Evidence: OSP began SML investigations after Ofori-Atta had left Ghana – Life Pulse Daily
Editor-in-chiefDecember 1, 20252 Mins read20
Evidence: OSP began SML investigations after Ofori-Atta had left Ghana – Life Pulse Daily
Introduction: Understanding the OSP’s SML Investigation Timeline
New evidence reveals critical details about Ghana’s Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) investigation into the SML scandal, particularly regarding former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta‘s departure from the country. This analysis examines the investigation’s chronology, conflicts in official statements, and implications for anti-corruption efforts in Ghana.
Analysis: The OSP’s Handling of the SML Corruption Probe
Key Investigation Timeline Events
Documentary evidence shows the OSP:
- Received initial petition in December 2023
- Began preparatory work in February 2025
- Conducted active investigation June-August 2025
Discrepancies in Official Statements
Special Prosecutor Kissi Agyebeng publicly claimed investigation activities began in December 2023, while communication records show preparatory work started 14 months later in February 2025 – one month after Ofori-Atta left Ghana.
Summary: Critical Findings About the SML Investigation
The evidence demonstrates:
- No active OSP investigation existed when Ofori-Atta departed Ghana
- Key preparatory work began February 2025
- Full investigation commenced June 2025
- Contradictions between OSP’s public timeline and actual activities
Key Points: Ghana’s Anti-Corruption Investigation Process
- Standard investigation procedure involves preparatory information gathering
- Primary suspects typically contacted after initial fact-finding
- OSP possesses greater investigative powers than journalists
- 249 OSP staff members vs. 3 investigative journalists on SML case
Practical Advice: Understanding Government Investigations
For Citizens Monitoring Accountability
- Track official investigation timelines meticulously
- Compare public statements with documented evidence
- Understand standard investigative procedures
Points of Caution: Interpreting Investigation Claims
- Avoid presuming guilt before formal charges
- Recognize difference between preparatory work and active investigation
- Consider institutional constraints on anti-corruption bodies
Comparison: OSP Process vs Standard Investigation Protocols
| Standard Practice | OSP’s SML Case Handling |
|---|---|
| Immediate evidence preservation | 14-month delay in starting preparatory work |
| Continuous suspect monitoring | No apparent surveillance before departure |
Legal Implications: Ghana’s Special Prosecutor Mandate
Under Ghana’s Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959):
- OSP mandated to investigate corruption independently
- No requirement for presidential approval to begin probes
- Legal authority to freeze assets and restrict travel
Conclusion: Implications for Ghana’s Anti-Corruption Efforts
This case raises crucial questions about:
- OSP’s operational independence
- Effectiveness of anti-corruption mechanisms
- Need for procedural transparency
- Institutional capacity for timely investigations
FAQ: Common Questions About the SML Investigation
Why did the OSP investigation start after Ofori-Atta left?
Evidence suggests procedural delays and possible institutional constraints.
What powers does Ghana’s Special Prosecutor have?
The OSP can investigate, arrest, and prosecute corruption cases without executive approval.
How does this affect Ghana’s anti-corruption efforts?
Highlights challenges in investigating powerful officials during their tenure.
Leave a comment