Private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu has called for stronger institutional oversight of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), warning that the conduct of its leadership could erode public confidence in the anti-corruption agency.
Mr Kpebu said the controversy surrounding the OSP in recent months had exposed weaknesses in the legal framework governing the institution, particularly the absence of adequate mechanisms to check the conduct of the person occupying the office.
Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express on Monday, he argued that the public perception of the OSP was closely tied to the conduct of the Special Prosecutor because the occupant of the office serves as its chief executive and principal public face.
“Don’t forget that the occupant of the office, as the chief executive, is the number-one ambassador of the organisation. He is the face of the organisation,” he said.
According to Mr Kpebu, dissatisfaction with the leadership style or activities of the Special Prosecutor could easily spill over into public perceptions of the institution itself.
He therefore questioned whether the legislation establishing the OSP had adequately anticipated the possibility of challenges arising from the conduct of future occupants.
“To be honest, you feel like, come on, how were we so lacking in foresight in the manner in which we drafted the Act?” he asked.
“It didn’t show foresight,” he added.
Mr Kpebu said the framers of the law appeared to have operated on the assumption that whoever was appointed Special Prosecutor would always conduct themselves appropriately.
“It shows that we just presumed that every occupant of that office will be an angel,” he said.
He argued that stronger checks and balances were necessary to ensure that the considerable powers vested in the OSP were exercised responsibly and in a manner that protected the credibility of the institution.
“So we didn’t put in place enough checks and balances to rein the occupant in,” he said.
Supreme Court ruling
Mr Kpebu’s comments follow a July 29, 2026 decision by the Supreme Court on a constitutional challenge to the prosecutorial powers of the OSP.
The apex court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959), while also affirming the constitutional prosecutorial authority of the Attorney-General.
The court further held that the Attorney-General could discontinue prosecutions initiated by the OSP.
The case was brought by private legal practitioner Noah Ephraem Tetteh Adamtey, who challenged the prosecutorial mandate of the OSP under Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution.
For Mr Kpebu, the Supreme Court’s decision has effectively introduced an additional layer of institutional supervision over the OSP.
He said the ruling addresses, to some extent, the concern about the absence of sufficient checks on the occupant of the office by placing the Special Prosecutor under the supervisory authority of the Attorney-General.
“And that’s what the Supreme Court did by now putting the OSP under the Office of the Attorney-General, so that the Attorney-General supervises the Special Prosecutor,” he said.
Mr Kpebu was particularly emphatic that the current occupant of the office required such oversight.
“It’s this Special Prosecutor specifically who needs that adult supervision,” he said.
“Yeah, he needs that adult supervision. He’s not conducted himself well at all,” he added.
He maintained that effective oversight should not be viewed as an attempt to weaken the OSP but as a means of protecting the institution’s credibility, ensuring accountability and strengthening public confidence in Ghana’s anti-corruption framework.
