Recent reports indicate that INTERPOL has removed the Red Notice issued in relation to Mr. Ken Ofori-Atta. His lawyers have stated that INTERPOL concluded the request carried a “predominantly political” character under its neutrality rules.
It is important to understand what this means and what it does not mean.
INTERPOL does not determine guilt or innocence. It does not conduct trials. Its role is to facilitate international police cooperation between member countries. However, INTERPOL operates under strict constitutional rules, including a neutrality provision that prohibits involvement in matters of a political character.
If INTERPOL determines that a request does not comply with this requirement, it may delete the Red Notice. That decision reflects INTERPOL’s internal compliance standards. It does not cancel any investigation in Ghana. It does not prevent Ghana from pursuing legal action through its own courts.
What it does affect is the international enforcement posture of the case.
Mr. Ofori-Atta is reportedly scheduled for a bond redetermination hearing in the United States in February. In U.S. immigration court, a bond hearing is not about deciding criminal liability. The judge considers two primary questions: whether the individual poses a danger to the community and whether the individual presents a flight risk.
If the U.S. government argues that extradition is pending or that international enforcement justifies continued detention, it must provide formal documentation. Immigration judges rely on evidence presented in court, not political commentary or media narratives.
If the Red Notice has been removed, the court may look more closely at whether a formal and active extradition request exists and what stage that process has reached. However, removal of a Red Notice does not automatically mean release. Judges also evaluate factors such as family ties, residence history, prior compliance with court appearances, and overall risk assessment.
There is also a broader legal consideration. Under U.S. immigration law, a person may seek asylum if they can demonstrate persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion. An international finding that a matter carries political character does not establish an asylum claim by itself. Asylum requires substantial independent evidence. However, it illustrates how political context can become legally relevant in immigration proceedings.
For Ghanaian readers, the key point is this: the INTERPOL decision does not resolve the underlying allegations. But it may influence how foreign courts evaluate detention and extradition-related arguments.
Ultimately, the February bond hearing will turn on legal standards and documented evidence, not public debate.
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.
Source: www.myjoyonline.com