Ghana’s founding Special Prosecutor and former Attorney General, Martin Amidu, has released a detailed legal critique of the ongoing Supreme Court challenge to the constitutionality of the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959), accusing the current Attorney General of producing a statement of case that effectively agrees with the plaintiff rather than defending the law.
In a paper dated 16 April 2026 and addressed to the public, Amidu argued that the Attorney General’s proposed statement of case, exhibited to an application for extension of time filed on 8 April 2026, contains contradictory submissions and misrepresentations of both fact and law.
“The Attorney-General is at all times an officer of the Court available to assist the courts to do justice without fear or favour,” he wrote. “The Statement of Defendant’s Case is in the nature of an entire endorsement of the Plaintiff’s Writ and Statement of Case.”
The case, filed on 8 December 2025 by private citizen Noah Ephraem Tetteh Adamtey, seeks declarations that sections of Act 959 granting the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) independent prosecutorial authority are inconsistent with Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution, which vests all prosecutorial powers in the Attorney General. The Supreme Court granted the Attorney General’s extension of time application on 16 April 2026, ordering the filing of the statement of case within seven days.
Amidu identified specific legal weaknesses in the plaintiff’s own writ, arguing that Section 3 of Act 959, which the plaintiff cited as conferring independence on the OSP, deals with the functions of the office and not the powers of the Special Prosecutor. He further pointed out that the plaintiff’s sixth relief, which asks that any prosecutorial delegation under Act 959 lapse upon the assumption of office by a new Attorney General, contradicts the first five reliefs and amounts to an implicit admission that the Act is itself constitutional. In his view, such contradictory claims cannot validly coexist in a single writ under the rules of practice.
On the Attorney General’s draft response, Amidu rejected the submission that the OSP qualifies as a juridical person capable of exercising delegated prosecutorial powers. He argued that Section 14 of Act 959 makes clear that prosecutorial authority is vested in the Special Prosecutor as an individual officeholder, not in the institution. He drew a direct comparison with the office of the Attorney General, which is similarly personified by its holder rather than the office itself.
Amidu also suggested that the Supreme Court could benefit from the precedent set by the United States Supreme Court in Morrison v. Olson, decided in 1988, which upheld the constitutionality of an independent counsel framework, noting that Ghana’s court might be persuaded by similar reasoning.
He directed sharp criticism at civil society figures who have taken to social media to attack the Supreme Court’s January 2026 ruling refusing the OSP’s joinder application, describing the approach as constitutionally uninformed and urging those with genuine concerns to apply to the court as interested parties instead.
“Resorting to short social media posts to attack the Supreme Court is unhelpful to an enlightened debate on the Constitutionality of Act 959,” he stated.
Amidu concluded that the Attorney General’s approach to the case signals a complete breakdown in the working relationship between the two offices, warning that the Special Prosecutor and the Attorney General cannot co-exist and cooperate in the fight against corruption under the current arrangement.
