Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, has defended the High Court’s recent ruling on the powers of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), insisting that the court correctly held that the OSP Act cannot override the Constitution.He argued that the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act is an ordinary Act of Parliament and therefore cannot alter the constitutional powers vested exclusively in the Attorney-General under Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution.Speaking on The Law with Samson Lardy Anyenini on JoyNews on Sunday, July 26, Dr Srem-Sai said the judge had no basis to conclude that the OSP Act amended the Constitution.The OSP Act “is an ordinary legislation passed under Article 106, not under the constitutional amendment procedures. So, it is difficult for me to say or to accept the view that the OSP Act has changed the provision of the Constitution,” he said.According to Dr Srem-Sai, Ghana’s Constitution provides a clear procedure for amending its provisions, and no ordinary legislation can be used to circumvent that process. The discussion was on the operations of the OSP and its recent Quo Warranto ruling. “The judge (in the OSP case) said from his findings that there is a way that we can amend the Constitution, and that is prescribed by law. It’s in the Constitution. It’s a step-by-step procedure.”He noted that the various constitutional review commissions and committees established over the years were founded on the understanding that constitutional provisions could only be altered through the amendment process set out in the Constitution.“This whole idea of Constitution Review Commission, Constitution Review Committee and Constitution Review Implementation Committee, what we have been doing from 2010, is because we all agree and understand that the only way we could amend the Constitution is to go by the process of amendment specified by the Constitution.”Dr Srem-Sai further pointed to previous Supreme Court decisions, saying the apex court had consistently ruled that Parliament could not amend constitutional provisions through ordinary legislation.“There have been several cases where Parliament sought to make changes to things that were in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has been emphatic that you cannot do so without using the special procedures for amendment.”He also rejected suggestions that the High Court had erred in concluding that the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act could not supersede the Constitution.“It is difficult for me to say that the judge’s conclusion is not correct. I don’t know how else anyone could have concluded, considering that the OSP Act is not an amendment of the Constitution.”Dr Srem-Sai maintained that because the Constitution remains the supreme law of Ghana, any legislation that appears inconsistent with its provisions cannot be interpreted as having amended the Constitution unless Parliament follows the prescribed constitutional amendment process.The High Court’s ruling generated widespread discussion among legal practitioners and governance experts over the constitutional limits of the Office of the Special Prosecutor’s prosecutorial mandate and its relationship with the Attorney-General’s Office.Supreme Court sets July 29 for verdict on powers of OSPThe Supreme Court will on July 29, 2026, deliver judgment in a suit challenging the prosecutorial powers of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP).A seven-member panel, chaired by Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, fixed the date after parties concluded arguments in the case brought by private legal practitioner, Noah Adamtey.Mr Adamtey is challenging the constitutionality of the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959), arguing that it unlawfully grants the OSP independent prosecutorial authority.He is seeking a declaration that provisions of the Act conferring original and insulated prosecutorial powers on the OSP are inconsistent with Articles 1 (2), 88 (3) and (4), 93 (2) and 296 of the 1992 Constitution and are, therefore, null and void.He further contends that Sections 3 (3) and 4 of Act 959, which make the OSP independent of the Attorney-General in initiating, conducting and terminating prosecutions, violate the Constitution.The Attorney-General, represented by Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, maintains that Article 88 (3) vests prosecutorial authority solely in the Attorney-General. He argues that Parliament acted unconstitutionally by requiring the Attorney-General to delegate part of those powers to the OSP.According to him, the law effectively limits the Attorney-General’s constitutional responsibility for prosecuting criminal offences by carving out cases for the OSP.In January, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected an application by the OSP to join the case as an interested party. The court held that the constitutional issues raised could be fully determined between the plaintiff and the Attorney-General without the OSP’s direct participation.However, the court accepted an application by 14 civil society organisations to join the proceedings. Their lawyer, Kizito Beyuo, argued that the groups played a key role in the establishment of the OSP and possess expertise that could assist the court.The organisations, including Transparency International Ghana, CDD-Ghana, IMANI Africa and Ghana Anti-Corruption Coalition, say their intervention is motivated by a commitment to constitutionalism, accountability, anti-corruption and the preservation of independent public institutions.