Legal practitioner Martin Kpebu claims the legal team representing former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta significantly influenced a United States court decision. This decision granted Mr. Ofori-Atta a Green Card. Mr. Kpebu made these assertions during an interview on Joy Prime on July 22, 2026.
Mr. Kpebu argued that Mr. Ofori-Atta’s lawyers possess strong political connections in the United States. He specifically mentioned their ties to former President Donald Trump. According to Mr. Kpebu, one of the lawyers, Johnny Ashcroft, is closely associated with President Trump. This connection, he suggested, made the court’s favorable decision unsurprising.
This claim introduces a new dimension to discussions surrounding the former Finance Minister. It raises questions about the impartiality of international legal processes when high-profile Ghanaian figures are involved. Ghana's economic stability and international standing often depend on the perceived integrity of its leaders. Any suggestion of undue influence in legal matters, even abroad, can impact public trust.
“Because Ken Ofori-Atta has powerful lawyers who are close to Donald Trump, it was expected that he would be granted a Green Card,” Mr. Kpebu stated. He further described parts of the court’s judgment as “performative.” Mr. Kpebu contended that the judge exceeded their mandate by commenting on criminal allegations against the former minister. He maintained that the court was not required to determine the criminal case.
Mr. Kpebu emphasized that the judge went too far in their pronouncements. “Nobody asked him to decide the criminal case. That was not his mandate,” he asserted. He also claimed that the US judicial system, like others globally, is not immune to political influence. Mr. Kpebu suggested that judges in the United States can be perceived as partisan. This perception often depends on the administration that appointed them.
For these reasons, Mr. Kpebu expressed doubts about the judgment’s overall credibility. “We understand that they also face issues of bias. When the judge was speaking, we could read between the lines. I do not think it is a credible judgment,” he added. These statements from a respected legal figure could spark further debate. They might prompt closer scrutiny of similar international legal proceedings involving Ghanaian officials.
The implications of such allegations are significant for Ghana's political landscape. They could fuel public skepticism regarding the fairness of legal outcomes. This situation might also encourage calls for greater transparency in international legal engagements. Decision-makers and the public will watch for any official responses to these serious claims. The integrity of judicial processes, both domestic and international, remains a critical concern for good governance.