The Minority has declared that the OSP and attorney general dispute does not invalidate the operations of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), insisting that its mandate remains fully intact despite the recent High Court ruling.
According to the minority, “Act 959 remains valid and in force. The OSP’s mandate continues in full.” They urged the special prosecutor to proceed with his duties without hesitation. “We urge the OSP to continue his work, not to be intimidated or operationally paralyzed by a ruling that is itself constitutionally void for want of jurisdiction,” the statement said.
The Minority reaffirmed its backing for the OSP, stressing that all prosecutions remain legitimate. “The minority stands firm with the OSP’s stated position. All prosecutions commenced and about to be commenced by the OSP remain valid, and the office must proceed on the basis of its statutory mandate until the Supreme Court sees otherwise.”
This position places the ongoing OSP and attorney general standoff at the center of a broader constitutional debate about prosecutorial authority and institutional independence.
The Minority outlined a series of demands in response to the High Court ruling. First, it called for swift legal action to challenge the decision. “The High Court’s ruling must be immediately challenged and stated. We call on the OSP to immediately appeal the decision of the High Court and immediately also apply for a stay of execution at the High Court.”
They further urged escalation of the matter to the apex court. “And we dare also add that he must also proceed to the Supreme Court with a writ of certiorari to quash the decision of the High Court.”
Additionally, the minority emphasized the need for urgency at the Supreme Court level in resolving the dispute involving the OSP and the attorney general. “The Supreme Court question must be resolved definitely and authoritatively by the court that alone has jurisdiction to resolve it,” they said.
They also appealed directly to the chief justice to treat this as a matter of great public importance, warranting urgent scheduling. Beyond the courts, the minority is also demanding accountability from the attorney general through Parliament. They argued that the conduct of the state’s chief legal officer raises constitutional concerns within the context of the OSP and attorney general dispute.
“The Attorney General must be summoned before Parliament to account for his position,” they said. “It is constitutionally unacceptable for the state’s chief legal officer to actively argue against a statutory institution of the Republic in judicial proceedings without parliamentary accountability.”
The Minority signaled its readiness to take further steps. “The minority will table appropriate questions and, if necessary, move for a formal parliamentary inquiry.”
OSP’s creation and underlying rationale
The Minority argued that the Office of the Special Prosecutor was established to address structural weaknesses in Ghana’s anti-corruption framework. According to the minority, past experiences informed the need for an independent prosecutorial body. They accused the current administration of attempting to reverse these safeguards
“The Office of the Special Prosecutor was created by the Supreme Court. It was created because Ghana recognized a fundamental truth that you cannot rely on a government to prosecute itself,” the statement explained. It was created because the attorney general, however distinguished, serves at the pleasure of the president. It was created because history has shown repeatedly and painfully that corruption in Ghana’s public life festers most vigorously when those who hold power are also those who decide whether to prosecute or not. What the NDC government has done through the repeal bill, through the petitions, through the Supreme Court filings, and now the High Court, is to attempt to restore exactly the structural vulnerability that the OSP was designed to cure.”
The ongoing OSP and attorney general dispute continues to raise critical legal and constitutional questions, with the minority pushing for judicial clarity and institutional independence.
