AG’s Office rejects OSP claims of rejected collaboration on corruption cases, as Deputy Attorney-General Justice Srem-Sai insists there is no tension between the two institutions

Deputy Attorney-General Justice Srem-Sai has rejected claims that the Attorney-General’s Office has repeatedly refused to collaborate with the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) on corruption-related cases.

Justice Srem-Sai described the allegation as false, insisting that the Attorney-General’s Office remains committed to working with state institutions responsible for investigating and prosecuting criminal offences.

His comments followed remarks by the OSP’s Director of Strategy, Research and Communications, Sammy Darko, who alleged that the Special Prosecutor’s Office had on several occasions approached the Attorney-General’s Office with requests to work together on specific cases but had been turned down.

Speaking in an interview, Mr Darko said the OSP had deliberately chosen not to publicise several instances in which it had sought cooperation from the Attorney-General’s Office.

According to him, there had been situations where the OSP proposed collaboration on particular matters but received no positive response.

Justice Srem-Sai, however, disputed that account when he spoke to JoyNews at the Supreme Court, maintaining that there had never been institutional tension between the two offices.

He said Attorney-General Dr Dominic Ayine was focused on ensuring that criminal offences were properly investigated and prosecuted while making sure that the rights of accused persons were respected.

Justice Srem-Sai also dismissed any suggestion that the Attorney-General was interested in competing with the Special Prosecutor over cases or responsibilities.

He explained that the Attorney-General’s Office works with several institutions involved in law enforcement and the fight against corruption, including the Ghana Police Service, Ghana Immigration Service and other state agencies.

Against that background, he questioned why the OSP should be treated differently from other institutions.

The Deputy Attorney-General maintained that the OSP is another state agency established by law to fight crime and corruption and that the Attorney-General’s Office works with it in much the same way it works with other institutions.

He further explained that where necessary, the Attorney-General’s Office could provide direction or assistance to the OSP in accordance with the law.

Justice Srem-Sai also rejected the notion that cooperation with the OSP was dependent on whether the Attorney-General’s Office was willing to accept such requests.

He said the office has a legal responsibility to ensure that institutions involved in fighting crime are able to carry out their duties effectively.

“We don’t have a choice,” he said, stressing that the roles of both institutions are established by the Constitution and legislation.

He added that neither office could determine its responsibilities based solely on personal preferences because their mandates are defined by law.

The latest disagreement comes amid months of public and legal debate over the relationship between the OSP and the Attorney-General’s Office, particularly concerning the extent of the Special Prosecutor’s independence and prosecutorial authority.

The issue attracted renewed attention in December 2025 after Majority Leader Mahama Ayariga and Majority Chief Whip Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor sought to introduce a Private Member’s Bill aimed at repealing the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959).

President John Dramani Mahama subsequently called for the proposed repeal to be withdrawn, describing the move as premature. He also defended the OSP’s ability to independently investigate and prosecute corruption cases.

The dispute over the OSP’s prosecutorial powers also moved into the courts.

In April 2026, an Accra High Court ruled that the OSP could not independently prosecute criminal cases without authorisation from the Attorney-General. The court consequently directed that cases being prosecuted by the Special Prosecutor’s Office be transferred to the Attorney-General’s Department.

The decision created uncertainty around ongoing prosecutions and intensified a constitutional debate over the respective powers of the two institutions.

A constitutional challenge was subsequently brought by private legal practitioner Noah Ephraem Tetteh Adamtey, who argued that Parliament could not confer independent prosecutorial powers on the OSP because Article 88 of the Constitution places prosecutorial authority in the hands of the Attorney-General.

The Attorney-General supported the challenge, arguing that although prosecutorial powers could be delegated, such delegation remained subject to the constitutional authority of the Attorney-General.

The Supreme Court, however, unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the OSP Act on July 29, 2026, affirming the legal foundation for the Special Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute corruption and corruption-related offences.

The Court nevertheless clarified that the Attorney-General retains the constitutional power to discontinue prosecutions initiated by the OSP.

The ruling therefore recognised the OSP’s statutory prosecutorial authority while maintaining the Attorney-General’s overarching constitutional position in criminal prosecutions.

The decision effectively overturned the April High Court ruling that had questioned the OSP’s authority to independently prosecute cases and preserved actions previously taken by the Special Prosecutor’s Office.

The judgment has consequently left the two institutions operating within a complex legal framework in which the OSP enjoys statutory independence to investigate and prosecute corruption-related offences, while the Attorney-General retains constitutional authority over prosecutions.

This overlapping arrangement has contributed to public perceptions of tension between the two offices, particularly whenever officials express differing views about their respective responsibilities.

The OSP has previously raised concerns about issues it considers threats to its independence, including attempts to repeal its enabling legislation and legal challenges to its prosecutorial mandate.

The Attorney-General’s Office, on the other hand, has maintained that its position is based on the constitutional powers assigned to the Attorney-General and does not amount to an attempt to undermine the Special Prosecutor.

Justice Srem-Sai’s latest comments therefore seek to reinforce the position that there is no institutional conflict between the two offices and that both are expected to operate within the boundaries established by law.

The dispute over alleged rejected collaboration requests may nonetheless keep the relationship between the OSP and the Attorney-General’s Office in the public spotlight.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of Ghana’s anti-corruption framework could depend on how well the two institutions manage their overlapping responsibilities and cooperate when their mandates intersect.

For now, Justice Srem-Sai maintains that the Attorney-General’s Office has no interest in creating friction with the OSP and remains focused on ensuring that criminal offences are investigated and prosecuted properly and in accordance with the law.