Introduction

In a landmark development for Ghana’s anti-corruption framework, Elikem Kotoko, Deputy Chief Executive of the Forestry Commission, has publicly thrown his support behind Parliament’s proposal to scrap the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP). His remarks, delivered during a December 6, 2025 appearance on Joy Prime’s flagship program Prime Insight, mark a significant escalation in the ongoing debate over the OSP’s efficacy and political independence. Kotoko’s stance reflects broader disillusionment with the agency, citing high-profile cases, leadership failures, and alleged political motivations as key reasons for advocating its abolition. This article explores the implications of his position, analyzes the OSP’s controversial history, and evaluates the potential consequences of dissolving this critical anti-corruption institution.

Analysis

Kotoko’s Critique of the OSP’s Performance

Elikem Kotoko argues the OSP has systematically failed to meet its mandate to combat corruption in Ghana. He specifically highlights the arrest and detention of legal practitioner Martin Kpebu as a pivotal moment that “vindicated those who questioned the OSP’s purpose.” Kotoko asserts that Kpebu—a seasoned lawyer—should have recognized the legal boundaries of his actions, implying the OSP’s pursuit was either misguided or politically driven. “What he did with Martin Kpebu was the last straw to break the camel’s back,” Kotoko stated, emphasizing that the case exposed systemic flaws in the OSP’s operations.

Blame on Former President Akufo-Addo

Kotoko attributes the OSP’s problematic establishment to former President Nana Akufo-Addo, arguing the office was created with a “mischievous mission” to target political opponents. He references the resignation of the first Special Prosecutor, Martin Amidu, who publicly accused the Akufo-Addo administration of corruption, calling the president “a mother serpent of corruption.” Kotoko contends that the OSP’s original design was never intended for impartial anti-corruption work but rather to hound specific individuals from previous governments.

Criticism of Current Special Prosecutor Kissi Agyebeng

The deputy commissioner’s criticism extends to the current Special Prosecutor, Kissi Agyebeng, whom he labels a “coward” for allegedly failing to act decisively during the New Patriotic Party’s (NPP) tenure. Kotoko questions why Agyebeng remained silent about alleged political interference while in office, suggesting the prosecutor prioritized personal stability over transparency. “Maybe he was playing the politics of the office… believing that once the next government comes, he’ll engage in a vendetta,” Kotoko speculated, implying Agyebeng’s recent criticisms of political interference are disingenuous or timely.

Fear and Silencing of Critics

Kotoko also claims the OSP’s presence has created a climate of fear, discouraging citizens with potential corruption exposures from coming forward. “Many even fear talking about him now because they feel they may have some cobwebs in their wardrobe,” he said, asserting that the OSP’s perceived power stifles public accountability.

The Kpebu Case as a Catalyst

The arrest of Martin Kpebu—a prominent lawyer—serves as Kotoko’s central example of OSP overreach. While details of the case remain under judicial review, Kotoko’s emphasis on Kpebu’s professional status implies the OSP targeted an individual who should have anticipated legal repercussions, thereby undermining the agency’s credibility.

Summary

Elikem Kotoko’s advocacy for scrapping the OSP rests on three core arguments: (1) the agency has repeatedly failed to deliver on its anti-corruption mandate, (2) its establishment was politically motivated under former President Akufo-Addo, and (3) current leadership under Kissi Agyebeng has been ineffective and cowardly. Kotoko views Parliament’s proposal as a necessary step to reset Ghana’s anti-corruption architecture, claiming the OSP has outlived its usefulness and created an atmosphere of fear among potential whistleblowers.

Key Points

Practical Advice

For Parliament: Transparent Evaluation Process

Members of Parliament should conduct a thorough, public inquiry into the OSP’s performance, outcomes, and financial expenditures. Transparent reporting will help determine whether abolition, restructuring, or additional oversight mechanisms are warranted. Independent audit firms and civil society organizations should participate to ensure impartiality.

For Civil Society: Monitor and Engage

Ghanaian watchdog groups and anti-corruption NGOs can play a vital role by documenting OSP cases, tracking investigations, and publishing regular assessments. Public pressure and data-driven advocacy will maintain accountability regardless of the OSP’s future status.

For Citizens: Safe Reporting Channels

Until structural changes occur, citizens should utilize alternative reporting platforms such as the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) or international hotlines. Whistleblower protection laws must be reinforced to mitigate risks associated with exposing corruption.

Points of Caution

Risk of Power Vacuums

Abolishing the OSP without robust alternatives could create a governance vacuum, allowing corrupt actors to operate with reduced scrutiny. Parliament must ensure any new framework retains investigative power and independence.

Political Exploitation

Ghana’s political climate remains highly polarized. There is a risk that scrapping the OSP could be perceived as—or actually become—a tool to shield specific parties from accountability, undermining public trust in democratic institutions.

Impact on Ongoing Cases

Many OSP investigations are ongoing, including high-profile proceedings. Sudden abolition could jeopardize these cases, complicate legal proceedings, and raise questions about evidence preservation and witness safety.

Comparison

OSP vs. CHRAJ: Overlapping Mandates?

The Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) shares overlapping responsibilities with the OSP, particularly in investigating public sector corruption. Critics argue this duplication creates inefficiency, while supporters contend specialized agencies like the OSP are necessary for complex financial crimes. Kotoko’s call to scrap the OSP implicitly suggests consolidating anti-corruption efforts under CHRAJ or a revised institutional model.

International Anti-Corruption Bodies

Compared to global peers such as Kenya’s Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) or Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the OSP has faced unique challenges related to political volatility. While these agencies also grapple with funding and independence issues, Ghana’s OSP has experienced more overt leadership turnover and public criticism.

Legal Implications

Constitutional and Procedural Requirements

Under Ghana’s Constitution, dissolving a state agency requires parliamentary approval and often a presidential assent. Abolishing the OSP would necessitate thorough legislative debate, potential amendments to relevant acts (e.g., the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017), and consideration of how to handle ongoing prosecutions. Legal experts caution that abrupt termination could trigger judicial review if due process is bypassed.

Accountability for Pending Cases

Any dissolution plan must address the fate of active investigations and prosecutions. Legal frameworks may require transferring dockets to another agency, potentially the Attorney General’s Office or CHRAJ, to preserve continuity and statutory timelines.

International Obligations

Ghana has signed multi-lateral anti-corruption agreements, including the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC). Abolishing the OSP without credible replacement mechanisms could raise concerns about non-compliance with international commitments, affecting foreign aid and investment.

Conclusion

Elikem Kotoko’s endorsement of scrapping the Office of the Special Prosecutor reflects deepening frustration with Ghana’s anti-corruption machinery. While his criticisms highlight legitimate concerns about political influence, leadership failures, and public fear, the path forward demands careful balancing. Parliament’s proposal must be evaluated through transparent, evidence-based proceedings that consider alternatives, protect ongoing justice processes, and uphold Ghana’s international obligations. Whether through abolition, reform, or integration with existing bodies, restoring public confidence in anti-corruption institutions remains the ultimate priority for sustainable development and democratic integrity.

FAQ