, Henry Kwasi Prempeh, over his comments on a recent Supreme Court ruling concerning the powers of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP).){kind=link}
Former Special Prosecutor Martin Amidu has strongly criticised the Executive Director of the Ghana Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana), Henry Kwasi Prempeh, over his comments on a recent Supreme Court ruling concerning the powers of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP).
In a statement, Mr. Amidu took issue with Prof. Prempeh’s critique of the Supreme Court of Ghana, which ruled that the OSP cannot join a suit filed against it because the Office of the Attorney-General is already representing the state in the matter.
The apex court, in a unanimous decision dated April 9, 2026, dismissed the OSP’s application for joinder in a case brought by Noah E. Tetteh, challenging aspects of the Office’s legal standing. Mr. Amidu argued that the ruling is consistent with Article 88(5) of the 1992 Constitution, which mandates that all civil proceedings against the state be instituted against the Attorney-General.
According to the former Special Prosecutor, the court’s position reflects a correct interpretation of the law, stressing that under Ghana’s legal framework, only the Attorney-General has the authority to represent state institutions in such proceedings.
“Criticism of the ruling is based on a misunderstanding of the law,” Mr. Amidu asserted, adding that the principles of adversarial justice do not prevent the Attorney-General from conceding aspects of a plaintiff’s case if deemed appropriate.
He further questioned Prof. Prempeh’s legal standing, arguing that the CDD-Ghana Executive Director is not qualified to practise law in Ghana and should not present himself as having superior knowledge of constitutional law compared to the justices of the Supreme Court.
Mr. Amidu also referenced Prof. Prempeh’s alleged involvement in drafting the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959), suggesting that he should have a clearer understanding of the legal provisions governing the institution.
Prof. Prempeh had earlier criticised both the Supreme Court and the Attorney-General’s Office over their handling of the case. In a Facebook post on April 9, 2026, he expressed concern that the court denied the OSP the opportunity to defend itself in a lawsuit directly challenging its constitutionality.
He argued that it was inappropriate for the Attorney-General’s Office to represent the OSP, claiming that the state’s position in the case appeared aligned with that of the plaintiff.
“So the Supreme Court of Ghana will not allow the real party in interest, the OSP, to defend against a lawsuit challenging its statutory existence, but will allow the nominal defendant, the Attorney-General, to file a defence that agrees with the plaintiff,” he stated.
Prof. Prempeh further described the situation as troubling, questioning the fairness of allowing the Attorney-General, represented in court by Deputy Attorney-General Justice Srem-Sai, to argue a position adverse to the OSP without hearing directly from the anti-corruption body.
While Mr. Amidu maintains that the Supreme Court’s decision is firmly grounded in constitutional provisions, Prof. Prempeh’s concerns highlight broader questions about institutional independence and legal representation in cases involving state bodies.