By Issah Olegor
The anti-corruption architecture is facing one of its most turbulent moments yet as the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), led by Special Prosecutor Kissi Agyebeng, comes under intensifying scrutiny over allegations of abuse of power, questionable investigative conduct, and growing concerns about probity and accountability.
What began as public debate over the OSP’s prosecutorial style has now escalated into a widening institutional confrontation involving petitions, judicial criticism, human rights complaints, and moves by the Attorney-General’s Department to probe the operations of the country’s premier anti-graft body.
At the centre of the abuse is alleged attempts by the OSP to railroad Dr Mustapha Abdul-Hamid, former Chief Executive of National Petroleum Authority (NPA) who appears to be the target of the prosecution to extract more information on the case.
The OSP is in court over alleged GH¢291 million extortion and money laundering scandal involving top officials of NPA.
After filing the case at the court, the OSP is alleged to be requesting Mustapha Hamid to attend an interrogation session on the same case before the court which shows abuse of power.
This revelation came up in court with the presiding judge, Justice Audrey Kocuvie Tay asking the deputy Attorney General, Dr Justice Srem Sai to look into the allegations including detention of accused lawyers at the OSP.
As pressure mounted, the OSP’s methods increasingly became the subject of legal challenges. The Office of the Attorney-General has signaled a decisive shift, announcing plans to investigate allegations that the OSP had engaged in unlawful detentions and improper investigative practices.
The move followed a directive from Justice Kocuvie-Tay, who sharply criticized the OSP’s handling of certain matters already pending before the courts especially the NPA alleged fraud case.
The judge warned that accused persons and their lawyers should not be detained or interrogated over issues under judicial consideration, stressing that such actions violate due process and threaten the integrity of ongoing proceedings.
Deputy Attorney-General Dr. Srem Sai assured the court that his office would inquire into the veracity of the allegations, marking a rare and significant intervention into the operations of an institution designed to function independently.
The OSP has changed the charge sheets several times, raising questions about the credibility of the case.
The anti-graft body had also indicated the seizure of assets of the suspects linking the former NPA CEO to some of them.
However, Dr. Abdul-Hamid’s legal team has dismissed the OSP’s claims, describing them as “public theatrics” and asserting that no assets belonging to their client have been seized, contradicting the OSP’s official statements.
The OSP was established in 2017 by the Akufo-Addo administration under Act 959 as a flagship institution designed to prosecute corruption and corruption-related offences, particularly those involving politically exposed persons and high-ranking public officials.
Its creation was celebrated as a historic step toward ending the culture of impunity, with the office mandated to investigate, recover assets, and prosecute cases that traditional law enforcement agencies were perceived to have failed to pursue effectively.
Over the years, the OSP has launched several high-profile investigations, including probes into procurement breaches, public sector financial misconduct, and controversial state contracts with little results to show for the enormous budgetary allocations.
According sources over GH₵1.18billion has been released to the OSP since it establishment but cannot boast of any serious prosecution.
Yet despite its prominence, the institution has struggled to secure major convictions, fueling persistent criticism that its aggressive public posture has not been matched by courtroom success, with some Ghanaians calling for it scrapping.
These concerns were amplified by international observers. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), in its Governance Diagnostic Assessment released in late 2025, warned that the OSP lacks clear and consistent internal systems for determining when cases are ready for court.
The IMF noted that without a formal charging policy and structured evidentiary benchmarks, the office risks inconsistent decision-making, weakened prosecutions, and prolonged failure in securing high-level corruption convictions.
The Fund further highlighted deficiencies in staffing, training, investigative tools, and transparency, cautioning that the office’s institutional weaknesses could undermine public trust in the broader anti-corruption agenda.
This emerging “war” over oversight and independence has been fueled by earlier disputes between the Attorney-General’s Department and the OSP. One major flashpoint involved extradition proceedings against former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta.
The Attorney-General’s Office publicly stated that the OSP had failed to provide the necessary investigative docket required to initiate formal extradition steps, raising questions about coordination failures and procedural competence.
The OSP’s issuance of “wanted” notices against prominent figures has also sparked legal debate, with some experts describing such actions as excessive and outside the proper boundaries of prosecutorial authority.
While these institutional tensions unfolded, the OSP faced a growing wave of petitions and complaints from individuals and corporate entities alleging misconduct and administrative injustice.
Among the most explosive of these is a petition filed by Strategic Mobilisation Ghana Limited (SML), the controversial revenue assurance company contracted by the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) to provide nationwide transactional audits and revenue monitoring services.
In November 2025, SML formally petitioned the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), accusing the OSP of abuse of power, bias, conflict of interest, and violations of its constitutional rights following a dramatic raid on its offices in Osu and Tema in June 2025.
In filings dated November 12 and 13, 2025, SML requested an independent investigation into the conduct of the OSP’s Lead Investigator, Albert Akurugu, alleging that the raid and subsequent actions were driven by personal animosity and deliberate sabotage rather than objective law enforcement.
The petition cited Article 218 of the 1992 Constitution and Section 7 of the CHRAJ Act, 1993 (Act 453), calling for sanctions against any public officers found to have acted unlawfully.
SML traced the roots of the dispute back to systemic failures within Ghana’s customs revenue monitoring framework.
The company argued that in 2017, the West Blue system—then responsible for pre-arrival and customs valuation operations—suffered major breakdowns that enabled widespread revenue leakages through undervaluation of imports, misclassification of goods, and under-declarations.
These failures, SML claimed, forced regulatory action that led to the revocation of licences of several Customs House Agents, including His Majesty Freight Services Ltd. and J.B.S. Haulage & Construction.
Following the exposure of these shortcomings, SML said the GRA engaged the company in 2018 to introduce stronger transactional audits and revenue assurance mechanisms. Within two months, SML reported fiscal recoveries exceeding US$1.35 million, presenting its work as evidence of effectiveness in correcting systemic lapses that had previously drained state revenue.
However, SML alleged that its growing role generated hostility, particularly from investigator Albert Akurugu, who the company claimed resented SML for taking over functions previously linked to West Blue.
The petition described alleged threats made during interrogations of SML CEO Evans Adusei and former Customs Commissioner Isaac Crentsil, including statements suggesting SML would “never work again” and that its servers would be rendered unusable.
The company further claimed that days before the June 10, 2025 raid, directors of previously sanctioned firms sent threatening messages referencing past regulatory actions, which SML interpreted as evidence of a coordinated campaign of intimidation.
The June raid itself has become a central controversy. SML accused the OSP of mishandling and destroying critical digital infrastructure, including servers, firmware systems, firewalls, and SCADA components.
The company claimed CCTV systems were dismantled prior to the operation, allegedly preventing proper documentation of the conduct of OSP agents.
According to SML, the seizure and handling of its digital systems violated national and internationally recognized forensic standards, triggering operational collapse and significant financial losses.
SML also accused the OSP of misrepresenting facts in its post-raid public report.
The company argued that the OSP portrayed SML as inexperienced while exaggerating the competence of West Blue, and suppressed evidence of SML’s reported fiscal recoveries and systemic corrections.
The petition claimed that the founder’s entrepreneurial track record was ignored in favor of a narrative designed to discredit the company.
In its reliefs sought, SML asked CHRAJ to investigate the OSP for bias, personal animus, and administrative injustice; examine the conduct of Albert Akurugu and possible oversight or complicity by Special Prosecutor Kissi Agyebeng; order the release of interrogation video recordings for independent review; and recommend sanctions against culpable public officers.
The CEO Evans Adusei verified the petition’s contents and attached extensive documentation, including correspondence, performance reports, and evidence from the raid.
These controversies have added to broader questions about the OSP’s accountability, including public concerns over the office’s operational expenditure and use of state resources.
Discussions around Bank of Ghana-linked oversight reports and expenditure monitoring have strengthened calls that an institution tasked with enforcing probity must itself be subjected to rigorous financial transparency.
Even amid these storms, the OSP continues to pursue several politically sensitive investigations, including ongoing probes into the SML contract itself, alleged irregularities in government payroll systems, and other corruption-related matters.
Yet the convergence of judicial criticism, Attorney-General intervention, CHRAJ petitions, procedural disputes, and international governance warnings has placed the Special Prosecutor’s office under unprecedented pressure.
