Accra: The High Court in Accra, on April 15, 2026, stripped the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) of its prosecutorial powers. The court held that the Office of the Special Prosecutor requires the authorisation of the Attorney-General to initiate and conduct prosecutions of corruption and related offences, and ordered that the Office of the Attorney-General take over all the cases of the OSP. This ruling has led to diverging views and interpretations from the public, even among legal practitioners.
According to Ghana Web, US-based Ghanaian academic and legal scholar, Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare (Kwaku Azar), who is known for his apt explanation of legal issues, in a post shared on Facebook on Friday, April 17, 2026, gave his take on the matter. Azar initially suggested that the decision of the court was apt, pointing to the judge's insistence that the right thing must be done. He emphasized that the ruling takes constitutional text seriously, insists on a lawful source for public power, and recognizes the hierarchy of norms, which he described as judicial virtues.
However, Azar noted that the ruling was narrow and filled with 'political speculation'. He criticized the court for shifting from legal interpretation to a normative critique of legislative policy, which he argued is not the function of a trial court exercising judicial review. Azar also pointed out that the ruling blurs the distinction between facts and law, understates the constitutional nature of the dispute, and uses the wrong legal tool to arrive at its decision.
Azar elaborated on the court's timing analysis, indicating it blurs the distinction between knowledge of facts and knowledge of law. He argued that while courts should not allow limitation rules to defeat claims where defects were hidden, the case did not involve hidden facts but a change in legal argument. He suggested a more defensible approach would have been to ask whether any new fact emerged to justify the delayed application.
Furthermore, Azar argued that the court understated the constitutional nature of the dispute. He highlighted that the ruling effectively decided on the meaning of Article 88(4), the limits of Parliament's power, and whether Act 959 can empower the OSP without further AG action. He emphasized that these are constitutional questions that should have been referred to the Supreme Court for authoritative determination.
Azar also critiqued the court's reliance on quo warranto, explaining it was doctrinally strained and outcome-distorting. He noted that the real issue was not whether the OSP was entitled to exist but whether it required express AG authorisation to exercise prosecutorial power. By using quo warranto, the court asked the OSP to prove its existence, leading to sweeping consequences like invalidation of ongoing prosecutions and past convictions.
In conclusion, Azar explained that the court used a legal tool designed for questioning the right to hold office to address the use of powers, which weakened the decision's foundation and led to an unusually sweeping remedy.