The Office of the Attorney-General (AG) has taken a firm legal stance against the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), filing arguments at the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of the OSP Act, 2017 (Act 959) that grant the agency independent prosecutorial authority.
In an affidavit filed on Wednesday, April 8, 2026, in the constitutional case of Adamtey v. Attorney General, the AG contends that the legal framework allowing the OSP to initiate criminal proceedings without express authorisation from the Attorney-General violates the 1992 Constitution.
Central to the dispute is Article 88, which vests all prosecutorial powers of the Republic exclusively in the Attorney-General.
The case follows a suit filed by private citizen Noah Ephraem Tetteh Adamtey, who is challenging the constitutionality of Act 959 and the OSP’s independent operations.
In his proposed Statement of Case, the Deputy AG seeks a Supreme Court declaration that section 4(2) of the OSP Act is unconstitutional and should, to the extent of its unconstitutionality, be declared null and void.
Section 4(2) of the Act stipulates that the OSP “shall, for the purposes of this Act, be authorised by the Attorney-General to initiate and conduct the prosecution of corruption and corruption-related offences.”
However, the AG argues that since the OSP’s establishment in 2018, it has been investigating and prosecuting offences without the necessary authorisation, bypassing the constitutional oversight of his office.
Led by Dr. Srem Sai, the Deputy AG’s legal team maintains that Parliament, in enacting the OSP Act, exceeded its powers by attempting to compel the Attorney-General to authorise prosecutions by a juridical entity rather than natural persons. “The power to prosecute is a constitutional monopoly held by the Attorney-General,” the filing states.
“Any legislation that seeks to grant a separate entity the power to prosecute without being under the direct supervision and authorisation of the AG is, to that extent, unconstitutional and void.”
The AG’s arguments emphasise that all prosecutions on behalf of the State require his authorisation and that Parliament cannot, through ordinary legislation, override this constitutional mandate.
Should the Supreme Court rule in favour of the Attorney-General, the OSP’s operational independence could be severely restricted, requiring written approval from the AG’s office for every prosecution.
Such a ruling would have far-reaching implications, potentially halting ongoing high-profile investigations, including the unified petroleum embezzlement probe and recent fuel depot raids. Critics warn that this could reduce the OSP to a subordinate agency within the Ministry of Justice, exposing independent investigations to political influence.
Notably, on January 27, 2026, the Supreme Court dismissed an application by the OSP to join the same constitutional lawsuit, a move that would have allowed the agency to defend its mandate. The AG successfully opposed the request, arguing that the OSP was not a necessary party in the proceedings.
The upcoming hearing is expected to be a landmark case, clarifying the constitutional limits of Parliament, the scope of prosecutorial authority in Ghana, and the independence of statutory bodies tasked with combating corruption.
