Most cases move through the courtroom like a measured exchange. One side lays its claim, the other answers, and the judge listens, weighing each word in turn. But every so often, a case begins to outgrow that rhythm. It gathers weight, pulls at the seams of public life, and demands more than the voices of those formally before the court.
That is the posture a coalition of twelve civil society organisations has now adopted in the constitutional challenge to the powers of the Office of the Special Prosecutor.
The plaintiff in Noah Adamtey v. Attorney-General, a case that has continuously occupied a central place in national debate, is not merely asking whether a statutory provision is sound. It asks whether the OSP can, under the Constitution, exercise independent prosecutorial authority at all. The plaintiff says it cannot. More strikingly, the Attorney-General’s Department, the only defendant so far, has largely agreed in substance.
That convergence has thinned the usual contest. The courtroom, typically structured for opposition, now carries an unusual quiet. The resistance one expects from the state has softened, In that silence, civil society has stepped forward, not as a party, but as something more subtle and, in constitutional litigation, often more influential. They seek to speak as amicus curiae, friends of the court.
A Case Too Important for Two Voices
The group, which includes CDD-Ghana, IMANI Africa, Transparency International Ghana, and others, has resolved to apply for leave to file an amicus brief before the Supreme Court. Their position is firm. The Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959) was lawfully enacted, and its grant of prosecutorial authority is constitutionally defensible. What is at stake, in their view, is not a narrow point of drafting, but the integrity of a system carefully built to confront corruption.
They trace that system through a longer institutional memory. From the Africa Peer Review Mechanism’s early calls in 2004, through the National Anti-Corruption Action Plan adopted in 2015, to the eventual passage of Act 959 in 2017, the OSP was not an improvised creation. It was the product of accumulated concern, shaped over time into a specialised response.
To remove its prosecutorial authority now, the coalition suggests, is to leave behind an institution that can investigate but cannot complete the task it was designed for. It would stand intact in form, but diminished in function, like a tool forged for a purpose it is no longer permitted to fulfil.
The Quiet Power of an Amicus
An amicus does not enter the courtroom to take over the fight. It aims to change how the fight is understood.
Traditionally, a friend of the court existed to assist judges on points that stretched beyond the immediate arguments of the parties. But constitutional litigation has stretched that role. Today, an amicus often represents something larger than expertise. It represents perspective. Where the parties may be constrained by strategy, interest, or even agreement, as this case unusually reveals, the amicus can widen the lens. It can introduce history where the parties are silent, policy where the pleadings are narrow, and consequences where the arguments are technical.
In this sense, the amicus transforms litigation from a duel into a conversation. The court is no longer confined to the positions of those formally before it. It becomes a forum where the broader public’s stakes are articulated and tested.
Participation as a Constitutional Value
What makes this move significant is not only what the CSOs are saying, but how they are saying it.
Under older common law traditions, third parties did not simply walk into ongoing litigation. They were invited cautiously, and often only in exceptional circumstances. Today, under constitutional practice, that door has widened. A non-party may apply to be heard, not because it has a personal stake in the outcome, but because the outcome will shape the public order itself.
This is participatory democracy in legal form. It recognises that constitutional cases do not belong exclusively to the named litigants. They ripple outward, affecting institutions, governance, and the everyday expectations of citizens.
The coalition’s application, therefore, is more than procedural. It is a reminder that when constitutional meaning is being contested, silence is also a position, and one that civil society is increasingly unwilling to take.
The Way Forward
For now, the coalition has instructed its lawyers, Merton and Everett LLP, to formally seek leave of the Supreme Court.
If granted, their brief will not decide the case. But it may shape the terrain on which the decision is made. It may ask questions the parties have not pressed, or highlight consequences the pleadings have not fully explored.
And in a case where the traditional opposition between plaintiff and defendant appears unusually aligned, that third voice may prove decisive, not in outcome, but in depth. Because sometimes, the most important function of the law is not simply to resolve a dispute, but to ensure that, before it does, it has truly heard what is at stake.
