The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed a legal challenge against the independent prosecution powers of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) in criminal cases, affirming the office’s authority to bring corruption-related cases without prior approval from the Attorney-General.
The landmark ruling by the apex court has brought an end to a legal battle that had cast uncertainty over the prosecutorial powers of the OSP and threatened to affect some of its high-profile corruption investigations.
A seven-member panel of the Supreme Court, presided over by Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, dismissed a suit filed by private legal practitioner Noah Adamtey, who challenged the constitutional basis of the OSP’s independent prosecution powers.
Also read: Dr Charles Dwamena: Who is Dr China, NPP General Secretary hopeful?
The case centred on whether the 1992 Constitution gives the Attorney-General exclusive authority to initiate and conduct criminal prosecutions in Ghana under Article 88.
Adamtey argued that Parliament exceeded its constitutional powers by granting the OSP independent prosecutorial authority under the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959).
He had specifically asked the Supreme Court to strike down provisions, including sections 3(3) and 4 of Act 959, which provide the OSP with the power to independently investigate and prosecute corruption and corruption-related offences.
The Supreme Court, however, rejected the challenge, leaving the provisions of Act 959 intact.
The ruling also goes against the position advanced by the Attorney-General’s Office during the proceedings.
Deputy Attorney-General Justice Srem-Sai had argued that prosecutorial authority was constitutionally vested exclusively in the Attorney-General and that the OSP could not independently exercise such powers.
The Supreme Court’s decision therefore represents a significant victory for the OSP and those who have advocated for an independent anti-corruption institution capable of investigating and prosecuting suspected corruption without political interference.
Fourteen civil society organisations, including Transparency International Ghana and IMANI Africa, had joined the case in support of the OSP’s independent prosecution powers.
Their involvement reflected broader concerns among civil society groups about the need for an anti-corruption institution with sufficient independence to investigate and prosecute corruption-related offences.
The Supreme Court’s decision is expected to remove a major legal uncertainty that had surrounded the OSP’s ongoing prosecutions.
Earlier this year, a High Court ruling held that the OSP required authorisation from the Attorney-General before it could prosecute certain cases. The decision had raised questions about the future of prosecutions being pursued by the Special Prosecutor’s Office.
The legal dispute also affected the trial of former Minister for Tourism, Arts and Culture, Mustapha Hamid, which was reportedly put on hold pending the Supreme Court’s determination of the matter.
The latest ruling now provides clarity on the OSP’s prosecutorial powers and reinforces its ability to independently pursue corruption-related cases.
Special Prosecutor Kissi Agyebeng has been pursuing several high-profile corruption investigations and prosecutions since assuming office.
Among the cases attracting significant public attention is the OSP’s pursuit of former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta, who the office has described as a fugitive.
The Special Prosecutor has also previously raised concerns about the political pressure faced by his office, saying politicians sometimes treat the OSP as “bad news”.
The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision could therefore strengthen the OSP’s position as Ghana’s principal independent anti-corruption prosecution institution.
With the legal challenge now dismissed, the Special Prosecutor can continue to exercise his prosecution powers without seeking prior authorisation from the Attorney-General.
The ruling is likely to have far-reaching implications for Ghana’s anti-corruption efforts and could shape future legal arguments over the constitutional limits of prosecutorial powers in the country.