OSP–AG fight over prosecutorial monopoly at SC
A legal storm at the Supreme Court
In Supreme Court of Ghana, a high-stakes constitutional battle is unfolding—one that could redefine how corruption cases are prosecuted in the country. At the center of the dispute is the relationship between the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP).The Attorney General has filed a strong response to a writ challenging the legal foundation of the OSP’s prosecutorial powers, arguing that parts of its enabling law are unconstitutional.
The constitutional argument
The Attorney General’s case rests firmly on Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution, which grants exclusive authority to initiate and conduct criminal prosecutions to the Attorney General.
According to the affidavit filed on April 8, 2026, any law that allows another body—such as the OSP—to prosecute without explicit approval (a “fiat”) from the AG undermines this constitutional provision. The filing emphasizes that prosecutorial power is not just a function, but a constitutional monopoly. In the AG’s view, allowing the OSP to act independently creates a parallel system that operates outside constitutional control.
The case of Adamtey v. Attorney General
The legal challenge originates from a suit filed by private citizen Noah Ephraem Tetteh Adamtey.
In Adamtey v. Attorney General, the plaintiff questions the constitutionality of key provisions in the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959). These provisions grant the Special Prosecutor the authority to independently initiate criminal proceedings, particularly in corruption-related cases. The Attorney General has now aligned with parts of this challenge, seeking to strike down those specific provisions.
OSP’s fight to defend its mandate
Earlier in the year, on January 27, 2026, the OSP attempted to join the case to defend its own legal authority. However, the Supreme Court of Ghana rejected the request after the Attorney General argued that the OSP was not a necessary party to the proceedings.
This decision left the institution unable to directly defend the very powers now under threat—a development that has raised concerns among observers.
What is at stake?
If the court rules in favour of the Attorney General, the consequences could be far-reaching. The OSP would no longer be able to independently prosecute corruption cases. Instead, it would need written authorisation from the Attorney General for each case it wishes to pursue. This could significantly slow down high-profile investigations, including those involving alleged petroleum embezzlement and recent enforcement actions targeting fuel depots.
In practical terms, critics warn that such a ruling could create a bureaucratic bottleneck, delaying justice and weakening anti-corruption efforts.
Fears of political influence
Supporters of the OSP argue that its independence is its greatest strength. The office was designed to investigate and prosecute corruption cases involving politically exposed persons—situations where the Attorney General might face conflicts of interest due to their appointment by the President.
They fear that requiring AG approval for prosecutions could expose sensitive investigations to political pressure, undermining public trust in the fight against corruption.
A defining moment for anti-corruption efforts
This case represents more than a legal technicality—it is a test of Ghana’s institutional balance in combating corruption. On one side stands constitutional orthodoxy, insisting on a centralized prosecutorial authority. On the other is a relatively new anti-corruption body built on the principle of independence.
As the Supreme Court of Ghana prepares to rule, the outcome could reshape the future of accountability, governance, and the rule of law in the country.
