The Supreme Court has unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) Act, 2017 (Act 959), affirming the legal basis for the establishment and operations of Ghana’s anti-corruption agency while clarifying that the Attorney General (AG) retains ultimate constitutional authority over criminal prosecutions.
In a landmark judgment delivered on Wednesday, July 29, 2026, the apex court dismissed a constitutional challenge against the OSP Act, ruling that the law establishing the Office of the Special Prosecutor is consistent with the 1992 Constitution.
The court specifically held that Sections 3 and 4 of Act 959 are not inconsistent with or in contravention of the Constitution and are therefore valid.
However, the justices emphasized that prosecutorial authority remains constitutionally vested in the Attorney General under Article 88 of the Constitution. They ruled that while the OSP has the legal mandate to initiate and conduct prosecutions, it does so under an authorization granted by the Attorney General.
According to the court, any person or institution prosecuting criminal cases in the name of the Republic acts only with the authority of the Attorney General, whose authorization remains valid until amended or withdrawn.
The ruling further affirmed that the Attorney General retains the constitutional power to enter a nolle prosequi—a formal notice discontinuing criminal proceedings—in cases initiated by the OSP.
Despite this clarification, the Supreme Court stressed that the judgment does not invalidate any actions previously taken by the anti-corruption body. It ruled that all prosecutions, convictions, and freezing orders secured under Section 71 of the OSP Act remain valid, adding that nothing in its decision affects the authority of prosecutors who have been duly authorized by the Attorney General.
The case arose from a constitutional suit filed by private legal practitioner Noah Adamtey, who argued that Parliament exceeded its legislative powers by establishing the OSP with prosecutorial authority.
He contended that Article 88 of the Constitution exclusively vests prosecutorial powers in the Attorney General and that Parliament could not create another institution with similar powers through ordinary legislation.
During the proceedings, the Office of the Special Prosecutor sought to join the case as an interested party. The Supreme Court, however, rejected the application, holding that the constitutional issues could be adequately determined between the plaintiff and the Attorney General.
The unanimous decision settles a long-running constitutional debate over the powers of the Office of the Special Prosecutor, confirming the legality of its prosecutorial mandate while reaffirming the Attorney General’s constitutional supremacy over criminal prosecutions conducted in the name of the Republic.
