A member of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) communication team, Gifty Enam Gbedevi, has sparked fresh debate over Ghana’s anti-corruption architecture, claiming that the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) was established out of political bitterness rather than purely for institutional reform.

Speaking on Adom FM’s Dwaso Nsem, on April 17 Mrs Gbedevi argued that while the Constitution vests prosecutorial authority in the Attorney-General under Article 88, the creation of the OSP introduced confusion into the country’s prosecution system.

According to her, the former administration led by Nana Akufo-Addo and Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia established the OSP in a politically charged environment.

“The office was created out of bitterness to facilitate targeted arrests and prosecution. So now, the reason for the High Court to strip the OSP of its power is due to the delayed investigations and prosecution,” she stated.

She explained that under Ghana’s constitutional arrangement, the Attorney-General remains the sole authority responsible for prosecutions, although some limited investigative functions are delegated to institutions such as the police.

She argued that the OSP’s mandate has increasingly become controversial due to questions over its prosecutorial authority and effectiveness, especially when cases are transferred between the special prosecutor and the attorney general's office.

“In all, the Attorney-General is the sole person who can handle prosecution. The OSP arrangement creates confusion when dockets move back and forth,” she said.

She further questioned the practical results of the OSP’s operations, arguing that despite significant public resources, the office has not delivered sufficient outcomes to justify its current structure.

According to her, this has reopened discussions about whether Ghana should revert to a strengthened Directorate of Public Prosecutions model instead of maintaining the OSP as a separate entity.

Mrs Gbedevi also referenced earlier anti-corruption efforts, noting that prosecutions of public officials existed before the creation of the OSP, and questioned why similar structures cannot be reinforced instead of maintaining parallel institutions.

“Look at the sum of money that goes into the OSP’s office, yet there are no results. Those days when we prosecuted Victor Selormey, Kwame Peprah, and the rest, there was no OSP, so why don’t we go back to our Directorate of Public Prosecutions, which existed at a time?”

Her comments come amid renewed public debate over the legal powers of the OSP amid ongoing tensions between the Attorney General's Department and the Special Prosecutor’s office regarding who holds ultimate authority over corruption-related prosecutions.