The Supreme Court has dismissed an application by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) to join as a party in a constitutional suit challenging aspects of its powers under the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959).
Private legal practitioner Noah Adamptey filed the suit, questioning the constitutionality of Parliament’s decision to establish the OSP, particularly Sections 4 and 33 of the Act.
In court on Tuesday, January 27, lawyers for the OSP, led by Dr Isidore Tufuor, argued that the reliefs sought directly impact the OSP’s mandate.
Moving the joinder application, Dr Tufuor told the court that while the suit appears directed at the state, it challenges the constitutionality of certain powers rather than the OSP’s existence as an institution.
He emphasized that the OSP’s presence is necessary for the court to effectively determine the issues.
However, Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai opposed the application, asserting that the OSP has no proprietary interest warranting its joinder.
“It is the creator who is to answer for the creation,” Dr Srem-Sai argued, noting that the OSP was established by Parliament and any challenge to its framework should be addressed by the state through the Attorney-General.
He added that the OSP lacks any personal stake in the outcome.
Supporting this stance, plaintiff Noah Adamptey contended that the OSP’s role had been “gravely misconstrued,” maintaining that the office stands to neither gain nor lose personally from the case and should not be involved in the constitutional dispute.
After hearing submissions from all parties, the Supreme Court panel, presided over by Justice Baffoe-Bonnie, ruled against the OSP.
“We have reviewed the application and the processes filed,” the court stated.
“Having heard all counsel on their submissions, we are of the view that the Office of the Special Prosecutor is not a necessary party to this suit.”
The court refused the joinder, allowing the substantive case to proceed without the OSP as a party.