The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) has revealed inconsistencies between the asset declaration submitted by former National Petroleum Authority (NPA) Chief Executive Officer, Dr Mustapha Abdul-Hamid, during his time in office and properties traced to him through ongoing investigations.
In a post on Friday, January 23, 2026, Samuel Darko, Director of Strategy, Research and Communication at the OSP, stated that the Office has unsealed Dr Abdul-Hamid’s asset declaration filed with the Auditor General (Audit Service) while he was in public office. A comparison with assets and income declared during the OSP’s investigations showed several discrepancies.
According to Sammy Darko, the OSP has traced multiple properties linked to Dr Abdul-Hamid that were not declared in his official submissions. Investigators have questioned family members, including wives and children, in whose names some of these assets were placed. However, these individuals have claimed no knowledge of the properties, according to the OSP.
Sammy Darko explained that the matter forms part of a separate investigation from the main charges Dr Abdul-Hamid faces, which involve extortion and money laundering related to the NPA-UPPF scandal.
In the primary case, Dr Abdul-Hamid and nine others are standing trial over alleged unlawful payments totalling over GH¢291 million and US$332,000 from oil marketing companies and bulk oil transporters between 2022 and 2024.
The director for research noted that under the OSP Act, failure or refusal by a public officer to declare assets later traced to them can lead to applications for forfeiture. The OSP emphasized that individuals can be investigated for separate offences even while on trial for others.
Sammy Darko revealed that one property in question is a house that Dr Abdul-Hamid claims was a gift from former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo. However, he noted that the former NPA CEO has failed or refused to provide supporting documentation for this assertion.
Sammy Darko noted that Dr Abdul-Hamid is expected to appear before the OSP to identify and explain these traced assets, which the Office suspects were acquired using proceeds of corruption. He described claims by the former NPA boss’s lawyers that this amounts to harassment as misplaced.
Read his full post below:
Diawuo, this is 2026!
Yesterday, a lawyer who runs a blog tried to mislead the public about what happened in court during the trial of Mustapha Hamid and others.
I will keep it brief. Only two or three important things happened at the hearing. First, Mustapha Hamid withdrew his application claiming that the charges against him were frivolous. This followed the responses filed by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP). Second, the judge reviewed the bail conditions and changed the reporting requirement based on an application by the OSP. Instead of reporting to the Registry of the Court, Mustapha Hamid and the other accused persons are now to report to the OSP.
After the case was adjourned and lawyers were about to leave the courtroom—off the record—lawyers for Mustapha Hamid complained to the judge. They alleged that the OSP was harassing their client, trying to force him to incriminate himself, and detaining lawyers involved in the case. The judge asked the OSP if this was true, and the OSP denied the claims. The defence lawyers responded that they might not know because investigators are different from the lawyers handling the case.
The judge then said that if the investigation related to matters already before the court, it might not be proper. However, this discussion was not about the case before the court. Even if it were, the law allows the prosecution to discharge accused persons, re-arrest them, and file fresh charges if new evidence comes up.
The issue now is this: the off-record discussion is what the blogger lawyer presented as if the judge had ordered the OSP not to arrest anyone already charged. That is not true. The judge made no such order. There is no order from the Court, no such record exists. It was an after-court conversation of lawyers complaining which complaints are not even factual. OSP does not detain lawyers-OSP investigates persons for a suspect offence in relation to its functions even if committed by a lawyer.
Meanwhile, Mustapha Hamid is expected to appear before the OSP today over a separate matter involving assets acquired during his time in government but not declared. This is different from the main case of extortion and money laundering. He is to come and identify and speak to assets traced by the OSP which the Office reasonably suspects to have been acquired through the use of proceeds of corruption.
The OSP has officially unsealed the asset declaration Mustapha Hamid filed with the Auditor General (Audit Service) while in office and compared it with the assets and income he later declared during investigations before the OSP. The OSP found inconsistencies and several properties linked to him that were not declared. The OSP has questioned family members who assets have been put in their names including wives and children who claim no knowledge of the aid properties. But these are matters the Office wants him to speak to that his lawyers are claiming to be harassment.
Under OSP law, where a public officer fails or refuses to declare assets that are later traced to him, the OSP may apply for forfeiture. They forget that a person can be investigated for other offences while whilst standing trial. But that is their confusion-not an OSP creation.
One of the properties in question is a house which Mustapha Hamid claims was a gift from former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo. However, he has failed or refused to provide documents to support this claim.
This is the other case the OSP is currently investigating. It is separate from the charges he is already facing, even though it arises from the same broader inquiry.
Propaganda is your choice—but at the very least, be fair to the facts.