Special Prosecutor Kissi Agyebeng has alleged that certain public officials are engaged in a coordinated campaign against the Office of the Special Prosecutor in an effort to weaken the institution, strip it of key powers or ultimately force its abolition.
Mr Agyebeng said the opposition to the OSP appears to be rooted primarily in unease among some public officers over the institution’s statutory responsibilities, particularly its authority to independently investigate suspected corruption and determine which matters fall within its investigative and prosecutorial mandate.
Speaking at a press conference, the Special Prosecutor disclosed that the OSP had undertaken an internal review of the criticisms and concerns raised about its operations. He acknowledged that the institution had made mistakes since its establishment, but maintained that such shortcomings did not provide a legitimate basis for dismantling an agency created specifically to combat corruption.
“We acknowledge that we have made mistakes. We do not claim to be a perfect institution,” Mr Agyebeng said.
According to him, the errors identified through the institution’s own assessment were largely ordinary shortcomings that can occur in the course of the work of any public agency. He said the OSP had recognised those deficiencies and introduced measures aimed at addressing and correcting them.
Mr Agyebeng consequently questioned the rationale behind calls to abolish a public institution merely because it had encountered operational difficulties or committed mistakes in carrying out its responsibilities.
He argued that applying such a standard consistently would mean that virtually every public institution in Ghana could face demands for closure because government agencies inevitably encounter challenges and make errors while executing their mandates.
The Special Prosecutor said the OSP’s internal assessment had nevertheless produced a significant conclusion regarding the nature of the sustained criticism directed at the institution.
He indicated that the office had become convinced that what he described as coordinated attacks were substantially connected to the very mandate and authority that Parliament had entrusted to the OSP.
Mr Agyebeng said the institution’s ability to independently investigate corruption allegations and exercise discretion over which individuals or cases should be subjected to investigation had become a particular source of discomfort for some public officials.
He maintained that the OSP was deliberately established with a degree of independence to enable it to investigate corruption without undue interference and to pursue cases falling within its legally defined responsibilities.
“These functions and powers of the OSP represent such a spectrum of discomfort among some public officers that they would rather see the office abolished,” he said.
The Special Prosecutor did not suggest that the OSP was beyond scrutiny. Instead, he stressed that the institution remained prepared to accept credible criticism, acknowledge legitimate concerns and correct genuine shortcomings in its operations.
He nevertheless drew a distinction between constructive scrutiny and what he characterised as deliberate attempts to weaken the institution or deprive it of the powers necessary to perform its anti corruption responsibilities.
Mr Agyebeng’s comments come amid continuing public debate over the effectiveness, independence and methods of the Office of the Special Prosecutor, particularly as the institution pursues corruption related investigations involving public officials and other individuals.
The Special Prosecutor maintained that institutional imperfections should be addressed through reform, accountability and improved practices rather than by dismantling an agency whose central purpose is to combat corruption.
He therefore defended the continued existence of the OSP and its investigative and prosecutorial authority, insisting that the institution must retain sufficient independence to determine which corruption allegations warrant investigation without being subjected to external pressure.
His remarks signal a firm rejection of calls that could diminish the OSP’s institutional authority, while also acknowledging the need for the office to learn from its mistakes and strengthen the manner in which it exercises its mandate.
