Office of Special Prosecutor has failed – Sam Okudzeto tears into Ghana’s anti-corruption fashion – Life Pulse Daily

Introduction: The Office of Special Prosecutor in Ghana: A Critique of Accountability and Reforms

The Office of Special Prosecutor (OSP) in Ghana, established in 2018 to combat systemic corruption, has become a focal point of public debate. Skeptics argue that its effectiveness is questionable, with critics like legal scholar Sam Okudzeto contending that the institution has failed to deliver meaningful results. In a scathing critique delivered on PleasureNews’ PM Express, Okudzeto emphasized that corruption in Ghana persists unchecked, suggesting that the OSP’s design and execution have undermined its intended purpose. This article explores the controversy surrounding the OSP, its structural challenges, and calls for reform to address what many perceive as a misallocation of resources and duplicated roles.

Key Points: Core Arguments Against the Office of Special Prosecutor

The OSP’s Mandate and Failure to Deliver

Former President of the Ghana Bar Association, Sam Okudzeto, asserts that the OSP has not achieved its core mission: prosecuting high-profile corruption cases that specifically target Ghana’s elite. Critics argue that despite its creation, the institution has failed to secure convictions in landmark cases, such as those involving former President John Mahama or the Gbiablished infrastructure projects.

Duplication of Roles and Institutional Bloat

Okudzeto highlights redundancy between the OSP and the Attorney-General’s Department, which already possesses mandates to prosecute corruption cases. Legal experts question why Ghana now maintains parallel prosecutorial bodies, arguing that this duplication inflates costs without enhancing accountability.

Structural Flaws in the Anti-Corruption Framework

The OSP’s reliance on a single appointed individual—rather than a team-based approach—has been criticized as a systemic weakness. Okudzeto warns that this model risks politicization and inefficiency, particularly when appointees lack prior expertise in complex corruption-related litigation.

Calls for Consolidation and Capacity Building

Experts advocate for integrating the OSP’s functions into the Attorney-General’s Department while investing in training for prosecutors and judges. This shift, they argue, would streamline operations and align with international best practices for anti-corruption governance.

Background: The Origins and Governance of the OSP

The Office of Special Prosecutor was established under the Special Prosecutor Establishment Act, 2018 (Act 938), in response to Ghana’s longstanding struggle with endemic corruption. Its mandate includes prosecuting high-level corruption, commercial bribery, and misuse of public funds. However, the OSP operates under a governance framework that critics argue lacks independence. Appointed by the President, the Special Prosecutor reports to the Attorney General, raising concerns about political interference.

The OSP’s creation aligned with Ghana’s Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) commitments to combat corruption. Domestically, the move followed public outrage over the 2008 N4bn Vansome scandal and subsequent failed prosecutions due to legal technicalities. Proponents of the OSP, including former President John Mahama, framed it as a nonpartisan tool to restore public trust in institutions.

Analysis: Why the OSP’s Model Fallshorts

Structural Inefficiencies and Duplication

The Attorney-General’s Department, established by the Constitutive Instrument (CI) 1992/si, already has authority to prosecute all president in Ghana, including corruption. The OSP’s overlapping jurisdiction creates confusion in case allocation and resource allocation. For instance, the DPSP (Director of Public Prosecutions) handles general legal matters, while the Special Prosecutor focuses on corruption. Critics argue that splitting expertise between two bodies dilutes focus and accountability.

Training and Expertise Gaps

The OSP’s effectiveness hinges on the competence of its appointees. However, many lawyers assigned to the role lack prior experience in complex financial crimes or transnational corruption networks. Unlike the UK’s National Crime Agency or Singapore’s Anti-Corruption Bureau, which employ specialized units, Ghana’s OSP has struggled to build a reputation as an elite prosecutorial institution.

Political Pressures and Public Perception

The OSP’s appointment process has drawn scrutiny, particularly when successive Presidents named officeholders with disputed political credentials. For example, the current Special Prosecutor, Mr. Murray Quayle, assumed office in 2023 amid allegations of politicization. Public trust erodes when prosecutors are perceived as tools of governance rather than independent enforcers.

Practical Advice: Reforms to Revitalize Ghana’s Anti-Corruption Efforts

Consolidate Prosecutorial Functions

Experts recommend merging the OSP into the Attorney-General’s Department, a model followed by the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service. This consolidation would eliminate duplication, allowing prosecutors to leverage resources and expertise efficiently.

Invest in Legal Training and Specialization

Establishing specialized anticorruption courts with judges trained in financial litigation could enhance case adjudication. The World Bank’s Ghana Anti-Corruption Policy Support Program recommends such investments to improve outcomes in high-profile trials.

Strengthen Civil Society Oversight

Amnesty International Ghana advocates for greater transparency in OSP investigations. Publicly appointing oversight committees with legal and financial experts could deter conflicts of interest and ensure impartiality.

International Collaboration and Learning

Ghana should forge partnerships with institutions like the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) to adopt proven strategies. For example, digital platforms for whistleblower reporting, as used in Estonia, could modernize Ghana’s anti-graft mechanisms.

FAQ: Addressing Common Questions About the OSP and Anti-Corruption

Why was the OSP created, and has it fulfilled its purpose?

The OSP was established to address corruption gaps left by the Attorney-General’s Department. However, it has faced criticism for failing to secure convictions against high-profile suspects, raising doubts about its efficacy.

What are the legal implications of redundant anti-corruption bodies?

While the OSP | the Attorney-General’s Department runs afoul legal duplication rules under Ghana’s 1992 Constitution Article 118, it does not automatically render the OSP unconstitutional. However, courts may intervene if resource allocation proves inefficient.

Could scrapping the OSP worsen the anti-corruption fight?

Experts caution that eliminating the OSP without strengthening existing institutions could leave a void in prosecuting complex graft cases. However, proper reforms to the Attorney-General’s Department could mitigate this risk.

How does the OSP compare to similar institutions in Africa?

Unlike Rwanda’s Office du Bienveillance Anti-Corruption, which boasts a 97% conviction rate in corporate graft cases, the OSP has yet to achieve comparable success. Rwanda’s model emphasizes transnational cooperation and technology-driven investigations.

Conclusion: Rethinking Ghana’s Anti-Corruption Strategy

The OSP’s current trajectory underscores the risks of top-down institutional design without addressing foundational governance flaws. By learning from global successes and consolidating prosecutorial powers, Ghana can build an anti-corruption framework that aligns enforcement with expertise. As Okudzeto warns, “an institution is only as strong as its people and its purpose.” Without structural reforms, the OSP will remain a symbol of failed ambition rather than a beacon of accountability.