A Plus Calls for Stronger Accountability at the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP)

Introduction

Recent statements by Kwame Asare Obeng, the Member of Parliament for Gomoa Central and popularly known as A Plus, have reignited public debate over the performance of Ghana’s Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP). During an interview on the AM Show, A Plus argued that the OSP must be held to a more potent responsibility standard, especially regarding its funding and effectiveness. His remarks come at a time when parliamentary leaders and civil‑society observers are scrutinising the agency’s ability to deliver on its anti‑corruption mandate.

This article unpacks the issue in a clear, pedagogical manner, offering a structured overview that can help readers understand:

• The historical and legal context of the OSP.
• The key points raised by A Plus.
• Potential implications for governance and public policy.
• Practical advice for citizens, journalists, and policymakers.
• Answers to frequently asked questions.

By the end of this piece, you should be able to explain why the call for stronger accountability is both timely and essential for Ghana’s democratic landscape.

Key Points

Background

What Is the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP)?

The Office of the Special Prosecutor was established in 2017 under the Special Prosecutor Act, 2016 (Act 2016). Its primary responsibility is to investigate and prosecute high‑level corruption cases involving public officials, senior civil servants, and politically exposed persons. The OSP operates independently from the regular prosecutorial system, aiming to bring a specialised, transparent approach to fighting graft.

Legal Mandate and Funding Structure

Under the Act, the OSP is funded through the national budget, with allocations approved by Parliament. The law stipulates that the office must submit annual performance reports to the Parliamentary Committee on Government Assurance. However, the Act does not explicitly require a governing board; instead, it provides for a Director and a small administrative team.

Historical Challenges Faced by the OSP

Since its inception, the OSP has encountered several obstacles:

• Lack of a permanent board: Public records indicate that the agency has operated without a formally constituted governing board, which may affect strategic oversight.
• Limited public data on prosecutions: Transparency reports are sporadic, making it difficult for citizens to assess the office’s impact.
• Resource constraints: Budgetary allocations have fluctuated, sometimes delaying planned investigative units.

These challenges have fueled ongoing debates about the OSP’s effectiveness and the adequacy of its funding.

Analysis

Why “More Potent Responsibility” Matters

The phrase “more potent responsibility” encapsulates a growing expectation that public institutions must be accountable not just in theory but in practice. In Ghana’s democratic framework, parliamentary oversight, civil‑society scrutiny, and media reporting collectively form a system of checks and balances. When any of these pillars falter, the risk of mismanagement increases.

From a legal standpoint, the Special Prosecutor Act does not prohibit parliamentary questioning of the OSP’s budget. In fact, Section 7 of the Act mandates that the OSP submit audited financial statements to the Auditor-General, who then reports to Parliament. Therefore, A Plus’s call for stricter scrutiny aligns with existing statutory requirements, reinforcing the principle that funding must be tied to performance.

Implications for Anti‑Corruption Policy

If the OSP is compelled to demonstrate concrete results, several outcomes are possible:

1. Increased prosecutions: Greater accountability may incentivise the office to pursue high‑visibility cases, signalling a zero‑tolerance stance.
2. Improved transparency: Regular performance disclosures could enhance public trust.
3. Policy reforms: Parliament may consider amending the Act to introduce a formal governing board or stronger audit mechanisms.

However, there is also a risk that excessive political pressure could compromise the OSP’s independence, especially if political actors seek to use oversight mechanisms for partisan gain.

Connecting the Dots: From Criticism to Reform

A Plus’s argument hinges on a simple premise: Criticism is a tool for improvement, not a weapon. By framing public complaints as constructive feedback, he seeks to shift the narrative from confrontation to collaboration. This perspective resonates with best practices in public administration, where performance‑based budgeting is increasingly viewed as a means to enhance service delivery.

Nevertheless, the effectiveness of this approach depends on three factors:

1. Data Availability: The OSP must provide verifiable metrics on investigations, prosecutions, and recoveries.
2. Stakeholder Engagement: Civil society, media, and academic institutions need access to this data to hold the office accountable.
3. Political Will: Parliament and the Executive must support reforms that strengthen, rather than undermine, the OSP’s autonomy.

Practical Advice

For Citizens Who Want to Monitor the OSP

1. Follow Official Channels: Subscribe to the OSP’s website and social media accounts for published reports.

2. Utilise Parliamentary Portals: The Parliamentary Committee on Government Assurance releases meeting minutes and audit findings that shed light on the OSP’s financial health.

3. Engage with Civil‑Society Organizations: Groups such as Transparency International Ghana often publish analyses of anti‑corruption agencies.

For Journalists Covering OSP Issues

1. Request FOIA‑Style Information: While Ghana does not have a formal Freedom of Information Act, the Right to Information Act, 2016 (Act 950) allows citizens to request public records.

2. Verify Sources: Cross‑check statements made by politicians with official documents to avoid disseminating misinformation.

3. Maintain Balanced Reporting: Present both the criticisms and the OSP’s achievements to give readers a nuanced picture.

For Policymakers and Parliamentarians

1. Introduce Performance‑Based Budgeting: Tie future allocations to measurable outcomes, such as the number of successful prosecutions or assets recovered.

2. Consider Formal Governance Structures: A statutory governing board, composed of independent experts, could provide strategic direction and oversight.

3. Protect Institutional Independence: Ensure that any reforms do not compromise the OSP’s ability to investigate politically sensitive cases.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP)?

The OSP is a specialised anti‑corruption agency in Ghana, created by the Special Prosecutor Act, 2016, to investigate and prosecute high‑level graft involving public officials.

Why does A Plus want more responsibility for the OSP?

A Plus argues that the OSP must be held accountable for how it uses public funds. He believes that without demonstrable results, continued funding is unjustified.

Has the OSP ever been criticised before?

Yes. Observers have raised concerns about the agency’s lack of a permanent governing board, limited transparency in its operations, and occasional delays in budgetary allocations.

What legal mechanisms exist for parliamentary oversight of the OSP?

The Special Prosecutor Act requires the OSP to submit annual audited financial statements to the Auditor‑General, who then reports to the Parliamentary Committee on Government Assurance. Additionally, the Right to Information Act allows citizens to request relevant documents.

Could stricter oversight affect the OSP’s independence?

Potentially, if oversight is used as a political tool. However, well‑designed performance‑based mechanisms can enhance independence by shielding the agency from arbitrary budget cuts while ensuring accountability.

What reforms are being discussed?

Key reforms include establishing a statutory governing board, mandating regular public performance reports, and introducing performance‑linked budgeting.

Conclusion

The call by Kwame Asare Obeng (A Plus) for more potent responsibility at the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) reflects a broader demand for transparency, accountability, and effective anti‑corruption governance in Ghana. By linking public funding to measurable outcomes, A Plus seeks to transform criticism into a catalyst for institutional reform.

Whether this push will translate into concrete legislative changes or merely symbolic parliamentary debates remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the conversation is essential: a robust, independent, and accountable OSP is a cornerstone of Ghana’s fight against corruption and a vital component of the nation’s democratic health.

Stakeholders — including citizens, journalists, legislators, and civil‑society groups — must continue to engage constructively, ensuring that the OSP can fulfil its mandate without compromising its independence. Only through sustained, evidence‑based scrutiny can Ghana strengthen the OSP into an institution that truly delivers on its promise of a corruption‑free public sector.