Kissi Agyebeng Not Fit for Office: Martin Kpebu’s Allegations Explained

Introduction

In early January 2026, Ghana’s political and legal landscape was shaken by serious allegations against the Special Prosecutor, Mr. Kissi Agyebeng. Prominent private criminal practitioner Martin Kpebu publicly declared that Agyebeng lacks the integrity and independence required for the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP). Kpebu’s claims, made during an interview on JoyPrime on January 6, 2026, center on alleged conflicts of interest, mishandling of high-profile investigations, and a controversial dismissal of the SML case involving former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta.

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of Kpebu’s allegations, the legal and procedural context, and the implications for Ghana’s anti-corruption efforts. We examine the evidence presented, the responses from relevant institutions, and what this means for public trust in the country’s special prosecutorial authority.

Key Points

Background

The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP)

The Office of the Special Prosecutor was established in 2017 through the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959). Its mandate is to investigate and prosecute corruption-related offenses, particularly those involving public officials, and to recover proceeds of corruption. The OSP operates independently and is designed to complement the work of the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) and the Economic and Organized Crime Office (EOCO).

The Special Prosecutor is appointed by the President with the approval of Parliament and holds office for a non-renewable term of four years. The position requires a person of proven integrity, independence, and extensive legal experience.

Kissi Agyebeng’s Appointment and Tenure

Kissi Agyebeng was appointed as the Special Prosecutor in August 2021, succeeding Martin Amidu. His appointment was confirmed by Parliament and he took office with promises to tackle corruption with vigor and independence. However, his tenure has been marked by several high-profile investigations and controversies, including the SML case that has drawn significant public scrutiny.

The SML case involved allegations of corruption and abuse of office against former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta, related to the Strategic Infrastructure Fund and the SML (Strategic Infrastructure Limited) transaction. The case was dismissed by the OSP in late 2025, a decision that has been the subject of intense debate and criticism.

Martin Kpebu: Background and Motivation

Martin Kpebu is a well-known private criminal practitioner in Ghana with a reputation for taking on high-profile cases and speaking out on matters of public interest. He has previously been involved in cases related to corruption and has been critical of government actions. His decision to challenge Agyebeng stems from what he describes as a commitment to accountability and the rule of law.

In his interview with JoyPrime, Kpebu stated that he was motivated by “stories I heard about corruption against him” and that he had presented a formal petition to address these concerns.

Analysis

Conflict of Interest Claims

Kpebu’s primary allegation is that Agyebeng’s past professional affiliations create an irreconcilable conflict of interest. He specifically mentions that Agyebeng “worked for Ofori Atta” and “worked for Gabby Okyere-Darko—these are the president’s relations.” Kpebu argues that these relationships indicate that Agyebeng was appointed to “cover things for them, do a cover-up.”

Under Ghanaian law, conflict of interest is a serious matter for public officials. The 1992 Constitution and various anti-corruption laws require public officers to avoid situations where personal interests conflict with their official duties. However, past professional relationships alone may not constitute a legal conflict unless they directly influence decision-making in current cases.

The question remains whether Agyebeng’s past work for these individuals, if proven, would legally disqualify him from investigating matters involving them or their associates.

The SML Case and Allegations of Collusion

The SML case is central to Kpebu’s allegations. He claims that Agyebeng allowed Ofori-Atta to escape investigation by not taking timely action. Kpebu asserts that Ofori-Atta had already left Ghana before the OSP began its investigation into the SML matter, suggesting deliberate delay.

Kpebu references a “diary of action” that allegedly shows the investigation began on January 29, 2025, after Ofori-Atta had departed. He also claims that Agyebeng admitted in an interview with KSM (Kwame Sefa-Kumani) that he had intercepted a letter from Ofori-Atta but failed to prevent his travel despite seeking assistance from the National Intelligence Bureau (NIB) and National Security.

Kpebu states that he has written to both NIB and National Security, and both have reportedly denied that Agyebeng made such requests. He is also awaiting a response from the Immigration Service.

If true, these claims would suggest serious procedural failures or deliberate obstruction. However, the OSP has maintained that its decision to dismiss the SML case was based on legal and evidential grounds, not external influence.

Legal Basis for the Petition

Kpebu has filed a formal petition with the Chief Justice, invoking constitutional provisions for the removal of public officers. Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution outlines the grounds for removal of holders of public office, including misbehavior or inability to perform functions due to physical or mental infirmity.

Kpebu’s petition appears to be based on allegations of misbehavior and conflict of interest. He claims that the Chief Justice must decide on the petition within 30 days of receipt, and that the President had seven days to forward it. Kpebu presented his petition on December 11, 2025, and expects a decision by December 17, 2025 (though this timeline appears to have passed without public action at the time of writing).

The process for removing a Special Prosecutor is not explicitly detailed in the OSP Act, so the general constitutional provisions for removal of public officers would likely apply. This would involve an investigation by a committee appointed by the Chief Justice and, if warranted, a recommendation to the President for removal.

Institutional Responses and Verification

Kpebu’s claims hinge partly on the responses from state institutions. He asserts that NIB and National Security have denied Agyebeng’s claims of seeking their assistance. If these denials are accurate, it would undermine Agyebeng’s explanation for not preventing Ofori-Atta’s travel.

However, it is important to note that official responses from these institutions have not been made public in full. The lack of transparency in these matters can fuel speculation and erode public trust, regardless of the actual facts.

The Immigration Service’s response, which Kpebu is still awaiting, could also be crucial in establishing the timeline of events related to Ofori-Atta’s travel.

Impact on Public Trust and Anti-Corruption Efforts

Allegations of this nature, whether proven or not, have significant implications for public trust in Ghana’s anti-corruption institutions. The OSP was created to be a beacon of integrity and independence. Any perception of bias or political interference can undermine its effectiveness and deter potential whistleblowers.

Kpebu’s public campaign has brought these issues to the forefront of national discourse. It has also reignited debates about the need for greater transparency and accountability in the operations of the OSP and other anti-corruption bodies.

The government and the OSP must respond with clarity and, if necessary, with independent investigations to restore confidence.

Practical Advice

For the Public

• Seek Verified Information: Rely on official statements and verified reports rather than social media rumors.
• Support Independent Oversight: Advocate for transparent and independent investigations into such allegations.
• Engage Constructively: Participate in public discourse with facts and respect for due process.

For Legal Practitioners

• Maintain Professional Standards: Ensure that public statements are based on verifiable facts and do not prejudice ongoing processes.
• Support Institutional Integrity: Work towards strengthening the independence and effectiveness of anti-corruption institutions.

For Government and Anti-Corruption Agencies

• Ensure Transparency: Provide clear and timely responses to public concerns.
• Uphold Independence: Protect the autonomy of anti-corruption bodies from political influence.
• Review Processes: Examine internal procedures to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure accountability.

FAQ

Conclusion

The allegations made by Martin Kpebu against Special Prosecutor Kissi Agyebeng are serious and warrant careful examination. While Kpebu presents specific claims about conflicts of interest and mishandling of the SML case, the burden of proof remains high in matters involving public office and constitutional processes.

The Office of the Special Prosecutor plays a crucial role in Ghana’s fight against corruption. Any perception of bias or political interference can have far-reaching consequences for the country’s governance and rule of law. It is imperative that all allegations are investigated thoroughly and transparently, with due regard for due process and the rights of all parties involved.

The public has a right to expect integrity and independence from its anti-corruption institutions. At the same time, it is essential to avoid trial by media and to allow proper legal and constitutional mechanisms to take their course.

As this matter unfolds, it serves as a reminder of the importance of robust oversight, transparency, and accountability in public office. Ghana’s commitment to fighting corruption must be unwavering, and its institutions must be beyond reproach.