The Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, says the Attorney-General’s Department was not involved in the High Court case that led to the stripping of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) of its prosecutorial powers, insisting the office only became aware of the case after judgment had been delivered.

Speaking on Joy FM’s Super Morning Show, Dr Srem-Sai rejected claims that the Attorney-General’s Department orchestrated the legal challenge to weaken the OSP, describing such suggestions as inaccurate and misleading.

“We didn’t ask anyone to go and commit a crime. We didn’t ask the OSP to arrest this person. We had no hand in the OSP’s prosecution of this person,” he said. “How is it that we must be so powerful to be able to ask someone to go and commit a crime and go through that entire process?”

His comments follow the Accra High Court ruling of April 15, 2026, which declared all ongoing prosecutions by the OSP null and void, after the court held that the office failed to demonstrate proper authorisation from the Attorney-General to prosecute.

The ruling has intensified scrutiny of the OSP’s prosecutorial mandate, which has long been a subject of legal and constitutional debate since the office was established under the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959), as part of Ghana’s anti-corruption framework.

The court further ordered that all affected cases be taken over immediately by the Attorney-General’s Department, a decision that has since triggered renewed public debate about the legal framework governing Ghana’s anti-corruption institutions.

Dr Srem-Sai stressed that the Attorney-General’s Department was not a party to the case and only learned of the legal challenge after the ruling was issued.

He revealed that the citizen who brought the objection had filed the case as far back as January 2026, weeks before the Attorney-General’s Department had formally expressed its own legal position on the constitutional basis of the OSP Act.

According to him, the timeline alone makes it clear that the department could not have influenced or engineered the proceedings.

Dr Srem-Sai said it was important to separate legal processes from political narratives, adding that the department’s decision to comply with the court ruling was in line with its constitutional duty to uphold the rule of law.