A civil society group, the Coalition for Integrity in Governance-Ghana, has formally petitioned President John Dramani Mahama to remove Mr. Kissi Agyebeng from office as Special Prosecutor. The petition submitted through the Office of the Chief of Staff, alleges incompetence, mismanagement of public funds, conflict of interest and conduct that has undermined the work of the Office.
On social media and in sections of the public, many have echoed similar calls for his removal, citing alleged failures in the fight against corruption. Others, however, argue that such demands risk undermining the independence of one of Ghana’s most important anti-corruption institutions.
Whatever one’s view, the conversation makes it necessary to understand how the Special Prosecutor can actually be removed from office. Can the President simply act on a petition, or does the law prescribe a process?
How the OSP Act Manages the Removal of the Special Prosecutor
The Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959) sets out a detailed process for removing the Special Prosecutor from office.
a. Grounds for Removal
The Act allows removal only on specific grounds. These include stated misconduct or incompetence, physical or mental incapacity that prevents the person from performing their duties, or a deliberate breach of the oath of office or oath of secrecy.
The law also covers conduct that damages the reputation of the Office or brings it into public disrepute, and any behaviour that threatens the security or economic interests of the State.
b. Petition and Prima Facie Case
The procedural steps are tightly drawn and time-bound. The process begins with a petition submitted to the President. Once the President receives a petition he must, within seven days, refer it to the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice then has thirty days to determine whether a prima facie case exists. In this context, a prima facie case means that, on the face of the petition and based on the material supplied, there is sufficient credible evidence to justify a formal inquiry.
c. Appointment of a Committee and Investigations
If the Chief Justice finds a prima facie case, he must, within fourteen days, constitute a three-member committee to investigate. The committee must include a Justice of the Supreme Court as chair, a lawyer of at least fifteen years’ standing at the bar, and one person with recognised expertise in investigations. The committee is given ninety days to investigate and to submit its report and recommendations through the Chief Justice to the President.
d. President to Act on the Recommendation
Once the committee delivers its recommendations, the President is required to act in accordance with them.
The clear timelines show that the law intends to ensure speed and fairness. It prevents situations where petitions are ignored or left unattended, and also ensures that neither the President nor any other authority can unduly delay the process.
The Constitutional Context: A Broader Framework of Article 146
The constitutional foundation for removing holders of high public office in Ghana is found in the now notorious Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution. This provision lays down the process for the removal of the Chief Justice or any Justice of the Superior Courts.
The process begins when a petition is submitted to the President. The President must then refer it to the Chief Justice, who decides whether the petition discloses a prima facie case. If the Chief Justice so finds, a committee is set up to investigate the allegations and to make recommendations to the President.
That same route has also been applied to the heads of certain independent constitutional bodies, including the Electoral Commission, the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice, and the National Commission for Civic Education. The reason is that these offices are constitutionally insulated from executive control and therefore require removal procedures that protect judicial style independence and safeguard against arbitrary dismissal.
However, unlike the OSP Act, Article 146 does not set timelines. And this absence has long bred controversy in Ghana’s constitutional practice.
OSP Act v Article 146: The Difference and Why it Exists
In practice, petitions filed under Article 146 have sometimes remained unresolved for months or even years. Presidents have been accused of sitting on petitions, delaying referrals, or even using the process to exert quiet political pressure.
This is the mischief the drafters of the OSP Act sought to correct. By embedding strict time limits, the Act prevents political discretion and ensures that accountability is not left to convenience. It compels the President and the Chief Justice to act promptly and provides the public with a predictable timeline for when the matter must be resolved.
In the case of the current petition, this means the President cannot indefinitely keep the petition on his desk. Within seven days, it must be forwarded to the Chief Justice. Within thirty days, a decision must be made on whether a prima facie case exists. Once a committee is formed, it must report within ninety days.
The OSP Act thus closes the window for delay and forces the process to move forward with lawful precision.
The Limits of Power
There have been growing calls for the President to act swiftly on the petition seeking the removal of the Special Prosecutor. Yet, as this discussion shows, there is no legal basis, and indeed it would amount to a breach of the law, for the petition to sit indefinitely on the President’s desk.
The law itself prescribes the rhythm of action and limits executive discretion. Each step, from the referral to the Chief Justice to the eventual report of the investigative committee, is bound by time and process. Whether the petition will succeed or not is a separate question of evidence and proof.
What is clear, however, is that the removal of the Special Prosecutor is not a matter to be decided by public sentiment. It is governed by a deliberate, time-bound statute that seeks to balance independence with accountability, ensuring that in the pursuit of justice, even power must submit to the rule of law.
