The Office of the Attorney General has responded to a constitutional writ at the Supreme Court with arguments that seek to strike out portions of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) Act, 2017 (Act 959) that grant the office independent prosecutorial authority.
In an affidavit filed on Wednesday, 8th April 2026, in the case of Adamtey v. Attorney General, the state’s chief legal advisor argues that the current legal framework allowing the Special Prosecutor to initiate criminal proceedings without express authorisation of the Attorney General is a direct violation of the 1992 Constitution.
At the heart of the suit is Article 88 of the Constitution, which vests all prosecutorial powers of the Republic in the Attorney General. The AG contends that while the OSP was established to fight corruption, it cannot function as a “parallel state” with powers that bypass the constitutional oversight of the Attorney General.
The AG is specifically challenging sections of the Act that allow the OSP to prosecute cases of corruption without seeking a “fiat” or specific permission from his office.
“The power to prosecute is a constitutional monopoly held by the Attorney General,” the state’s filing suggests. “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.”
If the Supreme Court rules in favour of the Attorney General, it could create a massive bottleneck for the OSP.
Every high-profile corruption case, from the unified petroleum embezzlement probe to the recent raids on fuel depots, would effectively be put on hold until the Special Prosecutor receives written authorisation from the AG’s office for each specific trial.
The move argues that this would defang the OSP, turning it back into a subordinate department of the Ministry of Justice and potentially subjecting independent investigations to political interference.
Proponents of the OSP, including several civil society organisations, have long argued that the office’s primary value is its independence. They maintain that the Special Prosecutor was designed specifically to handle cases involving “politically exposed persons” where the Attorney General, an appointee of the President, might face a conflict of interest.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
Tags:
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
Source:
www.myjoyonline.com
