Deputy Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, has disclosed that his office had no prior knowledge of the legal action brought against the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) by a private citizen.

According to him, the Attorney-General was unaware of the suit at the time it was filed and only became informed after the High Court delivered its ruling, with details emerging through media reports.

Dr Srem-Sai emphasised that the Attorney-General’s Department played no role in the proceedings, distancing the office from the case and its outcome.

"The Attorney General was never a party to these proceedings, our views were never sort in respect of these proceedings, just as the public heard of the ruling, that is how we also heard of it. Except that the judges made specific orders to us to comply with,"

"And we are going to comply with the court obviously because we do not want to disobey the court," he said on The Law with Samson Lardy on Sunday, April 19.

He also reveled that, "The person who brought this application is not an employee of Attorney General. He has no connection with anybody at the office of the Attorney General I know of. He was not acting on the orders of the Attorney General, he is just someone who is seeking to defend himself of prosecution."

His remarks come in the wake of the recent High Court decision concerning the prosecutorial powers of the OSP, which has sparked widespread public and legal debate.

Recently, Accra High Court has ruled that the OSP does not have independent authority to prosecute criminal cases, directing that all matters initiated by the anti-corruption body be referred to the Attorney-General’s Department.

Presiding judge, Justice John Eugene Nyadu Nyante, held that although the OSP is empowered to investigate corruption-related offences, it lacks the constitutional mandate to independently initiate prosecutions.

The court based its ruling on Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution, which vests prosecutorial authority in the Attorney-General.

The ruling followed an application for quo warranto filed by Peter Achibold Hyde, who challenged the legal authority of the OSP to undertake prosecutions.

In its immediate reaction, the OSP strongly criticised the decision, arguing that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction.

In a statement issued shortly after the ruling, the anti-graft body said it had begun steps to challenge the decision at the appropriate forum.

“The OSP states that it is taking steps to quickly overturn the decision of the General Jurisdiction Court since the High Court does not have jurisdiction to, in effect, strike down parts of an Act of Parliament as unconstitutional. It is only the Supreme Court which can strike down parts of an Act of Parliament as unconstitutional,” the OSP stated.