Ghana’s Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), the agency tasked with spearheading the national fight against corruption, has come under heightened scrutiny in recent months, with critics, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF), raising questions about its operational effectiveness, institutional clarity, and financial efficiency.
In the latest budget cycle, the OSP received nearly GH¢69 million for employee compensation, covering a staff strength of 249 officers. An analysis of the allocation reveals that each employee incurs an average monthly cost of GH¢23,075 to the state, an amount that, in some cases, could exceed the annual salary of certain public-sector workers.
Despite this level of investment, governance analysts argue that the office’s output has not matched its resource envelope, deepening concerns over whether taxpayers are receiving adequate value for money.
These concerns are not limited to international institutions or analysts. A group of Ghanaians, led by Apostle Abraham Lincoln Larbi and private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu, staged a protest in Accra last week, calling for the removal of Special Prosecutor Kissi Agyebeng, citing a perceived failure to deliver on his mandate.
Mr. Kpebu criticized claims made by the Special Prosecutor regarding attempts to seek assistance from state institutions to arrest former finance minister Ken Ofori-Atta, arguing that they have been proven false. “He claimed that before Ofori-Atta travelled, he saw a letter the former minister wrote to both the outgoing chief of staff and the incoming chief of staff. How do you see such a letter?” he asked. He added: “He said he went to Immigration to seek help and didn’t get help. It has turned out to be false. He said he went to National Security for assistance to arrest Ofori-Atta and again claimed he didn’t get help. It has turned out to be false.”
The protest reflects growing public impatience and skepticism over the OSP’s effectiveness, coming alongside broader institutional critiques from bodies such as the IMF, which has highlighted structural weaknesses, including the absence of a formal charging policy and overlapping mandates with other anti-corruption institutions.
IMF Criticises Gaps in Case Building and Charging Procedures
A key concern raised in the IMF’s governance assessment is the OSP’s lack of a formal charging policy, the standard framework that outlines when a suspect is ready to be charged and taken before the courts. The Fund notes that the absence of such a policy creates inconsistencies in prosecutorial decisions and weakens the quality of corruption cases submitted for trial.
According to the IMF, without a clear and uniform system to determine case readiness, decisions risk appearing arbitrary, with some cases potentially being filed on incomplete evidence. This, the report cautions, contributes to weak outcomes in court and undermines overall conviction rates.
These findings reinforce growing public and institutional concerns that the office’s prosecutorial performance has not reflected the scale of resources allocated to it. A Member of Parliament recently captured the sentiment, asking: “With all the money and staff allocated, what has the office delivered to Ghana in return?”
Mandate Overlaps With CHRAJ and EOCO
The IMF report also highlights a broader structural concern: the significant overlap in mandates between the OSP and other anti-corruption bodies, particularly the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) and the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO).
According to the assessment, this duplication creates confusion and legal uncertainty, blurring which institution should take the lead on particular corruption or economic crime matters. It further results in parallel investigations, unnecessary expenditure, and fragmented administrative processes, ultimately stretching limited public resources.
The IMF describes the system as “fragmented, overlapping and exposed to political influence.” Governance experts caution that unless these mandates are clearly defined and coordination is strengthened, the country’s anti-corruption framework risks becoming inefficient, costly, and increasingly difficult for the public to trust.
High Costs, Limited Outputs
Since its establishment, the OSP has received substantial allocations covering goods and services, capital expenditure, and employee compensation. Funding releases have improved in recent years, with over 95% of the office’s 2024 approved budget disbursed, yet questions persist over how effectively these resources have been deployed.
Much of the expenditure has been allocated to expanding the office’s staff to 249 personnel, procuring vehicles, equipment, and secure IT systems, establishing regional operational capacity, and supporting training, intelligence gathering, and administrative functions. Despite these investments, critics argue that the OSP has yet to achieve a major high-profile corruption conviction, a milestone that many observers expected when the institution was inaugurated in 2018.
At present, the government has confirmed receiving three petitions seeking to remove the Special Prosecutor, Kissi Agyebeng, from office. “At this stage, the process has left the hands of the president beyond conveying the petitions to the Chief Justice. There’s little else that the president does in this particular instance. Everything now rests with the Chief Justice, who I believe will act in accordance with Ghanaian law,” Government Spokesperson, Felix Kwakye Ofosu told Joy News.
