Private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu believes the growing attacks on the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) are partly being driven by declining public trust in the person occupying the office.
Private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu believes the growing attacks on the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) are partly being driven by declining public trust in the person occupying the office.
Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express on Monday, Mr Kpebu said the Special Prosecutor’s conduct and leadership style could make it difficult for the public to separate the institution from its current occupant.
He was responding to suggestions that some of the criticism directed at the OSP may have been triggered by dissatisfaction with Special Prosecutor Kissi Agyebeng.
“It’s possible. It looks very likely that it’s because of the issues of the occupant, you know?” he said.
Mr Kpebu explained that the head of an institution inevitably becomes its public face. He said this makes it difficult for criticism of the officeholder to remain separate from criticism of the institution.
“Don’t forget that the occupant of the office, as the chief executive, is the number-one ambassador of the organisation. He is the face of the organisation,” he said.
“So, sometimes when somebody doesn’t like the activities and style of governance of the office, etc., it may spill over to affect the institution itself.”
According to him, the situation becomes more complicated when an officeholder’s actions affect public confidence in the institution.
“You see? Yes, so it’s sometimes difficult to separate the office from the person. I suspect that’s what’s driving all this,” he said.
Mr Kpebu said the loss of public trust should not be treated lightly.
He argued that the OSP Act, as originally designed, appeared to assume that whoever occupied the office would always act appropriately.
“When the occupant conducts himself in a way that erodes all the public trust in him, yeah, that’s what will happen,” he said.
“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?”
“It shows that we just presumed that every occupant of that office will be an angel.”
He said the controversy surrounding the OSP also exposes the need for adequate checks and balances around the office.
“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 seven-member apex court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959), rejecting a challenge to the OSP’s prosecutorial mandate.
It also affirmed the Attorney-General’s overarching prosecutorial authority under Article 88 of the Constitution.
The ruling followed an April 2026 High Court decision which had held that the OSP could not independently prosecute criminal cases without authorisation from the Attorney-General.
The High Court had ordered OSP cases to be transferred to the Attorney-General. The Supreme Court subsequently set aside that decision.
Against this background, Mr Kpebu argued that stronger oversight is necessary.
“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 added: “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.”
Follow the story
