Supreme Court upholds OSP's prosecutorial powers

The Supreme Court has unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) Act, 2017 (Act 959), affirming the legal foundation for the establishment and operations of the anti-corruption body.

In its unanimous judgment delivered on Wednesday, July 29, 2026, the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge and upheld the constitutionality of the OSP Act.

However, the apex court ruled that the Attorney General retains the constitutional authority to discontinue criminal prosecutions initiated by the OSP.

The court held that Sections 3 and 4 of Act 959 are not inconsistent with or in contravention of the 1992 Constitution and are therefore not void.

It further held that responsibility for all prosecutions is vested exclusively in the Attorney General and that any person other than the Attorney General who prosecutes in the name of the Republic does so only with the authority of the Attorney General.

According to the court, the OSP operates under an authorisation granted by the Attorney General, in accordance with the law, to initiate and conduct prosecutions. The court noted that this authorisation remains valid until it is amended.

The Supreme Court added that the Attorney General retains the power to enter a nolle prosequi in respect of cases brought by the OSP.

It also ruled that all prosecutions, convictions, and freezing orders entered under Section 71 of the OSP Act remain valid, stressing that nothing in the judgment affects the authority of any prosecutor authorised by the Attorney General.

The ruling settles a constitutional challenge filed by private legal practitioner Noah Adamtey, who questioned whether the prosecutorial powers granted to the OSP under Act 959 were consistent with Ghana’s 1992 Constitution.

Adamtey argued that Parliament exceeded its powers by establishing the OSP with independent prosecutorial authority. He contended that Article 88 of the Constitution vests prosecutorial powers solely in the Attorney General, making it unconstitutional for Parliament to create another institution with similar powers through ordinary legislation.

During the proceedings, the OSP applied to join the case as an interested party, but the Supreme Court rejected the request, holding that the constitutional questions could be determined between the plaintiff and the Attorney General.

The decision confirms the validity of the OSP’s prosecutorial mandate while clarifying the constitutional relationship between the Office and the Attorney General’s authority over criminal prosecutions.

JKB/MA