OSP Denies Bias, Asserts Vote-Buying Probes into NPP and NDC Are Guided by Law and Evidence

Introduction: Understanding the Role of the OSP in Ghana’s Political Landscape

In the vibrant and often contentious arena of Ghanaian politics, allegations of electoral malpractice, particularly vote-buying, are recurring themes that challenge the integrity of democratic processes. Recently, the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP)—the nation’s premier anti-corruption institution—found itself at the center of such controversy. Critics accused the OSP of selective prosecution, claiming it was disproportionately targeting the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC) while allegedly being lenient toward the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP).

These accusations gained traction following a public statement from the OSP that detailed its investigations into alleged vote-buying during internal party primaries. In response, the OSP has firmly denied any bias, categorically stating that its probes into both the NPP presidential primaries and the NDC Ayawaso East parliamentary primaries are strictly guided by regulation, evidence, and the law. This article provides a clear, pedagogical, and SEO-friendly breakdown of the situation. We will examine the OSP’s mandate, the specific allegations against each party, the rationale provided by the OSP for its investigative focus, and the broader implications for political accountability in Ghana.

Key Points: The Core of the OSP’s Position

• Denial of Bias: The OSP unequivocally denies that its investigations are politically motivated or selectively targeted against the NDC.
• Legal and Evidentiary Basis: The office asserts that all probes are initiated and conducted based on credible evidence and within the framework of Ghana’s Criminal Offences Act and the OSP Act, 2020 (Act 959).
• Sequential Reporting Misinterpreted: The OSP explains that its public statement, which mentioned the NPP case first and the NDC case second, was a matter of sequential reporting and not an indication of priority or bias.
• Specific Incident Involving NDC: The OSP confirmed that a specific incident during the Ayawaso East primary—an alleged assault on an OSP officer—elevated the urgency and focus on that particular NDC case.
• Dual Investigations Active: Investigations are reportedly ongoing into alleged vote-buying in both the NPP’s presidential candidate selection and the NDC’s parliamentary primaries in Ayawaso East.
• Institutional Neutrality: The OSP’s leadership, including its Director of Strategy, Research, and Communications, Sammy Darko, has publicly reiterated the institution’s commitment to impartiality and its constitutional duty.

Background: The OSP’s Mandate and the Allegations

The OSP’s Constitutional and Legal Authority

Established under the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2020 (Act 959), the OSP is an independent prosecutorial institution with a specific mandate to investigate and prosecute corruption and corruption-related offences. Its jurisdiction covers both public and private sector entities, and it has the power to investigate matters involving political exposure. The OSP’s independence is constitutionally guarded to insulate it from political interference, making its claims of impartiality central to its legitimacy.

The Alleged Vote-Buying Incidents

NPP Presidential Primaries: During the New Patriotic Party’s internal elections to select a flagbearer for the 2024 general election, reports emerged of delegates receiving monetary inducements. The OSP received complaints that some delegates were paid sums of money, leading to dissatisfaction among those who did not receive payments. This alleged practice directly contravenes Section 123 of Ghana’s Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), which deals with influencing voters and treating.

NDC Ayawaso East Parliamentary Primaries: In the National Democratic Congress’s primary for the Ayawaso East constituency, reports indicated that delegates received material items, including 32-inch televisions, coolers, and boiled eggs, from the camp of candidate Mohammed Baba Jamal Ahmed. The distribution of goods to influence delegate votes also falls under the prohibitions of the Criminal Offences Act. Furthermore, this case was uniquely marked by an alleged physical confrontation where an OSP officer was reportedly attacked while attempting to monitor the electoral process, adding a layer of obstruction to the allegations.

Analysis: Deconstructing the Bias Claims and OSP’s Response

The accusation of selective investigation is a serious charge against any anti-corruption body, as it strikes at the heart of its fairness and effectiveness. To understand the OSP’s rebuttal, one must analyze the structure of its communication and the operational realities of its investigations.

The “Sequential Presentation” Explanation

The OSP’s statement, as clarified by its Director of Strategy, Sammy Darko in an interview with Citi FM, addressed the perception issue head-on. The original communication listed the NPP case in one paragraph and the NDC case in the next. Critics interpreted this sequencing as a deliberate focus on the NDC, possibly implying the NPP matter was being downplayed.

The OSP’s counter-narrative is straightforward: the structure was logistical, not strategic. As Darko stated, “It is only that we mentioned in paragraph one as NPP and paragraph two as NDC. In paragraph 3, we mentioned what we are investigating in those cases.” This explanation suggests the OSP was simply reporting on two distinct, parallel investigations in the order they were documented or processed, not assigning them a hierarchical priority. The onus is on the OSP to ensure its future communications are structured to avoid even the appearance of preferential sequencing, perhaps by presenting both cases simultaneously or with explicit linkage.

Evidence Threshold and Investigative Priority

The OSP’s core defense rests on the principle of evidentiary sufficiency. Investigative bodies do not initiate probes based on political party affiliation but on the availability of credible, actionable intelligence. It is plausible that the complaints received regarding the Ayawaso East primary came with more specific, corroborated details—including the alleged assault on an officer—which immediately elevated its operational priority. The assault allegation transforms the case from a pure vote-buying probe into one that also involves potential obstruction of justice and assault on a public officer, thereby demanding swifter and more robust action.

Conversely, the OSP may be in the earlier, evidence-gathering stages of the NPP allegations. The existence of an investigation into the NPP, as confirmed by the OSP, is itself evidence that the office is not ignoring the party. The pace and public visibility of an investigation are not reliable indicators of bias but rather reflect the complexity of evidence collection, witness cooperation, and legal review.

The Critical Factor: The Alleged Assault on an OSP Officer

This is the single most important factor differentiating the two cases in the OSP’s operational calculus. An alleged attack on a law enforcement officer during an electoral process is a grave incident. It represents a direct challenge to the state’s authority and the OSP’s ability to perform its duties. This incident likely triggered a more urgent, high-profile response, which naturally drew more public attention to the NDC Ayawaso East case. The OSP has a duty to vigorously pursue such incidents to deter future interference with its officers. This does not absolve the NDC of the vote-buying allegations, but it explains the heightened investigative intensity and media coverage surrounding that specific probe.

Practical Advice: For Citizens, Journalists, and Political Parties

For the Ghanaian Public and Media

• Focus on Process, Not Just Outcomes: Scrutinize whether the OSP follows its own published guidelines and the law for all cases, not just the outcomes of individual investigations.
• Demand Transparency in Communication: Advocate for the OSP to communicate about all active investigations with consistent language and structure to prevent misinterpretation.
• Understand the Difference Between Investigation and Prosecution: An investigation is a fact-finding mission. A decision to prosecute depends on the Director of Public Prosecutions’ assessment of sufficient evidence. The absence of a quick prosecution does not equate to a decision not to investigate.
• Verify Allegations: Before amplifying claims of bias, seek the OSP’s official response and compare it against the known facts of each case (evidence type, severity of allegations, presence of aggravating factors like assault).

For Political Parties (NPP, NDC, and Others)

• Internalize Compliance: Parties must proactively train their officials and delegates on the strict provisions of the Criminal Offences Act regarding treating and influencing voters. Ignorance is not a defense.
• Establish Robust Internal Monitoring: Implement independent, real-time monitoring systems during primaries and delegate conferences to deter and document any malpractice.
• Cooperate Fully with Legitimate Inquiries: If contacted by the OSP, parties should provide complete and prompt cooperation. Any hint of obstruction or witness intimidation will severely damage credibility and invite more intense scrutiny.
• Refrain from Prejudicial Public Statements: While defending members is understandable, parties should avoid making sweeping, unsubstantiated accusations of political bias against the OSP, as this can undermine public trust in a key state institution.

FAQ: Addressing Common Questions on the OSP and Vote-Buying

Q1: What exactly is “vote-buying” or “treating” under Ghanaian law?

A: Under Section 123 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), it is an offence for a person to give, lend, or agree to give or lend any money or valuable consideration to any voter or delegate with the intent to influence their vote or induce them to attend a political meeting. The distribution of items like TVs, money, or even excessive food (like the reported boiled eggs) with the purpose of securing a vote can constitute the offence of “treating.”

Q2: Is the OSP obligated to investigate every single allegation of vote-buying?

A: No. Like all law enforcement agencies, the OSP operates with limited resources and must prioritize cases based on the severity, credibility of evidence, and public interest. Not every rumor or unsubstantiated claim will trigger a full-scale investigation. The OSP assesses the veracity and materiality of complaints before committing significant investigative resources.

Q3: Can the OSP investigate a political party’s internal primaries?

A: Yes. The OSP’s mandate under Act 959 covers corruption and corruption-related offences. Since vote-buying during party primaries is a criminal offence under Act 29, and the delegates in such primaries are performing a public function (selecting candidates for public office), the OSP has jurisdiction. The integrity of the candidate selection process is intrinsically linked to the integrity of the general election.

Q4: What happens if the OSP finds evidence of vote-buying?

A: If the OSP’s investigation uncovers sufficient evidence, it will forward a docket to the Attorney-General’s Department (which houses the Director of Public Prosecutions). The DPP will then independently review the evidence and decide whether to prosecute. A prosecution would be brought before a competent court. The OSP itself does not have prosecutorial power; its role is investigation and recommendation.

Q5: Could there be legal consequences for the political parties themselves?

A: While the primary liability for the offence of treating typically falls on the individual who gives or receives the bribe, a political party as an entity could potentially face consequences if it is proven that the act was done with the party’s knowledge, consent, or as part of a systematic practice. This could include reputational damage, sanctions from the Electoral Commission, or in extreme cases, legal actions that impact the party’s registration or operations, though such entity-level prosecutions are less common.

Conclusion: The Imperative of Perceived and Actual Neutrality

The controversy surrounding the OSP’s investigations into alleged vote-buying by the NPP and NDC underscores a fundamental challenge for Ghana’s democracy: maintaining the perceived neutrality of its anti-corruption institutions is as critical as ensuring their actual impartiality. The OSP has articulated a clear, evidence-based rationale for its actions, pointing to the legal framework that governs its work and the specific, aggravating circumstances—notably the assault on its officer—that intensified the Ayawaso East probe.

For the OSP, the path forward requires not only rigorous adherence to the law but also meticulous attention to the optics of its communications. Every public statement must be crafted to demonstrate equal consideration for all matters under its purview. For the citizenry, this episode serves as a reminder to engage critically with information, to understand the distinct stages of an investigation, and to hold all political actors—regardless of affiliation—to the same legal standards. Ultimately, the strength of Ghana’s democratic institutions will be measured by their ability to prosecute corruption without fear or favor, thereby deterring future electoral malfeasance and strengthening the people’s trust in the political process.

Sources and Further Reading

• Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2020 (Act 959). Official OSP Website – Legal Framework.
• Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), Section 123 (Treating). GhanaLII – Criminal Offences Act.
• Interview with Sammy Darko, Director of Strategy, Research, and Communications, OSP. Citi FM (Ghana), February 9, 2024. (Note: Date based on article’s original timestamp; verify for current context).
• Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992. Chapter 24 (The Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice) and provisions on independent commissions.
• Electoral Commission of Ghana. Public Notices and Guidelines on Conduct of Party Primaries.
• “Vote-Buying and Political Finance in Ghana: A Review of the Legal Framework,” Ghana Center for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana) Research Report.