The Office of the Attorney-General is set to take over all ongoing prosecutions by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) following a High Court ruling that questioned the legal basis of the anti-corruption body’s prosecutorial authority.
The decision stems from a case brought before the court by Peter Archiblod Hyde, an accused person being prosecuted by the OSP.
Hyde challenged the authority of the Office, arguing that under both the Constitution and the OSP Act, the Special Prosecutor can only initiate and conduct prosecutions with the express authorisation of the Attorney-General.
Also read: Gov’t to lose GH¢200m in revenue from temporary fuel price reduction
During proceedings, the court directed the OSP to demonstrate that its officers had obtained the necessary authorisation to prosecute. However, court records indicated that the Office was unable to provide evidence of such approval.
Consequently, the High Court ordered that all cases currently being handled by the OSP be transferred to the Office of the Attorney-General until the required constitutional authorisation is secured.
Deputy Attorney-General, Justice Srem-Sai, affirmed in a post on X that the government’s commitment to upholding the decision of the court.
The Attorney-General, he said, has no intention of disregarding the order and will, in the coming days, begin processes to ensure full compliance.
“The Honourable Attorney-General will take the necessary steps to give effect to the Court’s order,” he noted.
The development is expected to have immediate implications for ongoing corruption-related prosecutions spearheaded by the OSP, an institution established to independently investigate and prosecute corruption and corruption-related offences.
The ruling could reignite debate over the scope of the OSP’s independence and its relationship with the Office of the Attorney-General, who constitutionally holds the authority to initiate and conduct criminal prosecutions on behalf of the state.
While the ruling does not abolish the powers of the OSP, it places a temporary limitation on its prosecutorial functions, pending the acquisition of the required authorisation.
The timeline for resolving the authorisation issue remains unclear, but the transition is expected to affect several ongoing cases and may reshape the operational dynamics between the two state institutions.