Strategic Mobilisation Ghana Limited (SML) has intensified its clash with the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), taking the matter to the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) in what has become one of the most contentious corporate-state stand-offs in recent years.
In a detailed petition dated 12 November 2025, SML argues that the OSP’s ongoing investigation into its revenue assurance contracts with the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) has crossed constitutional lines and now threatens the integrity of its operations and reputation.
Positioning itself as a company under siege, SML contends that the OSP’s handling of the probe reflects institutional overreach, characterised by bias, unfair administrative practices, and abuse of investigative discretion. The company insists that these actions warrant CHRAJ’s intervention under Article 218 of the Constitution and the CHRAJ Act, 1993 (Act 456).
At the centre of SML’s complaint is lead investigator Mr. Albert Akurugu, whom the company accuses of pursuing the inquiry with personal hostility rather than professional objectivity. SML alleges that Mr. Akurugu’s past association with the Customs Division of GRA during the West Blue era places him in a conflict of interest—one it claims has shaped his conduct throughout the inquiry.
According to SML, Mr. Akurugu’s approach has been vindictive, with the company citing interrogation remarks in which he allegedly vowed to ensure SML and its Chief Executive Officer “never work again,” a statement it says undercuts the credibility of the entire investigation.
The petition also revisits the OSP’s much-criticised 10 June 2025 raid on SML’s premises, describing it as an operation that flouted established digital forensic norms. The company maintains that investigators damaged servers, dismantled CCTV systems, seized sensitive hardware, and jeopardised evidence handling procedures—acts it frames as deliberate sabotage rather than lawful inquiry.
SML further accuses the OSP of selectively ignoring favourable assessments from the Ministry of Finance, the GRA, the National Petroleum Authority, and the Ghana Standards Authority—institutions it says had independently affirmed the company’s performance. SML claims the OSP’s final report presented a slanted narrative that favoured West Blue and diminished its own contributions to revenue assurance.
By turning to CHRAJ, SML is not only challenging the OSP’s methods but also seeking an authoritative determination that the prosecutor—and specifically Mr. Akurugu—acted outside the bounds of fairness, neutrality, and administrative justice.
The company wants CHRAJ to declare the OSP’s conduct as constituting bias, abuse of power, suppression of evidence, breach of digital forensic standards, and obstruction of justice.
The petition signals a new phase in the standoff, one that shifts the battle from investigative scrutiny to a broader question of institutional accountability.
