The Office of the Attorney-General has stated that Parliament overstepped its authority in granting the Office of Special Prosecutor independent prosecutorial powers.
It has therefore challenged the constitutional basis that established the office through an affidavit filed at the Supreme Court on April 8, 2026, in the case of Adamtey v. Attorney General.
The A-G’s office argued that the establishment of the OSP in its current form violates the 1992 Constitution.
The office relied on Article 88, which vests all prosecutorial authority of the Republic solely in the Attorney General, to make its argument.
It’s said that although the Constitution allows the Attorney General to delegate this power, such delegation can only be made to individuals and not to an institution acting independently.
According to the Attorney General, by enacting the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959), Parliament effectively transferred key elements of this constitutional power to a separate body without amending the Constitution.
“The prosecutorial power of the Republic is created by the Constitution. The Constitution gave all that power to the Attorney General alone,” the affidavit states, adding that any delegation must remain under the control of the Attorney General.
It further argued that Parliament, through ordinary legislation, cannot alter or dilute constitutional provisions. It describes the move to vest prosecutorial authority in the OSP as an unlawful attempt to create a parallel structure outside the constitutional framework.
“We submit that, by this conduct, Parliament has, without doubt, acted in excess of the power conferred on it by the Constitution,” the Attorney General said.
“The prosecutorial power of the Republic is created by the Constitution. The Constitution gave all that power to the Attorney-General alone,” the affidavit states.
It stressed that any delegation must remain under the control of the attorney general.
According to the Office, Parliament, through ordinary legislation, cannot alter or dilute constitutional provisions.
The decision by Parliament to vest prosecutorial authority in the OSP it claimed was an unlawful attempt to create a parallel structure outside the constitutional framework.
“We submit that, by this conduct, Parliament has, without doubt, acted in excess of the power conferred on it by the Constitution,” the Attorney General argued.
Referencing established Supreme Court precedents, including Prof Appiagyei-Atua v Attorney General, the affidavit underscores that laws inconsistent with the Constitution shall be deemed null and void. Consequently, the Attorney General is requesting the Supreme Court to rule that Parliament overstepped its authority by enacting provisions that compromise the constitutional powers of the office.
The case, initiated by private citizen Noah Ephraem Tetteh Adamtey, contests the legitimacy of the Office of the Special Prosecutor’s independence, particularly its capacity to prosecute without the Attorney General’s explicit consent. If validated, this argument could profoundly impact Ghana’s anti-corruption framework, potentially limiting the Office of the Special Prosecutor’s autonomy and reinstating prosecutorial authority under the Attorney General’s purview.
By: Rainbowradioonline.com/Ghana
