Martin Amidu
Former Special Prosecutor, Martin Amidu, has waded into the seeming feud between the Office of the Attorney General (AG) and prosecutorial powers of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), warning that the relationship between the two state institutions under this government appears to have broken down beyond repair.
According to him, the Special Prosecutor and the Attorney General, as presently constituted, “cannot co-exist effectively in the fight against corruption.”
Mr. Amidu’s comments follow a recent application for extinction of time – which has been granted, and a proposed statement of case filed by the Deputy Attorney General, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, in response to a writ challenging the prosecutorial powers of the Office of the Special Prosecutor.
The plaintiff, Noah Ephraem Tetteh Adamtey, is seeking among others, a declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of the Articles 1(2), 88, 93(2), and 296 of the 1992 Constitution, prosecutorial authority in Ghana is vested exclusively in the Attorney General and cannot be exercised independently of, or in parallel with, the Attorney General.
The Attorney General’s proposed statement of case basically sides with the position taken by the plaintiff as the defence is challenging Parliament’s decision to delegate the Attorney General’s prosecutorial powers to the OSP, arguing it is unconstitutional.
The Attorney General is asking the Supreme Court to declare section 4(2) of the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act 2017, (Act 959) unconstitutional and consequently struck down.
Mr. Amidu in his latest legal commentary is concerned that the Attorney General’s response to the writ does not appear to take a neutral position on the matter and assist the Supreme Court to address the issue substantially, but rather aligns with the plaintiff’s case.
According to him, the Attorney General’s statement of case contains contradictory submissions, misrepresentations of fact of law, which any experienced practitioner of constitutional law appearing as an interested party may bring to the attention of the court.
He further noted that the Attorney General, as officer of the court, is expected to assist in the administration of justice without fear and favour.
He said one would, therefore, expect the Attorney General’s statement of case to objectively and impartially address the implications of the nomination of the Special Prosecutor by the Attorney General for appointment by the President, and its effects on prosecutorial powers under the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959).
By Gibril Abdul Razak