Unprecedented parliamentary push threatens the OSP
The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) finds itself at the center of a heated political clash as lawmakers move to abolish or fundamentally redefine its mandate. In a period marked by intense parliamentary activity, Special Prosecutor Kissi Agyebeng has framed the final six months of 2025 as a moment of “extreme resistance,” arguing that the bid to terminate the OSP’s independence is not only procedural reform but a coordinated existential threat.
The OSP has positioned itself as a central pillar in the nation’s anti-corruption architecture. Proponents of abolition argue for streamlining oversight, while opponents warn that dissolving or undermining the OSP would erode checks and balances that wealthy campaigns for accountability rely on. The current controversy, therefore, sits at the crossroads of governance, public trust, and the mechanics of anti-corruption work.
The prosecutor’s critique: why the move is deemed unfair
According to the Half-Yearly Report, Agyebeng describes the parliamentary initiative as unfair for several reasons. First, he notes a lack of broad consensus and due process in the legislative maneuver. Second, the timing is controversial: the OSP has just begun new investigations that could cross high-profile corridors of public life, prompting fears among supporters of stronger oversight that key cases may be deprioritized or dismissed.
Critics of abolition argue that dismantling or shrinking the OSP would leave a vacuum in investigative capability, especially in a political climate where corruption allegations are often high-stakes. The Special Prosecutor contends that the move would obstruct ongoing investigations and degrade the country’s image internationally, where clear, independent anti-corruption bodies are considered essential for investor confidence and rule-of-law credibility.
Arguments from both sides
Supporters of the abolition effort claim that reforming the OSP could reduce duplication, improve efficiency, and integrate anti-corruption work with other law-enforcement functions. They argue that Parliament should be empowered to reimagine the investigative landscape to better reflect evolving governance needs.
Opponents counter that any reorganization must preserve independence, resource guarantees, and functional autonomy. They warn that reducing the OSP’s scope could slow critical investigations, undermine case integrity, and politicize prosecutions. In this view, independence is not a luxury but a necessity for credible accountability.
What happens next? Implications for governance and citizens
The parliamentary bid has immediate and longer-term implications. In the near term, the OSP’s ability to protect whistleblowers, pursue corruption with impartiality, and maintain public confidence could be tested by political maneuvering. The situation also raises questions about how checks and balances function when a specialized office channels its investigative authority through legislative reform that could reshape its mandate.
For citizens, the outcome matters in practical terms: the integrity of procurement processes, the transparency of public spending, and the perceived fairness of the justice system. The debate underscores a broader demand for robust, independent institutions that can withstand political pressure while delivering clear, evidence-based accountability.
What to watch in the coming weeks
Observers will be watching for amendments, committee debates, and possible cross-party consensus that could either safeguard the OSP’s autonomy or redefine its remit. The Special Prosecutor’s office has signaled readiness to engage with lawmakers, but it also warns that any talk of abolition must be weighed against the risks to ongoing investigations and the country’s anti-corruption credibility.
Ultimately, the question facing Parliament is whether reform should strengthen or diminish the tools available to combat corruption. As Agyebeng has suggested, the answer should rest on principles of fairness, due process, and the protection of independence that enables the OSP—and by extension, the public—to hold power to account.
