Speaker of Parliament Rt. Honourable Alban Bagbin has argued that the establishment of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) was an act of futility.
Speaking in Parliament, the speaker expressed doubts regarding the effectiveness of the OSP in eliminating corruption in the country. He also cited that there were significant overlaps with the Attorney General’s authority, which he believes could lead to redundancy.
“For the law you passed on the establishment of the office of the Special Prosecutor, I did tell you that it was an act in futility. You were not going to achieve anything from that, but you went ahead to pass it. I disagreed with you, but I was alone. I am very clear in my mind that that authority is embedded in the powers of the Attorney General constitutionally. What you just need to do is to fund the office of the Attorney General well and remove the Minister of Justice.”
“The Minister of Justice is a political appointee. The Attorney General is a technical person and he only is ranked in conditions of service to that of a minister of stake.
In reaction to this, Lawyer Martin Kpebu opposed claims made by the Speaker about the OSP.
He emphasized that having the independence to successfully prosecute corruption is more important than having adequate funding. He further cited historical instances of attorney generals carrying out their duties, after which he laid emphasis on what he described as the general view of the Attorney General’s position in the prosecution of corruption.
“I vehemently disagree with the speaker. The problem is not being funding per say. The problem is about the independence; the resilience of somebody who can take the necessary decisions to prosecute corruption and corruption related offenses. So it’s undisputable that over the decades we’ve all agreed that usually, an attorney general who is appointed by the president and is part of the president’s cabinet, is not the best person to prosecute his colleagues.”
“They don’t usually do well. In the Kufuor regime, attorney general did well at the time. At least they prosecuted three, four cases there. But since then we’ve agreed that an attorney general in a cabinet is not positively disposed of prosecuting his colleagues…let’s give [the mandate] to somebody who is not in cabinet.”
