The Battle Over Political Motivation: A Legal Saga Unveiled
In a recent development, Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare, a renowned legal scholar, has taken a strong stance against the claims made by Ken Ofori-Atta's legal team, challenging the notion that the ongoing legal proceedings are politically motivated.
But here's where it gets controversial... Kwaku Azar, as he is affectionately known, has called out Ofori-Atta's lawyer, Qasimi, for what he sees as a hollow and theatrical argument. He questions the lawyer's claim that their client is committed to complying with Ghanaian laws while conveniently staying out of the country's jurisdiction.
"It's a glaring contradiction," Azar emphasizes. "How can one claim compliance while sidestepping the very processes designed to ensure accountability?"
On Christmas Eve, 2025, Azar took to Facebook to express his thoughts, stating, "Accountability is not a podcast. It requires presence, process, and submission to jurisdiction."
Azar further argues that the claim of political motivation falls flat when examined closely. He points out that this is not a case driven by a hostile opposition or a new government seeking revenge. Instead, it is being pursued by a Special Prosecutor appointed by the previous administration.
"This is not a political witch hunt," he asserts. "Political prosecutions target political opponents, not a mix of politicians and private individuals as we see here."
Professor Asare highlights that the charges involve a range of individuals and entities, including private actors, accused of corruption, abuse of office, and breaches of procurement and public revenue laws. He believes that the structure of the case, focusing on contracts and revenue flows, undermines the claim of persecution.
"When a case involves procurement systems and revenue streams, and includes actors without political affiliations, the claim of persecution starts to seem more like a dramatic performance than a legitimate argument," he explains.
Azar also draws a comparison between Ofori-Atta's situation and that of other high-ranking officials from the same administration. He notes that the former President, Vice-President, and numerous ministers are freely moving about the country, attending events, and giving interviews without claiming persecution.
"So, where is the 'political' element here? It seems like a convenient slogan rather than a valid argument," Azar suggests.
He emphasizes that Ghana's constitution provides avenues for redress if one believes a process is flawed. He states, "You cannot selectively absent yourself, cry foul from abroad, and then demand moral superiority. If the process is defective, the constitution offers a remedy: return home, challenge it in court, and engage lawfully."
Azar concludes, "Political motivation is not proven through press releases and foreign interviews; it is substantiated through legal engagement and due process."
What are your thoughts on this legal battle? Is there a valid argument for political motivation, or is it a strategic defense tactic? Feel free to share your opinions in the comments below!
