Are OSP’s Claims Justified or Just Delaying Justice?

We’ve heard it before: justice delayed is justice denied. Yet in Ghana’s anti-corruption arena, delay has become the default. The OSP's latest legal maneuvers may check all the boxes procedurally, but without clarity and speed, they risk being seen as little more than well-choreographed distractions.

The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) was birthed with great promise an institution created under Act 959 to independently investigate and prosecute corruption and corruption-related offences involving public officers and politically exposed persons. It was a structural response to Ghana’s perennial governance malaise: endemic corruption, particularly among technocrats in public institutions and their political collaborators. Yet, years down the line, public confidence in the OSP appears to be waning, particularly in high-profile cases like that of former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta. The back-and-forth between the OSP and the Attorney-General’s Department raises troubling questions not just about inter-agency cooperation, but about transparency, efficiency, and whether the OSP is fulfilling its core mandate.

The OSP, through its Director of Strategy and Communication, Mr. Sammy Darko Esq., insists it has followed due process in its investigation of Ken Ofori-Atta. It claims to have initiated extradition procedures, triggered an Interpol Red Notice, obtained an arrest warrant, and declared Ofori-Atta a fugitive from justice. These are serious steps that indicate a prosecutorial intent.

However, the Attorney-General’s Department contradicts this narrative. It says the OSP has not submitted a full investigative docket necessary to proceed with an official extradition request a procedural requirement under international and domestic law. Extradition is a legal instrument heavily reliant on well-documented evidence, mutual legal assistance agreements, and diplomatic coordination. The failure of the OSP to provide the complete docket undercuts its own public claims and opens the institution up to allegations of bureaucratic posturing or, worse, strategic delay.

The question then is: if the OSP was serious about extraditing Ofori-Atta, why hasn’t the docket been handed over?

The suggestion by private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu to proceed with a trial in absentia reveals a popular frustration among citizens and legal observers. But as Mr. Sammy Darko rightly points out, Ghanaian law permits trial in absentia only in limited circumstances, typically after an accused has been formally charged and fails to appear in court. Ofori-Atta has not reached that legal threshold.

This is an important legal safeguard. Skipping it would set a dangerous precedent and compromise the constitutional rights of accused persons. Yet it also highlights how slow the machinery of justice can become, particularly in politically sensitive cases. The average Ghanaian may not appreciate the procedural complexities, what they see is another powerful figure being allowed to evade justice while institutions trade blame.

Ghana’s anti-corruption architecture is robust in theory but weak in execution. From the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), CHRAJ, the Auditor-General, and now the OSP, there is an alphabet soup of institutions ostensibly fighting corruption. Yet the disease persists, festering particularly among technocrats in state-owned enterprises, regulatory agencies, procurement boards, and ministerial departments. Blame is too often laid solely at the feet of politicians, when in reality, the bureaucracy is saturated with collusion, rent-seeking, and systemic abuse of office.

In this context, the OSP was expected to be the game-changer. But so far, its high-profile prosecutions have been few and slow. While it claims the delays are procedural, critics argue that the time and money spent on operationalising the OSP have not yielded proportionate outcomes. Public trust is eroding not because the law is slow, but because the OSP has not been transparent about why it is slow.

The public clash between the Attorney-General and the OSP is both unseemly and revealing. The OSP claims to be complementary to the AG’s Department, not subordinate. Yet in practice, criminal prosecutions and extradition requests must pass through the AG. If there is genuine institutional cooperation, as the OSP insists, then the failure to transmit a complete docket for months is either gross negligence or calculated delay.

The AG, by publicly stating its position, is clearing its name in anticipation of blame. And rightly so. Ghana’s legal framework places the burden of extradition on the executive arm, but that burden cannot be met without foundational investigative work and documentation from the OSP. Therefore, the question must be asked plainly: what exactly is the OSP waiting for?

When President Akufo-Addo appointed Mr. Kissi Agyebeng, many believed the youthful, articulate lawyer would infuse new energy and seriousness into the office. His early interviews, legal background, and willingness to take on politically exposed persons raised expectations. But like many others, I now find myself questioning whether this promise is materialising. The test of a Special Prosecutor is not in speeches but in convictions, in deterrent effect, and in institutional fearlessness. That seems increasingly elusive.

Is the OSP being honest? Legally, perhaps. Strategically, it appears not. The truth may lie in between an institution caught between legal limitations, political pressures, and its own bureaucratic inertia. But honesty in governance is not just about avoiding lies; it is about full disclosure, accountability, and timeliness. The OSP must not just act according to the law it must be seen to act decisively, transparently, and in good faith. Otherwise, it risks becoming yet another expensive bureaucratic experiment well-funded, but ultimately ineffective.

   Comments0