Akufo-Addo created OSP out of bitterness—NDC Communicator

A member of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) communication team, Gifty Enam Gbedevi, has ignited fresh debate over Ghana’s anti-corruption framework, asserting that the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) was established out of political motivations rather than purely for institutional reform.

Speaking on Dwaso Nsem on Adom FM on April 17, Mrs Gbedevi argued that while Ghana’s legal framework clearly vests prosecutorial authority in the Attorney-General under Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, the creation of the OSP has introduced ambiguity and operational challenges into the country’s prosecution system.

According to her, the previous administration led by Nana Akufo-Addo and Mahamudu Bawumia established the OSP within a politically charged context. She contended that the office was not solely designed as a neutral anti-corruption mechanism, but rather as a tool influenced by partisan considerations.

“The office was created out of bitterness to facilitate targeted arrests and prosecution. So now, the reason for the High Court to strip the OSP of its power is due to the delayed investigations and prosecution,” she stated.

Mrs Gbedevi explained that under Ghana’s constitutional arrangement, the Attorney-General remains the sole authority responsible for initiating and conducting criminal prosecutions, although certain investigative responsibilities may be delegated to institutions such as the police and other state agencies.

She argued that the OSP’s role has become increasingly controversial, particularly due to ongoing disputes over its prosecutorial authority and effectiveness. According to her, the movement of case dockets between the OSP and the Attorney-General’s Department has contributed to inefficiencies and confusion within the justice system.

“In all, the Attorney-General is the sole person who can handle prosecution. The OSP arrangement creates confusion when dockets move back and forth,” she said.

Mrs Gbedevi also questioned the tangible outcomes of the OSP’s work, suggesting that despite significant public investment, the office has yet to deliver results that justify its current structure and level of funding.

Her remarks revive discussions about whether Ghana should reconsider its anti-corruption institutional framework. She proposed that instead of maintaining parallel structures, the country could strengthen the existing Directorate of Public Prosecutions model to handle corruption-related cases more effectively.

Referencing past anti-corruption efforts, she noted that prosecutions of public officials took place prior to the establishment of the OSP. She cited cases involving Victor Selormey and Kwame Peprah as examples of successful prosecutions carried out without a specialised anti-corruption office.

“Look at the sum of money that goes into the OSP’s office, yet there are no results. Those days when we prosecuted Victor Selormey, Kwame Peprah, and the rest, there was no OSP, so why don’t we go back to our Directorate of Public Prosecutions, which existed at a time?” she argued.

Her comments come at a time of renewed public debate over the legal powers and operational independence of the OSP, particularly amid ongoing tensions between the Attorney-General’s Department and the Special Prosecutor’s office regarding which institution holds ultimate authority over corruption-related prosecutions.

The broader discussion continues to engage legal experts, policymakers, and civil society, with many calling for clearer constitutional interpretation or reforms to address the perceived overlaps and strengthen Ghana’s fight against corruption.