Former Special Prosecutor, Martin Amidu, has accused the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) of unconstitutionality over its recent Labianca report.

According to Mr Amidu, the investigative report and the directive for the payment of GHC 1,074,627.15 do not form part of the mandate laid out for the OSP in the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959)

In an article, the former Special Prosecutor added that the report is also inconsistent with the 1992 Constitution.

"It constitutes an impermissible persecution of mere witnesses in the court of public opinion by the OSP instead of in a court of law," part of the statement read.

Per Mr Amidu, the report "was purportedly made in pursuance of the exercise of the investigatory functions of the OSP into corruption and corruption-related offences in accordance with the functions of the Office contained in section 3 of the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act (959) and Regulations 5, 6, and 7 of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (Operations) Regulations, 2018 (L. I. 2374) dealing with preliminary inquiry, investigation, full investigation, and investigation panels. These are the only provisions of the law governing the mandate of the Office referred to in the OSP report on the Labianca case as grounding the report."

On August 8, 2022, the OSP published an investigative report which revealed that Labianca Group of Companies, a frozen foods company owned by a member of the Council of State, Eunice Jacqueline Buah Asomah-Hinneh, evaded import duties in excess of ¢1.074 million.

The OSP contended that Ms Asomah-Hinneh used her position as a member of the Council of State and member of the Board of Directors of the Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority (GPHA) to get a favourable decision from the Customs Division.

But according to Mr Amidu, "the OSP Labianca report does not disclose the commission of any corruption and corruption-related offences upon which the suspects or accused were cautioned or charged, if they were indeed cautioned or charged.”

He continued, stating that the OSP failed to ensure that "a person shall not be convicted of a criminal

offence unless the offence is defined and the penalty for it is prescribed in a written law."

Mr Amidu revealed that the OSP is an investigatory, prosecutorial and a corruption prevention agency and not a

commission of enquiry "whose unchallenged adverse findings may after the constitutionally specified period of time be deemed to be a judgment of the High Court appealable to the Court of Appeal."

The Labianca Report Published by the Osp is Hollow, Wihtout Mandate and Unconstitutional by ogbarmey-tettey andy on Scribd