Former Attorney-General and Special Prosecutor Martin Amidu has raised questions about the scope of Ghana’s investigation into the Asante Kwaku Berko-AKSA Ghana bribery case, citing differences between the timeline presented by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) and dates contained in US court records.
Mr Amidu said the discrepancy could have implications for the extent of the Ghanaian investigation, particularly because the alleged conduct in the US proceedings covered a period extending beyond the tenure of former Power Minister Kwabena Donkor.
In an open letter, Mr Amidu said records from the US proceedings against Mr Berko indicated that the alleged bribery offences occurred “in or about and between December 2014 and March 2017.”
He contrasted this with the OSP’s presentation at its August 26, 2026 press conference, where the Ghanaian dimension of the case was discussed largely within the 2014 to 2015 period.
According to Mr Amidu, the difference is significant because Mr Donkor served as Minister of Power from December 2014 to December 2015.
He argued that allegations involving transactions or conduct occurring after December 2015 therefore require investigators to examine events beyond the period during which Mr Donkor was in office.
Mr Amidu also referred to the counts contained in the US indictment against Mr Berko.
He said Counts One and Three covered the period from December 2014 to March 2017, while Count Two specifically concerned a US$140,000 wire transfer made on September 4, 2015.
The former Special Prosecutor questioned why the OSP relied on the shorter 2014 to 2015 period when explaining the Ghanaian dimension of the case, despite the broader timeframe contained in the US court documents.
He accused Special Prosecutor Kissi Agyebeng of presenting the timeline in a manner that could shift attention towards Mr Donkor while leaving other aspects of the US proceedings insufficiently examined.
Mr Amidu also challenged the OSP’s description of Mr Berko’s US conviction as relating to a conspiracy to pay and the payment of more than US$1 million in bribes “between 2014 – 2015 to multiple Ghanaian officials.”
He maintained that the US court records provided a broader factual timeframe that should form part of any comprehensive examination of the Ghanaian aspects of the case.
“Any serious government intending a thorough investigation would not have overlooked these facts with the accompanying evidence,” Mr Amidu said.
His intervention has renewed questions about the extent to which Ghana’s investigators have examined the full period covered by the US case and whether all individuals, transactions and events captured in the American proceedings have been sufficiently considered in the local investigation.
