The rule of law is the bedrock of any fair society, but what happens when those in power seem to apply it selectively? This is the explosive question at the heart of a recent challenge issued by Samuel Abdulai Jinapor, a former Minister of Lands and Natural Resources and Member of Parliament for Damongo. In a bold move, Jinapor called out the Majority Caucus, urging them to stop hedging and take decisive action if they genuinely believe the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) is unconstitutional. But here's where it gets controversial: Jinapor pointed out the glaring inconsistency of the current Majority Leader, who once vehemently opposed the OSP's establishment, now raising constitutional concerns about the very institution he fought against.
During a parliamentary session on December 4, 2025, Jinapor reminded his colleagues that he has long championed the OSP's national importance, yet the Majority persists in questioning its legitimacy. He didn’t hold back, accusing them of inaction and hypocrisy: “Too much talking; the country needs action. If you think the OSP is not fit for purpose, repeal it,” he declared. And this is the part most people miss: Jinapor also highlighted the Speaker’s concerns about the OSP’s budget allocation, suggesting that these criticisms are fueling the renewed debate over the institution’s existence.
Jinapor’s critique didn’t stop there. He raised a troubling issue: the selective application of Ghana’s laws. He cited examples like Chairman Wontumi and Osei Assibey, who faced stringent bail conditions, contrasting them with cases where individuals seem to receive preferential treatment when they run afoul of the law. “Suddenly the OSP is being questioned now that the law has caught up with one of their own?” he asked, referring to the recent arrest of Martin Kpebu, a member of the Majority.
Is this a principled stand or a politically motivated backlash? The Minority argues the latter, claiming the Majority’s sudden scrutiny of the OSP is driven by discomfort over recent developments rather than genuine constitutional concerns. This interpretation has sparked heated debate, with some questioning whether the Majority is attempting to shield its allies. Jinapor’s challenge isn’t just a call for action—it’s a call for accountability and fairness. But what do you think? Is the OSP’s constitutionality truly in question, or is this a strategic move to undermine an institution that’s getting too close to home? Let’s hear your thoughts in the comments!
