The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) is a specialised independent anti-corruption agency established by an act of the Parliament of Ghana to investigate and prosecute acts of corruption and corruption related offences. It is also responsible for recovering proceeds of corruption and take steps to prevent it.
The OSP is the premier enforcer of Ghana's anti-corruption laws, and it is the only state agency empowered to carry out criminal prosecution of corruption and corruption related offences.
Functions & Mandate of the OSP
The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) is an independent specialised agency responsible for performing four (4) main functions.
I. The OSP is tasked with investigating specific cases of alleged or suspected corruption or corruption-related offences involving public officers and persons who have been entrusted with prominent public functions in Ghana or a foreign country or an international organisation such as senior political party officials, government officials, judicial officials, military officials, a person who is or has been an executive in a foreign country of a state-owned company, a senior political party official in a foreign country, and an immediate family member or close associate of such a person, as well as persons in the private sector involved in the commission of such offences.
II. The OSP is mandated to prosecute offenders involved in the commission of corruption and corruption-related offences on the authority of the Attorney-General. NB:The AG/MoJ is the principal legal adviser to the Government. It is responsible for the initiation and conduct of all prosecutions of criminal offences, with the exception that the OSP’s prosecutorial power, though derived from that of the AG/MoJ, is secured by law and it is exercised without specific reference to the AG/MoJ. III. The OSP is empowered to recover the proceeds of corruption and corruption-related offences.
IV. The OSP is required to take steps to prevent corruption.
The multi-faceted mandate of the OSP sets it out as a public institution performing:
Police functions Investigation functions National security and Intelligence functions Revenue generation functions
Vision & Mission Objective
The primary objective of the Office of the Special Prosecutor is to:
Investigate and prosecute specific instances of alleged or suspected corruption and corruption-related offences. Recover assets and proceeds derived from corruption. Implement measures to prevent corruption across both public and private sectors.
Vision
To establish a society where corruption is unwanted and opposed, fostering a culture of integrity and accountability in both public and private spheres through sustained and effective repression.
Mission To combat corruption by:
Conducting thorough investigations into specific cases of alleged or suspected corruption and corruption-related offences. Prosecuting offenders to ensure accountability and justice. Recovering proceeds acquired through corrupt practices to restore public trust and resources Implementing proactive strategies and preventive measures to curtail corruption at its roots.
Composition and Structure of the Governing body
Pursuant to Section 5(1), the Governing Body of the Office is constituted as follows:
The Special Prosecutor The Deputy Special Prosecutor A representative of the Audit Service: Not below the rank of Director, nominated by the Auditor-General. A representative of the Ghana Police Service A representative of the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) A representative of the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) A representative of the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) An individual with expertise in intelligence: Nominated by the Minister responsible for National Security. A female representative from Anti-Corruption Civil Society Organisations
This structure ensures a diverse and multidisciplinary approach to governance, leveraging expertise from various sectors.
Special Prosecutors
2021–present: Kissi Agyebeng – Special Prosecutor 2018–2020: Martin Amidu – former Special Prosecutor
Legal challenges And Supreme Court ruling The constitutional basis of the Office of the Special Prosecutor’s (OSP) prosecutorial mandate has been the subject of several legal challenges. In 2023, Kenneth Kwabena Agyei Kuranchie brought proceedings challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959), including the OSP’s prosecutorial powers. The first action was discontinued in June 2024, while a subsequent action was struck out by the Supreme Court in July 2024 without liberty to reapply. Kuranchie subsequently sought a review of that decision, but on 11 December 2024 the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the review application. These proceedings did not result in a substantive determination of the constitutional questions concerning the OSP’s prosecutorial mandate.
In December 2025, Noah Ephraem Tetteh Adamtey commenced a further constitutional challenge concerning sections 3 and 4 of Act 959, arguing, among other matters, that the OSP’s prosecutorial powers were inconsistent with Article 88 of the Constitution. In April 2026, the High Court in Accra held that the OSP retained investigative powers but could not independently conduct criminal prosecutions without authorisation from the Attorney-General, and ordered the Attorney-General to assume control of the OSP’s prosecutions. https://www.osp.gov.gh/media/Resources/NOAH_EPHRAEM_TETTEH_ADAMTEY_VRS_THE_ATTORNEY_GENERAL.pdf
In the subsequent Supreme Court proceedings, the Attorney-General supported the constitutional challenge and raised additional constitutional issues concerning the validity of provisions of Act 959 relating to the OSP’s prosecutorial powers. The Attorney-General's position was that the challenged provisions were inconsistent with the Constitution.https://www.osp.gov.gh/media/Resources/NOAH_EPHRAEM_TETTEH_ADAMTEY_VRS_THE_ATTORNEY_GENERAL.pdf
Fourteen Civil Society Organisations participated in the proceedings as Amici curiae in support of the constitutionality of the OSP’s statutory mandate and prosecutorial framework.
On 29 July 2026, a seven-member panel of the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the constitutional challenge in a 7–0 decision and upheld the constitutionality of sections 3 and 4 of Act 959. The Court held that the OSP has an authorisation from the Attorney-General within the meaning of Article 88(4) of the Constitution to initiate and conduct prosecutions for corruption and corruption-related offences. The Court further held that this authorisation subsists until it is amended or revoked in the manner in which it was given.
The Court clarified that the OSP does not possess a separate or parallel constitutional source of prosecutorial authority independent of the Attorney-General. Under Article 88, constitutional responsibility for the initiation and conduct of prosecutions remains vested in the Attorney-General. At the same time, the Court distinguished that constitutional responsibility from the OSP’s statutory and operational independence in carrying out its functions under Act 959. The judgment did not require the OSP to obtain a fresh authorisation from the Attorney-General before each prosecution; the authorisation recognised by the Court continues until lawfully amended or revoked.
The Court also addressed the respective powers of the Attorney-General and the Special Prosecutor to discontinue prosecutions. It held that the Attorney-General retains the constitutional power under Article 88(3) to enter a nolle prosequi in a prosecution conducted by the OSP, but that the exercise of that power is subject to Article 296(a) and (b) of the Constitution. The Court also recognised the Special Prosecutor’s statutory power to enter a nolle prosequi under section 80 of Act 959.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision and confirmed the validity of prosecutions and other actions undertaken by the OSP under its statutory mandate. The judgment provided substantive judicial clarification of the relationship between the OSP’s statutory and operational independence and the Attorney-General’s constitutional responsibility for prosecutions. Subsequent legal commentary described the decision as affirming the constitutionality of the OSP and its prosecutorial mandate.
Notable cases
Agyapa Royalties Deal The Office of the Special Prosecutor in Ghana conducted an analysis of the Agyapa Royalties Transactions related to the Gold Royalties Monetisation Transaction under the Minerals Income Investment Fund Act, 2018. Initiated on 10 September 2020, the action was to execute the office's mandate to prevent corruption.
The analysis revealed several critical issues:
A significant lack of transparency and accountability throughout the approval process, with potential breaches of legal and procedural requirements in selecting transaction advisors. Evidence suggesting the manipulation of procurement processes by the Ministry of Finance to favour Imara Corporate Finance Limited (Pty) of South Africa, potentially constituting bid rigging. Opaque elements within the Mandate Agreement with Imara/Databank, which could lead to corruption-related offences, and concerns that fees payable to Databank were a decoy. Inadequate examination of the agreements by Parliament's Committee on Finance, possibly due to time constraints and a lack of critical analysis. Inconsistent application of Executive Approval, indicating deficiencies in legislative and executive action that created opportunities for corruption. An attempt by the Ministry of Finance to circumvent the Public Procurement Authority (PPA).
These findings indicate that the processes for approving the Agyapa Royalties Transactions were vulnerable to corruption and did not meet standards of probity, transparency, and accountability. The report highlights potential breaches of the Public Procurement Act and the Public Financial Management Act, raising concerns about lowering investor confidence. It urges improved due diligence and processes to prevent corruption in future transactions.
Customs Division of Ghana Revenue Authority The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) in Ghana investigated allegations of corruption involving Labianca Company Limited and the Customs Division of the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA), based on a written complaint from Frank Asare. The allegations concerned corrupt dealings between Labianca and the Customs Division, focusing on unlawful markdowns on imported frozen food products disguised as customs advance rulings. It was also alleged that Eunice Jacqueline Buah Asomah-Hinneh, Labianca’s owner and Chief Executive, used her positions as a member of the Council of State and a member of the Board of Directors of Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority to engage in influence peddling, aiming to secure an undue competitive advantage in the frozen foods industry.
The OSP's investigation revealed the following:
Labianca Company Limited, wholly owned and controlled by Ms. Asomah-Hinneh, imports approximately 200 forty-foot shipping containers of frozen foods monthly, giving it a substantial market share. Joseph Adu Kyei, the Deputy Commissioner for Customs, wrongfully granted customs advance rulings to Labianca, reducing import values by 5% to 10% below approved benchmark values. The OSP determined that this decision was not supported by the legal requirements for issuing customs advance rulings. Adu Kyei’s decision resulted in a revenue shortfall of GHC1,074,627.15 from 531 declarations. Adu Kyei's cited bases for his decision, including a letter from 2018 and the World Customs Organisation guidelines, did not support his actions and could not be considered a lawful basis for issuing a customs advance ruling.