The Global Security for Africa Research and Good Governance (GLOSARGG) has raised concerns over what it describes as an escalating and increasingly polarised public debate surrounding Ghana’s anti-corruption framework, particularly the Office of the Special Prosecutor.
In a statement issued on April 20, 2026, and signed by its Executive Secretary, Francis Ahovi, the organisation warned that the tone of recent public commentary could have wider implications for governance and national stability.
GLOSARGG noted that while scrutiny of public institutions is a normal and necessary part of democratic accountability, recent discussions appear to be shifting in a direction that risks undermining institutional credibility.
“The Office of the Special Prosecutor is facing questions from people across the spectrum. Some are even trying to discredit its work. It is good to question things in a democracy, but the current tone of criticism is a concern,” the statement said.
The think tank added that the nature of the debate raises questions about how accountability is being interpreted and whether some arguments are unintentionally weakening public trust in state institutions.
“It makes us wonder if people really want to hold institutions accountable,” it added.
At the centre of GLOSARGG’s concern is what it describes as a growing tendency to interpret legal frameworks in ways that may undermine, rather than strengthen, the rule of law.
It warned that “people are using the law in a way that’s not fair,” adding that some interpretations appear aimed more at avoiding accountability than upholding justice. The organisation described this trend as a potential threat to democratic governance.
The statement also cautioned against the personalisation of institutional debates, saying it is affecting the quality of national discourse and deepening mistrust in public systems.
While acknowledging the importance of passionate engagement, GLOSARGG said turning legal and institutional issues into personal disputes risks clouding judgement and weakening decision-making.
It also referenced what it described as a “pull him down syndrome,” warning that such attitudes could undermine collective progress in the fight against corruption.
Using the metaphor “mother serpent of corruption,” the organisation argued that weakening oversight institutions could inadvertently strengthen entrenched corruption networks.
“If we weaken the Office of the Special Prosecutor, it will not just affect that one office. It will hurt transparency, accountability, and good governance,” the statement warned.
From a security perspective, GLOSARGG outlined potential risks if anti-corruption institutions are weakened, including increased illicit financial flows, reduced public trust, and the possible emergence of organised criminal activity.
It cautioned that weakened accountability structures could lead to broader social consequences, including public frustration and unrest.
“If citizens lose trust in the government’s ability to deliver justice, it could lead to anger and protests,” it said.
The organisation called for renewed commitment to strengthening institutions rather than weakening them, especially in the fight against corruption. It urged stronger independence and prosecutorial powers for the Office of the Special Prosecutor, stressing that its effectiveness is critical to Ghana’s governance system.
“If Ghana wants to fight corruption, it must strengthen its institutions, not weaken them,” GLOSARGG emphasised.
Legal backdrop: OSP authority in question
The statement comes against the backdrop of a recent High Court ruling that has cast uncertainty over the prosecutorial powers of the Office of the Special Prosecutor.
The court held that the OSP does not have independent authority to initiate criminal prosecutions, stating that such powers reside with the Attorney-General under Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution.
The ruling, delivered on April 15, followed a quo warranto application filed by Peter Achibold Hyde challenging the legal basis of the OSP’s prosecutorial mandate.
The judgment has effectively placed ongoing OSP prosecutions in limbo pending further legal clarification.
OSP response
The Office of the Special Prosecutor has since rejected the ruling, arguing that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction.
In a statement, the OSP said it is taking steps to appeal the decision, insisting that only the Supreme Court has the authority to declare provisions of an Act of Parliament unconstitutional.
“The High Court does not have jurisdiction to strike down parts of an Act of Parliament as unconstitutional. That authority rests with the Supreme Court,” the OSP stated.