OSP's power to prosecute without AG's authorisation unconstitutional - AG files at Supreme Court

The Attorney General has responded to a constitutional writ at the Supreme Court with arguments that seek to strike out portions of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) Act, 2017 (Act 959) that grant the office independent prosecutorial authority. In an affidavit filed on Wednesday, 8th April 2026, in the case of Adamtey v. Attorney General, the state's chief legal advisor argues that the current legal framework allowing the Special Prosecutor to initiate criminal proceedings without express authorisation of the Attorney General is a direct violation of the 1992 Constitution. At the heart of the suit is Article 88 of the Constitution, which vests all prosecutorial powers of the Republic in the Attorney General.

The AG contends that while the OSP was established to fight corruption, it cannot function as a "parallel state" with powers that bypass the constitutional oversight of the Attorney General. The AG is specifically challenging sections of the Act that allow the OSP to prosecute cases of corruption without seeking a "fiat" or specific permission from his office. The state's filing suggests, "The power to prosecute is a constitutional monopoly held by the Attorney General," and that "Any legislation that seeks to grant a separate entity the power to prosecute without being under the direct supervision and authorisation of the AG is, to that extent, unconstitutional and void."

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Attorney General, it could create a massive bottleneck for the OSP. Every high-profile corruption case, from the unified petroleum embezzlement probe to the recent raids on fuel depots, would effectively be put on hold until the Special Prosecutor receives written authorisation from the AG's office for each specific trial. Proponents of the OSP maintain that the Special Prosecutor was designed specifically to handle cases involving "politically exposed persons" where the