The constitutional authority of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) will come under renewed scrutiny as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on whether Parliament had the power to grant the office independent prosecutorial authority.
Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, has argued that the OSP’s powers cannot override the constitutional mandate of the Attorney-General because the Office was established through an ordinary Act of Parliament.
Speaking on The Law with Samson Lardy Anyenini on JoyNews on Sunday, July 26, Dr Srem-Sai said the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959), was passed under the ordinary legislative process provided for under Article 106 of the 1992 Constitution.
He therefore rejected the argument that the Act could have altered Article 88, which gives the Attorney-General authority over public prosecutions.
“The OSP Act is an ordinary legislation passed under Article 106, not under the constitutional amendment procedures,” he said.
Dr Srem-Sai said Parliament could not use ordinary legislation to change the constitutional framework governing prosecutorial authority.
He argued that Article 88 places public prosecutorial power in the hands of the Attorney-General and that the OSP Act cannot be interpreted as having amended that constitutional provision.
The debate forms part of a constitutional case before the Supreme Court, which is scheduled to deliver its judgment on July 29, 2026.
The case was filed by private legal practitioner Noah Adamtey, who is challenging provisions of Act 959 that grant the OSP powers to initiate, conduct and terminate criminal prosecutions independently of the Attorney-General.
Mr Adamtey argues that those provisions are inconsistent with several provisions of the Constitution, including Articles 1(2), 88(3) and (4), 93(2) and 296.
The Attorney-General’s position, represented by Dr Srem-Sai, is that the Constitution vests prosecutorial authority solely in the Attorney-General and that Parliament acted beyond its powers by creating an independent prosecutorial arrangement for the OSP.
The government further argues that the law effectively limits the Attorney-General’s constitutional responsibility by allowing the OSP to independently handle certain criminal prosecutions.
The case has attracted significant interest from civil society organisations, with 14 groups, including Transparency International Ghana, CDD-Ghana, IMANI Africa and the Ghana Anti-Corruption Coalition, admitted to the proceedings.
The organisations say their involvement is aimed at protecting constitutionalism, accountability and the effectiveness of independent anti-corruption institutions.
The Supreme Court previously rejected an application by the OSP to join the case as an interested party, holding that the constitutional questions could be determined between the plaintiff and the Attorney-General.
The court is now expected to settle the central legal question: whether the OSP can exercise independent prosecutorial powers under an ordinary Act of Parliament without violating the constitutional authority of the Attorney-General.
