OSP needs Attorney General’s nod to prosecute, says Majority Chief whip

The Member of Parliament for South Dayi and Majority Chief Whip, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, has maintained that the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) is legally bound to obtain authorisation from the Attorney General before initiating any prosecution. According to him, any failure to follow this requirement renders such prosecutions invalid under the law.

Speaking in an exclusive interview with Joy News, Dafeamekpor grounded his argument in provisions of the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act and its accompanying Legislative Instrument, LI 2374. He stressed that the intent of Parliament is clearly reflected in these legal frameworks and must be strictly adhered to in the exercise of prosecutorial powers.

“The law is the law. And the true intent of Parliament is what has been captured in the law. And that is what ought to have been followed,” he stated. He further emphasized that where legislation prescribes a specific procedure for exercising a legal right or authority, that procedure is the only lawful path that can be taken.

The Majority Chief Whip explained that the mandate of the OSP is deliberately narrow, focusing specifically on corruption and corruption-related offences. He argued that the requirement to secure authorisation from the Attorney General is not merely an administrative step, but a critical legal condition that must be satisfied before any prosecution can commence.

Dafeamekpor also rejected claims that criticism of the OSP’s actions equates to opposition to its existence. He clarified that members of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) fully support the establishment of the anti-corruption body, but are concerned about ensuring that it operates strictly within its legal mandate.

“Let me dispel this notion that anybody or anyone connected with the NDC is against the establishment of the Office of the Special Prosecutor at all,” he said.

He revealed that his concerns about the OSP’s conduct are not new. According to him, he had raised similar issues last year following the detention and subsequent release of businessman Martin Pebu, a case that generated significant national debate. At the time, he warned that the OSP appeared to be expanding its authority beyond its legally defined scope and predicted that such actions could eventually face legal challenges.

To further support his position, Dafeamekpor referenced parliamentary records, specifically the Hansard from the debate held on November 1, 2017, during the passage of the OSP Act. He recalled that the then-chairman of the relevant parliamentary committee had clarified that the bill establishing the OSP originated at the request of the Attorney General, who sought to delegate prosecutorial authority in line with Article 88 of the Constitution.

According to the committee chairman’s explanation at the time, while the Constitution can independently establish offices or confer rights, any office created by statute must operate strictly within the limits defined by Parliament. Dafeamekpor argued that this legal distinction reinforces the requirement for the OSP to act within clearly outlined boundaries.

He contends that this interpretation has now been affirmed by the courts, following a ruling by the Accra High Court on April 15, 2026. The court declared that all prosecutions undertaken by the OSP without prior authorisation from the Attorney General are null and void.

The ruling, he said, validates concerns that had been raised about the procedural conduct of the OSP and underscores the importance of adhering strictly to the legal framework governing its operations.