Don’t scrap OSP – Anti-corruption CSO calls for assessment – Life Pulse Daily
Editor-in-chiefDecember 7, 20256 Mins read23
Don’t Scrap OSP: Anti-Corruption CSO Calls for Assessment & Reform
Introduction
In Ghana’s ongoing battle against systemic corruption, a critical debate has emerged regarding the future of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP). As political pressure intensifies and multiple petitions call for the removal of the current Special Prosecutor, Kissi Agyebeng, the Citizens Movement Against Corruption (CMaC) has issued a stark warning: dismantling the OSP would be a counterproductive step for the nation’s anti-corruption framework.
On December 6, 2025, Edem Senanu, Co-Chair of CMaC, appearing on Channel One, emphasized that instead of outright abolition, policymakers should prioritize a comprehensive assessment and strategic strengthening of the OSP. This stance contrasts sharply with recent parliamentary motions and public demands to dissolve the institution, highlighting a pivotal moment for Ghana’s institutional integrity.
Analysis
Political Pressure and Parliamentary Demands
The call to scrap the OSP has gained momentum among certain members of Parliament (MPs), including Majority Leader Mahama Ayariga. These lawmakers argue that prosecutorial functions should revert exclusively to the Attorney-General’s Office. Senanu, however, describes this discourse as “extremely disconcerting,” warning that such drastic measures could undermine years of progress in establishing an independent anti-corruption body.
Hypocrisy in Parliamentary Positions
Senanu further critique the political inconsistency, noting that some MPs now advocating for the OSP’s dissolution were instrumental in passing the OSP Act, 2017. “To suddenly say that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater is not the way to go,” he asserted. This hypocrisy underscores a broader concern: the risk of allowing short-term political agendas to compromise long-term institutional development.
Petitions for the Removal of Kissi Agyebeng
The Office of the President has received at least three formal petitions seeking the removal of Special Prosecutor Kissi Agyebeng. These petitions, filed under Section 15 of the OSP Act and Article 146 of the Ghanaian Constitution, present distinct allegations:
1. Financial Mismanagement and Lack of Transparency
Simon Yaw Awadzi, Executive Chairman of the Coalition of Industry and Governance Institutions (COFIIG), alleges mismanagement of over GHS 364 million in public funds allocated to the OSP since 2021. The petition further claims a failure to publish audited financial statements, violating statutory reporting requirements and fostering public distrust.
2. Collusion and Disrespect of Due Process
Submitted by Apostle Abraham Lincoln Larbi—who recently led a public protest with lawyer Martin Kpebu—the second petition accuses the OSP of colluding with former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta to evade accountability. Specifically, it alleges that the OSP disrespected procedural norms by refusing to forward a docket against Ofori-Atta to the Attorney-General, thereby circumventing established legal pathways.
3. Procedural Failures in the SML Contract Case
While filed anonymously, the third petition centers on the high-profile SML contract scandal. Allegations include the OSP’s alleged failure to utilize its police powers to arrest Ofori-Atta, allowing him to leave the country, and misrepresenting efforts to secure support from other security agencies. These claims, if verified, could indicate systemic weaknesses in the OSP’s investigative and enforcement mechanisms.
Summary
The controversy surrounding Ghana’s OSP reflects a broader tension between political expediency and institutional permanence. While petitions and parliamentary motions advocate for the OSP’s abolition or the removal of its current head, CMaC’s Edem Senanu urges a measured approach: conduct a rigorous assessment, address identified shortcomings, and fortify the institution rather than dismantle it.
Senanu’s position is rooted in the understanding that independent anti-corruption agencies are vital for complementing traditional prosecutorial structures. Abolishing the OSP could revert Ghana to a centralized model where political influence might compromise impartial investigations into high-ranking officials.
Key Points
- Established under the OSP Act, 2017, the office operates independently to investigate and prosecute politically exposed persons (PEPs) and complex corruption networks.
- Its existence addresses a longstanding gap in Ghana’s legal framework: the concentration of prosecutorial power within the Attorney-General’s Office, which may lack the autonomy needed for high-stakes investigations.
- Some MPs who championed the OSP’s creation now support its removal, suggesting shifting political alignments rather than genuine concerns over performance.
- The Majority Leader’s advocacy for reverting prosecutorial authority to the Attorney-General has been interpreted as an effort to recentralize power and reduce scrutiny of the executive branch.
- Financial mismanagement, procedural lapses, and alleged collusion represent serious challenges to the OSP’s credibility.
- However, CMaC argues these issues should trigger internal reforms and oversight, not the institution’s dissolution.
- Eliminating the OSP could signal to investors and international partners that Ghana is backtracking on its commitment to combating corruption.
- It may also embolden corrupt actors by reinforcing the perception that powerful individuals can evade accountability through political maneuvering.
Practical Advice
For Policymakers
- Commission an Independent Audit: Engage a globally recognized forensic auditing firm to evaluate the OSP’s financial management, procurement practices, and compliance with legal standards.
- Establish a Bipartisan Oversight Committee: Form a cross-party parliamentary committee to monitor the OSP’s operations, ensuring transparency and mitigating political interference.
- Clarify Legal Mandates: Review and, if necessary, amend the OSP Act to delineate clear protocols for interactions between the OSP, the Attorney-General, and law enforcement agencies.
For Civil Society Organizations
- Advocate for Data-Driven Reform: Use evidence from audits and investigations to shape public discourse and policy recommendations.
- Organize Public Awareness Campaigns: Educate citizens on the OSP’s role, successes, and challenges to build grassroots support for its preservation and improvement.
For the Special Prosecutor’s Office
- Publicly Disclose Progress Reports: Regularly publish detailed progress reports on ongoing investigations, financial expenditures, and strategic priorities.
- Enhance Internal Governance: Implement robust internal audit mechanisms and anti-corruption safeguards to address allegations of mismanagement.
Points of Caution
1. Avoid Knee-Jerk Reactions
Politicians and media outlets should resist the urge to support abolition based on partial or unverified information. Hasty decisions could erode public trust in all anti-corruption institutions.
2. Guard Against Political Weaponization
The OSP’s independence must be protected from exploitation by any political faction seeking to intimidate opponents or shield allies. Oversight should be constructive, not punitive.
3. Recognize the Long-Term Impact
Dismantling the OSP may have lasting repercussions, discouraging future investment in anti-corruption infrastructure and signaling to other nations that institutional commitments can be reversed under political pressure.
Comparison
OSP vs. Attorney-General’s Office
- Independence: The OSP operates autonomously, whereas the Attorney-General’s Office is part of the executive branch, potentially subject to political influence.
- Specialization: The OSP focuses exclusively on complex corruption cases involving PEPs, allowing for specialized expertise. The Attorney-General’s Office handles a broader range of legal matters.
- Accountability Mechanisms: The OSP is subject to parliamentary oversight and judicial review, similar to other state institutions, but its dedicated mandate offers a sharper tool against high-level corruption.
International Benchmarks
Countries such as Kenya (Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions) and Tanzania (Prevention and Combating of Corruption Bureau) maintain specialized anti-corruption agencies. These bodies have demonstrated greater efficacy in prosecuting elite corruption compared to centralized prosecutorial systems.
Legal Implications
Constitutional and Statutory Framework
The removal of a Special Prosecutor is governed by Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana and Section 15 of the OSP Act, 2017. Key provisions include:
- Grounds for Removal: The President may remove the Special Prosecutor only for stated reasons such as “incompetence,” “misbehavior,” or “ inability to perform the functions of the office.”
- Parliamentary Approval: The President’s decision must be supported by a resolution of Parliament, ensuring checks and balances.
- Judicial Review: Decisions regarding removal can be challenged in court if procedural fairness is breached.
Implications of Abolishing the OSP
Abolishing the OSP would require legislative action, potentially through a constitutional amendment or repeal of the OSP Act. Such a move could:
- Trigger legal challenges from employees and stakeholders asserting breach of statutory rights.
- Invalidate ongoing investigations, jeopardizing years of work and potentially exposing the state to civil litigation.
- Damage Ghana’s international reputation, affecting aid and investment tied to governance benchmarks.
Conclusion
The debate over Ghana’s Office of the Special Prosecutor encapsulates a fundamental question: will the nation prioritize short-term political gains or long-term institutional integrity? CMaC’s call for assessment and reform echoes a growing consensus among governance experts—the OSP, despite its challenges, remains a vital component of Ghana’s anti-corruption architecture.
By adopting a balanced approach—combining rigorous oversight, transparent governance, and political neutrality—Ghana can transform the OSP into a more effective, accountable, and resilient institution. The path forward demands courage from leaders to resist populist pressures and commitment from citizens to uphold the rule of law.
FAQ
What is the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP)?
Established in 2018 under the OSP Act, 2017, the OSP is an independent Ghanaian authority mandated to investigate and prosecute complex corruption cases, particularly those involving politically exposed persons (PEPs).
Why are some MPs calling for the OSP’s abolition?
Certain MPs argue that prosecutorial powers should revert to the Attorney-General’s Office, asserting that the OSP duplicates existing structures and has faced allegations of mismanagement.
What does CMaC propose instead of abolition?
CMaC advocates for a comprehensive assessment of the OSP’s performance, followed by targeted reforms to enhance transparency, accountability, and operational efficiency.
What are the legal requirements to remove the Special Prosecutor?
Under Article 146 of the Constitution and Section 15 of the OSP Act, the President may remove the SP for incompetence, misbehavior, or inability, but only with parliamentary approval.
Could abolishing the OSP set a dangerous precedent?
Yes. Eliminating the OSP without addressing underlying issues could signal that anti-corruption institutions are vulnerable to political whims, undermining public trust and deterring future investment in governance reforms.
Leave a comment