The Attorney-General’s Department has decided to suspend plans to take over criminal prosecutions handled by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) until the Supreme Court rules on the constitutional questions surrounding the anti-corruption body.

The Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, disclosed this during an interview on Channel One TV on Monday, April 20, 2026, five days after a High Court ordered the transfer of all OSP cases to the Attorney-General’s Department.

“I’ve had a conversation with my boss this afternoon and I think our idea is that we ought to wait for the Supreme Court’s decision so we see the totality of what should be done,” Dr Srem-Sai said. “It will be a bit much of a rush to start doing something now when we know that the Supreme Court decision will have a direct impact on what we are doing.”

The position marks a change from an earlier public statement by Dr Srem-Sai on April 16, when he indicated that the Attorney-General would begin steps to comply with the High Court’s directive. As of the evening of April 20, no OSP case had been transferred.

The ruling in question was delivered on April 15, 2026, by the General Jurisdiction Division 10 of the High Court in Accra, presided over by Justice John Eugene Nyadu Nyante. The case was brought by Mr Peter Archibold Hyde, one of four accused persons facing prosecution by the OSP.

The other accused persons are Mr Issah Seidu of the National Insurance Commission, Mr James Keck Osei, a former director at the Office of the Vice-President, and two Customs officers, Mr John Abban and Mr Hyde. They are accused of conspiring to seize ten containers of imported Thai rice at the Tema Port using forged documents, including a letter said to have come from the Office of the Vice-President.

The court held that the OSP had not shown that it had the required authorisation from the Attorney-General to initiate and conduct prosecutions. It therefore directed that all such cases be transferred to the Attorney-General’s Department and awarded GH¢15,000 in costs against the OSP.

The decision has raised questions about more than 130 ongoing OSP investigations and prosecutions. These include cases involving former Finance Minister Mr Ken Ofori-Atta in the Strategic Mobilisation Limited matter, Mr Bernard Antwi Boasiako, also known as Chairman Wontumi, former National Petroleum Authority Chief Executive Dr Mustapha Abdul-Hamid, and former Member of Parliament Mr Charles Bissue over illegal mining.

Dr Srem-Sai said the situation could have been avoided if the OSP had formally applied to the Attorney-General for prosecutorial authority.

“It is a letter,” he said. “In fact, it took the OSP more energy to litigate Hyde and all the other cases than to just apply.”

He explained that under the law, such authority can be granted through an Executive Instrument or by a formal fiat to named individuals. He said the OSP did not seek either because it held the view that it operates independently of the Attorney-General.

“The OSP believes that it is independent of the Attorney-General by this legislation,” he said. “That is why they never applied. Because the OSP believes that it has attained Article 88’s kind of independence.”

Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution vests prosecutorial authority in the Attorney-General, with provision for delegation through lawful processes.

At the same time, a constitutional case is pending before the Supreme Court. The suit, filed on December 8, 2025, by private legal practitioner Mr Noah Ephraem Tetteh Adamtey, seeks a declaration that parts of the OSP Act, 2017, are unconstitutional.

The Attorney-General, in a draft statement of defence filed on April 8, 2026, supported the argument that Parliament could not create an independent prosecutorial body without amending the Constitution. The Supreme Court granted an extension on April 16 for the filing of the full statement of case.

Dr Srem-Sai said the pending Supreme Court case informed the decision to delay action on the High Court order. He added that a ruling from one High Court division may not bind another, and moving quickly to transfer cases could lead to conflicting outcomes in different courts.

“To the extent that a High Court judgment may be advisory but not binding on another High Court, it could even lead to absurdities,” he said.

He said the Attorney-General’s office would urge the Supreme Court to hear the case without delay.

“We would actually impress on the courts to hear this matter because clearly it has to be decided for us to even take steps,” he said.

Dr Srem-Sai also raised concerns about the legal status of actions already taken by the OSP, including decisions to discontinue prosecutions.

“If you didn’t have the power to start in the first place, then the power to end it would also not be there,” he said. “So it will be as if you never even invited them in the first place, let alone giving them any nolle prosequi.”

The OSP has rejected the High Court ruling and maintains that its mandate under Act 959 remains in force until the Supreme Court decides otherwise. The office has indicated that it is taking steps to challenge the decision, arguing that only the Supreme Court has the authority to strike down provisions of an Act of Parliament.

Dr Srem-Sai said the immediate option remains for the OSP to apply to the Attorney-General for authorisation to prosecute cases.

“Why not, why won’t we grant them the authorisation when they apply for it,” he said.

He added that any move to make the OSP fully independent of the Attorney-General would require an amendment to Article 88 of the Constitution through the prescribed process.

“There is no one in this country, I have not seen any lawyer in this country who believes that you can create an independent prosecutorial authority without amending the Constitution,” he said. “Every lawyer, regardless of their age or their bar, agrees.”

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Adamtey case is expected to determine the future direction of the OSP’s prosecutorial powers.