Sammy Darko expresses disgust over Kpemka’s position on OSP’s powers

Director of Strategy, Research and Communications at the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), Sammy Darko, has strongly criticised former Deputy Attorney General Joseph Kpemka over his position on a recent High Court ruling concerning the prosecutorial powers of the OSP.

His comments follow Kpemka’s defence of the High Court decision, which held that ongoing prosecutions by the OSP were null and void and directed that such cases be transferred to the Attorney-General for continuation.

Reacting to the development on Thursday, April 16, 2026, Darko expressed concern over what he described as a sudden shift in Kpemka’s legal posture regarding the OSP’s authority, pointing to the former Deputy Attorney General’s previous involvement in OSP-related prosecutions.

According to him, Kpemka had actively participated in cases prosecuted by the OSP without previously challenging its mandate.

“Joseph Kpemka, a former Deputy Attorney General, has represented some of the accused persons in the Northern Development Authority case from the outset, through to the dismissal of their submission of no case at both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Judgment is expected next week,” Darko stated.

He stressed that throughout those proceedings, the issue of the OSP’s prosecutorial authority was never raised.

“At no point during the trial did he question the prosecutorial authority of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP),” he added.

Darko further referenced Kpemka’s involvement in another ongoing prosecution, the Mustapha Hamid case, noting that similar objections had not been raised in that matter either.

“Mr Kpemka is also counsel in the Mustapha Hamid case, where proceedings have not been favourable to the defence,” he said.

He argued that despite Kpemka’s background as a former member of government during the establishment of the OSP law, he had not previously challenged its powers in court.

“Notably, as a lawyer and a former member of the administration that enacted the OSP law, he has not raised any objection to the OSP’s prosecutorial powers in that matter,” Darko noted.

He described Kpemka’s current position as surprising and suggested it may be influenced by his legal representation of accused persons in OSP-related cases.

“It is therefore striking that he now appears to question those powers, perhaps in the hope that it will help free his clients from the grip of the OSP. Principles,” Darko remarked.

Darko’s comments come in the wake of Kpemka’s public defence of the High Court ruling, which he insists was not a matter of constitutional interpretation but rather a question of statutory compliance.

Speaking on Citi Eyewitness News on Wednesday, April 15, 2026, Kpemka maintained that the court did not interpret the law in its ruling.

“Let me state clearly that the High Court, from what I read, did not interpret the Act… that is not what the High Court embarked upon. If it had, that would have been a nullity from the beginning because the High Court is not clothed with the authority to interpret the law,” he said.

He explained that the ruling was based on what the court viewed as a failure by the OSP to obtain authorisation from the Attorney-General as required under the law.

“In simple terms, the law requires the OSP to operate within the confines of the statute by obtaining authorisation from the Attorney-General. Since that authorisation was not granted after the passage of Act 959, the judge held that the OSP had not complied with the law and therefore lacked the power to prosecute,” Kpemka argued.

He further suggested that the proper procedure would have involved a formal request or court order to compel the Attorney-General to grant such authorisation to operationalise the law.