Deputy Attorney-General denies OSP claims of being refused cooperation on corruption cases

Deputy Attorney-General Justice Srem-Sai has rejected claims by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) that the Attorney-General’s Office has on several occasions refused requests to collaborate on corruption cases.

He described the allegation as false and insisted that the Attorney-General’s Office remains committed to working with all state institutions responsible for investigating and prosecuting crime.

The comments follow claims by the OSP’s Director of Strategy, Research and Communications, Sammy Darko, that the office had previously approached the Attorney-General’s Office to collaborate on some cases but had been turned down.

Speaking on JoyNews’ Newsfile on Saturday, 29 August, Mr Darko said the OSP had chosen not to publicly discuss several instances in which it had sought cooperation from the Attorney-General’s Office.

“There are so many issues the OSP has kept quiet and not talked about,” he said. “There are instances where the OSP has approached the Attorney-General's Office and said, let us collaborate in this matter, and we have been turned down.”

However, speaking to JoyNews at the Supreme Court, Justice Srem-Sai dismissed the claim and denied that there was any institutional tension between the two offices.

“There has never been any tension between OSP as far as Attorney-General is concerned,” he said.

He said Attorney-General Dr Dominic Ayine was focused on ensuring that criminal offences were properly investigated and prosecuted while respecting the rights of accused persons.

“My boss has no desire whatsoever to struggle with anyone over a job or what to do,” he said. “What my boss knows and what he's always asking us to do is to ensure that we fight crime and fight crime properly, respecting the rights of accused persons.”

Justice Srem-Sai said the OSP was one of several state institutions with which the Attorney-General’s Office worked and questioned why it should be treated differently.

The Attorney-General, he said, had a constitutional role in determining the prosecution of criminal offences, while the OSP was an institution created by legislation to investigate and prosecute certain corruption-related offences.

“OSP is another agency created by legislation to fight crime,” he said. “And like the way we work with all the other institutions, we work with the OSP the same way.”

Justice Srem-Sai also rejected suggestions that the Attorney-General’s Office was deliberately frustrating the Special Prosecutor’s work.

He said the Attorney-General’s Office would provide direction or assistance to the OSP where necessary.

“But to say you have come to collaborate with us and we said no, there wouldn't be any need for that approach in the first place,” he said, again describing the allegation as false.

Asked whether the Attorney-General’s Office was prepared to work with the OSP on cases where cooperation was required, Justice Srem-Sai said such collaboration was not a matter of choice.

“We don't have a choice,” he said. “It's not about being ready to welcome [the OSP]. We are bound as the Office of Attorney-General to make sure that all the agencies that are fighting crime do their work and do their work properly.”

He said the relationship between the two institutions was governed by the law rather than personal preferences.

“We are all creatures of law, either by the Constitution or by legislation,” he said. “And the law determines our place in the greater scheme of things.”

The dispute leaves two conflicting accounts over whether previous requests for collaboration were rejected. The Attorney-General’s Office says it has not refused such cooperation, while the OSP maintains that some of its requests were turned down.

No specific cases or instances of the alleged refusals were identified in the material provided