The Minority is demanding that John Dramani Mahama publicly clarify his position in the ongoing OSP and attorney general dispute, arguing that his stance appears inconsistent with actions taken by his administration.
They contend that while the president is perceived to support the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), legal arguments from the attorney general’s office suggest otherwise. In their view, this creates a contradiction that must be addressed openly.
The group stressed that the president must make a definitive choice and communicate it clearly to Ghanaians, insisting that the country deserves transparency on whether he supports the independence of the OSP or efforts they believe could weaken it.
At the heart of the minority’s argument is the fear that the OSP and attorney general tension could lead to increased executive control over anti-corruption prosecutions.
They referenced claims attributed to the Deputy Attorney General, suggesting that the OSP may be required to seek approval before pursuing cases. In simple terms, the minority argues this would mean the special prosecutor cannot act independently but would have to rely on the attorney general’s office for each step.
They illustrated this concern by questioning whether every prosecution would require clearance, effectively giving the executive branch influence over which cases move forward and which do not.
The Minority believes such an arrangement defeats the purpose of creating an independent anti-corruption body, warning that it could allow selective justice based on political considerations.
To support their position, the Minority revisited the rationale behind the establishment of the OSP, tying it directly to the ongoing OSP and attorney general debate.
They explained that the office was created to address a fundamental gap in governance — the difficulty of a government prosecuting itself. According to them, the attorney general’s role within the executive makes full independence in prosecutions challenging.
They further argued that Ghana’s past experiences with corruption influenced the creation of the OSP, as cases tend to be harder to pursue when those in power also control prosecutorial decisions.
The minority claims current developments risk reversing that progress, suggesting that recent legal actions could reintroduce the very weaknesses the OSP was meant to fix.
The group made it clear it will not remain passive in the OSP and attorney general dispute. Instead, it plans to use all available legal and parliamentary channels to challenge what it describes as an attempt to weaken the OSP.
They emphasized their intention to keep the public informed, framing the issue as one that affects the integrity of national institutions rather than just political actors.
In a firm closing remark, the Minority stated, “We will not rest until this campaign is exposed, resisted, and defeated ultimately,” underscoring their commitment to opposing any measures they believe threaten the independence of anti-corruption efforts.
, legal arguments from...){kind=link}