There is a familiar notion in the fight against corruption that when corruption is fought, it fights back. The resistance takes many forms. Allegations of political interference are often heard when anti-corruption institutions pursue sensitive cases. Oftentimes, too, the resistance takes the form of legal challenges to investigations, public statements and the exercise of statutory powers by institutions mandated to investigate and prosecute corruption.
Such challenges are an inevitable feature of the rule of law. The rights of persons under investigation or facing prosecution are no less important than the justice the state seeks to achieve. The fight against corruption cannot be a licence to disregard the law in the name of enforcing it.
The rights to personal liberty, human dignity, privacy and a fair trial, among other protections guaranteed by the Constitution, are not mere formalities; they must be respected. Article 12 expressly requires the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary, as well as other government agencies, to respect and uphold fundamental human rights and freedoms.
In its Ninth Half-Yearly Report, covering January 1 to August 31, 2026, the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) lists about nine civil cases arising in the course of its anti-corruption work. The entries include defamation suits, applications alleging violations of human rights and a challenge to the OSP’s handling of seized computer systems.
The Ofori-Atta and SML Disputes
Two of the entries concern former Finance Minister Kenneth Nana Yaw Ofori-Atta, while a third involves Strategic Mobilisation Ghana Limited (SML). All three are connected, in different ways, to the OSP’s investigation into contractual arrangements involving the Ministry of Finance, the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) and SML.
In the first suit, filed on December 2, 2025, Mr Ofori-Atta sued the OSP and the Special Prosecutor for defamation over statements made at an October 30, 2025 press conference on the contractual arrangements. The OSP subsequently filed an application seeking to strike out portions of the defamation claim that it considered to disclose no reasonable cause of action.
The second Ofori-Atta entry is a human-rights application filed on March 13, 2025. He asked the court, among other things, to remove his photograph and details from the OSP’s wanted list and to award compensation for alleged violations of his rights to personal liberty and health. The report says the court dismissed his application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the OSP from arresting him. It also dismissed his application for discovery, against which he appealed to the Court of Appeal.
SML, meanwhile, sued the OSP on November 10, 2025, over the seizure and handling of its computerised environment, including servers, firmware, firewalls and Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition components. The company alleges breaches of standards governing chain of custody, forensic imaging and evidence preservation, and claims that the handling of the systems risked operational harm and compromised its proprietary technology. The OSP filed a defence denying the allegations, and the case is taking its normal course.
Defamation Suit over Investigation Statements
A fourth entry concerns Dr Mustapha Abdul-Hamid, a former Chief Executive of the National Petroleum Authority (NPA), who filed a defamation suit against the OSP on November 12, 2025. The action arose from a statement by the Special Prosecutor that Dr Abdul-Hamid was under investigation for suspected embezzlement. The OSP filed a defence denying his allegations as without merit and misplaced.
Dr Abdul-Hamid is also facing a separate criminal prosecution with other accused persons over alleged extortion and related offences at the NPA. The OSP has said the criminal case involves allegations concerning payments totalling more than GH¢291 million and US$332,000. The criminal allegations remain distinct from the defamation suit.
Further Human-Rights Entries Linked to the NPA Case
The report also lists applications by Christian Tetteh Sottie and Isaac Crentsil; Jacob Kwamina Amuah; and Bright Bediako Mensah and Kwaku Aboagye Acquaah.
Sottie and Crentsil filed their application on October 20, 2025, seeking enforcement of their fundamental human rights. The OSP filed its response on November 4, 2025, and the report says the case was proceeding in the normal course. The applicants challenged their detention, alleging that it was unjustified and unlawful and had caused them psychological distress.
Jacob Kwamina Amuah’s application was filed on August 14, 2025, with a further affidavit application made in December. The report says the proceedings were continuing in the normal course. Mr Amuah is also among those facing criminal charges in the separate NPA case involving Dr Abdul-Hamid.
Bright Bediako Mensah and Kwaku Aboagye Acquaah each filed a human-rights application on May 27, 2025. The report says the filing of processes was completed in October for Mr Mensah and in July for Mr Acquaah, with both matters proceeding in the normal course. Both men are also named among the accused persons in the OSP’s NPA prosecution.
Charles Bissue’s Human-Rights Case
The final entry concerns Charles Bissue, former secretary to the disbanded Inter-Ministerial Committee on Illegal Mining. He sued the OSP, alleging that his rights had been violated by the investigation into him, the decision to declare him a fugitive from justice after he failed to respond to notices, and an alleged arrest warrant.
The Human Rights Court dismissed his claims on November 7, 2024, finding that he had not established his allegations, including the claim that an arrest warrant had been issued. Mr Bissue subsequently pursued further proceedings, including an application at the Supreme Court and an indicated appeal. The OSP’s half-yearly report says the matter was to be reassigned after the Supreme Court prohibited the judge originally assigned to it.
Where Does This Leave the Anti-Corruption Fight?
The nine entries show, understandably, that the OSP’s work continues to generate legal disputes over its public statements, investigations, alleged human-rights violations and the handling of evidence. But the existence of a suit does not, by itself, establish that the Office has acted unlawfully; neither does it establish that a claimant is seeking to obstruct an anti-corruption investigation. Each case would be assessed on its merits.
The bigger concern, however, is whether the fight against corruption is delivering results. Citizens expect public resources to be protected, allegations of wrongdoing to be properly investigated and those found culpable to be held accountable. At the same time, these outcomes must be pursued within the law. Arrests and investigations are not proof of guilt, just as legal challenges are not necessarily evidence of obstruction.
Ultimately then, the fight against corruption would require both effective institutions and respect for constitutional rights. The question, naturally occupied with the average man’s mind is whether the Office can withstand legitimate scrutiny, overcome the obstacles to its work and demonstrate meaningful progress. Public confidence will depend not only on the cases it opens, but also on the quality of its investigations, the strength of its prosecutions and the accountability its work ultimately delivers.
