The Supreme Court, in a 2024 ruling, clarified that its decision to bar a citizen from re-filing a lawsuit does not place the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) beyond the reach of judicial review or constitutional challenge.

The court emphasised that its order was specific to the applicant's conduct, not an endorsement of the OSP's powers.

In a ruling delivered on December 11, 2024, the court dismissed an application for review filed by Kenneth Kwabena Agyei Kuranchie, who had sought to challenge the constitutional eligibility of the OSP. While the court upheld its earlier decision to strike out his case "without leave to reapply," it addressed concerns that the ruling might insulate the anti-corruption body from legal scrutiny.

Justice Yonny Kulendi, writing the unanimous decision of a nine-member panel, explicitly rejected the applicant's argument that the OSP had been placed "beyond the purview of judicial supervision."

"We find this argument most untenable and disingenuous," the ruling stated.

"Indeed, any other person, other than the Applicant in this instant application, can commence an action based on the same facts, alleging the same grounds of unconstitutionality and seeking the same reliefs."

This clarification is significant in Ghana's ongoing conversation about the powers and independence of the OSP, a body established by the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959) to investigate and prosecute specific corruption and corruption-related offences.

However, he filed his writ in 2023 without the required Statement of Case and took no action for over nine months before applying to discontinue the suit in July 2024.

The court, in granting his request to withdraw, added the clause barring him from refiling the same case. Kuranchie then applied for a review, arguing that this order violated his constitutional rights under Articles 2 and 125 of the 1992 Constitution to challenge alleged unconstitutional acts.

Justice Kulendi, however, stated that the court's primary duty is to safeguard the integrity of the judicial system from abuse.

"The enjoyment of fundamental human rights, as guaranteed by the 1992 Constitution, is not absolute; it is subject to respect for the rights of others and the public interest," the ruling stated. "By abusing the judicial process, the Applicant undermined the dignity and integrity of the justice system."

The court detailed that Kuranchie’s failure to file his statement of case for over 90 days, followed by a sudden notice of discontinuance without explanation, constituted a "blatant abuse" of court process.

The ruling emphasised that the Supreme Court, as the apex court, must prioritise the efficient use of its time for all Ghanaians.

"The refusal to grant the Applicant leave to reapply is entirely justified in these circumstances," Justice Kulendi wrote.

"This decision reinforces the principle that the judicial process cannot be held hostage to the whims of litigants."

The Attorney General and the OSP, who were the respondents, had opposed the review, arguing that the initial ruling was not a decision on the merits of the case and therefore not reviewable.

While the court disagreed on that technical point, it ultimately found no exceptional circumstances or miscarriage of justice to warrant a review.

The ruling clarifies that the order barring Kuranchie is personal to him and does not shield the OSP from judicial scrutiny.