Anti-corruption agencies derive their legitimacy not from the headlines they generate, but from the legal discipline they observe in conducting their affairs.
The objective of these agencies, such as Ghana’s OSP, is principally to fight corruption with the tools provided by law. But when language, optics, and a desire for public favour get ahead of law, credibility is the first casualty.
That is the growing concern surrounding how the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) has described certain activities in its 2025 half-year report, notably the reported US$2 million attributed to the MIIF, seizure of assets, some to individuals as “recoveries “, and purported savings made on contracts not yet performed.
On the surface, the term recoveries suggests victory. In law, however, it signals finality. And that is precisely where the problem lies.
A Recovery In Law Is Not A Public Relations Label
In asset‑recovery jurisprudence, a recovery is a legal status, not a hopeful description. It typically follows:
- a court‑ordered confiscationafter conviction
• a civil forfeiture confirmed by a judge, or
• a voluntary restitution with clear legal finality.
Anything short of this remains provisional. It is a seizure, a freeze, or property held pending investigation, which in law does not require a detailed public announcement signaling victory of some sort, as this is just part of the process. Calling it a recovery before the courts have spoken is not optimism — it is dangerous legal overreach.
The Constitution Is Not Optional
Ghana’s 1992 Constitution protects property rights and the right to due process. Permanent deprivation of property must be grounded in law and judicial authority. The presumption of innocence is a constitutional command, not a courtesy held in the bosom of any law enforcement agency.
When funds are publicly presented as “recovered” without a final judicial determination, the narrative outruns constitutional safeguards. It implies closure where the law still sees contest. That is not merely sloppy wording; it is a due‑process concern.
Statutory Powers Have Limits
Yes, the OSP has strong investigative powers under the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959). It can trace, search, and seize suspected tainted property. But those powers are interim tools only and not ownership‑transfer mechanisms.
The Act does not automatically convert seized funds into State assets; such conversions must be announced with a certain triumph or legal finality. Final disposition rests on successful prosecution and court confirmation. Presenting provisional control as recovery stretches statutory meaning beyond recognition.
The High Court Has Already Sent a Warning
This is not theoretical. In the Dr Sledge/Goldridge matter, the High Court on 29th January 2026 dismissed the OSP’s attempt to confirm asset freezes and found the seizure legally unsupported.
The OSP, prior to the court ruling, had gone into a media blitz announcing the seizure of luxury cars, jewelry, watches, etc., belonging to the CEO of Goldridge, Dr Sledge Doudou, late last year.
Goldridge, which was the principal aggregator of MIIF under MIIF’s successful gold trade program, had its agreement with MIIF suspended in October 2024, to enable MIIF to ascertain forex loss on its gold trade, which MIIF in a press engagement in
November 2024, reported the forex loss as affecting about 6.5% of its trade portfolio. Although the suspension by MIIF was not suggestive of corruption or malfeasance, the OSP rightly started an investigation into the trade loss and the trade activities of MIIF in 2025.
The recent ruling by the High Court against the OSP underscores the importance of processes and the triviality of optics in law. It was a judicial reminder that investigative power must remain within legal guardrails.
Once a court has ruled a seizure unlawful, it inevitably raises questions about how confidently other so‑called recoveries should be described which underscores the point that provisional action is not victory.
When Optics Start Driving Language
Anti‑corruption work is public by nature, and institutions face pressure to show results. But when optics begin shaping legal terminology, credibility is traded for applause.
Mature jurisdictions distinguish carefully between restraint and confiscation precisely to preserve legitimacy. Overstating success and classifying suspicion as “scandal” may win a news cycle, but it risks long‑term trust.
For example, a sovereign fund such as MIIF depends on a clean legal title. If funds described as recoveries later become contested, audit and accountability complications follow, and public trust is eroded on the altar of optics.
When an SML contract did not proceed or was not performed but was reported to the public as a success and a savings to the people of Ghana, this becomes optics-driven language. Public financial institutions do not thrive on legal ambiguity; it is dangerous.
The Real Risk: Self‑Inflicted Damage
A legal faux pas is not corruption. It is a misstep that erodes confidence. For an anti‑corruption agency such as the OSP, confidence is currency.
The OSP’s mission is too important to be diluted by premature triumphalism. Precision is not pedantry; it is the backbone of the rule of law. The legal standard is to reserve “recovery” for what the courts have settled.
That discipline strengthens, not weakens, anti‑corruption work. The rule of law is not measured by how loudly success is announced, but by how carefully it is earned.
By Dr P.Y. Atta
