Full Judgment: Supreme Court's full reasoning on OSP's prosecutorial powers

The Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutionality of the prosecutorial powers exercised by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), ruling that its operational independence does not make it a parallel prosecutorial authority outside the constitutional mandate of the Attorney-General.

In its full judgment delivered on July 29, 2026, the court held that although the Attorney-General remains the sole constitutional repository of Ghana’s prosecutorial authority, Article 88(4) of the 1992 Constitution permits other persons or institutions to conduct prosecutions when authorised by the Attorney-General in accordance with law.

The decision followed an action filed by private legal practitioner Noah Ephraem Tetteh Adamtey against the Attorney-General. The plaintiff challenged sections 3 and 4 of the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959), arguing that the provisions unlawfully created an autonomous prosecutorial body and diminished the Attorney-General’s constitutional powers.

The Attorney-General supported the challenge, contending that Act 959 compelled the officeholder to authorise the OSP and placed the Special Prosecutor beyond the Attorney-General’s direction and supervision. Fourteen civil society organisations, admitted as amici curiae, opposed the action and defended the constitutionality of the law.

In rejecting the principal arguments of the plaintiff and the Attorney-General, the court distinguished between constitutional responsibility for prosecutions and the machinery through which prosecutions may be conducted.

It explained that Article 88(3), which makes the Attorney-General responsible for the initiation and conduct of all criminal prosecutions, establishes ultimate constitutional accountability. Article 88(4), however, provides the mechanism through which that function may be exercised either by the Attorney-General or another person authorised in accordance with law.

According to the court, being responsible for prosecutions does not mean the Attorney-General must personally initiate or conduct every criminal case. The responsibility remains with the office, while authorised prosecutors may perform the actual prosecutorial function.

The court further held that the words “in accordance with any law” in Article 88(4) give Parliament a legitimate role in establishing the framework within which prosecutorial authority may be granted and exercised.

On that basis, it found that Parliament acted within its constitutional mandate when it enacted Act 959 to establish a specialised institution responsible for investigating and prosecuting corruption and corruption-related offences.

The court said section 4(2) of Act 959 does not grant the OSP original prosecutorial authority. Instead, the provision expressly requires the OSP to be authorised by the Attorney-General, thereby preserving the Attorney-General as the constitutional source of that authority.

It noted that the required authorisation had been provided through the Office of the Special Prosecutor (Operations) Regulations, 2018 (L.I. 2374).

Addressing the OSP’s independence, the court said the protection granted under section 4(1) of Act 959 is operational rather than constitutional. This allows the OSP to make professional decisions concerning particular investigations and prosecutions without improper external direction.

That independence, however, does not remove the Attorney-General’s ultimate constitutional responsibility or create a separate source of prosecutorial power. The court said the Attorney-General also retains powers available under the general law, including the power to enter a nolle prosequi, subject to Article 296 of the Constitution.

“Independence in operation is not autonomy in constitutional status,” the court stated.

The court nevertheless placed limits on Parliament’s authority. It held that Parliament cannot vest original prosecutorial power in another institution, completely remove the Attorney-General’s accountability, interfere with a specific prosecution or enact legislation that breaches other constitutional protections.

It consequently declared that the Attorney-General is the sole constitutional repository of prosecutorial authority and that no person or institution may prosecute in the name of the Republic without authority derived from the Attorney-General and granted in accordance with law.

However, the court rejected the claim that only the Attorney-General may conduct prosecutions or that Parliament cannot establish a statutory framework for authorised prosecutors.

It therefore upheld sections 3 and 4 of Act 959 and dismissed all the other reliefs seeking to invalidate the OSP’s prosecutorial mandate.

Read the full jugdment below;