Legal practitioner and Head of Chambers at Clinton Consultancy, Amanda Akuokor Clinton, has raised critical concerns over the recent High Court ruling that effectively strips the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) of its independent prosecutorial authority.
The ruling, which directs that OSP matters be referred to the Attorney-General, comes at a time of heightened tension between the two offices.
While acknowledging the trial court’s authority to manage its proceedings, Ms. Clinton warned on Wednesday, 15th April 2026, that the decision may have inadvertently crossed a constitutional red line reserved exclusively for the nation’s highest court.
Addressing the media following the ruling, Ms. Clinton noted that under normal circumstances, a High Court is well within its rights to assess the procedural validity of a case.
“The High Court, exercising its jurisdiction over matters before it, made a determination that the OSP does not possess independent prosecutorial authority and directed that the matter be referred to the Attorney-General,” she stated.
She clarified that a trial court is legitimately competent to assess whether a party is properly constituted or to interpret the law as it applies to a specific case. However, she argued that the implications of this specific ruling extend far beyond a single trial.
The crux of the controversy lies in whether a High Court can effectively nullify a mandate granted to the OSP by an Act of Parliament. Under the 1992 Constitution, the power to determine the constitutionality of any law rests solely with the Supreme Court.
“The power to conclusively determine the constitutionality of an Act of Parliament rests with the Supreme Court alone. This distinction is not technical—it is foundational,” Ms. Clinton emphasised.
She suggested that by neutralising the OSP’s statutory mandate, the High Court may have waded into constitutional adjudication, an area where it lacks jurisdiction.
Ms. Clinton concluded that the ruling has created a constitutional crisis that can only be resolved at the highest level of the judiciary.
“Where a ruling, in effect, limits or neutralises a statutory mandate created by Parliament, the question inevitably arises whether the issue has crossed from application of law into constitutional adjudication. That question is now live—and properly so,” she said.
Background: A Struggle for Autonomy
The OSP was established in 2017 with the specific intent of investigating and prosecuting corruption involving politically exposed persons, cases where the Attorney-General, as a member of the Cabinet, might face a conflict of interest.
Critics of the OSP have long argued that Article 88 of the Constitution makes the Attorney-General the sole fountain of prosecutorial power, making the OSP’s independence legally fragile. This High Court ruling reinforces that view, potentially rendering the OSP a subordinate arm of the executive rather than the independent watchdog it was designed to be.
Legal analysts expect the OSP to appeal the decision or seek a stay of proceedings while the Supreme Court provides a definitive interpretation of the Special Prosecutor’s independence.
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.
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