Mahama’s mixed signals and parliament’s push to scrap OSP

‎Respectfully,

1. The raging move to scrap the Office of the Special Prosecutor admits of only one conclusion: the country is being led in the wrong direction. In this, the judgment of this column is simple and firm: I dissent. For the avoidance of doubt, this dissent takes no position, for now, on the quality of the work done, thus far, by the Office of the Special Prosecutor; it focuses solely on the political conduct and institutional signals surrounding the move to scrap the office.

Statement of dissent

2. In the matter of the move to abolish the Office of the Special Prosecutor, the public is being presented with a strange and troubling picture. The President, John Dramani Mahama, says publicly that it is too early to scrap the office and that it should be kept and strengthened, yet his main lieutenants in Parliament – the Leader of Government Business and the Chief Whip – are leading the charge to kill it off.  One voice from the Presidency, another from the front bench he controls; the ordinary citizen is left to ask: which one is the real voice of government?
3. Good government is not a game of smoke and mirrors. When a state claims to be serious about fighting corruption, it must say what it means and mean what it says. Here, the President appears in the open square as a friend of the OSP, while his own leaders in Parliament busy themselves drafting its death warrant.  That is not straight dealing. It is double‑speech, and it does not appear to come with clean hands.

The relevant facts – who said what, and when

4. The facts, taken in order, make the picture clearer – and worse. On 3 December 2025, private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu, a seasoned lawyer widely regarded by some senior figures in the NDC as “one of their own”, was arrested and detained by the Office of the Special Prosecutor.  He had publicly poured scorn on the OSP’s work, describing it as ineffective and making a series of unproven allegations of corruption against the Special Prosecutor, which earned him a formal invitation from the OSP to substantiate his claims.  It was in the course of honouring that invitation at the OSP’s office that a confrontation reportedly occurred between him and some officers, leading to his arrest on allegations of obstruction and his detention for several hours before being granted bail.
5. His arrest quickly provoked a firestorm. Senior NDC figures, including members of the Majority leadership, denounced the OSP’s conduct and framed it as an abuse of power, while prominent voices such as former Speaker Prof. Aaron Mike Oquaye of the opposition NPP also condemned aspects of the OSP’s handling of the matter, including the strict bail conditions.  A day later, the Majority Leader, Mahama Ayariga, stood on the floor of Parliament to say, in clear terms, that the Office of the Special Prosecutor should be abolished, arguing that it was unconstitutional, ineffective and that its resources should be reallocated to the Attorney‑General.  At the same sitting, the Majority Chief Whip, Rockson‑Nelson Dafeamekpor, set the tone by attacking the OSP over Kpebu’s arrest and signalling that Parliament must confront the office, effectively lighting the fuse for the repeal campaign.
6. They did not speak alone. Speaker Alban Bagbin openly lent support to calls for the law to be repealed and the office scrapped, while former Speaker Prof. Mike Oquaye, now a senior statesman of the NPP, added his voice from outside the chamber, questioning the OSP’s conduct and aligning with the view that the institution had outlived its usefulness.  Other prominent personalities, including former Ghana Bar Association president Sam Okudzeto, joined the chorus, describing the OSP as ineffective and calling for it to be abolished.  Step by step, a coalition of political and legal heavyweights formed around one simple message: dismantle the office.
7. Against this steady build‑up over several days, one detail stands out. The President chose to speak on the matter only today – roughly a week after his lieutenants and allied voices had already announced their intention to lead the crusade against the OSP and after public pressure had mounted over the Kpebu affair – and, by no coincidence it seems, on the very day the draft Bill to scrap the office surfaced in the public domain.  The timing raises troubling questions that will not go away merely because they are inconvenient. Meanwhile, reports indicate that a flurry of petitions has already been filed at the Presidency, urging the removal of the Special Prosecutor from office, adding yet another layer of pressure on the institution. Mr Martin Kpebu himself has publicly stated that he is preparing one such petition, moving from criticism in the media to formal steps aimed at unseating the very officer whose mandate he questions.

A watcher’s view of Parliament

8. As a keen watcher of Parliament, it is important to acknowledge a simple truth: Members of Parliament are entitled to exercise their lawful legislative duties as they see fit. The Majority Leader and the Majority Chief Whip may well insist that they are acting on their own steam, driven by their own convictions about the OSP’s record and constitutionality.  But no one should pretend that they would be bold enough to attempt such a far‑reaching experiment if they had no assurances that the move would succeed on the floor; they know their numbers, and they know their caucus.
9. Equally troubling are the signs that some elements within the Minority NPP appear to be in cahoots with the demolition agenda, seeing in this moment an opportunity for revenge after the OSP went after them or their preferred figures over allegations of corruption and corruption‑related offences. For such actors, the abolition of the OSP is not about principled institutional design, but about settling scores and ensuring that a body which once troubled them will trouble them no more.

The Attorney‑General and the return to old habits

10. There is another uncomfortable fact. The work of the OSP is to be handed back to the Attorney‑General’s Office. On paper, that may sound neat. In practice, it brings us back to an old and familiar problem. This is the same Attorney‑General’s Office that, not long ago, rushed to file one nolle prosequi after another to end criminal cases involving NDC loyalists and close allies. Cases that started with what some have called “great promise” under the Nana Addo administration ended with quiet notices, and accused persons walked free, prompting public criticism that the Attorney General was too willing to drop sensitive cases.
11. The OSP was created precisely because many Ghanaians had lost faith in the willingness of the Attorney‑General – as both government’s lawyer and public prosecutor – to pursue powerful people when it really mattered. To now say that the cure for the OSP’s problems is to abolish it and return everything to the Attorney‑General is to pretend that this history never happened.  That is not reform. It is a return to the old comfort zone, where difficult cases can be managed, softened or quietly dropped away from the scrutiny of an independent prosecutor.

Questions that demand answers

12. When a government’s story does not fit the facts, questions must be asked, and asked sharply. If the President truly believes the OSP should stay and be strengthened, why did he wait about a week before saying so, after his Majority Leader and Chief Whip had already flown the flag for abolition and after senior allies had joined in?  Why speak only today – the very day the Bill to scrap the office has become public? Is this conviction, or damage control?
13. Did the President discuss this matter with his lieutenants, at least at Cabinet, before they went out to declare war on the OSP? If he did, what was agreed? If he did not, what does that say about the level of influence or control he has over those who lead government business in Parliament?  What, moreover, is the position of the Attorney‑General? Will the Attorney‑General issue a written opinion opposing the Bill, if he truly believes the OSP is needed, or will he stay silent and prepare to inherit the mandate once the deed is done?
14. Then comes the hardest question of all: has the President become a lame duck too soon? Will he simply stand by and watch his overwhelming majority in Parliament vote to scrap an office he says must stay, or will he use his authority to insist that his public word and his party’s parliamentary actions must match?  These are not rude questions. They are the natural questions any thinking citizen must ask when words and deeds clash in so stark a fashion.

NDC’s promised “reset” and the test of power

15. The NDC came into the ninth Parliament promising a “reset”: to govern differently, to respect institutions, and not to abuse its overwhelming majority. Yet, in this affair, it is failing that test in at least three ways. First, by fronting a rushed crusade to scrap a key accountability institution in the heat of a controversy involving “one of their own”, it sends the signal that power will be used to protect allies rather than to protect the public interest.  Second, by allowing its parliamentary leadership to take a position that openly contradicts the President’s stated line, it undermines internal coherence and weakens the credibility of both the Executive and the Legislature.  Third, by choosing abolition rather than serious, transparent reform, it shows a willingness to use numerical strength not to build better institutions, but to unbuild those that cause discomfort – the very abuse of majority power it vowed to avoid.

A simple lesson for a serious democracy

16. A mature democracy does not tear down its own checks and balances at the first sign of discomfort. It may criticise them, review them and repair them. But it does not reach for the axe before it has even tried the tools of reform. If there are real problems with the OSP – in law, in structure, in performance – Parliament has the power to fix them.  That is the proper work of legislators acting in good faith, not the work of undertakers rushing to close the coffin.
17. By choosing the path of abolition, wrapped in mixed signals and timed statements, the Mahama government sends a message that will echo far beyond this Parliament. It tells public officers that if an independent office becomes too bold, it can be removed.  It tells citizens and whistle‑blowers that institutions meant to fight corruption are only as strong as the comfort of those in power.  And it tells future leaders that when they face the same temptations, they too may use Parliament to undo any institution that stands in their way.
18. In a court of public opinion, a dissenting opinion does not carry the force of the so called majority, but it preserves the principle that should not be lost. So it is here. There was another way: to be honest with the public, to align the President’s words with parliamentary action, and to reform the OSP rather than bury it.  On that choice, this column parts company with those who would scrap the office.
19. On the move to abolish the Office of the Special Prosecutor – with its twisted timing, its conflicting signals, its return to old habits under Attorney General and its unanswered questions – the verdict of Sky Dissenting is clear: dissent, and dissent strongly.

PS: I have since become aware of a Facebook post made this evening by the Deputy Attorney General Justice Sai. He says: “I can confirm that a citizen – Noah E. Tetteh  – has sued the Attorney-General in Supreme Court suit number J1/3/2026.

HIS GROUNDS: Parliament has no power to set up an office of a prosecutor which is independent and outside the control of the Attorney-General.

HIS RELIEF: An order to strike down … the provisions of Act 959 that confer autonomous prosecutorial authority on the Office of the Special Prosecutor or insulate it from the Attorney-General’s constitutional control.

Da yie.”

-rD.s