The Deputy Attorney-General, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, confirmed the state decided to pause any takeover of cases currently managed by the Office of the Special Prosecutor. This decision followed a High Court ruling on April 15, 2026, which instructed the Attorney-General to assume control over all ongoing OSP criminal prosecutions.

Srem-Sai explained that the department preferred to wait for a definitive pronouncement from the Supreme Court before acting on the lower court’s directive. He stated that moving forward immediately would be premature while the higher court considered the underlying legal challenges regarding prosecutorial mandates.

The legal friction originated from a judicial review application filed by Peter Archibold Hyde, who faced investigation alongside Alhaji Seidu and others. These individuals faced allegations involving the unlawful seizure of containers through the use of forged documents linked to the Vice President’s office.

While the High Court acknowledged the OSP’s power to investigate corruption, it ruled that the body lacked the authority to initiate trials without specific clearance. The OSP countered this by arguing the court exceeded its jurisdiction and maintained that its enabling Act provided sufficient autonomy for its operations.

Srem-Sai noted that the OSP previously sought to stay proceedings in the civil court while simultaneously pushing for criminal trials to proceed in a separate court. He observed a contradiction in the OSP’s strategy as the office opposed Hyde’s request to pause the criminal case to wait for the Supreme Court.

The Deputy Attorney-General remarked that the criminal court granted the request to continue, which prompted Hyde to return to the civil court with fresh arguments. Srem-Sai suggested the High Court acted with urgency because the criminal prosecution represented the most serious legal threat to the accused individuals.

Regarding the legal requirements for prosecution, Srem-Sai emphasized that the OSP’s Act mentions the need for authorization from the Attorney-General. He pointed to Section 4(2) and the title of the law itself as evidence that the makers of the legislation intended for oversight.

The state argued that two forms of authorization existed, including a substantive Executive Instrument for general classes of cases and specific letters for individual matters. Srem-Sai contended the OSP should have simply written to the Attorney-General to request the necessary permissions for its pending cases.

He attributed the OSP’s refusal to apply for this authority to a belief within the office that it operated entirely independent of the Attorney-General. The Deputy Attorney-General asserted that the OSP spent more energy litigating these jurisdictional hurdles than it would have spent on a simple application letter.

KISSI — **Mr Kissi Agyebeng, The Special Prosecutor**

Constitution Requires Amendment To Grant OSP Full Independence

Addressing the fundamental legal structure of Ghana, Srem-Sai argued that ordinary legislation cannot hive off powers specifically vested in the Attorney-General by the Constitution. He stated that any attempt to create a truly independent prosecutorial body required a formal amendment to Article 88.

The Deputy Attorney-General maintained that every lawyer in the country understood that all prosecutorial power currently resided solely with the Attorney-General. He explained that while the desire for an independent prosecutor was legitimate, the current legal framework required the OSP to function under delegated authority.

The OSP’s current stance suggests it has already attained the level of independence described in Article 88 without the necessary constitutional changes. Srem-Sai clarified that the state never refused to grant the OSP the authority it needed to function, provided the office followed the established application process.

“You cannot use an ordinary legislation to hive off something that has been given by the constitution. You have to use the constitutional amendment process to achieve that hive-off. Even though the desire is to hive off, you need to follow the procedure to designate. If you don’t use that process and you use another process, then it goes back to the constitutional process.”
Dr. Justice Srem-Sai

He dismissed claims that the National Democratic Congress opposes the concept of an independent prosecutor, citing the party’s manifesto as evidence of support. The objective was achievable only through the proper constitutional procedure rather than through a standard Act of Parliament.

Srem-Sai encouraged the public to view this tension through the lens of other common law jurisdictions that faced similar administrative and legal disputes. He noted that Anglo countries often contended with the boundaries between specialized anti-corruption units and the central authority of a state prosecutor.

The Deputy Attorney-General suggested that solving the current impasse requires looking at international precedents instead of treating the situation as a unique crisis. He emphasized that the legal system possesses the tools to resolve these frictions if all parties adhere to the existing hierarchy of laws.