Special Prosecutor Slams “Unfair” Parliamentary Bid to Abolish OSP

Introduction

The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) has faced significant political turbulence in recent months, with the Special Prosecutor launching a robust defense against what he describes as an “unfair” coordinated effort to dismantle Ghana’s independent anti-corruption agency. This article examines the controversy surrounding the parliamentary attempt to abolish the OSP and the broader implications for Ghana’s anti-corruption framework.

Key Points

Background

The Office of the Special Prosecutor was established in 2018 as an independent anti-corruption agency in Ghana, designed to investigate and prosecute corruption cases involving public officials and politically exposed persons. The OSP operates separately from the Attorney-General’s Department to ensure independence in investigating high-level corruption cases.

In late 2025, a Private Member’s Bill was introduced in Parliament proposing to abolish the OSP and subsume its functions under the Attorney-General’s Department. Proponents argued that the Office was a “drain on national resources” and cited institutional friction and jurisdictional overlaps with the Attorney-General’s office.

Analysis

The Parliamentary Challenge

The Special Prosecutor’s Half-Yearly Report covering July to December 2025 characterized the period as one of “excessive resistance,” highlighting a coordinated existential threat to the OSP’s independence. The report detailed how the proposed legislation represented a significant challenge to Ghana’s anti-corruption architecture.

The bill’s sponsors claimed that consolidating anti-corruption functions under the Attorney-General would improve administration and efficiency. However, the Special Prosecutor strongly contested this reasoning, arguing that such consolidation would compromise the independence necessary for effective anti-corruption work.

Presidential Intervention

The withdrawal of the bill following President John Dramani Mahama’s direct intervention marked a crucial turning point. The Special Prosecutor commended this decisive action, noting that it preserved the “gold standard of independent anti-corruption efforts.”

The President’s intervention was based on the principle that the Attorney-General, as a Cabinet member and chief legal advisor to the government, cannot effectively investigate and prosecute members of the government to which they belong. This reasoning aligns with international best practices for anti-corruption agencies, which emphasize the importance of operational independence.

Performance Defense

The Special Prosecutor mounted a vigorous defense against claims that the Office had failed to deliver impact relative to its operational costs. The report dismissed the memorandum accompanying the withdrawn bill as a collection of “naked statements” made without any empirical examination of the OSP’s actual performance.

The OSP emphasized that its effectiveness in threatening the status quo of impunity was precisely why it faced such resistance. The Office pointed to its “assiduous attendance” before Parliamentary oversight committees as evidence of its transparency and accountability.

Practical Advice

For Anti-Corruption Agencies

1. **Maintain Comprehensive Documentation**: Keep detailed records of all investigations and their outcomes to counter criticism about effectiveness
2. **Engage Proactively with Oversight Bodies**: Regular appearances before parliamentary committees demonstrate transparency and accountability
3. **Communicate Impact Effectively**: Clearly articulate the financial and social benefits of anti-corruption work to the public
4. **Build Political Support**: Cultivate relationships with key political stakeholders who understand the importance of independent anti-corruption institutions

For Policymakers

1. **Respect Institutional Independence**: Recognize that anti-corruption agencies require operational independence to function effectively
2. **Evaluate Performance Objectively**: Base assessments of anti-corruption agencies on empirical evidence rather than political considerations
3. **Consider International Best Practices**: Learn from successful anti-corruption frameworks in other jurisdictions
4. **Protect Whistleblowers**: Ensure that those who expose corruption are protected from retaliation

FAQ

Conclusion

The attempt to abolish Ghana’s Office of the Special Prosecutor represents a significant challenge to the country’s anti-corruption framework. The Special Prosecutor’s robust defense and the President’s intervention to preserve the OSP’s independence highlight the ongoing tension between anti-corruption efforts and entrenched interests.

The controversy underscores the importance of maintaining independent anti-corruption institutions in the face of political pressure. As Ghana continues to strengthen its governance framework, the preservation of the OSP’s independence will be crucial for ensuring accountability and transparency in public administration.

The OSP’s documented achievements in saving the country billions of cedis through various investigations demonstrate its value and effectiveness. Moving forward, continued support for the Office’s independence will be essential for Ghana’s anti-corruption efforts to succeed.

Sources

– Office of the Special Prosecutor Half-Yearly Report (July-December 2025)
– Parliamentary records regarding the Private Member’s Bill to abolish the OSP
– Presidential communications regarding the withdrawal of the abolition bill
– Official statements from the Special Prosecutor’s office
– Reports on OSP investigations and their financial impact on Ghana

*Note: This article is based on publicly available information and official reports. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of any organization.*