The Supreme Court has dismissed an application by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) seeking to be joined as a party to a constitutional suit challenging the legality of the Office.
A private citizen and lawyer Noah Adamtey has filed a suit at the apex court, challenging the legality of the powers granted to the office under the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959).
In its ruling, the highest court of the land held that the OSP is not a necessary party to the suit filed against the Attorney-General, and consequently refused the application for joinder.
The application was argued by counsel for the OSP, Dr. Isidore Tufuor, who contended that the reliefs sought in the substantive action directly affect the OSP, particularly Sections 4 and 33 of Act 959, which define the mandate and prosecutorial powers of the office.
He maintained that even though the suit appears to be directed at the State, it fundamentally questions the constitutionality of the powers exercised by the OSP.
However, opposing the application, Deputy Attorney-General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai argued that the OSP has no independent interest in the matter, stressing that it is Parliament, as the creator of the office, that must answer for the constitutionality of the law establishing it.
Mr. Adamtey, the plaintiff, also opposed the joinder, submitting that the OSP’s role was misconceived and that the office did not possess any private or proprietary interest capable of justifying its participation as a party to the suit.
After hearing submissions from all sides, the Supreme Court ruled that the issues raised in the substantive action can be effectively determined without the participation of the OSP.
It concluded that the office is not required for the just and effectual determination of the case.
