The United States District Court, District of Nevada, in its ruling on the extradition request concerning Sedina Christine Tamakloe Attionu, clearly outlined the legal elements that must be satisfied before a certification of extradition can be granted.
First, the Court had to satisfy itself that it possessed proper jurisdiction over the fugitive and the authority to conduct the extradition proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 3184.
On this element, the Court found that it had both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over Sedina Attionu, who had been properly arrested in the District of Nevada pursuant to Ghana’s formal request.
The Court further held that the Magistrate Judge was duly authorized under U.S. law to conduct the extradition hearing and issue certification.
Second, the Court examined whether there existed a valid and subsisting extradition treaty between the Republic of Ghana and the United States of America.
The Court found affirmatively that the 1931 Extradition Treaty, as continued in force between the United States and Ghana, together with the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), remains fully valid and enforceable.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied on the declaration of the U.S. State Department and emphasized the long-standing judicial principle of deference to the Executive in matters touching on foreign relations and treaty recognition.
Third, the Court considered whether the offences for which extradition was sought were covered by the treaty and satisfied the principle of dual criminality.
This required the Court to determine whether the offences are recognized under both Ghanaian and American law and whether they are substantially analogous.
The Court found that the charges, including Stealing, Conspiracy to Steal, Willfully Causing Financial Loss to the State, Conspiracy to Willfully Cause Financial Loss, Causing Loss to Public Property, and Money Laundering, all fall within the offences contemplated under the Extradition Treaty and Articles 17 and 23 of UNCAC.
The Court further rejected the defence argument that differences in mens rea between Ghanaian and U.S. law defeated extraditability, holding that what matters is whether the underlying conduct: misappropriation and diversion of public funds is criminal in both jurisdictions.
On that basis, the Court concluded that the offences are substantially analogous because both legal systems target the same basic evil: the dishonest dissipation and unlawful appropriation of public resources.
Fourth, and perhaps most critically, the Court considered whether there was sufficient evidence to establish probable cause. On this element, the Court found overwhelming evidence.
It relied on the detailed affidavits of Investigator Kodua Basoa Panyin Twum and Assistant State Attorney Yvonne Yaache-Adomako, both of which meticulously traced the various schemes involving the fraudulent diversion of MASLOC funds.
Most significantly, the Court underscored that Sedina Attionu had already been convicted by the High Court of Ghana on the very offences for which extradition is sought.
The Court reiterated the settled principle that a prior foreign conviction, particularly one obtained after trial proceedings in which the accused was represented by counsel, is by itself sufficient to establish probable cause for extradition purposes.
Having found that all these elements were fully satisfied, the Court proceeded in its final certification to make definitive findings: that it had jurisdiction, that the treaty was valid and in force, that the offences are extraditable, that Ghana’s supporting documents were properly authenticated, and that probable cause exists to believe Sedina Attionu committed the offences in question.
On the strength of these findings, the Court formally certified her extradition to Ghana and committed her to the custody of the United States Marshal pending the final surrender decision by the U.S. Secretary of State.
But beyond the legal triumph, this case raises profound political and moral questions that cannot be ignored.
This is a case that the Republic of Ghana has won. It was the Attorney-General and the Government of Ghana that pursued this extradition request, and the United States Court has now vindicated that request in clear and emphatic terms.
So the question must be asked: Why are they not jubilating?
Why are they not mobilizing their supporters to march to the airport to receive her on the day she arrives, in the same dramatic fashion they sought to do in the matter involving Ken Ofori-Atta?
Why are there no organized processions on the streets of Accra proclaiming that justice has been served? Why the sudden silence when the outcome does not fit the preferred political script?
This selective celebration of justice exposes the rank inconsistency and opportunism that have crept into our public discourse.
We must also send an unmistakable signal that the Government must not allow Sedina Attionu to return to Ghana, spend a few symbolic days or weeks, and then be quietly released through the back door of executive clemency by triggering Article 72 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, which provides:
“The President may, acting in consultation with the Council of State, grant a pardon to a person convicted of an offence, substitute a less severe form of punishment, or remit the whole or part of a punishment.”
While this power exists constitutionally, any attempt to deploy it in a matter of this magnitude would amount to a direct assault on public confidence in the justice system. More importantly, there are already worrying signs that must not be ignored.
The second accused in the same matter, Daniel Axim, who was sentenced to jail, was granted bail pending appeal on 14th January 2026. That development naturally raises concerns and sends an early signal that there may be efforts to gradually dilute the full effect of the convictions secured in this case.
We sincerely hope this is not the route the Government intends to pursue with Sedina Attionu upon her return. The Ghanaian people will not understand how one accomplice is already out on bail pending appeal, and the principal accused, after an international extradition battle, could equally be allowed to pass through procedural or executive convenience in a manner that undermines the gravity of the offences.
It would send a dangerous message that accountability in Ghana is not anchored in principle but in political convenience.
The Court in the United States has done its part. The legal process has run its course internationally. The real test now lies here at home: whether the Government of Ghana will permit justice to be fully executed or whether it will compromise the very victory it fought to secure.That is the question the Ghanaian people must continue to ask.
Vincent Ekow Assafuah
The author is a Member of Parliament for Old Tafo
