The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) Act, 2017 (Act 959), affirming the OSP’s authority to investigate and prosecute corruption-related offences.
However, the apex court has clarified that the OSP’s prosecutorial powers operate under the constitutional authority of the Attorney-General (A-G), who retains the power to discontinue any prosecution initiated by the anti-corruption agency.
The unanimous decision, delivered on Wednesday, July 29, 2026, brings clarity to a constitutional dispute over whether Parliament had the authority to confer independent prosecutorial powers on the OSP through ordinary legislation.
The case was brought by private legal practitioner Noah E. Adamtey, who challenged Sections 3 and 4 of Act 959 on the grounds that they were inconsistent with Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution.
Article 88 vests responsibility for public prosecutions in the Attorney-General, who has the exclusive constitutional authority to initiate and conduct criminal proceedings in the name of the Republic.
Mr Adamtey argued that Parliament could not establish another institution with prosecutorial powers without first amending the Constitution.
The Attorney-General supported the challenge, arguing that while prosecutorial authority could be delegated, such delegation must remain subject to the A-G’s constitutional supervision and could not be permanently transferred to an independent institution through legislation alone.
Supreme Court’s ruling
The Supreme Court, however, rejected the argument that the OSP’s prosecutorial mandate was unconstitutional.
The court held that Sections 3 and 4 of Act 959 do not contravene the 1992 Constitution and are therefore not void.
According to the court, the OSP’s authority to prosecute is derived from an authorisation granted by the Attorney-General through the Office of the Special Prosecutor (Operations) Regulations, 2018 (L.I. 2374).
The court said the Legislative Instrument constitutes the legal authorisation required for the OSP to initiate and conduct prosecutions and will remain in force until Parliament decides to amend it.
The judgment further clarified that although the Attorney-General has exclusive prosecutorial authority under Article 88, another person or institution may prosecute in the name of the Republic where such authority has been granted by the A-G.
Consequently, the OSP can continue prosecuting cases, but the Attorney-General retains the constitutional power to discontinue those proceedings by entering a nolle prosequi.
The Supreme Court also protected the legal effect of actions already taken by the OSP, ruling that all prosecutions, convictions and freezing orders secured under Section 71 of Act 959 remain valid.
The court stressed that its judgment does not undermine the authority of any prosecutor who has been duly authorised by the Attorney-General.
Background
The ruling follows an earlier decision by the Accra High Court that had raised questions about the OSP’s independent prosecutorial mandate.
In April 2026, the High Court ruled that the OSP did not have the constitutional authority to independently prosecute criminal cases and directed that matters initiated by the office be referred to the Attorney-General’s Department.
The decision, delivered on April 15 by Justice John Eugene Nyadu Nyante, held that while the OSP had the statutory mandate to investigate corruption-related offences, it lacked the constitutional authority to independently commence criminal prosecutions.
That ruling placed several OSP prosecutions in uncertainty pending further legal determination.
