BY GRACE ZIGAH
The decision to place the local investigation into the AKSA bribery scandal under the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), rather than the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), is not an attempt to shield the case from scrutiny, according to Deputy Attorney General Dr Justice Srem-Sai.
Srem-Sai has defended the choice of EOCO to lead the Ghanaian investigation, arguing that the controversy surrounding the AKSA matter extends beyond allegations of bribery and corruption and potentially involves offences that fall squarely within EOCO’s statutory mandate.
Speaking on JoyNews the Deputy Attorney General rejected suggestions that the government deliberately bypassed the OSP because of concerns about the office or its previous handling of the matter.
According to him, investigative institutions cannot simply assume responsibility for cases based on preference or political considerations. Rather, the nature of the alleged offences must determine which state agency has the appropriate legal mandate to investigate.
“It’s also not true that it is just about bribery and corruption. It’s also about money laundering,” Dr Srem-Sai said.
He explained that while bribery and corruption may fall within the jurisdiction of the OSP, other potential offences emerging from the AKSA case could require the specialised mandate and expertise of EOCO.
“You know, so there are other offences involved in it that do not necessarily fall within the mandate of OSP but which fall within the mandate of EOCO,” he added.
AG rejects claims of deliberate OSP bypass
The explanation comes amid questions over why the OSP, Ghana’s specialised anti-corruption agency, is not leading the local probe into a scandal that has generated significant public interest involving the payment of over $1million bribes over AKSA power deal.
Dr Srem-Sai dismissed the suggestion that the decision was driven by an attempt to keep the OSP away from the case.
He said the existence of several investigative bodies with overlapping areas of interest should not automatically result in institutional competition.
“It is not a question of ‘I want to do it, I want to do it.’ Yes, you want to do it, but who has the mandate to do what ought to be done?” he asked.
The Deputy Attorney General said the investigation could involve several institutions depending on how the facts and potential offences develop.
“It could be that they can collaborate. It could also be that BNI will take over the whole thing. It could also be that the police would have done their work,” he said.
For him, the central issue should be the successful investigation and prosecution of any offences established, rather than which institution receives credit for the work.
“It is not a question of a turf war. Because the essence of all these agencies is to fight corruption and to make sure that crime does not survive in glory,” Dr Srem-Sai stated.
EOCO’s experience comes under defence
Asked whether EOCO was considered more capable or efficient than the OSP to investigate the AKSA matter, Dr Srem-Sai pointed to EOCO’s track record.
“I think the record will show – EOCO’s work over the years,” he said.
He argued that EOCO’s longer institutional history gives it significant experience in handling economic and organised crime cases.
“It’s an institution which — the older the institution, the more efficient and more likely it is to be,” he added.
AKSA case has international roots
The local investigation into the AKSA matter follows the conviction in the United States of Kwaku Asante Berko, a former Goldman Sachs banker and former Managing Director of the Tema Oil Refinery, over a bribery scheme connected to a power plant project in Ghana.
The US case has consequently generated renewed attention in Ghana over the local dimensions of the alleged bribery scheme and whether individuals or entities connected to the transactions could face further investigation or prosecution in the country.
Kpebu questions OSP’s previous handling
The explanation comes against the backdrop of criticism from private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu over the handling of the AKSA matter by the OSP.
Kpebu has questioned whether the OSP would be capable of conducting an impartial investigation into the case and has alleged that the matter was suppressed under the leadership of former Special Prosecutor Kissi Agyebeng.
Those claims have intensified calls from some quarters for the AKSA investigation to be handled by an institution considered sufficiently independent to command public confidence.
Dr Srem-Sai, however, challenged the assumption that simply transferring a case to an institution described as “independent” would automatically guarantee a better investigation.
‘Independence’ alone does not guarantee effective investigationThe Deputy Attorney General acknowledged the concerns surrounding public confidence but argued that the effectiveness of an investigation depends on institutional processes, legal mandates and accountability mechanisms.
“I understand these concerns,” he said.
He explained that even within the Attorney General’s Department, where senior officials exercise significant authority, decisions are expected to follow established legal procedures.
According to him, a superior officer cannot simply disregard the legal position of a subordinate state attorney without providing reasons for doing so.
“So before I take a decision that I disagree with this state attorney’s view, I must put on paper my basis for that disagreement,” he explained.
He maintained that decisions relating to prosecution must therefore be supported by legal reasoning and relevant authorities rather than political instructions.
“You cannot simply just say the President said I should drop it, so I’m dropping it. The reason would have to be stated on file,” he said.
‘A new sheriff will come and review the files’
Dr Srem-Sai further argued that documentation of decisions within the justice system provides an important safeguard against the permanent suppression of cases.
He pointed out that government officials and prosecutors eventually leave office, while their successors can return to decisions and files handled by previous administrations.
“When we leave, you cannot save anybody because a new sheriff will come and review the files,” he stated.
His comments appear intended to counter concerns that a politically sensitive case could simply disappear through administrative decisions.
He maintained that the existence of written records, legal justifications and institutional procedures makes it possible for subsequent officials to scrutinise decisions taken by their predecessors.
The decision to assign the Ghanaian investigation to EOCO has therefore become a matter of public and legal interest, particularly given the separate mandates of EOCO and the OSP and the controversy surrounding the previous handling of the matter.
Dr Srem-Sai’s position is that the assignment should not be interpreted as an institutional victory for EOCO or a defeat for the OSP.
Rather, he argues, the appropriate agency should be determined by the offences that emerge from the investigation and the statutory powers available to each institution.
