Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, has defended the High Court’s recent ruling on the powers of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), insisting that the court correctly held that the OSP Act cannot override the Constitution. He argued that the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act is an ordinary Act of Parliament and therefore cannot alter the constitutional powers vested exclusively in the Attorney-General under Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution. Speaking on The Law with Samson Lardy Anyenini on JoyNews on Sunday, July 26, Dr Srem-Sai said the judge had no basis to conclude that the OSP Act amended the Constitution.
The OSP Act “is an ordinary legislation passed under Article 106, not under the constitutional amendment procedures. So, it is difficult for me to say or to accept the view that the OSP Act has changed the provision of the Constitution,” he said. According to Dr Srem-Sai, Ghana’s Constitution provides a clear procedure for amending its provisions, and no ordinary legislation can be used to circumvent that process.
The discussion was on the operations of the OSP and its recent Quo Warranto ruling. “The judge (in the OSP case) said from his findings that there is a way that we can amend the Constitution, and that is prescribed by law. It’s a step-by-step procedure.” He noted that the various constitutional review commissions and committees established over the years were founded on the understanding that constitutional provisions could only be altered through the amendment process set out in the Constitution.
“This whole idea of Constitution Review Commission, Constitution Review Committee and Constitution Review Implementation Committee, what we have been doing from 2010, is because we all agree and understand that the only way we could amend the Constitution is to go by the process of amendment specified by the Constitution.” Dr Srem-Sai further pointed to previous Supreme Court decisions, saying the apex court had consistently ruled that Parliament could not amend constitutional provisions through ordinary legislation. “There have been several cases where Parliament sought to make changes to things that were in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has been emphatic that you cannot do so without using the special procedures for amendment.” He also rejected suggestions that … He said the OSP Act, being an ordinary Act of Parliament, cannot alter the constitutional powers of the Attorney-General or create an independent prosecutorial authority outside the framework provided by the Constitution.
“It is difficult for me to say or to accept the view that the OSP Act has changed the provision of the Constitution, especially when the provision that we are even standing on says ‘subject to’.” READ ALSO: High Court refuses OSP application to stay ruling halting independent prosecutions Supreme Court sets July 29 for verdict on powers of OSP The Supreme Court will on July 29, 2026, deliver judgment in a suit challenging the prosecutorial powers of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP). A seven-member panel, chaired by Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, fixed the date after parties concluded arguments in the case brought by private legal practitioner, Noah Adamtey. Mr Adamtey is challenging the constitutionality of the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959), arguing that it unlawfully grants the OSP independent prosecutorial authority.
He is seeking a declaration that provisions of the Act conferring original and insulated prosecutorial powers on the OSP are inconsistent with Articles 1 (2), 88 (3) and (4), 93 (2) and 296 of the 1992 Constitution and are, therefore, null and void. He further contends that Sections 3 (3) and 4 of Act 959, which make the OSP independent of the Attorney-General in initiating, conducting and terminating prosecutions, which violate the Constitution. The Attorney-General, represented by Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, maintains th…
Summary from source