Legal practitioner Thaddeus Sory has raised concerns about the effectiveness of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), arguing that its operational record does not reflect the expectations set out in its statutory mandate.

In a detailed commentary on the ongoing legal tensions between the OSP and the Attorney-General’s Department, Mr Sory suggested that the office has yet to demonstrate consistent progress in handling corruption-related prosecutions.

“The OSP has throughout its brief history not shown any serious efforts to discharge its statutory functions,” he said, adding that the institution appears more focused on public engagement than courtroom results.

He further accused the office of placing emphasis on communication and institutional arguments rather than securing tangible legal outcomes.

“It is only about complaints. Arguing for more power does not convince me,” he stated, suggesting that such an approach risks personalising the work of the institution.

Mr Sory also questioned whether procedural requirements, such as seeking authorisation, truly account for delays in prosecutions, pointing to cases he believes reflect inconsistencies in case handling and repeated procedural restarts.

He argued that the OSP should fully test its legal framework in practice to determine its effectiveness rather than attributing setbacks to external constraints.