Anti-corruption campaigner Edem Senanu has defended the Office of the Special Prosecutor’s (OSP) swift response to an alleged extortion case made by the Chief Executive of the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod), Sammy Gyamfi, against the Minority Leader of Parliament, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, arguing that the speed of its reaction does not suggest the anti-corruption agency is selective in deciding which matters to investigate.

His comments follow concerns over what some observers perceive as a difference in the OSP’s handling of the extortion allegation and the bribery case involving Aksa Energy.

Mr Senanu explained that the two cases cannot be directly compared, particularly because the Aksa Energy matter involved a long-running investigation in collaboration with United States authorities.

According to him, the OSP would have been constrained from publicly disclosing details of its involvement in the case while investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) were ongoing.

He noted that investigations of that nature are often conducted confidentially to prevent suspects from becoming aware of investigative strategies or taking steps to evade prosecution.

“It's not about picking and choosing,” Mr Senanu said, explaining that the Aksa Energy case was a collaborative international investigation that had reportedly lasted several years before becoming public.

He argued that the OSP’s role in such a process was necessarily different from its response to a locally reported allegation brought directly to its attention.

Mr Senanu said specialised investigative agencies such as the OSP may need to do more public education about how investigations are conducted, particularly when cases involve international partners.

“If the FBI is investigating something and collaborating with you, they don't tell you not to put anything out,” he explained, stressing that premature disclosure could undermine an ongoing case.

He added that investigators must sometimes protect the confidentiality of their work to ensure that suspects do not have the opportunity to frustrate the process.

On the extortion allegation, Mr Senanu said the matter is local and has been brought to the attention of the OSP, making it reasonable for the office to indicate that it is assessing whether it can investigate.

He therefore rejected suggestions that the OSP’s prompt response amounted to selective enforcement.

The debate over the OSP’s approach comes amid renewed scrutiny of the anti-corruption agency’s handling of high-profile allegations and calls for greater consistency and transparency in the fight against corruption.

Mr Senanu maintained that differences in the timing and manner of public responses should not, on their own, be interpreted as evidence that the OSP is deliberately choosing which cases to pursue.