A legal practitioner, George Anti, has described the Supreme Court’s ruling on the prosecutorial powers of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) as a "very sound ruling".

Speaking on Nhyira FM’s “Kro Yi Mu Nsem” on Friday, July 31, Mr Anti said the decision provides clarity on the constitutional limits of the OSP while affirming its role in the fight against corruption.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday, July 29, unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959).

The Court ruled that Parliament was within its powers to establish the OSP to investigate and prosecute corruption and corruption-related offences.

However, the seven-member panel was emphatic that the Attorney-General remains the ultimate authority on all state prosecutions. The ruling affirmed that the Attorney-General has the constitutional power to take over any case from the OSP, continue it, or discontinue it through a nolle prosequi.

The legal practitioner explained that the limitation comes from Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution, which vests all prosecution powers in the Attorney-General.

According to Mr Anti, the OSP’s authority to prosecute does not make it independent of the AG. Instead, it operates as an agent of the Attorney-General.

He said this arrangement balances two objectives: giving the OSP the independence to investigate high-profile corruption cases, while keeping prosecutions accountable to the constitutionally mandated office of the Attorney-General.

He noted that the framers of the Constitution did not envisage the creation of a completely independent prosecutorial body outside the Office of the Attorney-General.

“Per the Supreme Court ruling, the Attorney-General can delegate some prosecutorial powers to other actors, including the OSP. The AG can also withdraw those powers at any time,” he told host, Nana Ampratwum.

“Until an amendment is made to the 1992 Constitution, specifically Article 88, which states that all criminal prosecutions in the country shall be initiated at the instance of the Attorney-General, it does not matter how many operational institutions to fight corruption, bribery and other criminal activities are established. Nothing will change because the power to initiate criminal prosecutions is vested 100% in the Attorney-General,” he argued.

The legal expert says the ruling ends speculation about potential conflicts between the OSP and the Attorney-General’s office.

The OSP was established in 2017 to tackle corruption with greater focus and speed. Since its inception, questions have been raised about whether its mandate overlaps with or undermines the AG’s constitutional role.

With the Court’s affirmation, the OSP can continue its investigations and prosecutions, but will do so under the oversight of the Attorney-General.

George Anti has also weighed in on the Supreme Court’s ruling on the delegate system, expressing concern that political parties operate a different system for their internal elections. 

He noted that the 1992 Constitution, the Political Parties Act, and other related laws provide that both national elections and political party elections are governed by the same principles under the provisions on freedom of association. 

Mr Anti therefore believes the Supreme Court judgement is a step in the right direction as it aligns with the Constitution.

“If you look at the ruling purely from a legal standpoint, it is a very sound ruling,” he said. “On the point of law, the same Constitution that governs national elections also governs the organisation of political parties under the freedom of association provisions and the Political Parties Act. So the question is, why do we have different systems for electing a person who will go on to contest and become President?” he quizzed.