By Leo Nelson
Legal Scholar and Fellow at the Ghana Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana), Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare has explained that the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) was established after years of public demand for a stronger and more independent anti corruption framework capable of resisting political pressure and institutional interference.
“The OSP was not created casually. It emerged from years of public frustration, reform efforts, and legislative intent to build a prosecutorial body insulated from the very pressures that often blunt anti corruption enforcement.”
He described the office as a symbol of Ghana’s institutional commitment to fighting corruption in a manner that is consistent, credible, and independent.
“It represents an institutional commitment that corruption will be pursued consistently, independently, and credibly,” he added.
The legal scholar, however, expressed concern that a recent High Court ruling has created a situation where corruption-related prosecutions risk grinding to a halt. According to him, the decision raises serious constitutional and jurisdictional concerns, particularly in relation to Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution.
“Yet, on the strength of one High Court decision, marked by serious concerns ranging from jurisdictional missteps to a strained reading of Article 88 of the Constitution of Ghana, we are watching a creeping paralysis.”
Delays Threaten Public Confidence.
Professor Asare warned that adjournments and suspended proceedings in corruption related cases could significantly weaken public trust in the justice system and create opportunities for accused persons to evade accountability.
“Cases are being adjourned. Proceedings are being suspended. Momentum is being lost. Looters are laughing out loud,” he wrote. He stressed that a single contested ruling should not be treated as a final determination capable of freezing proceedings across different courts.
“A contested High Court ruling is not a final word. It is an invitation to scrutiny, to appellate review, to reasoned disagreement,” he explained. He argued that when courts of coordinate jurisdiction halt proceedings based on one untested ruling, they risk turning that judgment into what he described as “a system-wide veto.”
Professor Asare further cautioned that delays in corruption prosecutions are never harmless because they directly affect the ability of the state to secure justice.
“And in corruption cases, delay is not harmless. It is decisive,” he noted. He pointed out that prolonged delays can weaken evidence, make witnesses unavailable, and reduce public confidence in anti-corruption institutions.
“Evidence weakens. Witnesses become unavailable. Public confidence erodes. The signal sent, intentionally or not, is that the system can be slowed, if not stopped, through procedural disruption.
The legal scholar also addressed the constitutional arguments surrounding the powers of the Attorney General and the Office of the Special Prosecutor.
According to him, Article 88 of the Constitution clearly anticipates that prosecutorial powers can be exercised through institutions established by law, not solely through personal authorization by the Attorney General.
“The Constitution itself anticipates a different model. Article 88 does not centralize prosecution to the point of paralysis. It expressly allows the Attorney General to act ‘in accordance with any law.”
Professor Asare explained that Parliament relied on this constitutional provision in establishing the Office of the Special Prosecutor as a structured prosecutorial institution.
He warned that any interpretation seeking to reduce the authority of the OSP to case by case approval from the Attorney General misunderstands both the constitutional text and the broader intent behind the creation of the office.
“That phrase is the constitutional doorway through which Parliament built structured, institutional prosecution, precisely what the OSP embodies.
To reinterpret it in a way that collapses institutional authority into case-by-case personal authorization is to misunderstand both the text and the design.”
Anti Corruption Fight Must Remain Resilient
Professor Asare maintained that the implications of the ongoing legal debate extend beyond a single court case and could determine the future resilience of Ghana’s anti corruption framework.
“What is at stake here is larger than one case or one ruling. It is whether the fight against corruption is resilient or fragile,” he noted.
He warned that if one court ruling can effectively halt anti corruption prosecutions nationwide, it sends a dangerous signal to those seeking to undermine accountability institutions.
“If one ruling, however flawed, can halt the machinery of accountability across multiple courts, then the lesson is clear and dangerous. You do not defeat anti-corruption institutions by repealing them. You disable them by litigating them into paralysis.”
Professor Asare also referenced a previous Supreme Court decision involving the OSP in which the apex court cautioned against interference with the institution’s mandate.
“The Supreme Court itself, in a constitutional challenge of the OSP, admonished that the OSP must be left alone to fulfill its mandate,” he recalled.
Call for Swift Appellate Action
The CDD fellow called on appellate courts to act swiftly in resolving the matter in order to prevent further disruption to corruption prosecutions. According to him, the situation requires urgency because delays at the appellate level could deepen what he described as institutional paralysis.
“The appellate process cannot be the usual file and wait routine. Where a ruling threatens to freeze corruption prosecutions nationwide, delay becomes complicity,” he warned. Professor Asare urged appellate courts to establish firm timelines for hearing and determining the matter.
“The appellate courts must take the bull by the horns. They must set firm timelines measured in days, not weeks, hear the matter with dispatch, and deliver a clear, authoritative resolution.”
He stressed that the need for clarity extends beyond the immediate parties involved and concerns the integrity of Ghana’s justice system as a whole. “Because the real risk is no longer doctrinal confusion. It is institutional paralysis,” he wrote.
Professor Asare concluded by warning that Ghana risks sending the wrong signal if accountability institutions can easily be stalled through prolonged legal uncertainty.
“And if that is allowed to persist, the message will be unmistakable. It takes years to build accountability but only days to stall it. That is a message the law cannot afford to send.”
He maintained that the purpose of the law should be to strengthen governance and accountability rather than weaken them. For him, a serious nation does not invest in accountability only to suspend it over a dispute that should be resolved through interpretation, not institutional paralysis.
“The law is meant to enable governance, not disable it,” Professor Asare concluded.