Private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu says the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) needs stronger oversight to prevent its occupant from undermining public confidence in the institution.

According to him, the controversy surrounding the OSP over the past year and a half may be linked to the conduct and leadership style of the current Special Prosecutor.

Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express on Monday, Mr Kpebu said it was difficult to separate the institution from the person heading it because the Special Prosecutor is the face of the organisation.

“Don’t forget that the occupant of the office, as the chief executive, is the number-one ambassador of the organisation. He is the face of the organisation.”

He said dissatisfaction with the office's leadership could eventually affect perceptions of the OSP itself.

“So, sometimes when somebody doesn’t like the activities and style of governance of the office, etc., it may spill over to affect the institution itself.”

Mr Kpebu believes the current situation exposes weaknesses in the legal framework establishing the OSP.

He questioned why the law was drafted without sufficient safeguards to regulate the conduct of whoever occupies the position.

“To be honest, you feel like, come on, how were we so lacking in foresight in the manner in which we drafted the Act?”

“It didn’t show foresight,” he added.

He argued that the framers of the law appeared to have assumed that whoever occupied the position would always act appropriately.

“It shows that we just presumed that every occupant of that office will be an angel.”

Mr Kpebu said the absence of adequate checks and balances had contributed to the current tensions surrounding the institution.

“So we didn’t put in place enough checks and balances to rein the occupant in.”

His comments come after the Supreme Court’s July 29, 2026 ruling on the constitutional challenge to the OSP’s prosecutorial powers.

The apex court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959). It also affirmed that the Attorney-General retains constitutional prosecutorial authority and can discontinue prosecutions initiated by the OSP.

The case was brought by private legal practitioner Noah Ephraem Tetteh Adamtey, who challenged the OSP’s prosecutorial mandate under Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution.

The Supreme Court ultimately preserved the OSP’s legal foundation and the validity of prosecutions undertaken by the office.

For Mr Kpebu, the ruling provides the kind of institutional restraint he believes was missing from the original framework.

“And that’s what the Supreme Court did by now putting the OSP under the Office of the Attorney General, so that the Attorney General supervises the special prosecutor.”

He was emphatic about where he believes the need for oversight lies.

“It’s this special prosecutor specifically who needs that adult supervision.” “Yeah, he needs that adult supervision. He’s not conducted himself well at all.”