Ghana’s Majority Whip Accuses OSP of “Guzzling Money” Without Results

Introduction

The debate over the effectiveness and funding of Ghana’s anti-corruption bodies has intensified following sharp criticisms from the Member of Parliament for South Dayi, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor. Serving as the Majority Chief Whip, Mr. Dafeamekpor has publicly labelled the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) as an entity that is “just guzzling money” without delivering commensurate value to the state. This critique emerges amidst a backdrop of significant budgetary allocations and a legislative proposal to reform the country’s anti-graft framework. This article analyzes the specific allegations regarding financial waste, low prosecutorial output, and the proposed shift of resources to the Attorney-General’s Department.

Key Points

Background

The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) was established in Ghana under the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959), to investigate and prosecute corruption and corruption-related offenses involving public officers and politically exposed persons. Its creation was a response to public demand for a specialized, independent body to tackle high-level corruption, distinct from the traditional police and Attorney-General structures.

Since its operationalization, the OSP has faced various challenges, including delays in commencing high-profile prosecutions and questions regarding its operational independence. The current administration, led by President John Mahama, has emphasized the need to strengthen rather than dismantle state institutions. However, skepticism regarding the utility and cost-effectiveness of the OSP has persisted among a faction of the legislative branch.

Analysis

The comments made by Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor highlight a fundamental tension in public administration: the balance between institutional cost and value delivery.

The “Guzzling Money” Argument

The phrase “guzzling money” suggests a perception of profligacy—spending resources without a proportional return on investment (ROI). Dafeamekpor’s assertion is based on a direct comparison of the OSP’s budget (GH¢250 million) against the Attorney-General’s Department. By arguing that the AG’s Dept achieves significantly higher output (thousands of prosecutions) for a similar cost, he frames the OSP as an inefficient entity. This critique appeals to fiscal conservatives and citizens concerned about the judicious use of tax revenue.

Investigation vs. Prosecution

A central pillar of the MP’s critique is the distinction between investigation and prosecution. The OSP is primarily an investigative body that forwards case files to the AG’s Dept for prosecution. However, Dafeamekpor argues that the OSP has failed to even complete investigations that lead to prosecutable case files. He contends that the frequent issuance of “press statements” or reports serves as a substitute for the hard legal work of securing convictions in court. If the OSP indeed relies on media briefings rather than court judgments, it risks losing public trust and legal efficacy.

Institutional Capacity and Reach

Dafeamekpor further emphasized the structural advantages of the AG’s Department, which maintains regional offices and utilizes police prosecutors to handle cases at the district level. This decentralized model allows for a broader reach in law enforcement. In contrast, the centralized nature of the OSP limits its scope. The MP’s suggestion to redirect the OSP’s budget to the AG’s Dept is essentially a proposal to consolidate resources into a system he views as already functional and scalable.

Legal and Ethical Implications

The allegations regarding the intimidation of legal professionals—specifically the arrest of lawyer Israel Ackah—raise serious concerns regarding the rule of law and the right to legal representation. If a state body restricts the liberty of lawyers for performing their duties, it could constitute professional misconduct or even abuse of power. Such incidents, if verified, provide a strong ethical argument for the restructuring or strict oversight of the OSP.

Practical Advice

For stakeholders monitoring this debate, including civil society organizations, legal practitioners, and the general public, the following steps are advisable:

For Civil Society and Watchdogs

Organizations should request detailed performance reports from the OSP to verify the claims of low output. Specifically, data on the number of investigations initiated, completed, and referred to the Attorney-General’s Department for prosecution should be scrutinized. Independent audits of the GH¢250 million allocation can provide objective evidence regarding the allegation of “guzzling money.”

For Legal Professionals

Lawyers interacting with the OSP should ensure they document all interactions and adhere strictly to procedural rules. If subjected to intimidation or unlawful restraint, immediate recourse should be sought through the General Legal Council and the courts to uphold the sanctity of the legal profession.

For Policy Makers

Before repealing the OSP Act, Parliament should conduct a cost-benefit analysis comparing the specialized focus of the OSP against the broad mandate of the AG’s Department. Abolishing a specialized body requires a clear plan on how the specific jurisdiction of the OSP (high-level corruption) will be absorbed by existing structures without diluting focus.

FAQ

Conclusion

The criticism leveled by Majority Chief Whip Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor against the Office of the Special Prosecutor underscores a significant debate regarding the efficiency of Ghana’s anti-corruption architecture. While the MP advocates for the abolition of the OSP to redirect funds to the Attorney-General’s Department, President Mahama maintains support for the institution’s continuity. The core of the dispute lies in the assessment of value: whether the massive financial investment in the OSP yields a sufficient return in the form of prosecutions and convictions. Ultimately, resolving this impasse will require transparent data on the OSP’s performance and a careful consideration of the legal implications of restructuring the country’s fight against corruption.