Private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu says Ghana’s Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) Act, 2017, failed to provide adequate checks and balances to control the occupant of the anti-corruption office.
Private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu says Ghana’s Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) Act, 2017, failed to provide adequate checks and balances to control the occupant of the anti-corruption office.
According to him, the weakness in the law has contributed to the tensions surrounding the OSP and its current leadership.
Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express on Monday, Mr Kpebu said it was difficult to separate the institution from the person occupying the office because the Special Prosecutor is its “number-one ambassador” and “the face of the organisation.”
He said public dissatisfaction with the occupant’s conduct and governance style could easily spill over into perceptions of the institution itself.
“It’s sometimes difficult to separate the office from the person. I suspect that’s what’s driving all this,” he said.
Mr Kpebu argued that the concerns could have been avoided if the law had anticipated the possibility that an occupant might not meet public expectations.
“When the occupant conducts himself in a way that erodes all the public trust in him, yeah, that’s what will happen,” he said.
He questioned the level of foresight behind drafting the legislation establishing the OSP.
“Because to be honest, you feel like, come on, how were we so lacking in foresight in the manner in which we drafted the Act? It didn’t show foresight, you see?” he asked.
Mr Kpebu said the architects of the law appeared to have assumed that whoever occupied the office would always act appropriately.
“It shows that we just presumed that every occupant of that office will be an angel. So we didn’t put in place enough checks and balances to rein the occupant in,” he said.
His comments come after the Supreme Court’s July 29, 2026 ruling on the constitutional status and prosecutorial powers of the OSP.
The apex court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959), affirming that the OSP can independently investigate and prosecute corruption-related offences.
However, the Court also held that the Attorney-General retains constitutional authority over criminal prosecutions, including the power to discontinue OSP prosecutions.
The judgment followed a constitutional challenge filed by private legal practitioner Noah Adamtey, who argued that Parliament could not give the OSP independent prosecutorial powers because Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution vests prosecutorial authority in the Attorney-General.
Mr Kpebu said the Supreme Court’s position provides an important supervisory mechanism.
“And that’s what the Supreme Court did by now putting the OSP under the Office of the Attorney General, so that the Attorney General supervises the special prosecutor,” he said.
He insisted that such supervision is necessary due to the current occupant’s conduct.
“It’s this special prosecutor specifically who needs that adult supervision. Yeah, he needs that adult supervision. He’s not conducted himself well at all,” he said.
