BY Daniel Bampoe
The credibility of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) has once again come under scrutiny after it failed to comply with a court order to file disclosures in the ongoing criminal case against the former National Petroleum Authority (NPA) Chief Executive, Dr. Mustapha Abdul-Hamid, and nine others.
The failure, which has led to repeated adjournments, has sparked criticism from legal experts and further intensified accusations that the prosecution is more interested in media drama than in due process.
In a strongly worded statement issued on November 5, 2025, by his legal representatives, HAY & Partners at Law, Dr. Hamid’s defence team accused the OSP of “deliberate misinformation” and “public theatrics” after the anti-corruption body claimed on its official Facebook page that assets worth over GH¢100 million belonging to the former NPA boss had been seized.
According to the lawyers, the claim is “false, misleading, and injurious” to the reputation of their client.
“No assets or businesses belonging to or associated with Dr. Mustapha Abdul-Hamid have been identified, traced, or seized by the OSP,” the statement said.
“Our client owns no such assets, directly or indirectly, and no property worth the stated amount exists anywhere in connection with him.”
The legal team further pointed out that the OSP’s amended charge sheet, filed on October 17, 2025, does not contain any reference to asset seizures or ownership of properties by Dr. Hamid.
Out of the 54 counts listed in the document, only five charges concern Dr. Hamid — and none mentions any seized assets.
“It is therefore shocking that the OSP would publicly assert facts that contradict its own court filings,” the statement emphasized.
The lawyers described the OSP’s actions as “a diversionary tactic” meant to mask its own failure to meet legal obligations, particularly its inability to comply with the High Court’s directive to file disclosures — the evidence and documentation required for trial.
The court had earlier ordered the OSP to submit these disclosures by August 26, 2025, a deadline that has since been missed multiple times.
The case, which involves allegations of extortion, conspiracy, and money laundering within the petroleum sector, was first filed in July 2025.
The prosecution accused Dr. Hamid and nine others of extorting GH¢291 million and US$332,000 from oil transporters and marketing companies between 2022 and 2024.
However, the OSP has since amended the charges twice, leading to delays and raising doubts about the strength of its evidence.
During the October 20, 2025 court sitting, the OSP again appeared without the required disclosures, citing yet another change in the charge sheet — prompting the judge to adjourn the matter to November 13, 2025.
This pattern of amendments and postponements has drawn criticism from legal analysts, who see it as evidence of poor prosecutorial preparation.
In their statement, HAY & Partners reminded the OSP of its constitutional duty to act with integrity and fairness, warning that “public commentary that distorts facts before the court is inconsistent with those obligations and unbecoming of a prosecutorial office.”
The lawyers also emphasized Dr. Hamid’s consistent cooperation with investigators.
“From the commencement of investigations, he has honoured every invitation, appeared before the OSP when required, and attended every court sitting,” the statement said. “His conduct has reflected full respect for the judicial process.”
The defence team expressed disappointment that, instead of complying with the court’s order to file disclosures, the OSP had chosen “media sensationalism” over diligence.
“It is deeply regrettable that the OSP would prefer to engage in public theatrics rather than meet its legal obligations,” they said.
The statement concluded with a reminder to the public and the media that Dr. Mustapha Abdul-Hamid remains innocent until proven guilty, in accordance with Article 19(2)(c) of the 1992 public opinion through misinformation.
The legal battle between the OSP and Dr. Hamid has increasingly come to symbolize the broader debate over prosecutorial independence and professionalism in the anti-corruption drive.
