Why the Politician Attorney General Model is Damaged and Not Credible: A Constitutional Review

The integrity of a nation’s justice system relies heavily on the independence of its chief legal officer. Recently, Professor Henry Kwasi Prempeh, the Chairman of Ghana’s Constitution Review Committee, delivered a sharp critique of the current governance structure. He argued that the “politician Attorney General” model is fundamentally damaged, lacking the credibility necessary to effectively combat corruption. This analysis explores why blending political ambition with prosecutorial power creates a conflict of interest that undermines public trust.

Introduction

At the heart of every functioning democracy lies the rule of law. However, when the enforcement of that law is placed in the hands of an active politician, the results can be detrimental to the fight against corruption. Professor Henry Kwasi Prempeh’s recent commentary on the Constitution Review highlights a critical flaw in the current legal architecture of Ghana. He posits that the current politician Attorney General model has failed to garner public trust because it is structurally compromised. This article breaks down his arguments, examining the distinction between career legal officers and political appointees, and why the current Attorney General fashion may be unfit for purpose.

Key Points

Background

To understand the current debate, one must look at the evolution of the Attorney General’s role in Ghana. Historically, there have been attempts to utilize career legal professionals—experts trained specifically in law and prosecution. However, the current constitutional arrangement allows for a politician Attorney General. This individual is not merely a legal advisor; they are an elected member of a political party, a member of the government, and often a key player in the ruling administration’s political strategy.

Professor Prempeh notes that constitutions are “made for human beings.” This implies that any system must account for human nature and political reality. When a political partisan is given the power to prosecute, the system assumes that individual can divorce their political loyalty from their legal duty. The Constitution Review Chair argues that this assumption is flawed.

Analysis

Professor Prempeh’s critique offers a deep analysis of the mechanics of power and perception. The failure of the current model is not just about actual corruption, but the perception of fairness.

The Inherent Conflict of Interest

The central issue is the contradiction of roles. The Attorney General is expected to lead the national fight against corruption. Yet, corruption is a crime that does not carry a “party label.” It is simply corruption. When an active politician is tasked with prosecuting their political opponents, or even their own allies, the motivation is immediately questioned.

Prempeh asks a logical question: “How is it any surprise that we have had so few corruption cases against incumbents?” If the prosecutor is part of the incumbent government, they are unlikely to bite the hand that feeds them. This creates a system where corruption is weaponized against opponents but shielded for allies.

The Expectation of “Tomorrow’s Justice”

A common defense of the politician-AG model is the “pendulum theory”—the idea that while the current government may not prosecute its own, the next administration will. Prempeh dismantles this logic. He argues that expecting a four-year term to pass without prosecution, only for the “other side” to eventually take power and seek retribution, is a dangerous gamble.

“What if they don’t come?” he asks. Furthermore, this cycle creates a culture of “selective prosecution followed by pardons,” which erodes the concept of justice entirely. It turns the justice system into a revolving door of political retribution rather than a pillar of stability.

The Credibility Void

Perhaps the most damaging aspect is the loss of public trust. Even if the Attorney General acts with genuine evidence and pure intentions, the public will not believe them. Prempeh explains that if a prosecutor targets a specific individual, Ghanaians will automatically view it through a partisan lens (e.g., “He is NDC going after NPP”).

This skepticism destroys the institution. When the public loses faith in the credibility of the legal process, the entire justice system crumbles. The perception of bias is as damaging as bias itself.

Practical Advice

Based on the analysis of the Constitution Review Chair, what are the practical steps forward to restore faith in the system?

1. Decouple Prosecution from the Attorney General

The most practical advice emerging from this critique is to separate the role of the Attorney General from the power of prosecution. In many modern democracies, the Attorney General serves as the chief legal advisor to the government (handling civil matters and policy), while an independent Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) or an independent Anti-Corruption Commission handles criminal cases.

2. Adopt a Career-Based Model

Ghana should consider returning to a “career attorney general” setup. This means appointing legal professionals who are not active politicians. This removes the incentive to use the justice system for political point-scoring.

3. Look to Regional Peers

Prempeh cites Kenya as a working example. In the 2010 Kenyan Constitution, the Attorney General was stripped of prosecution powers entirely. This structural change was born out of the realization that the old model simply did not work. Ghana can learn from this precedent.

4. Strengthen Conventions (If Retaining the Model)

If Ghana chooses to keep the current model, it must build strong conventions similar to the United States. In the US, while the Attorney General is political, there is a long-standing tradition and strong institutional pressure to allow career prosecutors to operate independently. However, Prempeh warns against blindly copying the US model without the accompanying cultural and institutional safeguards.

FAQ

Conclusion

The critique by Professor Henry Kwasi Prempeh serves as a stark warning about the fragility of democratic institutions. The “politician Attorney General fashion” is not just a theoretical problem; it is a practical one that has resulted in a damaged credibility and a stalled fight against corruption. By prioritizing political loyalty over legal independence, the current system fails the test of public trust. To move forward, Ghana must seriously consider structural reforms—such as independent prosecution agencies—that align with its specific context and the reality of human nature. As Prempeh stated, “We are human beings. Constitutions are made for human beings.” Therefore, they must be designed to check human impulses, not enable them.