The Supreme Court has finally settled the long-standing legal battle over the prosecutorial powers of the Office of the Special Prosecutor, OSP.
In a landmark decision, the apex court has held that the OSP has authorisation to prosecute criminal cases under the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017, Act 959.
However, the Court also held that the Attorney-General, AG, retains constitutional power to enter a nolle prosequi and terminate any case filed by the OSP.
The decision brings clarity to months of confusion that has disrupted several corruption-related trials across the country.
Background
The case was triggered by a suit filed in December 2025 by private legal practitioner, Noah Ephraem Tetteh Adamtey, who challenged the constitutionality of the OSP’s prosecutorial powers.
He argued that under Article 88(3) of the 1992 Constitution, which states that “The Attorney-General shall be responsible for the initiation and conduct of all prosecutions of criminal offences”, only the AG can prosecute, and Parliament acted unconstitutionally by giving independent prosecutorial powers to the OSP through Act 959.
The AG, in his draft statement of case filed on April 8, 2026, supported the suit in part, arguing that Act 959 compels the AG to abandon his constitutional duty and that tools like plea bargain and nolle prosequi are exclusively for the AG to control prosecutions.
The legal uncertainty led to conflicting High Court rulings. On April 15, 2026, Justice John Eugene Nyadu Nyante of the General Jurisdiction Division of the Accra High Court ruled that the OSP lacks independent prosecutorial mandate and directed that all OSP cases be referred to the AG, casting doubt on all ongoing OSP prosecutions.
The OSP, led by Special Prosecutor Kissi Agyebeng, insisted the High Court had no jurisdiction to strike down parts of an Act of Parliament and that only the Supreme Court could decide the matter.
Supreme Court’s Decision
In its decision, the Supreme Court affirmed that Act 959 is valid and that Section 4(2) which allows the OSP to prosecute corruption and corruption-related offences, subject to authorisation by the AG, does not violate Article 88.
The Court held that Article 88(4) of the Constitution which provides that “All offences prosecuted in the name of the Republic of Ghana shall be at the suit of the Attorney-General or any person authorised by him in accordance with law” allows for such authorisation.
This means the OSP’s prosecutions remain valid and can proceed.
But the Court also clarified the limits of that power.
The Court held that despite the OSP’s authorisation to prosecute, the Attorney-General as the principal legal advisor to Government and the constitutional custodian of all prosecutions, retains overriding powers under Article 88, including the power to enter a nolle prosequi to discontinue any criminal case in the name of the Republic, including those filed by the OSP.
In effect, the OSP can initiate and conduct prosecutions, but the AG can still take over, continue, or terminate those cases.
Legal analysts say the ruling preserves the OSP as an anti-corruption body while reaffirming the AG as the ultimate constitutional authority for prosecutions in Ghana.
The judgment is expected to unfreeze several OSP cases that were put on hold pending the Supreme Court’s interpretation.
Alexander Afriyie, supervising editor, ghanacrimereport.com and ghanatalk.com