Former Special Prosecutor, Martin Amidu, has warned of a breakdown in relations between the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) and the Attorney-General, raising concerns about the future of Ghana’s anti-corruption efforts amid ongoing legal disputes over prosecutorial powers.
His comments come in the wake of a High Court ruling on Wednesday, April 15, 2026, which ordered the Attorney-General’s Department to take over all criminal prosecutions currently being handled by the OSP, pending formal authorisation from the Attorney-General’s office.
In a detailed legal commentary, Mr Amidu said the Attorney-General’s Statement of Case—filed after seeking an extension of time—appears to substantially agree with the plaintiff’s arguments challenging key provisions of the law establishing the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP).
The case, initiated by one Noah Ephraem Tetteh Adamtey in December 2025, is seeking constitutional interpretation and declaratory reliefs, particularly questioning whether aspects of Act 959 improperly grant prosecutorial independence to the Special Prosecutor in contravention of Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution.
Mr Amidu noted that the Attorney-General failed to file a defence within the stipulated time, only applying for an extension on April 8, 2026—four months after the suit was filed. The Supreme Court has since granted the application.
He expressed concern that the Attorney-General’s response does not appear to offer a neutral defence of the state, but rather aligns with the plaintiff’s case.
“The Statement of the Defendant’s Case does not appear to me to objectively, neutrally and impartially present an ethical response to the Plaintiff’s Statement of Case that may assist the Supreme Court in the true tradition of the law as an officer of the Court in delivering justice,” he stated.
Mr Amidu argued that the Attorney-General, as an officer of the court, is expected to assist the judiciary impartially, not adopt a position that appears to endorse one side of the dispute.
He further suggested that the posture taken by the Attorney-General could give the impression of a “collusive action,” raising ethical concerns about the conduct of the state in constitutional litigation.
The former Special Prosecutor also criticised reactions from some civil society actors, particularly over the Supreme Court’s earlier refusal to join the OSP as a party to the case.
He maintained that the court’s decision was consistent with Article 88(5) of the Constitution, which mandates that civil proceedings against the state be instituted against the Attorney-General.
“The Supreme Court… is consistent with Article 88 (5) of the Constitution,” he said, dismissing claims that the ruling undermined adversarial justice.
Mr Amidu urged civil society organisations and other stakeholders who disagree with the Attorney-General’s position to formally apply to the court as interested parties, rather than resorting to public criticism.
“The proper thing… is to apply to the Supreme Court as an Interested Party to join the action and submit arguments,” he advised.
On the substance of the case, he pointed to what he described as weaknesses and contradictions in the plaintiff’s claims, particularly the interpretation of Sections 3 and 4 of Act 959, which he argued do not confer the level of prosecutorial independence being alleged.
He also highlighted inconsistencies in the reliefs being sought, suggesting that some of the claims are mutually contradictory and could be challenged by competent legal representation.
Mr Amidu further criticised aspects of the Attorney-General’s proposed arguments, describing them as containing “contradictory submissions” and failing to fully address the constitutional interplay between the powers of the President, the Attorney-General and the Special Prosecutor.
Beyond the legal arguments, he warned of a deeper institutional rift between the Office of the Special Prosecutor and the Attorney-General’s Department.
“The relationship between the Special Prosecutor and the Attorney-General under this Government has broken down beyond repair,” he stated.
“At the end of the day the Special Prosecutor and the Attorney-General cannot co-exist and cooperate.”
The case is expected to test the constitutional limits of prosecutorial authority in Ghana and could have far-reaching implications for the future of the OSP and the country’s anti-corruption architecture.
