Office of the Special Prosecutor Ghana: Clarifying the Special Prosecutor and Deputy Roles in Corruption Probes

Explore the legal framework of Ghana’s OSP under Act 959, addressing recent criticisms and the proper channels for accountability in anti-corruption efforts.

Introduction

The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) in Ghana stands as a cornerstone in the nation’s battle against corruption. Established by the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959), the OSP investigates and prosecutes corruption and corruption-related offenses. Recent public discourse, including criticisms from lawyer Martin Kpebu and media personalities on TV3, has spotlighted the OSP’s invitation for Kpebu’s input in a probe involving allegations against the Special Prosecutor (SP) himself. This has sparked debates on institutional independence, self-investigation protocols, and accountability mechanisms.

In this comprehensive guide, we demystify the roles of the Special Prosecutor Ghana, the Deputy Special Prosecutor, and the OSP’s operational framework. Optimized for clarity, this article explains how Act 959 ensures robust anti-corruption enforcement while upholding due process—key for anyone searching for “OSP Ghana investigations” or “Special Prosecutor accountability.”

Analysis

OSP’s Core Mandate Under Act 959

The OSP’s primary function, as outlined in Section 1 of Act 959, is to investigate specific cases of alleged or suspected corruption and corruption-related offenses in the public and private sectors. This includes financial malfeasance, bribery, and abuse of office. Importantly, the Act extends this mandate to allegations against OSP officers themselves, ensuring no one is above scrutiny.

Section 13 empowers the OSP to conduct investigations independently, gathering evidence, summoning witnesses, and collaborating with other agencies. This broad authority positions the OSP as Ghana’s premier anti-corruption body, complementing institutions like the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO).

Handling Allegations Against OSP Leadership

A critical aspect of OSP operations is managing internal allegations. If corruption claims target an OSP officer, including the SP, the institution retains jurisdiction. However, Act 959 implicitly prohibits the accused from participating in their own investigation, aligning with natural justice principles like nemo iudex in causa sua (no one should judge their own case).

For the SP, Section 10 designates the Deputy Special Prosecutor (DSP) to “act in the absence of the Special Prosecutor.” This provision activates if the SP recuses due to allegations, allowing seamless continuity. In the Martin Kpebu case, the OSP’s call for his participation—as a potential witness or informant—demonstrates procedural integrity, not self-adjudication.

Public Criticism and Media Role

Recent feedback highlights concerns over the OSP extending participation to critics like Kpebu. While media platforms amplify voices, they must not substitute formal processes. Act 959 encourages evidence-based reporting, distinguishing institutional actions from individual roles.

Summary

In essence, the OSP under Act 959 maintains full authority to probe corruption allegations against its own, with recusal mechanisms via the DSP ensuring fairness. Inviting external input, such as from Martin Kpebu, bolsters investigations without compromising independence. Critics hold legal avenues like presidential petitions for redress, rather than unsubstantiated media claims. This framework safeguards Ghana’s anti-corruption drive amid ongoing controversies.

Key Points

OSP Mandate: Investigate corruption per Act 959, including against internal officers.
Recusal Protocol: Accused SP steps aside; DSP assumes acting role (Section 10).
External Participation: Invitations like to Martin Kpebu aid probes, not led by the accused.
Accountability Path: Petition President for SP removal on grounds of corruption or incompetence (Section 15).
Institutional vs. Individual: OSP ≠ SP; the office operates independently.

Practical Advice

Filing a Formal Petition

If you suspect wrongdoing by the Special Prosecutor Ghana, follow Act 959’s Section 15: Submit a detailed petition to the President, including evidence of stated misbehavior, incompetence, or corruption. Include affidavits, documents, and witness statements for credibility. The President may then initiate removal proceedings, subject to High Court confirmation.

Steps: (1) Gather verifiable proof; (2) Draft petition citing Act 959 violations; (3) Submit via official channels (e.g., Presidency or OSP registry); (4) Track via public records or FOI requests.

Engaging with OSP Investigations

Respond promptly to OSP summons. Provide facts, not opinions, to assist probes. For “how to report corruption to OSP Ghana,” use the official portal or hotline, ensuring anonymity if needed under Section 76 of the Act.

Points of Caution

Avoid media trials without evidence, as they undermine public trust in institutions like the OSP. Section 98 of Act 959 penalizes false accusations, with fines or imprisonment. Unsubstantiated claims against the SP or DSP risk defamation suits. Encourage factual discourse: Critique policies, not personalities, and prioritize petitions over broadcasts.

Media users should verify OSP invites are procedural, not indicative of bias. Tying the OSP’s hands via smears hampers Ghana’s corruption fight, where over 70% of citizens perceive high-level graft per Afrobarometer surveys.

Comparison

OSP vs. Other Anti-Corruption Bodies

The OSP’s DSP mechanism offers superior self-policing compared to EOCO, mirroring global best practices like the U.S. DOJ’s Office of Inspector General.

SP vs. DSP Roles

The SP leads strategy (Section 10), while DSP handles operations in absence. This duality prevents vacuums, unlike single-leader models in some jurisdictions.

Legal Implications

Act 959’s Section 15 allows Presidential removal of the SP for “stated misbehavior or incompetence,” requiring High Court ratification. Non-compliance with probes (Section 37) attracts fines up to GH¢5,000 or 2-year jail. False petitions risk perjury charges under Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29).

In Martin Kpebu’s context, OSP’s invitation aligns with Section 23 (witness powers), imposing no impropriety. Breaching confidentiality (Section 77) could void contributions. These provisions deter frivolous claims, fortifying OSP credibility. Courts have upheld similar in cases like Republic v. Martin Amidu (former SP), affirming institutional probes.

Broader implications: OSP decisions appealable to the High Court (Section 80), ensuring judicial oversight. This balances autonomy with accountability, vital for Ghana’s rule of law.

Conclusion

The Office of the Special Prosecutor Ghana exemplifies structured anti-corruption architecture under Act 959. By distinguishing the institution from individuals, enabling DSP-led recitals, and channeling grievances via petitions, it fosters transparency. Public figures like Martin Kpebu serve best by engaging formally, not eroding trust through media. Uphold legal paths to empower the OSP in curbing corruption—Ghana’s path to prosperity demands it. Stay informed, act responsibly.

FAQ

What is the role of the Deputy Special Prosecutor?

The DSP acts in the SP’s absence, per Section 10 of Act 959, including during recusal for self-investigations.

Can the OSP investigate its own Special Prosecutor?

Yes, the OSP’s mandate covers internal allegations, with the accused recusing.

How to remove the Special Prosecutor Ghana?

Petition the President under Section 15 with evidence of misbehavior.

Is Martin Kpebu’s OSP invitation controversial?

No—it’s a standard witness collaboration, not SP self-judgment.

What penalties for false OSP accusations?

Fines, imprisonment under Act 959 and Act 29.

Office of the Special Prosecutor, Special Prosecutor & Deputy Special Prosecutor – Life Pulse Daily