Paul Adom-Otchere drags Special Prosecutor to court over property declaration order
The veteran broadcaster and former Board Chairman of the Ghana Airports Company Limited (GACL) has filed an application seeking to quash a directive from the OSP that ordered him to declare his assets and income.
.jpeg)
A deepening standoff between the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) and media personality Paul Adom-Otchere has escalated into a full-blown legal battle at the High Court in Accra.
The veteran broadcaster and former Board Chairman of the Ghana Airports Company Limited (GACL) has filed an application seeking to quash a directive from the OSP that ordered him to declare his assets and income.
The case, lodged before the General Jurisdiction Division of the High Court, sets the stage for a constitutional test of the OSP’s powers under Act 959, which governs Ghana’s anti-corruption authority.
The application—filed on behalf of Mr. Adom-Otchere by his legal counsel, former Attorney-General Godfred Dame—describes the OSP’s directive, issued on August 4, 2025, as unlawful, unconstitutional, and an abuse of power.
According to the motion, the OSP, led by Kissi Agyebeng, exceeded its legal mandate when it compelled the journalist to declare his assets under the pretext of investigating alleged corruption linked to a revenue assurance contract awarded by the GACL to Evatex Limited.
Mr. Adom-Otchere insists that the directive contravenes both the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959) and its subsidiary regulations, and constitutes what he terms a campaign of intimidation.
The broadcaster is asking the High Court to grant four principal reliefs aimed at curbing what he calls the OSP’s “overreach”:
| Relief | Description | Grounds Cited |
|---|---|---|
| Declaration of Unlawfulness | A ruling that the OSP’s directive for asset declaration is illegal. | Breach of Act 959 and procedural impropriety. |
| Declaration of Harassment | Recognition that the directive and accompanying threats of detention amount to harassment. | Abuse of investigative authority. |
| Order of Prohibition | To restrain the OSP from detaining or threatening to detain him over the directive. | Violation of personal liberty. |
| Order of Certiorari | To completely quash the OSP’s asset declaration order. | The directive is void and unenforceable. |
