It’s Time to Treat the OSP as an Establishment, Not an Experiment

Published on: February 18, 2026

Source: Life Pulse Daily (Conceptual Rewrite)

Introduction: Beyond the Political Pendulum

The discourse surrounding Ghana’s Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) has long been trapped in a reactive cycle. It is alternately hailed as a heroic crusader or dismissed as a politically motivated tool, depending on its current level of activity. This binary, partisan framing fundamentally misunderstands the institution’s purpose and undermines its potential. The OSP was not designed to be a political football or a temporary spectacle. It was established as a critical, specialized mechanism to address a persistent and corrosive national challenge: high-level, complex corruption that traditional law enforcement struggled to prosecute. This article argues that for Ghana to make meaningful progress in its fight against grand corruption, a paradigm shift is required. The OSP must be unequivocally regarded and supported as a permanent anti-corruption establishment, with the institutional stability, legal safeguards, and public confidence that permanence entails. Moving beyond the “experiment” narrative is not about granting the OSP unchecked power; it is about creating the mature, predictable conditions under which any serious anti-corruption agency can succeed.

Key Points: The Case for Institutional Maturity

• Original Mandate: The OSP was created to tackle systemic, high-level corruption using specialized tools, bypassing the inefficiencies of the regular criminal justice system.
• Inherent Controversy: Investigating politically exposed persons (PEPs) is core to its function, guaranteeing political friction and partisan interpretations of its actions.
• Documented Impact: The OSP has secured convictions, negotiated significant financial resolutions, disrupted corruption networks, and prevented millions in questionable transactions.
• Sustained Legal Attacks: The office has faced repeated, failed constitutional challenges and petitions for the Special Prosecutor’s removal, revealing institutional vulnerability.
• Systemic Barriers: Its work is hampered by broader judicial delays, procedural loopholes, and inadequate asset recovery frameworks, not just a lack of will.
• Solution Path: True strength comes from depoliticizing its existence and strengthening the surrounding legal and procedural ecosystem to ensure fair, timely justice.

Background: The Genesis of a Specialized Office

The Problem of “Grand Corruption”

For decades, Ghana’s fight against corruption was largely reactive and focused on lower-level officials. Complex schemes involving high-ranking officials, state-owned enterprises, and elaborate financial networks often stalled in the courts. The standard criminal procedure, with its high evidentiary thresholds and propensity for technical delays, was ill-equipped for the intricate, paper-trail-heavy investigations that grand corruption requires. There was a clear institutional gap: a need for a body with prosecutorial discretion, investigative agility, and a mandate focused specifically on the “big fish.”

The 2018 Act and a New Mandate

The Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959) was the legislative response. It created an independent office with a unique mandate: to investigate and prosecute corruption involving public officers, politically exposed persons (PEPs), and persons with a history of corruption, including cases referred by Parliament. Its powers included direct investigation, the ability to freeze assets, and to initiate prosecutions. Crucially, it was designed to operate with a degree of autonomy from the regular Attorney-General’s office, acknowledging that prosecuting powerful figures requires insulation from direct political control. From the outset, however, this very design made it a target. Its existence was framed by some not as a permanent pillar of governance, but as an exceptional measure—an “experiment” to be judged harshly if it did not produce instant, dramatic results.

Analysis: The Signs of a Functioning Institution Under Siege

Operational Realities: Patience Over Drama

Contrary to the media-driven expectation of daily headlines and swift convictions, the work of a serious anti-corruption agency is methodical. Building a watertight case against sophisticated actors with access to top legal talent takes years. The OSP’s record, as noted in its own reports and public court records, includes:

• Successful Prosecutions and Convictions: Securing guilty verdicts in cases involving former public officials.
• Negotiated Resolutions: Using plea agreements and financial settlements to recover state funds efficiently, a common tool in global anti-corruption practice.
• Asset Recovery: Freezing and recovering millions of Ghana cedis in assets linked to corrupt activities.
• Active Docket: Maintaining dozens of ongoing investigations and multiple criminal trials at any given time.

These are not the hallmarks of a failed experiment. They are the measurable outputs of a functioning, if overburdened, institution. The “quiet” periods are often periods of intense, behind-the-scenes investigative work, not inactivity.

The Political and Legal Vortex

The OSP’s greatest challenge is not necessarily the complexity of its cases, but the constant contestation of its legitimacy. This manifests in two key ways:

1. Partisan Perception: In a polarized environment, every investigative step—whether it’s a summons, a search, or an indictment—is immediately filtered through a political lens. If the target is affiliated with the opposition, the OSP is a “government attack dog.” If it investigates a government official, it’s accused of “undermining the administration.” This dynamic makes evidence-based discussion of its work nearly impossible.
2. Constitutional and Removal Challenges: The office has faced multiple petitions to the Supreme Court questioning its constitutionality and attempts to remove the Special Prosecutor. The fact that these petitions have consistently been dismissed at the prima facie stage is a legal vindication, but the process itself consumes institutional energy and creates a aura of instability. It signals that the office’s existence is perpetually negotiable, weakening its deterrent effect.

Practical Advice: Building an Unshakeable Anti-Corruption Pillar

Treating the OSP as an establishment requires concrete actions from all stakeholders: government, legislature, judiciary, and civil society.

1. Legislative and Procedural Reforms

The OSP cannot succeed in a vacuum. The entire justice ecosystem must be optimized for complex corruption cases.

• Streamline Criminal Trials: Advocate for and implement specialized court procedures for economic and corruption crimes. This includes setting strict timelines for interlocutory applications (like frivolous objections), allowing for the admission of digital and documentary evidence in pre-trial hearings, and empowering judges to manage cases proactively.
• Strengthen Asset Recovery & Management: Enact and rigorously apply laws for the non-conviction-based forfeiture of assets. Create a dedicated, professional asset management agency to preserve the value of seized assets during protracted litigation.
• Whistleblower and Witness Protection: Enact and fund a robust, confidential whistleblower protection framework and a dynamic witness protection program. These are force multipliers for any investigative agency.

2. Ensuring Genuine Institutional Independence

• Secure Tenure and Funding: The Special Prosecutor’s term and conditions of service must be clearly defined and insulated from arbitrary political removal. The office’s budgetary allocation must be protected and adequate, decided by an independent committee or through a multi-year parliamentary agreement to prevent financial strangulation.
• Depoliticize the Narrative: Leaders across the political spectrum must publicly affirm the OSP’s institutional role. Criticism should be based on specific operational failures or legal missteps, not on blanket accusations of political motivation simply because an investigation touches a rival.

3. Enhancing Public Communication and Transparency

The OSP itself must proactively manage public expectations without compromising operations.

• Regular, Fact-Based Reporting: Publish detailed annual and quarterly reports with metrics: cases opened, cases closed, assets recovered, convictions secured, and challenges faced (e.g., “X number of cases delayed due to interlocutory appeals”). Data demystifies the process.
• Strategic Public Engagement: The Special Prosecutor and senior staff should engage with media and civil society in structured forums to explain the complexities of their work, the legal hurdles, and the importance of patience in building solid cases.

FAQ: Addressing Common Questions

Q1: Is the OSP’s mandate too broad, making it a tool for political persecution?

A: The mandate, as defined by Act 959, is indeed broad, covering corruption involving public officers and PEPs. This breadth is intentional to prevent “turf wars” and ensure no high-level case falls through the cracks. The safeguard against misuse is not a narrow mandate but the rule of law: the OSP must prove its cases in open court before independent judges. Its record shows investigations into persons from across the political spectrum. The proper check on overreach is judicial oversight and a robust appeals process, not a weakened mandate.

Q2: Why does the OSP take so long to prosecute cases? Is it incompetent?

A: Duration is the single biggest misconception. Building a corruption case is fundamentally different from a simple theft. It involves:

• Forensic accounting of complex, multi-year financial transactions.
• International cooperation for evidence located overseas.
• Analyzing thousands of documents and digital records.
• Interviewing often reluctant witnesses.
• Navigating a judicial system where defense tactics can include numerous pre-trial motions to delay.

Speed is often the enemy of a conviction that will withstand appeal. The focus must be on “timely” justice, not “instant” justice. Reforms to reduce judicial delays (see Practical Advice) are critical.

Q3: What happens if the OSP is abolished or its powers are significantly curtailed?

A: This would represent a severe regression. It would signal that the political class is unwilling to subject itself to specialized scrutiny. The gap would immediately be felt. Complex, high-level corruption cases would likely revert to the regular police and Attorney-General’s department, where they historically stalled. The specific deterrent effect of knowing a specialized, independent body exists would vanish. It would be a profound victory for impunity.

Q4: How is the OSP different from the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ)?

A: They have complementary but distinct roles. CHRAJ has a broader mandate on human rights, administrative justice, and corruption, and its investigative findings often require referral to a prosecuting agency (like the OSP or AG) for action. The OSP is a prosecutorial agency with the power to independently investigate and prosecute. It is designed to be the “teeth” for the most serious corruption cases, taking direct legal action. The existence of both is part of a multi-pronged strategy.

Conclusion: The Long Game of Institutional Trust

The OSP’s story is not one of flawless execution, but of a critical institution struggling to find its footing amidst immense political and systemic headwinds. The frequent crises of confidence are less a reflection of its daily operations and more a symptom of its precarious status. An “experiment” is something you try, evaluate, and potentially discard. An establishment is a permanent feature of the landscape, expected to perform its function consistently over decades.

Ghana’s commitment to fighting grand corruption must be measured by its willingness to nurture the OSP into that establishment. This means ending the reflexive partisan critique of its every move. It means providing the legislative and judicial support it needs to operate efficiently. It means defending its constitutional independence not as a partisan favor, but as a national necessity. The goal is not to create an untouchable agency, but a resilient one—one whose legitimacy is derived from the law, its procedures, and its sustained record, not from the whims of the political moment. The fight against corruption is a marathon, not a sprint. The OSP must be built to run the marathon. The first step is to stop treating it like a sprinting experiment and start investing in it as the enduring institution it was meant to be.

Sources and Further Reading

• Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959). Government of Ghana.
• Annual Reports and Press Releases from the Official Website of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (osp.gov.gh).
• Supreme Court of Ghana rulings on petitions against the OSP and the Special Prosecutor (e.g., Nii Armah Mensah v. Special Prosecutor and related consolidated suits).
• Transparency International Ghana. (Various years). National Integrity System Assessment.
• Global Witness. (2023). “Defending Democracy: How Political Elites Undermine Anti-Corruption Agencies.”
• World Bank. (2020). “Combating Corruption in Ghana: A Call for Concerted Action.”
• Ghana Center for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana). Research papers on accountability institutions and political financing.