Legal Scholar Accuses Special Prosecutor of Flouting Justice Principles in Ex-Minister Probe

Prominent Ghanaian lawyer Thaddeus Sory has launched a scathing critique of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), accusing it of violating fundamental principles of natural justice in its handling of a high-profile investigation involving a former Finance Minister.

At the heart of his rebuke is the age-old legal doctrine audi alteram partem—the right to be heard before condemnation—a principle he argues was ignored by the OSP in a recent controversial incident.

The dispute stems from reports that state officials entered the residence of the former minister, sparking a public clash between the OSP and other government bodies. Special Prosecutor Kissi Agyebeng initially labeled the officials’ actions as “roguish,” claiming they lacked legal basis. But Sory, in a detailed analysis published Thursday, argued that the OSP overstepped its authority by condemning the officials without first seeking their explanation.

“Declaring an action wrongful—or even criminal—without knowing the full facts is a dangerous precedent,” Sory wrote, drawing parallels to biblical accounts of divine justice. He referenced God’s decision to confront Adam and Eve after the Fall rather than punish them unheard, and Jesus’ admonition against judging others without evidence. “Even the Almighty applied this rule,” Sory noted. “Who then is the Special Prosecutor to disregard it?”

Central to the controversy is the OSP’s public apology to the former minister after the incident. Sory questioned why Agyebeng apologized when he had no direct involvement in the officials’ actions, suggesting it revealed either “fear” or an attempt to “court friendship” with the ex-minister. He contrasted this with the OSP’s earlier complaints about judicial delays and the minister’s absence, urging the office to “focus on results, not storytelling.”

“If you believe you have evidence, prosecute,” Sory asserted, pointing to legal provisions for trials in absentia. “Wasting time on grandstanding while alleging financial loss to the state is ironic—you yourself may be causing that loss through inefficiency.”

The critique also took aim at Parliament, which intervened with an apology to the ex-minister. Sory challenged lawmakers’ consistency, asking why similar gestures weren’t extended to other citizens like “the abducted Emirati woman or Bongo Ideas.” He further disputed claims of parliamentary immunity protecting the ex-minister from investigation: “Is he above searches or arrests? If not, why the exceptional treatment?”

Sory, who has frequently defended clients against arbitrary state actions, emphasized the risks of undermining security agencies’ mandates. He revealed that the officials involved were executing an arrest warrant linked to a formal report—a fact the OSP allegedly failed to verify before its public statements. “These same officials recently intercepted counterfeit currency and illegal gold shipments without fanfare,” he noted. “Their work speaks for itself, unlike the OSP’s performative complaints.”

The broader critique touches on Ghana’s struggle to balance accountability with due process. Sory warned that the OSP’s approach risks normalizing prejudgment in a justice system already strained by political tensions. “When state institutions publicly clash without facts, they erode public trust,” he wrote. “The solution isn’t melodrama—it’s adherence to the law, even when inconvenient.”

As debates over the OSP’s effectiveness intensify, Sory’s intervention highlights a growing concern: in the rush to combat corruption, Ghana’s guardians of justice must not become its underminers. For now, the ball lies in the OSP’s court—to either substantiate its claims through lawful process or heed the timeless admonition: hear first, judge later.