The Minority in Parliament has accused the Attorney-General of engaging in what it describes as a “constitutional betrayal” in the ongoing legal dispute over the prosecutorial powers of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP).

Addressing journalists in Accra on Tuesday, April 21, the Deputy Ranking Member of Parliament’s Select Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, Alhassan Tampuli, criticised the Attorney-General’s posture in the case of Adamtey v. Attorney-General currently before the Supreme Court of Ghana.

According to him, the Attorney-General was expected to defend the legal framework establishing the OSP but had instead taken a position that undermines it.

Tampuli cited an affidavit filed on April 8, 2026, in which the Attorney-General argued that the establishment of the OSP in its current form is unconstitutional. The case was initiated by Noah Ephraem Tetteh Adamtey, who contends that Parliament exceeded its authority by creating the OSP under the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959) and that its independent prosecutorial powers violate the Constitution.

In a development that has drawn widespread attention, the Attorney-General’s office largely aligned with the plaintiff’s argument, raising concerns about the state’s defence in the matter.

The Minority Caucus described this stance as unprecedented, warning that it could undermine Ghana’s anti-corruption efforts.

“The Attorney General is the defendant in Adamtey v. the Attorney General. He was served as the party expected to defend the state’s legal framework. Instead and sadly so, the Attorney General turned his weapon on his own client, the Republic of Ghana and became an auxiliary plaintiff.

“The state’s chief legal officer is now arguing in the highest court of the land that an Act of Parliament enacted by the people’s representatives to fight corruption is unconstitutional. It is in the Minority’s view, an act of constitutional betrayal without precedence in the fourth republic,” Tampuli said.

The caucus is also demanding that the Attorney-General be summoned before Parliament to explain his position in the case, insisting that his actions run contrary to his duty to defend the state’s legal and institutional framework.