A United States Immigration Judge has raised significant concerns about the evidential basis of the corruption allegations brought by Ghana’s Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) against former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta, stating that the material presented did not credibly establish criminal wrongdoing.
The observations were made by Immigration Judge David Gardey in a written ruling dated June 15, 2026, explaining his decision to grant Mr. Ofori-Atta’s application for adjustment of immigration status after the U.S. Department of Homeland Security opposed the application on the basis of the corruption allegations pending against him in Ghana.
The immigration proceedings arose from allegations concerning the Strategic Mobilisation Ghana Limited (SML) contract, for which the OSP has filed more than 70 criminal charges against the former Finance Minister.
According to the ruling, the court carefully examined the allegations advanced by the OSP, including more than 70 criminal counts, but found that the affidavit supporting the allegations relied largely on conclusory assertions rather than reliable evidence demonstrating that the former Finance Minister had engaged in criminal conduct.
Judge Gardey stated that the affidavit lacked “credible or reliable facts” linking Mr. Ofori-Atta to any criminal activity or conspiracy. He described the absence of persuasive evidence of wrongdoing as a significant factor in the court’s assessment.
“The lack of any persuasive evidence indicating any kind of criminal wrongdoing or criminal conspiracy involving the respondent in the OSP’s affidavit is powerful evidence,” the judge said in the ruling.
The court further noted that although the allegations from Ghana involved serious claims of corruption, conspiracy and misuse of public funds, the evidence placed before the immigration court did not sufficiently substantiate those accusations.
Judge Gardey also observed that there was no evidence demonstrating that Mr. Ofori-Atta personally profited from decisions taken while serving as Ghana’s Minister for Finance. The ruling states that the former minister testified credibly, denying that he received any financial benefit from companies or individuals connected with the matters under investigation or otherwise used his public office for personal gain.
The findings formed part of the court’s broader assessment of whether Mr. Ofori-Atta merited discretionary immigration relief despite concerns relating to his overstay of a United States visa.
During the proceedings, Mr. Ofori-Atta’s legal team also argued that the prosecution was politically motivated and further questioned the constitutional authority of the OSP to prosecute criminal offences independently, an issue currently awaiting determination before Ghana’s Supreme Court. The Department of Homeland Security, however, maintained that those constitutional questions did not affect the substance of the allegations and urged the court to reject the application.
In weighing the application, the court considered several favourable factors, including Mr. Ofori-Atta’s longstanding educational and professional ties to the United States, his family connections, particularly his U.S. citizen son, his lack of a criminal record in the United States, and his ongoing medical treatment there.
The ruling also referred to other matters which, in the court’s view, supported Mr. Ofori-Atta’s application. These included the removal of the Interpol Red Notice associated with Ghana’s case, a KPMG review which reportedly identified administrative deficiencies but did not attribute criminal misconduct to Mr. Ofori-Atta or his staff, and the fact that the United States Department of Justice had not initiated extradition proceedings based on Ghana’s request.
