Filed by: Hafiz Timbile
Amid a heated national debate over the relevance and performance of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), President John Dramani Mahama has described calls for its closure as premature, urging Ghanaians to give the anti-corruption agency more time to deliver results.
The President acknowledged public impatience with the speed of investigations and prosecutions but stressed that abandoning the OSP at this stage would be hasty.
“I understand people want to see quick results. So I think the OSP should speed up its cases to show people that the office is still relevant.” Mr. Mahama made these comments while addressing the Peace Council at a recent courtesy call paid on him at Presidency.
The President reaffirms his administration’s commitment to accountability and the fight against corruption, thus, insists the existence of the OSP is important at the moment.
His remarks come as prominent voices in Parliament, led by Majority Leader Mahama Ayariga, push for the abolition of the OSP, arguing that the institution has failed to achieve its mandate despite significant budgetary support. Ayariga has suggested that responsibilities be transferred to the Attorney-General’s Office to streamline anti-corruption efforts.
Proponents of scrapping the OSP highlight what they see as limited demonstrable impact on high-profile corruption and question why the office continues to receive resources when outcomes appear scant. Some MPs and commentators have described the body as “struggling for relevance” and point to recent controversies — including the arrest of a private legal practitioner, Martin Kpebu — as a sign of deeper challenges.
However, critics of its abolition argue that dismantling the institution now could weaken Ghana’s anti-corruption architecture. Some anti-graft campaigners and legal experts insist that continued corruption in Ghana means the OSP still has a vital role to play, and that reforms — rather than abolition — offer a better path forward. They caution against conflating current leadership issues with the value of the institution itself.
Others posit that the persistence of corruption underscores the need for robust and focused anti-corruption mechanisms rather than their elimination.
