Martin Kpebu: Ghana OSP Act Checks Need Strengthening

• Legal practitioner Martin Kpebu criticized Ghana's Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017, for lacking adequate checks and balances.
• Kpebu argued that the Act's drafters failed to foresee that an occupant might not meet public expectations, leading to current tensions.
• The Supreme Court on July 29, 2026, upheld the OSP Act's constitutionality and the OSP's independent prosecutorial powers.
• However, the Court also affirmed the Attorney-General's constitutional authority to supervise and discontinue OSP prosecutions.
• Kpebu believes this Supreme Court ruling provides necessary 'adult supervision,' especially given the current Special Prosecutor's conduct.

He contends that this inherent weakness in the law has directly fueled the ongoing tensions surrounding the OSP and its current leadership.

Prominent private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu has voiced significant concerns regarding the foundational legislation governing Ghana’s Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP). Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express on Monday, Kpebu asserted that the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017, failed to incorporate sufficient checks and balances to adequately oversee the individual holding the anti-corruption office. He contends that this inherent weakness in the law has directly fueled the ongoing tensions surrounding the OSP and its current leadership.

Kpebu elaborated that it is often challenging to distinguish the institution from the person occupying the role, given that the Special Prosecutor serves as the organization's primary ambassador and public face. Consequently, he argued, any public dissatisfaction with the occupant's conduct or governance style can readily translate into negative perceptions of the institution itself. This dynamic, he suspects, is a core driver of the current controversies.

The legal expert questioned the level of foresight exercised during the drafting of the legislation establishing the OSP. Kpebu suggested that the architects of the law appeared to operate under the assumption that every occupant of the office would consistently act appropriately, thereby neglecting to implement robust Ghana OSP checks and balances. He critically noted that the Act did not demonstrate adequate foresight in anticipating the possibility that an occupant might not meet public expectations.

According to Kpebu, had the law foreseen such a scenario, many of the current concerns could have been preempted. He emphasized that when an occupant's conduct erodes public trust, the resulting negative consequences are inevitable, underscoring the critical need for built-in supervisory mechanisms within the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act 2017.

Kpebu's observations follow a pivotal July 29, 2026, ruling by the Supreme Court concerning the constitutional standing and prosecutorial authority of the OSP. The apex court unanimously affirmed the constitutionality of the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959), thereby validating the OSP's capacity to independently investigate and prosecute corruption-related offenses. This decision came after a constitutional challenge initiated by private legal practitioner Noah Adamtey, who argued that Parliament lacked the power to grant the OSP independent prosecutorial authority, citing Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution which vests such powers in the Attorney-General.

Crucially, however, the Ghana Supreme Court OSP supervision ruling also stipulated that the Attorney-General retains constitutional authority over all criminal prosecutions. This includes the power to discontinue prosecutions initiated by the OSP, effectively establishing a significant supervisory layer over the anti-corruption body. This aspect of the judgment is seen by Kpebu as a vital development, providing a much-needed mechanism for oversight.

Martin Kpebu views the Supreme Court's determination as an essential supervisory mechanism. He interprets the court's position as effectively placing the OSP under the purview of the Attorney-General's Office, thereby ensuring that the Attorney-General supervises the Special Prosecutor. This, he argues, introduces a critical layer of accountability that was previously lacking in the original legislative framework.

Kpebu insisted that such supervision is particularly necessary given the behavior of the current occupant of the Special Prosecutor's office. He explicitly stated that the specific individual currently holding the position requires this 'adult supervision,' asserting that the occupant has not conducted himself appropriately. This highlights the practical implications of the Supreme Court's ruling on the Attorney-General OSP prosecutorial powers, providing a check on the OSP's independent authority.

Source: Original reporting via Myjoyonline.com