Martin Amidu, the former Special Prosecutor, has boldly stated that the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) and the Attorney-General relationship under the Mahama government has broken down beyond repair.
The former Special Prosecutor warned that the breakdown between the OSP and the Attorney-General poses a serious threat to Ghana’s anti-corruption future.
Martin Amidu, in his lastest espitle, highlighted that the Attorney-General failed to file a defence within the stipulated time, only applying for an extension on April 8, 2026—four months after the suit was filed.
He highlighted that the Attorney-General’s response aligns with the plaintiff’s case rather than offering a neutral defence of the state.
“The Statement of the Defendant’s Case does not appear to me to objectively, neutrally and impartially present an ethical response to the Plaintiff’s Statement of Case that may assist the Supreme Court in the true tradition of the law as an officer of the Court in delivering justice,” he stated.
He further suggested that the posture taken by the Attorney-General could give the impression of a “collusive action,” raising ethical concerns about the conduct of the state in constitutional litigation.
However, Martin Amidu explained that the court’s decision was consistent with Article 88(5) of the Constitution, which mandates that civil proceedings against the state be instituted against the Attorney-General.
“The Supreme Court… is consistent with Article 88 (5) of the Constitution,” he said, dismissing claims that the ruling undermined adversarial justice.
“The proper thing… is to apply to the Supreme Court as an Interested Party to join the action and submit arguments,” he advised.
He added, “The relationship between the Special Prosecutor and the Attorney-General under this Government has broken down beyond repair,” he stated.
“At the end of the day, the Special Prosecutor and the Attorney-General cannot co-exist and cooperate.”
His comments come on the back of the High Court ruling on Wednesday, April 15, 2026, which ordered the Attorney-General’s Department to take over all criminal prosecutions currently being handled by the OSP.
In December 2025, the case was initiated by one Noah Ephraem Tetteh Adamtey, who sought a constitutional interpretation questioning whether aspects of Act 959 improperly grant prosecutorial independence to the Special Prosecutor in contravention of Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution.
However, Deputy Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Justice Srem-Sai, has dismissed suggestions of tension between the Attorney-General’s Department and the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP).
In an interview on Joy FM on Friday, April 17, Justice Srem-Sai stated, “Why not? Why won’t we grant them the authorisation if they apply for it? We have been liaising with the Office of the Special Prosecutor since we came to office.”
“There are so many things that we have done, some of which I cannot account for. So there’s no issue about liaising or not liaising. Why won’t we? That’s the question I am asking,” he stated.
He added, “OSP is not interested in coming for the authorisation. That is because the OSP says that it is independent and doesn’t require the authorisation. That is the issue at the center of it”.
Meanwhile, Prof Aaron Mike Oquaye, the former Speaker of Parliament, has backed the High Court decision to strip the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) of prosecutorial power.
According to Prof Oquaye, who presided over the very Parliament that passed the OSP Act, highlighted that the court’s decision was not strange at all.
The former Speaker of Parliament argued that the 1992 Constitution remains the supreme authority.
He explained that the 1992 Constitution gives the Attorney General the sole authority to prosecute.
Speaking on JoyNews Thursday, April 16, Prof. Oquaye explained, “The constitutional provisions we give the Attorney General as the sole authority to prosecute cannot co-exist with another organisation until the law of the Constitution is changed,”
Prof. Oquaye stated. “If it’s against the law, it’s against the law.”