The Minority in Parliament has contested a High Court ruling directing the Attorney-General to take over all criminal prosecutions currently handled by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), noting that the trial court that delivered the ruling erred.
They argue the decision raises serious constitutional questions and goes beyond the court’s jurisdiction. On Wednesday, April 15, 2026, the Accra High Court ordered the Attorney-General’s Department to immediately assume control of all ongoing OSP cases pending formal authorization.
The ruling shifts prosecutorial authority from the anti-corruption body to the Attorney-General, sparking debate over the OSP’s independence and future role.
It has also intensified concerns about whether the OSP can function autonomously if its cases can be reassigned or overseen by the Attorney-General’s Department. The Minority Caucus maintains the High Court overstepped its remit.
Speaking on behalf of the Minority Caucus on Tuesday, April 21, in Parliament, the Gushegu lawmaker and Deputy Ranking Member on the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee of Parliament, Alhassan Tampuli, argued that the ruling amounted to an improper constitutional interpretation—one that falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
“On the constitutional priority of the ruling itself, the minority stands firm. Article 130(1) of the Constitution vests exclusive original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court in all matters relating to the enforcement or the interpretation of the Constitution,” Tampuli said.
He maintained that the High Court lacks authority to interpret or enforce constitutional provisions in a manner that effectively overrides an Act of Parliament.
“A High Court cannot, through any procedural vehicle, quo warranto or otherwise, effectively nullify the provisions of an Act of Parliament on constitutional grounds. That is not the jurisdiction of the High Court. It is within the province of the Supreme Court, and no other agency can share it with the Supreme Court,” he stated.
The Caucus further maintained that the law establishing the OSP remains in full force.
“As far as the minority concern, Act 959 is valid, enforced, and unrepealed. The Supreme Court has not spoken, and until it does, Act 959 is the law of the land. The OSP’s mandate exists and no High Court ruling, however convenient, can challenge that.”
The Minority insisted that the authority and mandate of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) remain fully valid and operational until the Supreme Court makes a definitive ruling on the matter.
Hassan Tampuli argued that the High Court lacked the jurisdiction to effectively nullify an Act of Parliament on constitutional grounds.
“A High Court cannot, through any procedural vehicle quo warranto or otherwise, effectively nullify the provisions of an Act of Parliament on constitutional grounds. That jurisdiction lies solely with the Supreme Court,” he said.
He added that the law establishing the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), Act 959, remains fully in force and continues to provide the legal basis for the institution’s operations.
According to him, until the Supreme Court makes a definitive pronouncement on the matter, no lower court decision can be interpreted as striking down or suspending the law.
“As far as we are concerned, Act 959 remains valid, in force, and unrepealed. The Supreme Court has not spoken. Until it does, Act 959 is the law of the land; the OSP’s mandate subsists,” he said.
The Caucus demanded that the Attorney-General (AG), Dr. Dominic Ayine, be summoned to the House to explain his position in the ongoing case challenging the legality of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP).
Tampuli said the Attorney-General’s conduct in the case of Adamtey vrs. Attorney-General raises serious constitutional concerns.
He argued that the Attorney-General, who is the defendant in the case before the Supreme Court of Ghana, was expected to defend the state’s legal framework but has instead taken a position that appears to support the challenge against it.
The suit, filed by Noah Ephraem Tetteh Adamtey, challenges the constitutionality of the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959), and questions Parliament’s authority to establish the anti-corruption office.
However, the Minority noted that the Attorney-General aligned with the plaintiff’s position, arguing that the OSP, in its current form, is unconstitutional.
The caucus described the development as a “constitutional betrayal,” insisting it undermines the country’s anti-corruption framework and the very law the Attorney-General is mandated to defend.
“The Attorney General is the defendant in Adamtey vrs the Attorney General. He was served as the party expected to defend the state’s legal framework. Instead, and sadly so, the Attorney General turned his weapon on his own client, the Republic of Ghana, and became an auxiliary plaintiff.
“The state’s chief legal officer is now arguing in the highest court of the land that an Act of Parliament enacted by the people’s representatives to fight corruption is unconstitutional. It is in the Minority’s view, an act of constitutional betrayal without precedence in the fourth republic,” Hassan Tampuli stated.
The caucus insists the Attorney-General must appear before Parliament to justify his stance, warning that the implications of the case could significantly impact Ghana’s anti-corruption efforts.
