The intense scrutiny aimed at the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) in recent times is disconcerting.

It seems inevitable, though, that a decision would soon be made one way or the other about the fate of the Special Prosecutor and his Office.

Nonetheless, sober reflection must guide such a process to ensure that the overall anti-corruption mandate is not compromised.

It would be recalled that the creation of the OSP was not without debate, reminiscing about what transpired during the creation of the erstwhile Serious Fraud Office (SFO) in 1993.

The allure of an OSP with independent prosecutorial power (however it was construed) held sway so forcefully that any hint of a latent conflict with Article 88 of the Constitution was given short shrift.

OSP, EOCO

The emergence of the OSP overshadowed the operations of the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), whether that was intended or not.

It is worth noting that EOCO, since its inception, has suffered prejudices from the hangover of the “revolutionary antecedents of its predecessor offices, namely the National Investigations Committee (NIC) and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO). Critics of EOCO before the birth of the OSP repeatedly accused it of poor performance, without acknowledging its lack of prosecutorial authority and inadequate resources as a major pushback.

EOCO’s performance could have been optimal if it were not for the above shortcomings. 

The Attorney General’s (AG) fiat belatedly granted to EOCO in 2021 was selective, few and far between, and has not had much impact on the prosecutorial autonomy of EOCO. The OSP’s experience with the AG is an unfolding drama and best left at that.

Woes

The OSP, at its inception, was projected as an office which would upstage EOCO because of the presumption of its independence, free from political control. Whether that was a realistic view or mere wishful thinking is anybody’s guess.

Admittedly, EOCO has had its own shortcomings, which have to do with factors that are often ignored.EOCO’s development into a fully-fledged public office has been long and slow.

EOCO was established in 2010 to succeed the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), which was itself established in 1993 and became functional in 1997. Since that period, it was only recently in 2024 that a scheme of service was approved for EOCO by the Public Service Commission.

As of the date, regulations for the office and conditions of service for staff through a proposed amendment to the EOCO Act are still pending before the Parliament of Ghana.

Combined resources made available to the SFO and EOCO over the years paled into insignificance compared to the massive resources made available to the OSP over the short period of its existence. EOCO, however, still tottered on, despite its challenge, while the OSP basked in glory.

Daunting

The anti-corruption mandate is a daunting task as it is ranged against a resilient force. Investigating and prosecuting allegations of corruption is a tough call.

Securing a conviction and recovering the proceeds of crime is harder still. Fighting corruption is like pursuing an angry crocodile. It will snap back viciously at the least opportunity. 

The nation cannot afford to falter on the anti-corruption crusade at this crucial time, when the existence of the OSP is facing threats. The consequences of that would be extremely grave.

Recommendations

The fight against corruption is a national duty and cannot be allowed to flounder.

The flaws and deficiencies identified in the operations of the OSP and EOCO must be resolved expeditiously to keep the anti-corruption fervour aloft.

The current debacle about the OSP should rather be used as an opportunity to take a hard look at the entire anti-corruption architecture and re-engineer it anew.

There is little justification for EOCO and the OSP to remain separate institutions, as both share a common mandate and are also plagued by the same vexatious issue of inadequate or disputed prosecutorial authority.

Merging EOCO with the OSP in some form would be a strategic leverage.

It will help in eliminating overlapping roles and competition for turf between the two agencies.

The need for a harmonised anti-corruption system with potent authority to investigate and prosecute cases of corruption and organised crime is more urgent than ever.

Abolishing the OSP now will be shortsighted, while allowing EOCO to continue ailing from its legacy problems is a bad signal for good governance.

The anti-corruption space must eventually crystallise into the Anti-Corruption and Ethics Commission (AEC) as envisaged in the proposals of the Constitutional Review Committee (CRC).

It is high time Ghana’s Anti-corruption framework is given enduring strength and credibility to make it a world-class institution.