The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed a case challenging the prosecutorial powers of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), ruling that the anti-corruption agency has the legal authority to initiate and prosecute criminal cases.

In a judgment delivered on Wednesday, July 29, the apex court upheld the constitutionality of the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959), affirming Parliament’s decision to establish the OSP as an independent institution with prosecutorial powers.

However, the court also held that the Attorney-General retains constitutional authority under Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution to enter a nolle prosequi and discontinue cases initiated by the OSP.

The decision followed a constitutional challenge filed by private legal practitioner Noah Adamtey, who questioned whether Parliament had the power to grant the OSP independent prosecutorial authority through legislation.

Mr. Adamtey argued that Article 88 of the Constitution places prosecutorial powers exclusively in the hands of the Attorney-General, making the creation of another institution with similar powers unconstitutional.

The Attorney-General supported the challenge, arguing that while prosecutorial powers could be delegated, such delegation must remain under the supervision and control of the Attorney-General and could not be permanently assigned to an independent institution without a constitutional amendment.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court rejected the arguments against the OSP’s prosecutorial mandate and confirmed that the office has the legal backing to prosecute corruption-related offences.

The apex court’s decision comes on the back of a High Court ruling delivered on April 15 by Justice John Eugene Nyadu Nyante, that held that the OSP cannot independently prosecute criminal cases without approval from the Attorney-General under Article 88(4) of the Constitution.

The court further directed that ongoing prosecutions initiated by the OSP be transferred to the Attorney-General until the legal framework is clarified.

That ruling has, by the ruling of the Supreme Court, been set aside.