Divergent judicial decisions have emerged in the ongoing criminal trial of Republic v. Issah Seidu & 3 Others (Suit No. CR/0513/2025), popularly referred to as the “rice scandal case,” raising fresh questions about the prosecutorial authority of the Office of the Special Prosecutor.

According to a statement issued by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), the accused persons are currently standing trial before the High Court (Criminal Division), where proceedings are still ongoing.

In that court, an application filed by the accused persons seeking to strike out the case was dismissed.

However, the presiding judge adjourned proceedings pending a determination by the Supreme Court on a related constitutional matter in which both the plaintiffs and the Attorney-General are challenging aspects of the independent prosecutorial powers of the OSP.

Below is the statement from the OSP

Conflicting Court Decisions Arise in Republic v. Issah Seidu & 3 Others (Rice Scandal Case)

Accra, Ghana — Proceedings in the case of Republic v. Issah Seidu & 3 Others (Suit No. CR/0513/2025), widely referred to as the “rice scandal case”, have taken divergent paths before two courts of concurrent jurisdiction.
The accused persons are currently standing trial before the High Court (Criminal Division), where proceedings remain ongoing.

The Criminal Court dismissed an application by the accused persons seeking to strike out the case. The judge adjourned proceedings to await a determination by the Supreme Court on a matter in which both the plaintiff and the Attorney-General (the defendant) are challenging the independent prosecutorial power of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP).

In a parallel development, the accused persons initiated a separate action at the High Court (General Jurisdiction 10). In contrast to the Criminal Court, the General Jurisdiction judge declined an application by the OSP to adjourn proceedings pending the outcome of the matter before the Supreme Court. The judge decided that the OSP lacks independent prosecutorial mandate. The judge directed that the case be referred to the Attorney-General for prosecution.

These developments have resulted in two distinct judicial positions regarding the prosecutorial authority of the OSP in the same matter.

The OSP states that it is taking steps to quickly overturn the decision of the General Jurisdiction Court since the High Court does not have jurisdiction to, in effect, strike down parts of an Act of Parliament as unconstitutional. It is only the Supreme Court which can strike down parts of an Act of Parliament as unconstitutional.

The OSP firmly assures the public that all the criminal prosecutions it has commenced before the courts and all the criminal prosecutions it is about to commence before the courts remain valid and would proceed based on its mandate under the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959), which remains valid and in force as the matter has not been decided by the Supreme Court.

Sompaonline.com/Derrick Djan