A governance and security expert has described the legal battle over the prosecutorial powers of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) as an avoidable institutional dispute that should never have reached the Supreme Court.
Dr. Jonathan Asante-Otchere, Executive Director of the African Institute of Strategic Studies, said the controversy was driven more by a lack of coordination between the OSP and the Office of the Attorney General than by any real constitutional ambiguity.
Speaking on The Big Issue on Channel One TV on Saturday, August 1, Dr. Asante-Otchere argued that both institutions exist to serve the same national objective—protecting public resources, combating corruption and ensuring accountability through criminal prosecutions.
He said stronger collaboration between the two offices could have prevented the legal confrontation.
“There is the need for coordination because we are fighting the same battle,” he said. “The objective is to ensure that the state does not lose resources and finances. We are all prosecuting and fighting for a common good.”
Dr. Asante-Otchere stressed that coordination should not mean the OSP becoming subordinate to the Attorney General, but rather the development of a cooperative relationship that avoids unnecessary institutional competition.
“In actual fact, there was no need for the Supreme Court’s interpretation. I think it was just an ego clash,” he added.
His comments came after the Supreme Court clarified the relationship between the prosecutorial powers of the OSP and the Attorney General.
The Court ruled that the OSP has the legal authority to prosecute criminal cases within its statutory mandate, but that the Attorney General retains the constitutional authority to discontinue or terminate prosecutions at any stage of criminal proceedings.
Dr. Asante-Otchere said the ruling should now serve as an opportunity for the two institutions to strengthen cooperation rather than engage in jurisdictional disputes, arguing that effective anti-corruption efforts require coordination among state institutions rather than rivalry.
He maintained that the public interest would be better served if both offices focused on their shared responsibility of enforcing accountability and protecting state resources.
