The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) has initiated steps to challenge a High Court ruling that questioned its authority to prosecute in the ongoing “rice scandal” case involving Issah Seidu and three others.
The ruling, delivered by a High Court (General Jurisdiction 10), directed that the case be referred to the Attorney-General for prosecution after the court held that the OSP lacks an independent prosecutorial mandate.
The OSP has rejected the decision, insisting that the court overstepped its jurisdiction. It maintains that only the Supreme Court has the authority to determine the constitutionality of legislation, including provisions of the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959).
In a statement, the anti-graft body said it is taking urgent steps to overturn the ruling, stressing that its mandate remains valid and in force until the Supreme Court determines otherwise.
The development has resulted in a legal standoff, as a separate High Court (Criminal Division) handling the same case had earlier dismissed an application by the accused persons seeking to strike out the charges.
That court subsequently adjourned proceedings to await a Supreme Court ruling on a related matter challenging the prosecutorial powers of the OSP.
Despite the differing positions taken by the two courts, the OSP maintains that all prosecutions it has initiated remain valid and will proceed.
The Office further assured the public of its commitment to pursuing corruption-related cases within the confines of its legal mandate, pending a final determination by the Supreme Court.
Read the press statement in full below:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Conflicting Court Decisions Arise in Republic v. Issah Seidu & 3 Others (Rice Scandal Case)
Accra, Ghana — Proceedings in the case of Republic v. Issah Seidu & 3 Others (Suit No. CR/0513/2025), widely referred to as the “rice scandal case”, have taken divergent paths before two courts of concurrent jurisdiction. The accused persons are currently standing trial before the High Court (Criminal Division), where proceedings remain ongoing.
The Criminal Court dismissed an application by the accused persons seeking to strike out the case. The judge adjourned proceedings to await a determination by the Supreme Court on a matter in which both the plaintiff and the Attorney-General (the defendant) are challenging the independent prosecutorial power of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP).
In a parallel development, the accused persons initiated a separate action at the High Court (General Jurisdiction 10). In contrast to the Criminal Court, the General Jurisdiction judge declined an application by the OSP to adjourn proceedings pending the outcome of the matter before the Supreme Court. The judge decided that the OSP lacks independent prosecutorial mandate. The judge directed that the case be referred to the Attorney-General for prosecution.
These developments have resulted in two distinct judicial positions regarding the prosecutorial authority of the OSP in the same matter.
The OSP states that it is taking steps to quickly overturn the decision of the General Jurisdiction Court since the High Court does not have jurisdiction to, in effect, strike down parts of an Act of Parliament as unconstitutional. It is only the Supreme Court which can strike down parts of an Act of Parliament as unconstitutional.
The OSP firmly assures the public that all the criminal prosecutions it has commenced before the courts and all the criminal prosecutions it is about to commence before the courts remain valid and would proceed based on its mandate under the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959), which remains valid and in force as the matter has not been decided by the Supreme Court
