A legal standoff has emerged in the ongoing “rice scandal” prosecution, with the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) insisting that only the Supreme Court has the authority to declare an Act of Parliament unconstitutional, following conflicting High Court rulings on its prosecutorial powers.
In a statement posted on X on Wednesday, April 15, the OSP said the case of Republic v. Issah Seidu & 3 Others has taken a complex turn after two High Courts issued divergent decisions on the same issue.
The OSP explained that the accused persons are standing trial before the High Court (Criminal Division), where an application to terminate the proceedings was dismissed. The court subsequently adjourned the case, pending a Supreme Court ruling on a related constitutional question challenging the OSP’s independence.
However, in a separate but related proceeding, another High Court declined the OSP’s request to pause proceedings until the Supreme Court’s determination. That court went further to rule that the OSP lacks independent prosecutorial authority and ordered that the matter be handed over to the Attorney-General for prosecution.
According to the OSP, these developments have resulted in two opposing judicial positions on its mandate within the same broader case, creating uncertainty over which directive should prevail at the trial level.
The anti-corruption body maintains that High Courts do not have the jurisdiction to invalidate provisions of an Act of Parliament, stressing that such constitutional authority rests solely with the Supreme Court. “It is only the Supreme Court which can strike down parts of an Act of Parliament as unconstitutional,” the OSP reiterated.
The OSP has also confirmed that it is taking steps to challenge the decision of the General Jurisdiction Court, insisting that its prosecutorial powers remain intact under the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959).
Despite the conflicting rulings, the OSP has assured the public that its ongoing prosecutions will continue. It says it will abide by existing legal provisions while awaiting a definitive interpretation from the Supreme Court, which is expected to settle the constitutional dispute over its mandate.
