A major legal controversy is unfolding in the justice system as conflicting decisions from two divisions of the High Court have created uncertainty over the prosecutorial authority of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) in the ongoing Republic v. Issah Seidu & 3 Others case, widely known as the “rice scandal.”

The case, filed as Suit No. CR/0513/2025, involves multiple accused persons, including Issah Seidu, who are facing charges related to an alleged scheme involving the unlawful acquisition of rice consignments through forged documentation.

The matter has been under active prosecution by the OSP as part of its broader mandate to investigate and prosecute corruption-related offences.

Proceedings initially continued before the High Court (Criminal Division), where the accused persons sought to have the charges struck out.

However, the Criminal Court dismissed the application, allowing the trial to proceed. The presiding judge subsequently adjourned the case, pending a determination by the Supreme Court of Ghana on a separate but related legal question—whether the OSP has the independent authority to initiate and conduct criminal prosecutions without recourse to the Attorney-General.

The pending Supreme Court case, involving both the plaintiff and the Attorney-General as defendants, is expected to provide a definitive constitutional interpretation of the OSP’s prosecutorial mandate under the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959), a matter that has remained contested since the establishment of the anti-corruption body.

While the Criminal Division opted to await the Supreme Court’s guidance, a parallel legal action initiated by the accused persons at the High Court (General Jurisdiction Division 10) took a markedly different turn.

In that court, the OSP applied for an adjournment of proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s decision.

However, the application was rejected.

In a decisive ruling, the General Jurisdiction court held that the OSP does not possess an independent prosecutorial mandate.

The court further directed that the case be transferred to the Attorney-General for prosecution, effectively sidelining the OSP from continuing its role in the matter.

This divergence in judicial reasoning between two courts of concurrent jurisdiction has resulted in a legal impasse, with both courts asserting differing positions on the same fundamental issue—the prosecutorial powers of the OSP in the same case.

Reacting to the development, the OSP has strongly contested the General Jurisdiction ruling and announced steps to overturn it. The office argues that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding that it effectively challenges the constitutionality of an Act of Parliament.

According to the OSP, only the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret or strike down provisions of legislation, including any aspect of Act 959. The anti-corruption body insists that until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, its mandate to investigate and prosecute corruption cases remains fully valid and enforceable.

“The Office firmly assures the public that all the criminal prosecutions it has commenced before the courts, and those it intends to initiate, remain valid,” the OSP stated, emphasizing that its operations continue under the existing legal framework.

The conflicting rulings have intensified scrutiny of the anti-corruption architecture and raised concerns among legal observers about consistency in judicial interpretation.

The anticipated Supreme Court ruling is now seen as crucial in resolving the constitutional question and restoring clarity to the prosecutorial authority of the OSP.

Until then, the “rice scandal” case stands as a test case for the limits of institutional power within the justice system, with broader implications for the country’s fight against corruption.