Founding President of IMANI Africa, Franklin Cudjoe, has criticised the Attorney-General, Dominic Ayine, and his Deputy, Justice Srem Sai, over the recent High Court ruling on the prosecutorial powers of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP).
In a Facebook post, Mr Cudjoe argued that transferring the OSP’s prosecutorial mandate to the Office of the Attorney-General could overburden the institution.
“How are you faring with the very few cases you are prosecuting? Updates on those have stopped. I understand the courts are the cause of such delays. So, with the zeal to take over the cases the OSP is handling, are you going to establish new courts or tribunals, or will the current courts work 24/7?” he questioned.
He further criticised the legal basis of the ruling, stating: “Sometimes, the law can aid stupidity. This is a classic example. The law, amplified by a berserking ruling, ignores reality. This, my friends, Justice Sai and Dominic Ayine, is what the 18th-century French journalist and scholar, Frédéric Bastiat, described as legal plunder. Good luck!”
His comments come amid renewed debate over the implications of the High Court directive, which affects the prosecutorial mandate of the OSP.
Earlier, the Office of the Attorney-General reaffirmed its commitment to upholding the rule of law following the ruling. In a separate Facebook post, Justice Srem Sai stressed that the Attorney-General would fully comply with the court’s order.
“The Honourable Attorney-General has no intention or capacity to disobey or ignore the High Court’s order,” he stated.
“The Office of the Attorney-General will, in the coming days, begin to take the necessary steps to give effect to the Court’s order,” he stated.
The High Court in Accra, on Wednesday, April 15, ordered the Attorney-General’s Department to take over all ongoing prosecutions being handled by the OSP. The court indicated that this arrangement should remain in place until the OSP secures the constitutionally required authorisation from the Attorney-General to prosecute cases independently.
Background
The ruling follows a legal challenge initiated by Peter Archiblod Hyde, an accused person in an OSP-led prosecution. Hyde, through his lawyer, argued that the OSP lacked the legal authority to prosecute without express authorisation from the Attorney-General, as required under both the Constitution and the OSP Act.
According to court records, the OSP was unable to demonstrate that it had obtained such authorisation, prompting the court to issue the directive.
The ruling has significant implications for the anti-corruption body’s ongoing cases, many of which may now be temporarily halted or reassigned.
