Lawyer Martin Kpebu has publicly questioned the managerial competence of Special Prosecutor Kissi Agyebeng, particularly concerning the timing of the pursuit of former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta. Kpebu’s central argument revolves around the perceived delayed action by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) in investigating Ofori-Atta, contrasting it with the sudden urgency displayed after the former minister’s departure for medical treatment abroad. He highlights the Strategic Mobilisation Limited (SML) case, which surfaced in December 2023, as a prime example of this alleged inaction. Kpebu contends that the OSP had ample time throughout 2024 to investigate this matter, especially considering the significant influx of 180 new staff members starting in September 2023. These new personnel, according to Kpebu, had sufficient opportunity to acclimate to their roles before the SML case emerged, making the delay in initiating investigations even more perplexing.
Kpebu’s critique underscores the apparent discrepancy between the OSP’s prolonged inaction and the sudden declaration of Ofori-Atta as a fugitive after his departure for medical care. This timing, Kpebu argues, raises serious questions about Agyebeng’s managerial capabilities and suggests a potential lack of proactive investigation. The lawyer emphasizes that the OSP’s declaration appears reactive rather than strategically planned, implying a failure to prioritize and effectively utilize resources. The timing also creates the impression that the OSP’s actions are influenced by external factors rather than a consistent pursuit of justice.
The Special Prosecutor, Kissi Agyebeng, has declared Ken Ofori-Atta a fugitive in connection with four high-profile corruption investigations. These investigations involve allegations related to the National Cathedral project, Strategic Mobilisation Limited (SML), and two other undisclosed cases. Agyebeng’s declaration, made during a press conference in Accra, calls for Ofori-Atta’s voluntary return to Ghana, with the implied threat of forced repatriation if he fails to comply. This declaration follows Ofori-Atta’s departure from Ghana for medical treatment, adding further complexity to the situation.
Kpebu’s concerns highlight the potential implications of the OSP’s perceived delayed action. The timing of the declaration, coming after Ofori-Atta’s departure for medical treatment, could be interpreted as an attempt to pressure him while he is vulnerable. This perception could undermine public trust in the OSP’s impartiality and commitment to due process. Furthermore, the delay in initiating investigations, especially with the available resources and time, could raise questions about the OSP’s effectiveness in combating corruption.
The core issue at stake is the perceived discrepancy between the OSP’s resources and its actions. Kpebu points to the 180 new staff members as evidence of the OSP’s capacity to conduct thorough and timely investigations. The alleged inaction, despite this increased capacity, casts doubt on the OSP’s utilization of its resources and its commitment to proactively pursuing corruption cases. This raises broader questions about the effectiveness of the OSP in fulfilling its mandate and holding powerful individuals accountable.
In summary, the controversy surrounding the OSP’s pursuit of Ken Ofori-Atta centers on the timing of the investigation and the perceived delay in taking action. Kpebu’s critique raises concerns about Agyebeng’s managerial abilities and the OSP’s effectiveness in utilizing its resources. The timing of the declaration, following Ofori-Atta’s departure for medical treatment, and the alleged delay in investigating the SML case, despite the availability of time and personnel, contribute to the perception of reactive rather than proactive investigation. This situation underscores the importance of transparency and timely action in upholding public trust in institutions tasked with combating corruption.
