't ready to come forward and account for his term in office, so be it.

[00:14:36]Good. OK.

[00:14:37]May it be so.

[00:14:38]Good. I'm not saying he's guilty. I mean, he wasn't tried. So no one is saying he is guilty.

[00:14:44]But is this correct from a public policy perspective?

[00:14:49]Okay, this is for someone, and I told you that what's even more concerning is that for the first time in the Fourth Republic, about 88 deputies from the ruling coalition called for his removal from the post of Minister of Finance, and I argue that the only reason he remained in office was because his godfather was the president at the time.

[00:15:11]Good. The MP said that he had failed. He failed, and I have given you evidence of his failure. Yes.

[00:15:18]When he assured us that after the adoption of the E-Levy we would not have to turn to the IMF.

[00:15:23]But after we adopted E-Levy, we celebrated, cut the cake, had parties and so on.

[00:15:30]The government still ended up in the IMF.

[00:15:34]In fact, the last remarks of the then minority in parliament indicated that the MPP government was the only government that started its work with the IMF, and when they left power, they were still with the IMF. When they left the government, they were still receiving support from the IMF.

[00:15:52]OK. Good.

[00:15:54]Thank you very much. Let me invite Dr. Sasanti to join the conversation.

[00:15:57]Doctor, if you read the US court decision, it says...let me start with this. Um, okay. However, the court, based on a review of the evidence, found that the special counsel's office had not presented any evidence in its lengthy affidavit or in the criminal charges to convincingly support any allegations of wrongdoing, criminal or otherwise, by the defendant.

[00:16:27]Instead, the respondent gave convincing evidence and denied that he received anything of value from any party to the OSP investigation to reward or influence his actions as a public servant, or that he personally enriched himself in any way by his actions or status as a government official in Ghana. And they go on to say that they also took into account the KPMG investigation, which showed that there were no funds that illegally went to Fiata. Do you think Ghana or the Attorney General will be able to secure Kenath's extradition to Ghana? Isn't the case already lost?

[00:17:10]Someone is fighting.

[00:17:12]We can sort this out a bit here. By the way, let me find out.

[00:17:17]Has he been charged? Have charges been filed?

[00:17:22]I think there is a lawyer in the cases they sent. Yes, he was accused on behalf of the agency. Yes.

[00:17:29]Yes. It was done.

[00:17:30]Yes.

[00:17:31]If he was indicted, and that's what we get from the US.

[00:17:36]Yes.

[00:17:37]Uh, then, you know, lawyers know better.

[00:17:42]But from what I understand, sometimes even when the police charge you, they go to court, they can drop those charges, come and prepare new ones against you and all that.

[00:17:56]In my opinion, every person who has held public office should be held accountable for their actions and inactions. M And if you read the preamble to our constitution, part of it deals with the issue of accountability. Therefore, we are obliged to respond to requests in a timely manner.

[00:18:19]Regardless of whether we are in the country or not.

[00:18:24]I learned from lawyers that you can be tried in absentia. Mhm. Is this option still available to the agency? If there are indeed questions that Morata needs to answer. I believe the agency office should do more to bring all necessary resources to this situation, whether he is here or not, and whether he can be tried in absentia.

[00:19:02]Or, in the case of OSP, can they even use these modern means of communication to interrogate him wherever he is. They should do everything possible to let us know what stage this case is at.

[00:19:23]Because I believe that no matter what, if there are questions, Moraza should be able to answer them. I'm not sure he would say that he's not ready to answer questions, but let's create conditions so that we can get at least some result from this. Ahem. When we can do that, and we can get answers from him, a decision will be made, and we will all know how to proceed.

[00:19:58]From that moment on, this swing becomes something that is hard for me to bear, but, after all, legal processes are not that simple. So I also understand the process, but my opinion is this: no matter what OSP does to bring this matter to its logical conclusion, we are patiently waiting for it. He suggested that he might be available virtually for an interview with OSP, but OSP did not go along with it. When government officials made speeches and said things that even some lawyers said, "No, that could get the guy off the hook because it would be considered harassment." Didn't we then ruin this case through the actions of these government agencies?

[00:20:55]If, if you look at the timeline of issues that have arisen since his case came to light.

[00:21:02]Does this mean that just because of this action the case is worthless from the start? Is that what we're trying to say?

[00:21:10]If there really is a case, if there is a case, I mean, the lawyers know how to get around it.

[00:21:17]So it's a little hard for me to agree with that.

[00:21:20]OK. But, uh, lawyers and prosecutors have ways that, if they really want to get answers to certain inquiries and so on, they should use them, and then let's get to the point, because ultimately, we, the public, have a right to know how this gentleman conducted himself while in office. And let us also remember that we are obliged to ensure that his rights are not violated.

[00:22:02]You know, this delicate balance has to be struck, and that means the special prosecutor also has to do his job in a way that gets to the bottom of it. This is a very complex process.

[00:22:17]But I believe that if they apply the proper procedure and follow the appropriate rules and regulations, we can reach a final conclusion so that ultimately Mr. Fatu is not found guilty from day one.

[00:22:39]No, but he will be given a proper opportunity to present himself to resolve the issues the state wants him to resolve. Okay, but that's all that's needed when we're talking about the rule of law, accountability, and of course, democracy.

[00:22:56]Okay, let me announce that we have Councilor Junior joining us. He is a lawyer and a member of the PPP communications team. Councilor, good morning. Is everything okay? Perfectly.

[00:23:07]Let me get the professor involved and then I'll get back to you. Professor, so the American court is effectively saying that we find no wrongdoing on the part of Kenova. They granted him a permanent reprieve. Is there, I mean, is there any hope that the US can say, "Okay, we're letting you go, " when the court has concluded that there is no evidence of his guilt? Well, good morning to you, Kjo, my team in the studio, and the general public. I am of the opinion that the special prosecutor's office should take advantage of the willingness of Fatah's lawyers. To start the case, because it seems to me that the evidence he has now, however weak it is, and I heard from Dr. Asante, that sometimes they bring maybe the first charge, hoping that it will get you to trial, and then they will review and bring the second. If this is a strategy, it should take advantage of the willingness of Aphorata's lawyers to start something today. The US will monitor this. Everyone interested will follow. If it comes to the point where we see a serious case that he needs to answer, and he can't appear in person, we will provide him with all those opportunities. At some point, the world community does not condone corruption or anything that deprives citizens of their share of the national pie.

[00:24:45]They will assist and facilitate his arrival in the country for this purpose, if the need arises. But the question is whether the lawyers, given the recent developments in this case, will still be willing to go to court, because if the court is in the US, where he now resides, and I mean he is now a permanent resident, that means he can choose whether to come to Ghana or not.

[00:25:15]Yes.

[00:25:16]The US, based on the findings, will have a hard time with the extradition request, no, okay. The judge's comment was about adjusting the status.

[00:25:28]OK.

[00:25:28]This was not even related to the extradition request. I understand, that was concerning. If you read and one of the factors for approving an adjustment of status is whether there is a criminal element, and he was not found guilty. Yes, he was not convicted.

[00:25:43]If you read the decision, the judge says that based on the evidence they considered, there is no wrongdoing on the part of this person.

[00:25:52]So should we still expect lawyers to be willing to resort to actually, I say what I say because check out how long it took OSP to bring charges against this person. Mm. It all started with a typical recent initial conviction of a person before he was charged.

[00:26:16]Exactly.

[00:26:17]He was convicted. Everyone in Ghana knew that he had corruption cases and things like that.

[00:26:25]Lawyers are here. You guys have to be careful because we keep referring to the presumption of innocence and proof of guilt, but when you hear the comments surrounding Furia, for example, or other individuals from the previous government. I mean, the average person on the street feels like this guy is a criminal, like he's already been convicted.

[00:26:49]Yes. Yes.

[00:26:50]I completely condemn it. You bring charges after lengthy comments that imply a conviction of a person before trial, and another court in a relevant jurisdiction finds the charges weak. You could say that this is not a court of our jurisdiction, okay, but in my opinion, any court is a court. I'm not sure that the people sitting there didn't understand the laws, the gravity of the charges, and other such things. Not sure.

[00:27:19]I heard from the doctor that it could be a strategy to bring one charge, because we know that in court charges are sometimes revised and new ones appear, so it's better to act immediately and confidently, not to start with weak charges that a competent court can find worthless.

[00:27:42]Assuming that this is a strategy, why start with such a weak case that competent courts, as we just read in the decision, consider frivolous or even groundless?

[00:27:54]On the assumption that perhaps you will have better charges when he personally stands trial?

[00:28:00]We must always act in the best way.

[00:28:07]Okay, as for me, I would say this: if he requires the presence of the person to make a proper charge, and starts with frivolous charges trying to get his way, and can only make them when the person is in Ghana, then he is not really using the availability of legal counsel; because if he were here in person, he could still choose to speak through his lawyer.

[00:28:36]You can't force a person to talk, it's not in our jurisdiction. He has the right to a defense and may choose to speak through his lawyer. Many communicate through lawyers, and they are willing—he says he can appear via Zoom if necessary. You want to see him in person and comment on it here in Ghana with the audience, although I think courts sometimes allow witnesses to appear via Zoom and so on. So I seriously believe that the American court's conclusion is starting to become an objective reality. I feel like OSP doesn't have any serious allegations and they're just trying to add drama.

[00:29:19]The person must be here and arrested in some way. I asked here last week: How does the method of arrest strengthen or weaken the case? Do you understand? If you have a case, then you have a case.

[00:29:35]The way you try to reach the president neither adds nor subtracts from the weight of your case. Therefore, the weight of the first charge of OSP was considered by the competent court. The only difference is that it was not a Ghanaian court, but it is a court properly constituted.

[00:29:51]No. You said it was considered?

[00:29:53]No. It was just a comment.

[00:29:56]No, it was not considered in court. But I am saying that the court found the charges not serious enough to indicate any wrongdoing.

[00:30:05]This is if you look at the affidavit.

[00:30:08]Yes.

[00:30:09]From OSP.

[00:30:10]Yes. And the accusations contained there — no witnesses were called, and all that. Absolutely. Isn't that the basis on which you want this person extradited to Ghana? That's the weight of your argument for the US.

[00:30:22]That's what I just said, that if OSP doesn't have a strong case, then that's their problem.

[00:30:29]Yes.

[00:30:29]Aha. This is their problem.

[00:30:31]I mean, that's where I see the crux of the whole conversation. If you have a case, present your best arguments.

[00:30:37]Let everyone who sees the accusation say, "Yes, this guy should be here in person for trial."

[00:30:43]Good. Again, I say that he should take advantage of the lawyers' willingness to start the case so that the world community can see that, given the development of the case, this man should appear in person and answer questions.

[00:30:58]But nothing has started, and you are already doing all this. You see, now the public is starting to lose interest in this case, especially after this decision.

[00:31:10]I heard a lawyer on another station suggest: shouldn't we shut it down if we can't get started and make serious charges to get everyone's attention on the case. It's continuous talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk.

[00:31:25]And I expect a lot from the speaker, because when this issue started, there was a lawyer at this table, yes, who said that even she, yes, can provide evidence as to why what is happening is political persecution through speeches and comments by public officials.

[00:31:47]Just for general education: again, there was no US court ruling.

[00:31:54]This is just a decision on the petition for change of status, and the judge made a remark.

[00:31:59]Now I want to emphasize that even when applying for a temporary visa, they conduct criminal profiling.

[00:32:05]In fact, there are security issues for some countries. You understand why Thomas Partey was denied entry during the World Cup, we all condemn it.

[00:32:17]He couldn't enter Canada because Canada because of his problems in the UK and all that, and how they responded to security issues.

[00:32:26]So these security checks are basic for visa applications, not just for permanent residence applications; Even temporary residents, such as visas, are subject to checks. They ask, "Have you been charged with any offense?" If so, you should explain and they will study it and give their comment. This does not mean that they have already made a decision or rendered a verdict on the charges; You know what I mean.

[00:32:51]So what the judge did was simply a comment on the issues surrounding Ken.

[00:32:56]But the fact is that at this point, Ken had not been convicted.

[00:33:00]Good.

[00:33:00]But let me get to what I mean, I'm touching on the issue of political persecution again because it seems that in some cases the lawyers, the Office of the Special Prosecutor, and the Attorney General's Office are being more quiet.

[00:33:19]They are trying to strengthen the case, and we know that some of their work is not public, unlike other cases. And when you hear comments like " how can the person who implemented the E-Levy," like my friend Liau did, and you surround the criminal case with these usual sentimental comments. I'm not sure he will be prosecuted just for helping to pass the E-Levy. When you add things like that, people read it and say it's related to politics.

[00:33:54]Let's stick to the point. If he is to stand trial, then all commentators, especially government officials, should always direct us to the substance of the allegations. There's no point in bringing in the fact that his uncle was president and so on. When you say that, and how can a person whose uncle was president...it's just a caveat: all of these things fuel the political coloring that people give to the issue.

[00:34:22]The guy is dealing with financial charges.

[00:34:26]Oh, the thing we're discussing is this. But in relation to this, let me briefly comment on the tax.

[00:34:38]No, no, no. Only accountability. If you are switching to E-Levy.

[00:34:45]So now we can't talk about Ken.

[00:34:47]I'm saying you see, it's just a question. If you serve as Finance Minister for 8 years, you manage our taxes. We can't, we can't ask questions.

[00:34:55]But what I am saying is that he does not come to account for every step he has taken during his 8-year journey as Finance Minister.

[00:35:02]question.

[00:35:03]This specifically applies to SML. I think that when we talk, you should limit yourself to this.

[00:35:09]If not, people will see politics in this.

[00:35:13]Now, for the general awareness of those watching us and may not have access to the court decision. Part of it says that the main question for the court is whether the defendant was genuinely accused or whether he engaged in criminal activity in connection with his work as Ghana's Minister of Finance. It goes on to say that the court finds that the defendant has proven that he did not participate in any wrongdoing, criminal or otherwise, as Minister of Finance or as a government official in Ghana. The court considered exhibit number five which is an over 200- page written statement from the Office of the Special Prosecutor of Ghana describing the defendant's alleged illegal criminal offenses as a Minister of Ghana.

[00:36:01]So, they carefully studied this written statement. It is also said that the court examined exhibit number six—the criminal charges against the defendant filed by the Office of the Special Prosecutor, where the defendant was charged with over 70 counts of criminal offenses in Ghana. The court notes that it has extensive experience in reviewing and assessing allegations of corruption among government officials, fraud, embezzlement, and similar offenses.

[00:36:34]So what's the point?

[00:36:37]The court considered the views of the respondent's counsel, who is a Ghanaian lawyer and a former law enforcement officer, on Ghanaian criminal law and the context of the allegations of the Office of the Special Prosecutor. The court has carefully reviewed the written statement of the Office of the Special Prosecutor and found that it does not contain any convincing evidence or testimony that the respondent participated in any criminal offenses, as alleged, in his capacity as Minister of Finance or otherwise, or that the respondent personally benefited from his employment as a government official in Ghana. The absence of any compelling evidence indicating any criminal offenses or criminal conspiracy involving the defendant in the Special Prosecutor's Office's statement is strong evidence.

[00:37:28]The defendant has not been reliably charged and his involvement in any wrongdoing in Ghana has not been reliably proven. The written statement from the special prosecutor's office is full of unsubstantiated allegations without any description of credible or reliable facts that would indicate any kind of criminal wrongdoing by the defendant.

[00:37:50]The court also considered the findings of Interpol and its decision to revoke the “ red notice” issued on the basis of criminal charges brought by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) in Ghana, as well as the opinion of Dr. Bromod. I'm sure Dr. Bromod works with Interpol. Well, let me invite Kwasi Boateng in light of all of the above and everything we have heard about this particular case. Can't the Attorney General still push for a strategic indictment and seek extradition to Ghana?

[00:38:17]Thank you very much. Good morning to you. Good morning to my two colleagues. Before we start, let me tell Wanda to calm down.

[00:38:24]He is too excited this morning. You should be calmer.

[00:38:29]Quietly. Uh, Quasi.

[00:38:31]The first point is that the NPP does not oppose the extradition or prosecution of Candy Apoyati. The NPP’s position is very simple: Candy Apoyata must be subject to due process, the rule of law, and the fair trial provisions of our Constitution. This is the position of the NPP. But this US court decision confirms the NPP's position or confirms the position the party has taken. If you study the court's decision, it's a document of about 26 pages, it questions the strength and credibility of the allegations made by the Attorney General and the Office of the Special Prosecutor against Mr. Candy Apoyati. And let it be recorded on this table that the court has taken into consideration the evidence of the Office of the Special Prosecutor and the charges against Mr. Apoyati in the courts of Ghana. Let it not be said that because this was a motion to change status, the court did not consider the evidence of the Office of the Special Counsel or the charges against him. There was no evidence from the Special Prosecutor's Office. I was silent, please, when you spoke, I was silent, I just want to clarify: there was no evidence.

[00:39:55]The judge was very clear.

[00:39:57]In this decision.

[00:39:59]That he reviewed the testimony of the Office of the Special Prosecutor and concluded that there was no compelling or substantial evidence against Mr. Apoyati that would justify his extradition to Ghana, and we all understand—we're all lawyers, we all know that when you prepare testimony, you give reasons.

[00:40:19]Why do you believe Mr. Apoyata is guilty of the charges brought against him. I'll give you a classic example of how these things work. When you take the Abu Trika case, in the opinion of the High Court of Ghana, after evaluating the evidence from the FBI and the UK, there was sufficiently compelling evidence that Mr. Abu Trika had committed certain offenses and should therefore be extradited to the United States to face criminal charges. If, in the opinion of the Ghanaian court, Abu Trika had not... if any crime had been committed based on the evidence presented to the court in Ghana, the court would not have ordered extradition. And if you read that court decision, the court noted that the court was not surprised that the US Department of Justice did not process the extradition request from the Ghanaian government because the documents they provided did not contain compelling evidence against Mr. Kenoyata.

[00:41:30]Now you see, I listened to Wander when he spoke, and he primarily bases this argument on the fact that at one time, the minority deputies demanded the resignation of Mr. Kenoyata. This is the first moment.

[00:41:49]Secondly, he also notes that Mr. Kenoyata promised not to turn to the international market, to the IMF, and then he turned to the IMF anyway. Thirdly, he mentioned that Mr. Kenoyata promised no e-tax, and then implemented it, etc., so in his opinion, Mr. Kenoyata misappropriated money or caused some, some...No, write that down. Write this down. Write this down. You have to correct it, but if you let me say that he says I'm right.

[00:42:36]So, Mr. Kenoyata has questions that need to be answered. Is n't that right? That is what he said and Mr. Kenoyata must answer the question. This is better for accountability.

[00:42:47]So, that's better. This is better. You have changed your statement. That's better.

[00:42:52]Mr. Wander, continue.

[00:42:53]With respect, when you were talking, I agreed with you about but if you misquote me, let me, that's why you Wander, go ahead.

[00:43:04]Let me continue.

[00:43:05]Yes, we can continue. I said if you changed your statement you can continue.

[00:43:12]Now, regarding the first point, the NPP deputies did not demand Kenoyata's resignation due to any wrongdoing on Mr. Kenoyata's part. This was not a reason to demand his resignation. Let's get this clear.

[00:43:28]Secondly, the claim that the PPP is a single government.

[00:43:32]Dr. Smart Szabo is here, he's an economist. He will help us. They claim that the PPP is the only government that inherited an IMF program and exited it, as Wander says. This is a complete lie. This is a complete lie. For your information, President Magama inherited the IMF program in 2012.

[00:43:53]And in fact, he himself turned to the IMF again in 2015.

[00:43:57]And so, when I left office in 2016, what happened?

[00:44:01]And so, please, I'm expressing my opinion. I'm not going to support this for you. I'm not going to support this. He said I won't support this for you. I'm not going to support it. No wonder I think you should, I'm not going to support.

[00:44:17]Take this pen.

[00:44:18]Write everything down.

[00:44:19]Continue.

[00:44:20]You continue. He has a pen with him.

[00:44:22]You have stated strongly that the NP is mismanaging the economy. Mr. Kenopyata mismanaged the economy, because the NP is the only government, I heard you clearly. it is the only government that inherited an IMF program and also exited an IMF program. And I tell you that this statement is not true. This is a lie because President Mama inherited the IMF program in 2012, re- entered the IMF program during his presidency in 2015, and exited the IMF program in 2016. So this statement is also not true. Now regarding the last point: Mr. Kenopyata said that he was not going to introduce the E-Levy, but he introduced it, and therefore this in itself is a violation.

[00:45:13]Please, we all know that the introduction of the E-Levy was a decision of the current government. This was not Mr. Kenopyati's decision. This was a decision of the Cabinet of Ministers. It was a decision made by the entire government. As I have already noted, if there is anything or if there are any violations on the part of Mr. Kenopyata, nothing prevents this government from prosecuting Mr. Kenopyata. But how can one clearly state that someone promised no E-Levy and then later implemented it, and therefore that person should be held accountable in court? This statement underscores the political conviction we discussed earlier.

[00:45:58]In fact, Kojo, you know that the court, the US court, actually found that the persecution of the gentleman was a political campaign by the NDC in 2024. He mentioned, the court recognized this, so it's obvious, and if you put all the parts of the events together and this US court decision together, it points to only one inescapable conclusion: Mr. Kenopyata is being politically persecuted. If you have any convincing allegations or evidence against Mr. Kenopyat, take him to court, let the legal process work. In any case, the accused does not have to be in the jurisdiction to organize his prosecution. Mr. Kenopyata used the services of lawyers in Ghana. You know where to deliver all official correspondence to Mr. Kenopyat. His lawyers are here in Ghana.

[00:46:57]His lawyers noted that their client is willing to cooperate with law enforcement via Zoom, Skype, or any electronic means, so Kenopyati's presence here in Ghana is unnecessary. Do you know why they need Mr. Cenopath here in Ghana?

[00:47:17]If you look at the arrest pattern in this Ghana, they want Mr. Kenopata to come, handcuff him at the airport, take him with sirens on to the office of the OSP, the Attorney General, or CID, or Yoko, hold him for 48 hours, and when that time is up, give him inadequate bail conditions.

[00:47:40]teeth to demand the teeth of the President of the United States as a condition of bail, and if Mr. Kenopata is unable to fulfill it. They are holding him for about 2-3 weeks until the court changes the bail conditions. This is what they have done to almost every person they pursue.

[00:48:02]Almost every person, like Dubai, remained in custody for 2 weeks, 14 days, because they could not meet the 200 million bail condition. Hanan spent about 3 weeks in Yoko's cell because he and his wife were unable to post a bail of 60 million. The NSA Director General spent almost 3 months in prison. In Yoko detention for 3 months only because he failed to meet the bail condition of 800 million Ghana cedis. The bail condition is 800 million Ghanaian cedis. 800 million Ghanaian cedis. The bail condition is about $8 million. This is serious.

[00:48:41]Mad Gift Warri was in NIB custody because he failed to meet bail conditions. So this is the scheme they used against everyone they persecuted. This scheme influenced the decision of the US court, and that is why the American court clearly stated that it has experience in such cases and took into account everything that is happening in Ghana.

[00:49:07]When NDC members say they need Cenopath dead or alive, they need him dead or alive.

[00:49:16]All of this influenced the court's decision. So, Kojo, I won't say much about it. My view is that if the NDC believes and is convinced that they have any serious allegations against Mr. Kenopatha, they should act. However, from the US court decision, we all know that the evidence against Mr. Kenopata is weak, inconclusive, and insufficient to satisfy the Attorney General's extradition request. The US court also confirmed that the US Department of Justice did not even consider the Ghanaian government's extradition request because the evidence attached to the request was weak.

[00:50:04]Good. And this is not the case that requires the extradition of the former Minister of Finance, because in their opinion, after evaluating all the evidence and testimony gathered by the Special Prosecutor's Office and the Attorney General, the court is convinced and clearly understands that Mr. Kenata has not committed any offense.

[00:50:26]Good. OK.

[00:50:28]Let me, um, it says "fact" here. Why can't the Attorney General try Kenneth Farata in absentia if the law allows it, as in the case of that woman? You are saying that since he stated: if the E-levy is passed, Ghana will not go to the IMF, and since a majority of the over 80 MPs subsequently demanded his resignation, he is automatically guilty. Does it make sense, and is he willing to answer any of your questions? The OSP and the Attorney General's Office must set aside emotions and handle this case professionally, fairly, and strictly in accordance with the law. Congratulations to Mr. Abdul Gama Muhammad, the future head of the western region, and to the future organizer of the women's movement of the western region, this is from Samuel Dumson of Arkite. Yesterday was my birthday, so please tell the junior advisor to kindly inform our future president, Dr. Muhammad, that I am patiently waiting. Okay. Happy birthday to you.

[00:51:42]Perfectly. Happy birthday.

[00:51:44]He says: tell the future president what he expects.

[00:51:46]He is watching.

[00:51:47]He is watching.

[00:51:48]OK. Good. He says: now to the National Security Council. They need to know that the US judicial system works, unlike ours in Ghana. Oh, please. The Ghanaian system, the Ghanaian judicial system, also works.

[00:51:59]They deal with hard facts, not emotions. They won't change the rules for anyone. Abuma Central, aka Dr. Bomiya, will become president in 2028. Okay, amazing.

[00:52:14]Yes.

[00:52:15]Yes.

[00:52:16]Let me address a few of the issues my brother raised.

[00:52:19]Good.

[00:52:21]He mentioned the Abua case in the high court.

[00:52:26]that...he mentioned it when we were discussing the extradition request case. The case or the decision of the American judge had nothing to do with extradition, it was a decision regarding his application for a change of status.

[00:52:43]Yes.

[00:52:45]I'm glad my brother is a lawyer, I mean a great lawyer, but everyone has their own field, which is immigration law when it comes to the elements of change of status. This is not the same as an extradition request. So I was surprised when he tried to link Abuta's case to Ken's case in the context of the judge's decision. The judge's decision was about approving his green card, and as part of that process, a criminal background check is required, just like when you apply for a visa, your history is checked. So, that's one, two. Moreover, let me say that the decision of a judge from the US is not the ultimate truth.

[00:53:35]This colonial mentality, that everything from the US or the UK is flawless, is present even in Ghana, where we criticize our own judges. So even if the judge considered the case on the merits, the decision of an American judge is not sacrosanct. They don't know everything. What's wrong with you? I see a message: "Oh, why did the US judge speak out, is that all?" Why? Are n't they wrong? Your decision? No, let me state clearly that the decisions of US judges are not unquestionable.

[00:54:08]Okay, so you're so convinced that Ghana can still get me.

[00:54:12]But the extradition case is ongoing.

[00:54:14]Okay, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

[00:54:16]The case of Ken's extradition to the US is still ongoing. There has been no decision on this matter yet. What this judge was considering was an application for a green card.

[00:54:24]Why should the government go and challenge someone's green card? Even to be in the US, you want permanent residency.

[00:54:31]Even as a student in the US, when I was in Florida, I applied for green cards for other people.

[00:54:36]Okay, let me ask.

[00:54:37]This is a normal procedure. You made me make excuses.

[00:54:40]Let them answer.

[00:54:41]Good.

[00:54:42]He gave me the opportunity to speak.

[00:54:43]I wanted to ask a question about this.

[00:54:44]Good. You still have time.

[00:54:46]Yes. The same decision states that Dr. Bromont, in his statement and during his testimony, discussed reviewing the CCF and removing the “ red notice” issued by Ghana.

[00:54:58]He says the "red notice" that was issued over the allegations in Ghana turned out to be largely political. There was also no evidence that the defendant personally benefited from any of his actions, as I will ask, in his capacity as Minister of Finance or a government official.

[00:55:18]And the allegations that formed the basis of the “ red notice” appear to be based on the allegation that the defendant caused damage to Ghana’s finances as Minister of Finance.

[00:55:30]And in February 2026, the CCF ruled to remove the “red notice,” recognizing it as largely politically motivated, issued by the Ghanaian government.

[00:55:40]So what was the question?

[00:55:42]So, this was based on a "red notice" before the extradition request was made.

[00:55:46]So on that basis, they found the evidence to be largely political and the accusations to be politically motivated. Are you still convinced that we can force this American court to extradite Mr. Ditita Ghani?

[00:55:58]I just told you that the grounds for extradition are different from the grounds for green card approval.

[00:56:04]No, no, this is not about a green card. I...it was about the " red message".

[00:56:09]Oh, I see, it's about the "red notice."

[00:56:12]Let me tell you something. Let me tell you something.

[00:56:17]The judge referred to the fact of removal and all that, right?

[00:56:22]Special prosecutor in this country. Have you ever seen someone convicted based solely on the reading of an affidavit? You must provide evidence in court during a trial.

[00:56:34]Was it done?

[00:56:36]Yes. There was no trial.

[00:56:38]So, the judge simply took the affidavit and the indictment and made these conclusions.

[00:56:42]My question to you is: did he blame the judge? He wasn't...he wasn't even... My question is... he just... if you read the justification... yes... he says that the Commission on Control of Files (CCF) provided... to remove the " red notice" that declared Ken Ofori-Atta a fugitive from justice or something like that. If you listen to the argument, let's wait for the decision in the extradition case. I just said...I sat here and stated: listen, at this point he has not been convicted.

[00:57:09]OK.

[00:57:09]So, according to Article 19 of our own constitution, he is presumed innocent. I said that, but let me remind you of other issues.

[00:57:17]You see, the judge also referred to the 2024 election promise that we made here.

[00:57:24]The judge probably doesn't know the political atmosphere in this country. Every party during the election campaign in the Fourth Republic always calls for accountability.

[00:57:33]Any party in opposition will call for accountability. So if we have a finance minister who has been managing our taxes, and we say that when we come to power, we will demand accountability and conduct an investigation... This is not political persecution. But the judge...you can't, you can't blame him.

[00:57:47]He...he...he's in the USA.

[00:57:49]He is there. Leave him alone. But I tell you, every political party in Ghana has called for accountability, and this is not persecution.

[00:57:58]OK.

[00:57:59]Now, on the issue of the E-Levy tax and the call for its abolition by members of parliament... My brother, my good friend Lennon, says that this statement of mine is part of what is considered political persecution.

[00:58:13]Let's consider what I said in context. I said: look, this is a man whose own deputies, about 88 of them, have declared that he has mismanaged the economy and therefore should be removed. He should be removed by President Donado from his position as Minister of Finance, so say his own deputies.

[00:58:34]So if you don't put it in the right context and call it political persecution, I'll leave it up to the viewers to judge. Now, he remembered something and said that was a lie. I just referred, I said: "I just referred to the last statement of the minority, the deputy minority leader in the parliament during the last convocation."

[00:58:52]This was recorded in Hansard. In his latest statement, he said that the NP government would be remembered as the first government of the Fourth Republic to begin its term with the IMF and end it still under IMF pressure. "I quoted it, it's in the parliamentary record. So if you're sitting here and saying it's a lie, fine.

[00:59:15]You need to prove to the audience how it's a lie. But oh no, no, no, I remember when they came in 2017, we were on the program when they left and I just quoted, I just quoted what was right.

[00:59:27]Mahama too, you said the NP is the only government, that's what you said, and I'm saying the NP is not the only government.

[00:59:33]Let's admit that and move on because the NP is not the only government.

[00:59:36]That's fine. I just told you I'm quoting what happened in parliament and it was recorded in the parliamentary record. I just quoted it and in the end he said that Kopiata's lawyers are here in Ghana. So if we want to question him, we should just send a summons to the lawyers and all that, that's fine, but we are politicians, you are speaking on behalf of the PPP, the PPP is a party that is always calling for accountability and all that. If you think that someone who has served this country for 8 years, managed our public funds, no longer wants to be in Ghana, wants to be abroad, and that we should sue him through his lawyer. Is that illegal? I am not saying it is illegal.

[01:00:16]I did not say that. I am saying is it appropriate, do you have the moral right to go back to the people of Ghana to campaign on the grounds of accountability, we will see if you have the moral right to go back to the people and demand accountability. We will see.

[01:00:30]Okay. The former president was under investigation in this country. Did he, did he flee? The former president Mama was under investigation in this country. Did he flee?

[01:00:39]Okay.

[01:00:39]Today you are saying that we should write through his lawyers.

[01:00:41]No problem. The Ghanaians are watching.

[01:00:43]Okay. Thank you.

[01:00:44]Yeah. Briefly about the main point. The point OSP, and I keep saying OSP because we all expected more from the office of the special counsel.

[01:00:55]You see, if a red notice that was issued at a certain point is then revoked, that's a serious blow to the strength of your case.

[01:01:06]In fact, for those who helped to issue a red notice or a red circular and then were confronted with the facts in court that forced them to revoke that notice, the OSP has actually misled them, or perhaps done some damage to their reputation, because it implies that they should have done something that they didn't do before the red notice was issued. And let no one take the revocation of the red notice for granted. That speaks volumes. That speaks volumes about the case brought against the former finance minister, and I keep telling politicians: you see, during the campaign, as the lawyer said, every political party demands accountability.

[01:01:55]The advice I give to political parties is: don't name names.

[01:02:00]Okay, that's good advice.

[01:02:03]Because if you say, "This person, when we get here, you're going to be prosecuted," you're violating our constitutional rule that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

[01:02:14]So that's the caveat I give: yes, you can demand accountability.

[01:02:18]In fact, you can target specific people, and for your information, I heard from a very reliable source—whether that's true or not, I can't independently verify, but it's known from a very reliable source that many senior leaders and government officials from the previous government have been on the travel ban list since the government came into office in January 2025.

[01:02:38]You know? You just can't travel. They're being investigated, whatever it is. And some of them have been on travel bans for some time now. I mentioned travel ban, because we were recently told that Denise was on this list, but even before that, some people were already on it.

[01:02:53]I mean, travel bans so they can help with the investigation, and people are constantly visiting Yoko and all that, but if during the campaign you're naming names, like, "about this chief justice, when we get there, blah blah blah," and the case starts to unfold, you can't separate the politics from it.

[01:03:13]So everyone has to be prepared for accountability, but my advice to our politicians is: when they suspect people and want to prosecute them, when they come to power, don't name them. You know? Take them out, otherwise they'll say, "Here's this person, you named this particular name so that when you come to power, you can throw him in jail."

[01:03:32]Okay. Okay.

[01:03:33]And so everything that's happening now is just a continuation of what you did in the beginning. So let's just Let's do this : I advise them that everyone who is in government today should know that one day the government will change. Why should the government change before you are held accountable?

[01:03:49]But that's what we do here.

[01:03:50]Please, remove the names. Very soon, I'm sure, the deputies will also name people, and when they come, they will do whatever they want.

[01:03:58]Remove the names, everyone knows that people will be held accountable, name them.

[01:04:02]But if you name someone and then things start to unfold, you can't separate the politics from it.

[01:04:09]Ask them.

[01:04:10]It depends on the circumstances.

[01:04:12]So this is advice. It's serious. I'm passionate about this.

[01:04:15]Remove the names.

[01:04:17]Thank you.

[01:04:20]Actually, there is no extradition request pending before any US court, in fact, because, oh, miracle.

[01:04:28]Let me express my opinion.

[01:04:30]I beg you.

[01:04:31]Go ahead.

[01:04:32]Actually, there is no extradition request pending before any US court Mr. Kenopatya's extradition, and this was recognized by the decision of the US Immigration Court. I quote: "The Court also considers the fact that the US Department of Justice has had the extradition request from the Government of Ghana for a significant period of time, and yet the US Department of Justice has not filed any extradition complaint based on the Ghanaian request and the OSP's prosecution." and OSP's demands for prosecution." This means that after, and the judge said, "If you want to hear...", and the court is not surprised, given that the court's own review of the OSP affidavit does not indicate any compelling evidence of any criminal offense on the part of the defendant, Mr. [], and also given the removal of the "red notice" by Interpol; therefore, the court recognizes three things: first, there is no extradition case pending before any U.S. court... what you read suggests that there is an extradition request, complete: the extradition request will be sent by the Attorney General to the U.S. Department of Justice.

[01:05:49]that is the first step.

[01:05:50]and the U.S. Department of Justice, having evaluated the evidence of the Attorney General, who will forward it to Dominica, cannot go from there and file an extradition case in any U.S. court. The first step for extradition would be to go to the United States. You make the request.

[01:06:03]Let him. Let him speak.

[01:06:05]And if your request is not well- founded, what then? Is the United States administering justice?

[01:06:09]Let him, let him speak.

[01:06:11]Let him. Do you want us to give you more time to speak?

[01:06:14]Go ahead.

[01:06:15]So when you make a request, the U.S. Department of Justice will evaluate it and then refer it to the court. Even in the opinion of the U.S. Department of Justice, if your request is not well-founded, if it is not supported by any evidence, they will not consider it. And that is exactly what happened in the general's case: despite the fact that the attorney general has sent a request, I can send a request, the attorney general can send a request against Kjo. It is the duty of the United States, the Department of Justice, to evaluate the request and determine whether it is well- founded. And when they determine that the request is well-founded, they refer it to the court. In the gentleman's case, they did not refer it to the court, and he says he is not surprised, because after evaluating the affidavit and supporting documents, they could not produce any substantial evidence against him. And also, for the enlightenment of the colleague, for the general public, regarding your affidavit.

[01:07:22]An affidavit is a statement of facts made under oath. So an affidavit is a positive judicial admission, and when you make your affidavit, the procedure, CI47 in Ghana, allows you to add your evidence and add it; and that is why OSP added that evidence against Mr. So let no one say that the OSP affidavit is just a document that had no evidence in it. In an affidavit, in every affidavit, you can, in fact, I think it is rule 20 CI47, you can include your evidence and add it. That is the established rule of law in Ghana, so OSP, quite rightly, in his 150- page affidavit, and I do not think that this 150- page document is just the statements of OSP. I mean, what is this 150-page document that definitely contains evidence against Mr. Fat, including KPMJ.

[01:08:19]what was mentioned in court.

[01:08:22]Certainly, the results of the OSP investigation, and the judge says that after evaluating all of these documents, in his opinion, the documents do not provide any convincing evidence that Mr. Fat committed any offense.

[01:08:35]Okay.

[01:08:36]We cannot separate this immigration court decision from the attorney general's extradition request. Do you know why? What would be the consequences if this request were denied by the US court?

[01:08:47]What would be the consequences?

[01:08:49]What would be the consequence?

[01:08:51]The public must answer: the consequence would be that Mr. K. would go to Ghana because he would have no legal reason to be in the US, and that would essentially mean that the US should facilitate the extradition of Mr. K. So, if the US court clearly stated that based on the documents provided by the Ghanaian government led by President Mahama and Attorney General Dominic, and the office of the Special Prosecutor, there is no compelling evidence, and that all your evidence borders on politics and not law and that Mr. Kenopatu cannot be extradited to Ghana on the basis of your political evidence.

[01:09:33]On the basis of your political evidence, that is a fabrication, before you even begin, it is a fabrication.

[01:09:39]If in the opinion of the Ghanaian court also the extradition request for Abua, which you said was unrelated, was based on politics and not on law. Do you think the High Court of Ghana would allow that after consideration? We have all been told that the Ghanaian court has examined the video evidence and after viewing the video was compelled to accept, or was convinced that there was compelling evidence against Mr. Aboutraka, therefore he should be sent. In the same vein, if this court had examined the evidence and was convinced that there was sufficient evidence against Mr. Kenyatta, it would have dismissed that request, and Mr. So, without sending to Ghana, this is a fact that is No, no, no, no, we have to move on, I need If I give you "it", you will take it too. We can, of course, of course, of course. Okay, if we give you this.

[01:10:30]No, we have to move on; we have to move on. It says this: "As a matter of law and fact, there is no concrete evidence of the charges brought against Kofarata. The government's agenda is to fulfill the lies they promised their gullible followers when they were in opposition. Such quack and baseless accusations must stop. If there is any evidence that Kenyatta abused his position as Finance Minister, they should provide that evidence for his extradition. The lies must stop.

[01:10:59]Francis, uh, says in parentheses, well, well, my friend, I hope everything is okay. Good.

[01:11:10]So let's move on to discussing what's beyond the Galami and after that who's next if I give you time we have a lot of issues but we're not information that we have to deal with and then we have a lot of 30 seconds 30 we have a lot of requests for 30 seconds there are two sides the requesting country and the requested country so the first step is to make a request when you make a request then the decision will be Yes not through immigration.

[01:11:42]So that's one of the grounds for the immigration case he was talking about, suggesting that whoever sponsors Karata doesn't have legal status.

[01:11:50]If the child did not have legal status, the application would have been rejected and it would have had nothing to do with his case in Ghana, that issue was purely immigration. Thank you.

[01:12:01]Let me know why you are faq. It was a green card. Green card. It was a green card.

[01:12:12]Let's move on.