Paul Adom-Otchere has decided he’s done playing along without questions. The former Ghana Airports Company Limited board chairman filed a judicial review application at the High Court in Accra, challenging the Office of the Special Prosecutor’s authority to demand his asset declaration.
But here’s the twist that makes this more interesting than it initially appears: Adom-Otchere already submitted his asset declaration forms to the OSP on October 23, 2025, alongside a letter of protest. So this isn’t about refusing to comply. It’s about testing whether the OSP has the legal power to make such demands in the first place.
The legal challenge targets a directive dated August 4, 2025, which ordered Adom-Otchere to declare his property and income. His legal team, led by former Attorney General Godfred Dame, calls the directive “manifestly unlawful” and an “abuse of power.” Those are strong words in a legal system where everyone usually treads carefully around anti-corruption bodies.
Adom-Otchere is under investigation for suspected corruption related to a revenue assurance contract between Ghana Airports Company and Evatex Limited. The OSP is examining possible procurement breaches, including allegedly awarding a sole-sourced contract to a company other than the one approved by the GACL Board. That’s the backdrop for why the Special Prosecutor wanted his asset declaration.
The application asks the court for several specific reliefs. First, Adom-Otchere wants a declaration that the OSP’s directive violates the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959) and its operational regulations. He’s arguing the OSP overstepped its legal mandate by demanding asset declarations from someone who hasn’t been charged in court and against whom no court order exists.
Second, he’s seeking an order of certiorari to quash the directive for violating due process. That’s legal language for “bring this order before the court and strike it down as invalid.” It’s a direct challenge to the OSP’s investigative methods.
Third, and this gets personal, Adom-Otchere wants the court to declare that threats from the OSP of “legal consequences,” “confiscation of property,” and “detention” amount to unlawful harassment and violation of his fundamental human rights. When an anti-corruption body starts talking about confiscation and detention, people tend to pay attention quickly.
Fourth, he’s asking for an order prohibiting the OSP from detaining him should he refuse future directives. Given what happened in July, that’s not an unreasonable concern.
In July 2025, the OSP detained Adom-Otchere overnight after he failed to meet bail conditions that required him to present two landed properties registered in his name. He was held alongside two other GACL executives. That detention clearly left an impression, because much of this lawsuit reads like someone who doesn’t want a repeat experience.
What makes this case legally significant is the core argument Dame and his team are advancing. They claim the OSP Act doesn’t give the Special Prosecutor authority to compel asset declarations from people who are merely under investigation. The OSP can investigate, question, and even charge suspects, but forcing them to declare assets without a court order? That’s the question this case will settle.
In a statement clarifying his position, Adom-Otchere emphasized that his legal action isn’t meant to block the OSP but rather to settle the law and procedure on the matter. He’s essentially saying “I’ve complied with your request, but let’s get a court to clarify whether you actually had the right to make it.”
It’s a clever legal strategy. By submitting the declaration while simultaneously challenging the authority behind it, Adom-Otchere avoids looking obstructionist while still forcing a constitutional question. If he wins, it could significantly limit the OSP’s investigative toolkit going forward.
The Special Prosecutor’s office hasn’t remained quiet. In its response, the OSP stated that “the fight against corruption demands cooperation from all citizens, especially public officers and individuals linked to public funds. The office will continue to discharge its mandate without fear or favour”. That’s bureaucratic language for “we’re not backing down.”
From the OSP’s perspective, this case probably feels like an attempt to use legal technicalities to frustrate legitimate corruption investigations. They’re examining a contract award process that allegedly bypassed proper procurement procedures, and they need financial information to determine if anyone benefited improperly. Asset declarations are a standard investigative tool in corruption cases worldwide.
But Adom-Otchere’s lawyers have a point worth considering. If the OSP can demand asset declarations from anyone it’s investigating, without needing court approval or formal charges, that’s pretty expansive power. It raises questions about due process and the presumption of innocence. Where’s the line between effective anti-corruption enforcement and overreach?
This tension between investigative efficiency and individual rights isn’t unique to Ghana. Countries everywhere struggle with how much power to give anti-corruption bodies. Too little, and they can’t do their jobs effectively. Too much, and they become tools for harassment or political intimidation.
The timing of this case is interesting too. Ghana’s anti-corruption framework has been under scrutiny recently, with debates about the effectiveness of various oversight bodies. Adom-Otchere served as board chairman under former President Akufo-Addo, so there’s inevitable speculation about whether this case has political dimensions beyond the legal technicalities.
Dame’s involvement as lead counsel adds another layer. As former Attorney General, he knows the OSP Act intimately since his office would have been involved in its implementation and interpretation. If anyone can identify potential overreach in how the OSP exercises its powers, it’s probably the person who previously oversaw Ghana’s entire prosecution system.
The High Court will ultimately have to balance competing interests here. On one side, there’s the public interest in effective corruption investigations and the OSP’s need for investigative tools. On the other side, there are constitutional protections for individual rights and the principle that state power shouldn’t be exercised arbitrarily.
What happens if Adom-Otchere wins? The OSP might need to seek court orders before demanding asset declarations from investigation subjects, adding procedural steps that could slow down investigations. Or the court might clarify specific circumstances when the OSP can and cannot demand such declarations.
What if he loses? It would affirm the OSP’s broad investigative powers and potentially make it harder for future subjects to resist similar demands. The office would have clear judicial backing for its approach to financial investigations.
For now, both sides are preparing their arguments while Adom-Otchere’s asset declaration sits in the OSP’s files. He’s complied with the directive he’s challenging, which is either strategic brilliance or hedging his bets, depending on your perspective.
The broader question this case raises is how Ghana wants to structure its anti-corruption enforcement going forward. Should investigators have wide-ranging powers to demand information and documentation? Or should there be more checks and balances requiring judicial oversight before such demands can be made?
There’s no obviously right answer. Effective corruption fighting often requires speed and the element of surprise. But unchecked investigative power creates its own problems. This case will help define where Ghana draws that line, at least for now.
Whatever the court decides, it’ll set important precedent for how the OSP conducts investigations and what rights individuals have when they become investigation subjects. That makes this more than just Paul Adom-Otchere versus the Special Prosecutor. It’s really about defining the rules of engagement for Ghana’s anti-corruption infrastructure.
The case continues. And everyone from government officials to private sector executives is probably watching closely, wondering whether they might face similar demands someday and what rights they’ll have if they do.
Source: newsghana.com.gh
