..as legal tensions Simmer Over Collaboration Claims
TNR Files
The Attorney-General’s Office and the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) have clashed over claims that the Attorney-General’s Office has rejected requests from the OSP to collaborate on corruption-related cases.
Deputy Attorney-General Justice Srem-Sai has dismissed the allegation as false, insisting that the Attorney-General’s Office remains committed to working with all state institutions mandated to investigate and prosecute crime.
His comments follow claims by the OSP’s Director of Strategy, Research and Communications, Sammy Darko, that the Special Prosecutor’s Office had, on several occasions, approached the Attorney-General’s Office to collaborate on cases but had been turned down.
Speaking on JoyNews’ on Saturday, August 29, Mr Darko said the OSP had deliberately refrained from publicly discussing several instances in which it had sought cooperation from the Attorney-General’s Office.
“There are so many issues the OSP has kept quiet and not talked about. Look, there are instances where the OSP has approached the Attorney-General’s Office and said, let us collaborate in this matter, and we have been turned down,” he claimed.
However, speaking to Journalist at the Supreme Court, Justice Srem-Sai rejected the claim and said there was no institutional tension between the two offices.
“There has never been any tension between OSP as far as Attorney-General is concerned,” he said.
According to the Deputy Attorney-General, Attorney-General Dr Dominic Ayine’s priority is to ensure that criminal offences are properly investigated and prosecuted while protecting the rights of accused persons.
“My boss has no desire whatsoever to struggle with anyone over a job or what to do. What my boss knows and what he’s always asking us to do is to ensure that we fight crime and fight crime properly, respecting the rights of accused persons,” he said.
Justice Srem-Sai said the OSP is one of several institutions involved in Ghana’s fight against crime and corruption and therefore does not receive special treatment from the Attorney-General’s Office.
He cited the Narcotics Control Commission (NACOC), Ghana Immigration Service and Ghana Police Service among the state institutions with which the Attorney-General’s Office works.
“Why should there be some particular tension between us and them?” he asked.
He maintained that the Attorney-General, as the country’s Chief Law Enforcement Officer, has a constitutional responsibility in the prosecution of criminal offences.
Justice Srem-Sai therefore rejected suggestions that the Attorney-General’s Office had deliberately frustrated the OSP.
“OSP is another agency created by legislation to fight crime. And like the way we work with all the other institutions, we work with the OSP the same way,” he said.
He added that the Attorney-General’s Office would provide direction or assistance to the OSP where necessary.
“But to say you have come to collaborate with us and we said no, there wouldn’t be any need for that approach in the first place,” he said, insisting that the allegation was false.
Asked whether the Attorney-General’s Office would be willing to collaborate with the OSP on cases where such cooperation was necessary, Justice Srem-Sai said the matter was not one of choice.
“We don’t have a choice. It’s not about being ready to welcome [the OSP]. We are bound as the Office of Attorney-General to make sure that all the agencies that are fighting crime do their work and do their work properly,” he said.
He explained that the responsibilities of both institutions are established by law and cannot be determined by personal preferences.
“We are all creatures of law, either by the Constitution or by legislation. And the law determines our place in the greater scheme of things,” he said.
Justice Srem-Sai maintained that the Attorney-General’s Office was focused on fulfilling its constitutional mandate and had no interest in creating friction with the OSP.
The latest disagreement comes amid months of legal and political developments that have placed the relationship between the OSP and the Attorney-General’s Office under increased public scrutiny.
The OSP has faced questions concerning its institutional independence and prosecutorial authority, including an attempt in Parliament in December 2025 by Mahama Ayariga and Majority Chief Whip Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor to introduce a Private Member’s Bill seeking to repeal the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959).
President John Dramani Mahama subsequently intervened and called for the proposed repeal to be withdrawn, describing the move as premature.
He also defended the OSP and stressed the importance of its ability to independently prosecute corruption cases.
The OSP’s prosecutorial powers subsequently came under scrutiny before the courts.
In April 2026, an Accra High Court ruled that the OSP could not independently prosecute criminal cases without authorisation from the Attorney-General and directed that cases being prosecuted by the Office be transferred to the Attorney-General’s Department.
The decision created uncertainty around ongoing OSP prosecutions while a separate constitutional challenge was pending before the Supreme Court.
The constitutional challenge was filed by private legal practitioner Noah Ephraem Tetteh Adamtey, who argued that Parliament could not confer independent prosecutorial powers on the OSP because Article 88 of the Constitution vests prosecutorial authority in the Attorney-General.
The Attorney-General supported the constitutional challenge, arguing that although prosecutorial powers could be delegated, such delegation remained subject to the Attorney-General’s constitutional authority.
The Supreme Court, however, delivered a unanimous decision on July 29, 2026, upholding the constitutionality of the OSP Act and confirming the legal basis for the OSP to investigate and prosecute corruption and corruption-related offences.
The Court nevertheless clarified that the Attorney-General retains constitutional authority to discontinue prosecutions initiated by the OSP.
It also affirmed that the OSP’s prosecutorial authority operates within the constitutional framework in which the Attorney-General remains the holder of overarching prosecutorial power.
The ruling effectively overturned the April High Court decision that had questioned the OSP’s prosecutorial authority and preserved actions previously undertaken by the Office.