DEPUTY AG DISMISSES OSP CLAIM THAT ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S OFFICE REJECTED COLLABORATION
By Boakye Stephen, Kumasi, Ghana | Reporting for Ghanaian News Canada
Deputy Attorney-General Justice Srem-Sai has rejected claims by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) that the Attorney-General’s Office previously refused requests to collaborate on corruption-related cases.
Justice Srem-Sai described the allegation as false and insisted that there is no institutional tension between the two offices. His comments followed a claim by OSP Director of Strategy, Research and Communications, Sammy Darko, that the OSP had approached the Attorney-General’s Office on several occasions seeking cooperation but had been turned down.
The Deputy Attorney-General maintained that the Attorney-General’s Office works with the OSP in the same manner it works with other state institutions involved in fighting crime and corruption.
He stressed that cooperation between the institutions is not merely a matter of choice, arguing that the Attorney-General’s constitutional responsibilities require the office to ensure that agencies mandated to fight crime operate effectively and within the law.
The disagreement comes against the background of months of legal and institutional debate over the OSP’s prosecutorial authority and independence.
The Supreme Court recently upheld the constitutionality of the OSP’s power to investigate and prosecute corruption-related offences, while also affirming the Attorney-General’s overarching constitutional authority to discontinue prosecutions.
MAIN QUOTE:
“There has never been any tension between OSP as far as Attorney-General is concerned.”
COMMENTARY:
Although the Attorney-General’s Office has denied any institutional conflict, the public disagreement itself raises questions about the practical relationship between the two institutions. Ghana’s anti-corruption architecture requires cooperation, clarity of mandate and institutional discipline. Ultimately, the effectiveness of the relationship will be measured not by public assurances, but by how both institutions handle actual corruption investigations and prosecutions.
