The Minority in Parliament has accused the Attorney General of exceeding his constitutional mandate by directly involving himself in investigations, arrests, and raids targeting former government officials.

According to the caucus, the Attorney General’s role is to provide legal guidance to investigative bodies and support the judiciary, rather than take on the responsibilities of law enforcement agencies. They argue that his actions not only overreach his authority but also compromise the independence of the legal system.

Speaking at a press briefing on Monday, March 24, Second Deputy Minority Whip Jerry Ahmed Shaib criticised the Attorney General’s conduct, insisting that he was acting beyond his jurisdiction.

“The Attorney General is an officer of the court. His interest is to assist the court in dispensing justice when investigators bring their case and evidence. The posture of the new AG undermines this role. He is no longer acting as an officer of the court but instead acting as someone who has conducted his own inquisition, determined the guilt of a suspect, and is seeking to force his views on the court,” he asserted.

The Minority also condemned the recent operation at the residence of former Bank of Ghana Governor, Dr. Ernest Addison, describing it as an unjustified raid. They revealed that the National Security Coordinator had personally apologised to Dr. Addison—an action they believe confirms the illegality of the operation.

Raising concerns about the conduct of security operatives, Shaib questioned the legitimacy of the exercise.

“If indeed a court-issued warrant existed, why was it not presented to Dr. Addison before or during the raid? Why was force used to overpower his private security? Why was the CCTV camera dismantled and taken away? Transparency is a hallmark that ensures lawful enforcement.”

He further argued that the government's actions were shrouded in doubt, making their legality questionable.

“No amount of legal or public relations spin can undo the facts. Dr. Addison’s home was raided under highly questionable circumstances. If their actions were truly lawful and above board, why did the National Security Coordinator feel compelled to apologise? If there was no wrongdoing, what exactly was the apology for?” he asked.