A Private Legal Practitioner with Hesse and Hesse and legal counsel for an applicant, Elvis Kwabena Awuah in a case against the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), Awuka Apuureyure Alenyorige Esq is challenging the eligibility of officers representing the OSP stating that they lack capacity are not proper officers of the state, describing their continued stay in office as an illegality and impersonation.
Speaking in an interview with Daily Analyst after adjournment of the case, explained that the business of the day was an application filed to dismiss the response from the OSP on the grounds that those appearing before the court to represent the Office lack capacity.
The OSP had responded with a reply in opposition, and both applications were slated for hearing.
The counsel said, however, that the OSP brought a fresh application arguing that the processes served on them were not referred to the Attorney-General, implying that they fall under the Office of the Attorney-General.
The lawyer stated that as at the time the application was filed, the OSP was operating on its own authority, and that a Supreme Court ruling does not take away its prosecutorial authority but only affirms that the Attorney-General has overriding authority to step in at any point during prosecution.
Lawyer Awuka stressed that the main issue before the court is whether persons parading themselves as officers of the OSP have been properly appointed and sworn in by law to act for and on behalf of the Special Prosecutor.
Lawyer Awuka explained that by the OSP’s own law and the Oaths Act, there are prescribed persons who can administer oaths.
He cited L.I. 2374 and its Second Schedule (Regulations 35 and 38), which provides that the Chief Justice shall designate a High Court Judge or any other qualified person to administer the Oath of Office and Oath of Secrecy before appointed employees can be deemed officers of the state.
According to him, a scrutiny of all records shows that apart from the Special Prosecutor and his Deputy who were properly appointed by the President and sworn in by the President, the Special Prosecutor himself assumed a role not assigned to him under the L.I., stepping into the shoes of the Chief Justice and Attorney-General to swear in the so-called employees of the Office.
The counsel said there are no records to show that the employees of OSP were properly sworn in, and it is therefore presumed that the whole office, apart from its heads, is being run by persons not legally recognized as state officers, perpetuating an illegality.
In his humble opinion, he argued, the situation amounts to “wonderful impersonation,” as the L.I. does not name the Special Prosecutor as a person qualified to administer oaths, and any person so sworn in by him acted outside his mandate and must be regarded as impersonating public officers.
The legal counsel added that the defence’s claim that the Attorney-General was not notified contradicts their earlier position that the Attorney-General has no authority over them, noting that if necessary, the Attorney-General can be added by amendment, and that they have already written to the Attorney-General for clarification on compliance with L.I. 2374.
The case has been adjourned to 26th November,2026 for the court to make a determination after processes are filed.
By Prosper Kwaku Selassy Agbitor
About The Author
