International lawyer Amanda Clinton has pushed back against criticisms from Majority Chief Whip Nelson Rockson-Dafeamekpor over her comments on the arrest and detention of Asante Akyem North MP, Kwame Ohene Frimpong in the Netherlands, insisting that concerns about trust between foreign and Ghanaian security agencies remain valid in cases involving politically exposed persons.
Her latest remarks follow public debate triggered by her earlier comments on JoyNews’ AM Show on Wednesday, May 13, where she suggested that international law enforcement agencies may have deliberately withheld intelligence from Ghanaian authorities over fears that sensitive information could be leaked or compromised.
The controversy stems from reports that the Asante-Akyem North legislator was detained in the Netherlands in what is believed to be a joint international operation involving the FBI over alleged criminal offences linked to money laundering and online fraud-related activities.
Although details of the case remain limited and no conviction has been secured, the development has generated widespread political and legal discussion both in Ghana and abroad.
Responding to criticism from Mr Rockson-Dafeamekpor, Amanda Clinton defended her position, arguing that international law enforcement cooperation is often influenced by concerns about political interference, especially when investigations involve individuals connected to government or political power.
READ ALSO
According to her, such situations frequently shape how intelligence is shared between countries.
Instead, she argued, the decision to allow the MP to travel before his arrest abroad raises legitimate questions about operational trust and information security.
“If indeed our security agencies knew about the US warrant through Interpol channels, then optics-wise, would it not have looked better for the government to control the process and manage his extradition here in Ghana, rather than allowing it to appear as though international agencies had to step in because local systems could not be trusted?
And if they knew and still did nothing meaningful locally, then that raises even more serious questions. Was it because of bureaucratic delay? Was it because the matter involved a politically exposed person? Was it because agencies were waiting for approvals? Or was it because no one wanted to take responsibility for acting on such a sensitive matter?” she questioned.
Ms. Clinton, founding partner and head of chambers at Clinton Consultancy, stressed that her comments were not an attack on Ghana’s institutions but rather a reflection of realities often encountered in international legal practice.
She noted that politically exposed persons frequently attract additional caution from foreign investigators who fear that premature disclosure of intelligence could compromise investigations or allow suspects to evade arrest.
The lawyer further argued that the issue goes beyond one individual case and reflects broader concerns about whether governments are always willing to pursue allegations involving politically connected figures.
According to her, failure to act decisively against politically exposed persons can embolden individuals accused of wrongdoing and damage the credibility of domestic law enforcement institutions.
She warned that such situations ultimately expose countries to international embarrassment when arrests are carried out overseas instead of through domestic legal processes.
Ms. Clinton also reiterated that allegations remain allegations until proven in court, emphasising that Kwame Ohene Frimpong is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
However, she maintained that the circumstances surrounding the detention point to deeper concerns about international confidence in local anti-corruption and investigative systems.
Her comments have intensified debate over Ghana’s anti-corruption framework, extradition cooperation, and the handling of politically sensitive investigations.
Meanwhile, Ghanaian authorities have yet to issue a comprehensive official statement detailing the exact charges, status of extradition proceedings, or the extent of cooperation between Ghanaian and foreign investigators in the matter.
The Netherlands and the United States are both known to maintain strong cooperation frameworks on transnational financial crimes, cyber fraud and money laundering investigations, particularly where cross-border financial transactions are involved.
Under Ghana’s longstanding extradition treaty arrangements with the United States, suspects accused of certain international offences can be extradited following judicial processes and bilateral cooperation agreements.
Below is her full response:
Thank you for your comments, Honourable Chief Whip.
I take your point seriously, and I fully agree that we must await the full facts and allow due process to take its course. No person should be presumed guilty simply because an arrest, detention, or international law-enforcement process has been reported.
I also wish to make clear that my earlier comments were not intended to disparage Ghana’s security agencies. I have deep respect for the men and women who work within our law-enforcement and intelligence structures, often under difficult conditions, limited resources, political pressure, and institutional constraints.
Having worked in and around this space, including with exposure to Interpol-related processes, I know how difficult it can be for security officials to act swiftly in cases involving Politically Exposed Persons. In many instances, the issue is not lack of competence. It is the absence of political will, delayed approvals, institutional caution, or the fear of acting against powerful individuals without clear backing from above.
As a private practitioner, I have also seen how the system works from the inside. Ghana has many capable officers, lawyers, investigators, and public servants. But capability alone is not always enough. Sensitive matters involving international notices, extradition, or high-profile persons usually require careful internal documentation, coordination, and approvals, including engagement with the Attorney-General’s Department. These processes are necessary, but they can also slow down urgent action.
That is why the circumstances of this matter raise legitimate institutional questions.
If a sitting Member of Parliament was intercepted abroad in connection with a U.S. warrant, rather than first being questioned or processed here in Ghana, it is fair to ask whether our domestic institutions had sufficient notice, whether there was adequate coordination, and whether international partners had full confidence that the matter could be handled locally without compromise.
This is not to assert, without evidence, that Ghanaian authorities failed. It is to say that the optics are troubling and deserve sober reflection.
If Ghanaian authorities were aware of the matter through Interpol or other law-enforcement channels, then one question is whether it would have been preferable, both legally and diplomatically, for the process to be managed transparently from Ghana, subject to our extradition laws and constitutional protections, rather than creating the impression that foreign authorities had to act only when the individual was outside Ghanaian jurisdiction.
At the same time, I accept the Honourable Chief Whip’s caution that we should not jump ahead of the facts. The public deserves accuracy, not sensationalism. The Member of Parliament is entitled to due process, legal representation, and the presumption of innocence.
However, due process should not prevent us from asking serious institutional questions. Indeed, due process is strengthened when institutions are trusted, transparent, and seen to act without fear or favour.
The core issue remains this: no one is above the law, and no public office should shield anyone from lawful investigation. But equally, no security agency should be unfairly blamed where the real obstacle may be political interference, bureaucratic delay, or lack of institutional independence.
This case should therefore be a wake-up call. We must strengthen coordination among our security agencies, the Attorney-General’s Department, Parliament, and international partners. We must also build systems that allow professional officers to act lawfully and confidently, even where politically exposed persons are involved.
Ghana has competent people. What we need are stronger institutions, clearer processes, greater transparency, and the political will to allow the law to work.
Ghana deserves better.
Respectfully, Amanda Akuokor Clinton Esq. Lawyer & Policy Analyst
Source: Myjoyonline.com
