Renowned private legal practitioner Thaddeus Sory has strongly criticized both the Special Prosecutor, Kissi Agyebeng, and Parliament for their handling of the raid on the residence of former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta.
On Tuesday, February 11, 2025, a group of individuals, including some in military and police uniforms, raided Ofori-Atta’s residence in Cantonments while he was out of the country. His wife and other family members were present at the time of the operation.
Approximately 12 individuals—five in military uniforms, one in a police uniform, and the rest in plain clothes—carried out the raid. Ofori-Atta has been in the United States on medical grounds since the beginning of 2025, after notifying both the former and current Chief of Staff, Frema Osei-Opare and Julius Debrah.
Following the incident, Special Prosecutor Kissi Agyebeng claimed the raid was staged and declared Ofori-Atta wanted in connection with corruption-related offenses. This decision, along with the handling of the case by state authorities, has drawn sharp criticism from legal experts, including Sory, who questioned the fairness of Agyebeng’s approach.
Sory’s Criticism of the Special Prosecutor
In an opinion piece, Sory argued that Agyebeng’s decision to declare Ofori-Atta a fugitive and label the security officials who raided his residence as “rogues” was unjustified. He cited biblical examples, emphasizing that even Adam was given the opportunity to explain himself before facing consequences.
Sory accused the Special Prosecutor of engaging in grandstanding and wasting valuable time and public resources without yielding concrete results. He questioned why Agyebeng would issue public apologies for an operation he had no control over while simultaneously declaring the former minister a wanted man.
“Why apologize when you were not responsible for the entry? Did the Minister accuse you? Or was this fear? Or an attempt to court his friendship while publicly pretending to be searching for him? You announced to the world that you were ‘looking for’ the former Minister. Why? If you are looking for him, then find him. That is your job. We don’t need updates—we need results. Enough with the complaints. First, the courts are not cooperating. Now, the Minister has ‘run away.’ So, what should we do?”
Sory suggested that if Agyebeng had a strong case against Ofori-Atta, he should proceed with legal action rather than making public pronouncements. He argued that the law allows for trials in absentia, which could be used if the former minister refuses to appear before investigators.
Sory’s Concerns About Parliament’s Role
Sory also criticized Parliament for its involvement in the matter, describing its actions as unnecessary and inconsistent. He questioned why lawmakers felt the need to apologize to Ofori-Atta while failing to extend similar courtesies to others who have been subjected to questionable treatment by security agencies.
He noted that Parliament did not intervene in cases involving other individuals who faced controversial arrests, including foreign nationals and political activists.
“And then there’s Parliament. Why did you apologize? Did you enter the Minister’s house? Did you send those men? Did they ask for your approval? So why apologize? If Parliament felt it necessary to intervene, the logical step was to ask for an explanation—not to offer an unsolicited apology. And why only this case? Did Parliament apologize to the Emirati woman who was abducted? Or to Bongo Ideas? If not, then do so now. They are human beings too.”
Sory questioned whether Ofori-Atta’s status as a former government official warranted special treatment, asking if he had any form of immunity from searches and arrests that would justify Parliament’s scrutiny of the case.
Call for Due Process and Legal Accountability
The legal expert urged all stakeholders to uphold the principles of fairness and due process, ensuring that every individual under investigation is given the opportunity to respond before conclusions are drawn. He emphasized that security officials carrying out their duties should not be vilified without evidence.
Sory also pointed out the contributions of some of the security officials who were labeled as “rogues,” stating that these same individuals have intercepted illegal activities such as counterfeit currency and smuggled gold for the benefit of the nation. He criticized the Special Prosecutor for undermining their work without verifying the full facts of the situation.
“These same officials have intercepted containers of counterfeit money and gold, working tirelessly for Ghana’s benefit. Yet, they do not stand on rooftops touting their achievements. They do not moan about obstacles or frustration. They remain focused. They let the public judge their work. Learn from them. Do not be the chick that lays an egg and clucks all day for attention. Be the elephant that delivers a calf in silence.”
Conclusion
Thaddeus Sory’s strong critique of the Special Prosecutor and Parliament highlights deep concerns over the handling of the Ken Ofori-Atta case. His argument centers on the need for professionalism, fairness, and adherence to due process in legal and political affairs.
Below is the full opinion piece by Thaddeus Sory:
Mea Culpa for Doing Nothing
Our laws uphold two cardinal principles of justice—so fundamental are these rules that they are regarded as “natural.” One of these, which is the subject of my reflection today, is the principle that no person should be judged without the opportunity to be heard.
Every individual must be given the chance to explain their actions before judgment, even if their explanation appears unjustifiable or outright foolish. This right is inherent, regardless of who the person is or claims to be.
Some argue that, apart from God’s direct instruction to Adam not to eat the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, the second rule God established—by example—was the principle of hearing before condemnation.
When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, both God and Adam knew that the inevitable had occurred. Yet, instead of instantly casting them out, God first sought Adam out, engaged him, and asked for an explanation. Being all-powerful, God could have wiped them off the face of the earth without discussion—but He did not.
This principle was echoed in the New Testament when Nicodemus, in response to those who sought the immediate condemnation of Jesus, wisely asked: “Doth our law judge any man before it hear him and know what he doeth?”
Recently, reports emerged that certain individuals entered the residence of the former Finance Minister. The Special Prosecutor (SP) appeared to know who they were. He was certain, at least, that they were not armed robbers or thieves.
The SP acknowledged that these were state officials, just like himself, carrying out their duties—yet he never sought an explanation for their actions. Instead, he branded their entry into the Minister’s home as “roguish.”
But who made the SP the judge of their official duties? What authority does he have to determine whether other state officials are acting lawfully or unlawfully? Do they require his approval before executing their mandates?
Disagreeing with an action is one thing. Declaring it wrongful—or even criminal—without knowing the full facts is another. The SP did not know whether these officials were executing a warrant. He did not verify whether it was a search warrant or an arrest warrant. If I were among those officials, I would demand an apology.
And then came the needless, hypocritical apology: “Please, Mr. Minister, I did not do it ooo. Those people are just thugs. They acted wrongly. I WILL NEVER DO SUCH A THING.”
Why apologize when you were not responsible for the entry? Did the Minister accuse you? Or was this fear? Or an attempt to court his friendship while publicly pretending to be searching for him?
If you believe you have enough evidence to prosecute him, then proceed. The law allows for trials in absentia. That is what we expect—not storytelling. Instead, you have wasted valuable time and public resources on grandstanding and unnecessary announcements.
And what of the officials you condemned without facts? They were there to execute an arrest warrant. Not a search. They were there based on a formal report. They acted within their statutory mandate. Did you cross-check that before your public pronouncements?
The rule is Audi alteram partem. That is our law. Even the Almighty God applied it. So ye saints, you cannot be false to the rule.
