A High Court ruling that the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) lacked the authority to prosecute the accused persons in the rice scandal case has opened a consequential legal question: how many of the office’s ongoing prosecutions are now at risk of challenge, and what happens to proceedings if they are found to have been initiated without lawful authority?
Presiding judge Justice John Eugene Nyadu Nyante held on Wednesday, April 15, 2026, that although the OSP is empowered to investigate corruption-related offences, it lacks the constitutional mandate to independently initiate prosecutions, directing that all matters initiated by the anti-corruption body be referred to the Attorney-General’s Department.
The ruling rests on Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution, which vests prosecutorial authority in the Attorney-General. Under the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30), the Attorney-General may appoint public prosecutors for specific cases or classes of cases, but such delegation must originate from, and remain anchored in, that constitutional office.
The immediate concern is not just the rice scandal case. It is what the ruling signals for every other prosecution the OSP has initiated.
The OSP has insisted that all criminal prosecutions it has commenced, as well as those it is about to commence, remain valid and will continue under its mandate as established by the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959), which it says remains in force pending the Supreme Court’s determination.
The OSP contends that the High Court exceeded its legal boundaries by effectively stripping the office of its prosecutorial powers, arguing that such a determination is reserved exclusively for the Supreme Court, as the High Court does not have jurisdiction to strike down provisions of an Act of Parliament.
That argument has force. But it does not foreclose the risk of a wave of courtroom challenges in the interim.
The orthodox legal position on proceedings conducted without jurisdiction is stark: they are a nullity, void from the beginning. On that reasoning, the suggestion that cases could simply be transferred to the Attorney-General for continuation is legally problematic. A transfer builds on what came before, and if what came before is void, the legal foundation is absent.
The High Court sitting as a Criminal Division in the same case took a different position, dismissing an application by the accused persons to strike out the matter and adjourning proceedings to await the Supreme Court’s determination on the constitutional question. Two courts of coordinate jurisdiction have now reached different conclusions on the same underlying legal issue. Neither is strictly bound by the other.
The practical consequence is a patchwork of outcomes. Some courts may follow the General Jurisdiction ruling and halt proceedings. Others may stay them pending Supreme Court clarity. Still others may dismiss the challenges altogether and proceed. In each court where the OSP has a live prosecution, accused persons now have a visible legal strategy and an existing precedent to cite.
The court also awarded costs of GH¢15,000 against the OSP in addition to ordering the transfer of prosecutorial control.
The OSP’s investigative mandate is not in dispute. The court’s decision does not strip the office of its power to investigate corruption-related offences. But investigation without a settled prosecutorial mandate raises a practical difficulty: the ability to build a case and the ability to bring it to court are not the same thing, and the gap between them is now the subject of active constitutional litigation.
The Attorney-General’s office filed submissions on April 8, 2026, that substantively support the plaintiff’s position in the Supreme Court case rather than defending the existing law, arguing that Parliament acted beyond its powers when it enacted Act 959 and that the OSP cannot prosecute without explicit authorisation from the Attorney-General.
Until the Supreme Court issues a definitive ruling, the courts risk becoming the arena for repeated jurisdictional challenges. Stays of proceedings, granted cautiously while awaiting apex court guidance, may become increasingly common. And with each pause, the broader project of anti-corruption accountability slows, creating exactly the kind of institutional uncertainty that the OSP was designed to overcome.
