Supreme Court did not strip OSP of its independent powers, says Martin Amidu

Amidu's argument centers on the Attorney-General's power to enter a nolle prosequi. He asserts that Parliament had already modified the law to recognize the Special Prosecutor as a distinct prosecuting authority for corruption and corruption-related cases. He cited Section 80 of Act 959, which amended provisions of the Economic and Organised Crime Office Act and the Criminal and Other Offences Procedure Act.

These amendments included inserting "or Special Prosecutor" after "Attorney-General" in relevant prosecution provisions and requiring the Special Prosecutor to provide reasons for entering a nolle prosequi. Amidu emphasized Parliament's constitutional authority to enact these changes, stating that while the Attorney-General's common law prosecutorial discretion is not subject to court review, Parliament retains the power to amend or modify these through legislation. He argues that the Attorney-General's general constitutional powers should not override the specific powers Parliament granted to the Special Prosecutor under Act 959.

Amidu had previously warned about the potential impact if Section 802 of Act 959 were declared unconstitutional, but after reviewing the judgment, he concludes that this did not occur