By Nadia Ntiamoah
The conviction of former Tema Oil Refinery Managing Director and former Goldman Sachs banker Kwaku Asante Berko in the United States has reopened an old political and institutional wound in Ghana: who exactly should investigate and prosecute the Ghanaian side of an alleged international bribery scheme involving a major power project?
What began as a US federal prosecution of Berko has now triggered a fresh contest between Ghana’s anti-corruption institutions, with the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) moving to trace assets connected to the case while the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) has publicly highlighted its role in providing evidence and investigative assistance to US authorities.
The development has prompted critics to question why another Ghanaian institution should be leading a fresh investigation when the OSP says it was already involved in the case and supplied material that contributed to the successful US prosecution.
The controversy has also acquired a distinctly political character, with critics pointing to what they describe as alleged delays in dealing with other corruption and illegal-mining-related allegations involving officials of the governing National Democratic Congress (NDC).
Those claims, however, remain political criticisms unless supported by evidence establishing that EOCO deliberately refused to investigate particular individuals.
The question now: why another investigation?
EOCO has indicated that it is seeking the US court records following Berko’s conviction and intends to trace funds, proceeds and assets that may be connected to the alleged bribery scheme.
The agency’s position is that a conviction in the United States does not automatically establish criminal liability for individuals in Ghana merely because their names may appear in the evidence.
That is a legally significant distinction.
EOCO says the Ghanaian dimension must be independently assessed under Ghanaian law, with investigators determining whether any person in Ghana received illicit payments, benefited from the alleged scheme or committed an offence.
But the decision has triggered criticism from those who believe Ghana already possesses substantial evidence.
The strongest argument comes from the OSP itself.
The anti-corruption agency has said it provided investigative and evidentiary assistance to the US Federal Bureau of Investigation under Ghana’s mutual legal assistance arrangements.
According to the OSP, the US Department of Justice acknowledged its assistance as significant to the prosecution.
That revelation has transformed the debate.
If the OSP already assisted the FBI with evidence that helped secure Berko’s conviction, critics ask, what additional investigation is required before Ghana can identify and pursue persons who may have benefited from the alleged payments?
OSP’s role puts spotlight on institutional overlap
The issue is not simply about which institution has the power to investigate.
It is also about whether Ghana’s anti-corruption agencies are coordinating effectively or duplicating one another’s work.
The OSP was established specifically to investigate and prosecute corruption and corruption-related offences involving public officials, politically exposed persons and private individuals. Its statutory jurisdiction also extends to corruption-related conduct committed outside Ghana where the conduct constitutes an offence under Ghanaian law.
EOCO, on the other hand, was established under the Economic and Organised Crime Office Act, 2010 (Act 804), with a broader mandate covering serious economic and organised crimes, including offences involving financial or economic loss to the Republic, money laundering and other serious offences. It can investigate and, on the authority of the Attorney-General, prosecute offences falling within its mandate.
That means the argument that EOCO has no mandate whatsoever in matters connected with corruption would be too broad.
The real institutional question is more nuanced: where a matter principally concerns alleged corruption by public officials and the OSP has already been involved in gathering evidence, what is the appropriate division of responsibility between the OSP, EOCO and the Attorney-General?
That is the question now demanding an answer.
The controversy dates back to the period of Ghana’s severe electricity crisis, popularly known as dumsor.
In the middle of the crisis, Ghana urgently sought additional generation capacity and entered into arrangements with Turkish energy company Aksa Enerji Uretim A.S. for the development and financing of a power plant.
Berko, then an executive in the investment banking division of a Goldman Sachs subsidiary, was involved in the transaction because the financial institution was advising Aksa.
US prosecutors alleged that between approximately 2014 and 2017, Berko and co-conspirators participated in a scheme to bribe Ghanaian officials in order to secure approvals necessary for the power project.
US court documents alleged that the scheme involved payments to Ghanaian officials, including payments associated with a 2015 trip to Turkey to inspect equipment.
The US Department of Justice previously alleged that five Ghanaian officials received US$5,000 each during that trip. It also cited communications concerning further alleged payments after the project was ratified by Parliament.
The allegations subsequently became the subject of a major US prosecution.
Berko convicted in Brooklyn
On August 6, 2026, a federal jury in Brooklyn convicted Berko in connection with the bribery scheme.
The conviction transformed what had previously been allegations into a criminal case in which a US jury found Berko guilty. But the conviction concerns Berko.
It does not, by itself, establish that every Ghanaian official allegedly connected to the scheme committed a criminal offence.
That distinction has become central to EOCO’s justification for its asset-tracing exercise.
The Ghanaian authorities must establish their own case against any person they seek to prosecute.
K.T. Hammond fights back
One of the first prominent Ghanaian figures to respond has been former Power Minister Dr Kwabena Donkor, through his lawyer, former Adansi Asokwa MP K.T. Hammond.
Donkor was the minister responsible for Power when negotiations surrounding the Aksa project took place.
His legal team has emphatically denied that he had any involvement in the alleged bribery.
Hammond said his client had never met Berko, never negotiated with him and never demanded money from him.
According to the lawyer, Donkor also denies ever receiving money or authorising anyone to demand money on his behalf.
The former minister’s lawyers have further argued that even if another person invoked the minister’s name while allegedly seeking money, that would not establish that Donkor authorised or benefited from the conduct.
The “Senior Ghana Official” controversy
The defence has also challenged attempts to interpret references in the US case to a “Senior Ghana Official” as proof that Donkor was the official involved.
The US prosecution’s case included allegations about payments intended to influence Ghanaian officials and references to a senior Ghanaian official whose approval was important to the transaction.
But Donkor’s lawyers say there is no evidence from the US trial establishing that he demanded or received money.
That distinction will become important if Ghanaian investigators seek to build domestic cases against individuals identified through the US evidence.
The existence of a reference to an official in court documents does not, on its own, establish criminal liability.
Investigators would need to establish the identity of the person, the alleged conduct, the money trail and the connection between the alleged payment and the official’s actions.
The Istanbul trip comes under scrutiny
Another issue that has returned to the public debate is the trip to Istanbul by Ghanaian officials during the negotiations.
Donkor’s lawyers have described the trip as a technical inspection of equipment.
According to the defence, representatives of relevant electricity-sector institutions travelled to Turkey as part of standard pre-shipment inspection procedures.
The purpose, they say, was to establish the quality, quantity and suitability of the equipment before it was shipped to Ghana.
The defence rejects any suggestion that the trip itself demonstrates corruption.
But because US prosecutors referred to payments allegedly made during the Turkey visit, the circumstances surrounding the trip are likely to remain relevant to any Ghanaian investigation.
Critics question EOCO’s track record
It is against this background that criticism of EOCO has intensified.
Critics point to other cases they say have remained unresolved for extended periods and question whether the agency has demonstrated sufficient urgency when allegations involve politically exposed persons.
Among the examples cited by critics are allegations involving NDC figures Abanga Yakubu and Joseph Yamin in relation to illegal mining.
The criticism is that if EOCO has allegedly failed to bring those matters to a conclusion after more than a year, its decision to take up the Aksa asset-tracing exercise should not automatically be interpreted as evidence that it will deliver accountability.
Those claims should, however, be treated as allegations about the agency’s performance rather than established findings of deliberate refusal or political interference.
The broader concern is about public confidence.
An anti-corruption agency cannot effectively perform its role if citizens believe investigations are selective, politically influenced or unnecessarily duplicated.
