Member of Parliament for Suame, John Darko, has strongly criticised suggestions that the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) must obtain approval from the Attorney-General for every criminal case it seeks to prosecute, describing such an interpretation as “absurd.”
Mr Darko, who also serves as legal counsel to the Minority caucus in Parliament, made the remarks amid an ongoing legal debate following a recent High Court ruling that questioned the independent prosecutorial authority of the OSP.
According to him, the legal framework establishing the anti-corruption body does not mandate continuous or case-by-case authorisation from the Attorney-General before prosecutions can proceed. He argued that imposing such a requirement would undermine the very purpose of creating an independent institution to combat corruption.
“If we interpret this to mean that for every criminal case the OSP must seek approval, that would be so absurd and would defeat the purpose of the independence of the OSP,” he stated.
Mr Darko emphasised the need to interpret the law within its broader legislative context, rather than in isolation, to fully appreciate Parliament’s intent in establishing the office. He noted that the issue of prosecutorial authority had been addressed during the legislative process, with the understanding that the OSP would exercise a degree of independence once duly authorised.
“When the law was passed, this question was asked, and the interpretation given at the time was that there is a one-time authorisation for the setup of the office,” he explained.
The Suame MP further warned that requiring repeated approvals would introduce unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles and weaken the effectiveness of the OSP in addressing corruption-related offences.
The debate continues as legal experts and stakeholders assess the implications of the court’s ruling for the operational autonomy of the Office of the Special Prosecutor.
