A Fellow at the Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana), Dr John Osae-Kwapong, has defended the role of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) in Ghana’s fight against corruption, saying that the institution is necessary to ensure accountability without waiting for a change of government.

Speaking on JoyNews’ Newsfile on Saturday, August 29, during a discussion on the OSP’s naming of five persons of interest in an alleged $1 million bribery case involving the Accelerated Social Housing and Affordable Housing Project (ASKA), Dr Osae-Kwapong said Ghana’s record of holding public officials accountable has often depended on changes in government.

“I keep saying, if the Office of the Special Prosecutor is not the answer to independently fighting corruption, then what is the answer?” he asked.

He said Ghana’s experience under the Fourth Republic showed a recurring pattern in which allegations of wrongdoing by public officials were more likely to be pursued after a change in government.

“Because the pattern that we have seen generally tends to be post-regime accountability,” he said.

According to him, successive governments have often relied on electoral turnovers before serious attempts are made to investigate or hold officials accountable for alleged misconduct while in office.

“We always have to count on a turnover election, you know, to generally be able to make attempts to even hold people accountable whilst they were in office,” he said.

Dr Osae-Kwapong said this was one of the reasons civil society organisations had strongly supported the establishment and continued operation of the OSP as an independent institution dedicated to tackling corruption.

“Which is why you would get persons in civil society strongly supporting the Office of the Special Prosecutor,” he added.

He warned that removing or weakening the OSP could return the country to a situation where accountability largely depends on a change of government.

“And again, if you take that away, then it means that, in my opinion, we always have to keep relying on a turnover election to get any kind of accountability where persons are alleged to have misconducted themselves in office,” he said.

He said that this had been the pattern Ghana had witnessed under the Fourth Republic and argued that a strong and independent anti-corruption institution was needed to break that cycle.

“And the way to deal with that or to stop that is having an office like the Special Prosecutor doing this kind of work,” he said.

Dr Osae-Kwapong also referred to the Agyapa controversy as an example of the public expectation for Ghanaian authorities to act when alleged wrongdoing involving the country becomes known through foreign legal proceedings.

He said the conviction of individuals in the United States in connection with the matter generated significant public concern in Ghana and raised questions about whether similar action should be taken locally.

“Once the conviction in the US courts was made public, there was really a public outcry and a call for, well, what happens on our end,” he said.

While acknowledging that US authorities had dealt with the matter under American law, he said Ghana also had a responsibility to determine whether any action was necessary to safeguard the integrity of its own institutions and processes.

“Yes, I’m sure the Americans have dealt with it, you know, within the context of their law, their courts. And it is up to us to also decide what we want to do about it,” he said.

He said such action was important not only for protecting Ghana’s institutions but also for maintaining confidence in parliamentary processes and public contracting.

He added that the OSP had indicated that it had identified persons of interest in its investigations.

“I know that the Special Prosecutor has come out to say he has identified certain persons of interest,” he said.

However, Dr Osae-Kwapong said that being named as a person of interest should not be interpreted as a declaration of guilt.

He said investigations could take time and that, at the current stage, the OSP’s identification of individuals did not necessarily mean those persons had committed an offence.

“I am assuming that it’s an investigation that will take time and at this stage of the investigation, you know, he’s not pronouncing guilt on these persons,” he said.

He explained that, in his view, persons identified by investigators could be individuals believed to have information relevant to the case or people whose actions need to be examined more closely to establish whether they played any role in the alleged conduct.

“In my layman’s view, these are persons that he believes either provide information or need to be looked into more closely to see what role they played or did not play,” he said.

Dr Osae-Kwapong said the broader objective should be to establish the facts and ensure that anyone found to have engaged in unlawful or improper conduct is held accountable.

“I think we also have a responsibility that if persons engaged in unlawful or untoward conduct, that we should be able to hold them accountable as well,” he said.