The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) has stated that the question of whether former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta can be tried in absentia has not yet arisen, stressing that the constitutional threshold has not been met because formal service of charges has not been completed.
In an explainer, the Director of Strategy, Research, and Communications at the OSP, Sammy Darko, said the legal process governing trial in absentia is strictly defined and begins only after an accused person has been properly charged and duly served under constitutional procedures.
He said the current debate around trying Ofori-Atta in his absence is 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.”
Sammy Darko explained that under Article 19(3) of the Constitution, a person can only be tried in absentia if they have first been “duly notified” of the trial and either refuse to appear or make their presence impracticable.
He stressed that “duly notified” requires strict legal service procedures and cannot be satisfied by 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 case, although charges have been filed and court approval obtained to serve the documents in the United States, the legal process is still 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 said, adding that only after verified service and a failure to appear can a court consider proceeding in absentia.
Sammy Darko said once proof of service is filed, the court must still give the accused a reasonable opportunity to appear before any further steps are taken.
Separately, he noted that proceedings in the case are also affected by a pending Supreme Court matter reviewing aspects of the OSP’s prosecutorial powers, adding another layer of legal uncertainty.
