The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has raised serious concerns about the effectiveness of Ghana’s Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), warning that the institution risks continued failure in prosecuting major corruption cases due to fundamental structural weaknesses.
According to the IMF’s Ghana Governance Diagnostic Assessment released this month, a key weakness undermining the OSP’s performance is the absence of a clear, consistent and enforceable charging policy to guide prosecutorial decisions.
The report notes that although the OSP has been legally empowered since its establishment under the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959), it lacks the internal systems needed to determine when a case has met the legal and evidential threshold to proceed to court.
The IMF states that “there is currently no clear and consistent policy in place at the OSP which determines when a case meets the legal and evidential burdens for proceeding to charge and assessing whether it is likely to result in a conviction.”
According to the Fund, this policy gap has led to inconsistencies in decision-making, with prosecutors lacking a uniform benchmark for assessing evidence, determining readiness for prosecution, or evaluating the likelihood of success in court. As a result, cases may be prematurely filed, abandoned midway, or inconsistently pursued, depending on who handles them.
The IMF links these challenges directly to the OSP’s limited success in securing high-level corruption convictions, noting that “successful high-level prosecutions are not common and, unless action is taken, this could remain the case for a long time.”
Beyond the absence of a charging policy, the report identifies broader capacity constraints at the OSP, including shortages in staffing, training, technical tools and investigative equipment. While the OSP has the legal authority to investigate and prosecute corruption-related offences, the IMF says it “lacks sufficient resources” to effectively pursue complex, high-profile cases.
The report observes that suspects in major corruption cases often have access to well-resourced defence teams equipped with modern technology and methods, placing the OSP at a disadvantage. It notes that the office operates with significant staff shortages, limited training in some areas and inadequate access to modern investigative tools.
These gaps, the IMF warns, not only affect courtroom outcomes but also hinder the OSP’s ability to investigate all cases referred to it, resulting in delays or the deprioritisation of potentially viable cases.
The Fund also raises concerns about transparency at the OSP, noting that only limited performance-related data is published on the institution’s website. It says it is unclear how many cases are initially assessed, how many progress to investigation, or how many are eventually prosecuted, and how frequently such information is updated.
Additionally, the IMF notes that available information suggests most OSP investigations and prosecutions involve individuals who do not currently hold, or have never held, senior government positions. In the absence of a publicly available case selection or prioritisation policy, the report says this creates room for speculation about the office’s prosecutorial focus.
The IMF further highlights what it describes as an “analysis gap” within the OSP, pointing out that the office does not systematically review why cases fail, stall or collapse. The report states that reasons for cases not being charged, withdrawn, dismissed or failing at trial are not routinely recorded, limiting the institution’s ability to identify recurring weaknesses.
To address these challenges, the IMF recommends that the OSP develop and implement a formal Charging Code. Such a code would require prosecutors to assess cases through a two-stage process: first, determining whether there is sufficient reliable and credible evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction; and second, assessing whether pursuing the case is in the public interest.
The Fund also urges the OSP to establish a comprehensive data and analytics system to document all cases, track outcomes and analyse trends. According to the IMF, this would help identify whether weaknesses stem from training gaps, inadequate tools, staffing shortages or inconsistent application of legal standards, and guide reforms aimed at improving prosecutorial effectiveness.
