Introduction

In Ghana’s ongoing political discourse, few issues stir as much debate as the independence of anti-corruption institutions. A recent controversy involving human rights advocate Martin Kpebu and Special Prosecutor Kissi Agyebeng has ignited fierce criticism from Dr. Kojo Asante, Director of Policy Advocacy at CDD-Ghana. Asante accuses Kpebu of hypocrisy for demanding Agyebeng’s dismissal while undermining systemic accountability.

This article dissects the claims, explores their broader implications for corruption accountability, and evaluates what the debate reveals about political responsibility in Ghana. We’ll examine key arguments, legal frameworks, and practical considerations for maintaining impartial oversight mechanisms.

Analysis

Context of the Special Prosecutor’s Office

Established under the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959), the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) operates as an independent agency tasked with investigating and prosecuting high-profile corruption cases involving public officers. Its mandate includes probing allegations against current or former government officials, ensuring separation from routine law enforcement.

Kpebu’s Criticisms and Allegations

On December 6, 2025, Martin Kpebu called for the removal of Special Prosecutor Kissi Agyebeng, citing alleged procedural lapses in investigations related to former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta. Kpebu further claimed Agyebeng had targeted him personally, alleging selective enforcement. These arguments have drawn sharp rebuttals from governance experts.

Asante’s Charge of Hypocrisy

Dr. Kojo Asante, in a December 6 appearance on Channel One TV, characterized Kpebu’s stance as hypocritical. Asante highlighted a contradiction: the current government publicly advocates anti-corruption measures yet resists oversight when its own members face scrutiny. “It is incredulous,” Asante stated, “to hear the Majority Leader and government figures claim the OSP should be abolished after insisting we need to tackle corruption.”

Broader Implications for Accountability Mechanisms

Asante argues Kpebu’s position reflects a wider effort to weaken impartial responsibility mechanisms. He warns that pressuring the OSP undermines public trust in institutions designed to hold power accountable, irrespective of political affiliation.

Summary

Dr. Kojo Asante criticizes Martin Kpebu’s demand for Special Prosecutor Kissi Agyebeng’s removal as hypocritical and detrimental to Ghana’s corruption accountability framework. Asante contends that Kpebu’s claims—centered on alleged procedural flaws and personal targeting—align with broader attempts to discredit independent oversight bodies. This tension underscores a critical question: can Ghana sustain unbiased anti-corruption institutions amid political pressures?

Key Points

Practical Advice

For Civil Society and Advocates

Advocates should:

• Basis Arguments in Evidence: Critique investigations using documented procedural records, not partisan claims.
• Support Institutional Independence: Campaign for legal protections that shield oversight bodies from political pressure.
• Promote Public Dialogue: Facilitate discussions on balancing transparency with operational confidentiality.

For Government Officials

Officials must:

• Respect Mandate Boundaries: Avoid public attacks on investigative agencies; allow due process.
• Model Accountability: Demonstrate commitment to anti-corruption by cooperating with legitimate probes.
• Strengthen Legal Frameworks: Review and amend laws to clarify removal procedures for independent prosecutors.

Points of Caution

Risks of Political Interference

Pressuring the OSP risks:

• Eroding Public Trust: Perceived bias undermines faith in justice systems.
• Chilling Effect: Investigators may hesitate to pursue powerful figures, reducing effectiveness.
• International Reputation: Ghana’s credibility as a corruption accountability partner could suffer.

Challenges in Allegation Verification

Public must:

• Demand Verified Evidence: Avoid accepting claims without supporting documentation.
• Understand Investigative Constraints: Sensitive probes often require confidentiality to protect witnesses and evidence.

Comparison

Historical Precedents in Ghana

Past administrations have faced similar tensions. For example, the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) frequently encountered political resistance during high-profile cases. However, the OSP’s statutory independence offers stronger legal safeguards against removal.

International Context

Countries like Kenya and Nigeria have grappled with analogous challenges. Kenya’s Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), for instance, faced government-backed dismissal attempts in 2020. Successful resistance preserved its mandate, underscoring the importance of civil society vigilance.

Legal Implications

Removal Procedures for the Special Prosecutor

Under Act 959, the Special Prosecutor can only be removed through:

1. Parliamentary Motion: Requires a majority vote after proven misconduct.
2. Presidential Action: Permitted only upon recommendation by a seven-member committee of MPs.

Kpebu’s public call for dismissal lacks legal pathway, constituting political pressure rather than formal process.

Consequences of Undue Influence

Attempts to interfere may trigger:

• Civil Society Litigation: Legal challenges against obstructive statements or actions.
• International Scrutiny: Donors may review aid conditions tied to governance standards.

Conclusion

The debate over Kissi Agyebeng’s tenure reflects a pivotal struggle for Ghana’s democratic maturity. Dr. Asante’s critique highlights a core dilemma: can a nation champion anti-corruption while tolerating efforts to undermine its enforcers? Sustaining impartial mechanisms demands collective vigilance—ensuring laws protect independence, leaders respect mandates, and citizens demand evidence over rhetoric.

FAQ