Is Ghana’s Anti-Corruption Watchdog Starving for Funding or Excusing Poor Performance?

Ghana’s anti-corruption framework is once again under intense scrutiny following renewed concerns from the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) over the insufficiency of its annual budget. While the claim has reignited public sympathy for the institution, it has also opened a more uncomfortable national conversation: is the OSP genuinely underfunded, or is the funding argument masking deeper operational failures?

The OSP recently argued that its current budget is inadequate to fulfil its constitutional mandate of investigating and prosecuting corruption-related offences, particularly those involving politically exposed persons. According to the office, it inherited little to no operational infrastructure at inception and has since had to build divisions, recruit skilled professionals, and establish investigative systems all from a budget originally meant for routine operations rather than institutional development. The absence of a dedicated forensic laboratory has been cited as one of the most critical limitations.

On the surface, this argument is compelling. Anti-corruption work is resource-intensive, highly technical, and legally complex. Without sufficient funding, no prosecutorial agency can be expected to function at full capacity. However, the controversy arises when budget complaints are weighed against outcomes, efficiency, and public accountability.

Funding Versus Results

Despite repeated claims of financial constraints, public records indicate that the OSP has consistently received significant budgetary allocations since its establishment. While not all approved funds have been fully disbursed on time, the office has not been entirely deprived of state resources. This reality complicates the narrative of chronic underfunding and raises questions about how effectively existing funds are being utilized.

For several years, the OSP struggled to secure convictions, fueling public skepticism about its effectiveness. Although the office has recently recorded its first successful prosecutions, critics argue that these achievements came far too late and remain limited in scope. The slow pace of high-profile cases has further reinforced perceptions that the institution is not delivering proportional value for the resources it receives.

Internal Systems Under the Spotlight

Beyond funding, governance experts have pointed to internal weaknesses within the OSP, including inconsistent prosecutorial standards and the absence of clear frameworks for determining when cases are trial-ready. Such gaps undermine efficiency and expose the institution to accusations of selective justice or political bias.

These concerns suggest that throwing more money at the problem may not automatically translate into improved performance. Without strong internal controls, transparent case management systems, and measurable performance benchmarks, increased funding risks becoming a cosmetic solution rather than a structural fix.

The Political Undercurrent

The funding debate is further complicated by political tensions surrounding the OSP’s work. From its inception, the office has operated under intense partisan scrutiny, with critics accusing it of targeting political opponents while ignoring others. Calls for its reform and in some cases outright abolition have grown louder, particularly from those who believe its mandate overlaps with existing institutions.

At the same time, allegations of financial mismanagement and internal disputes have weakened public trust. Claims that substantial sums were wasted or poorly accounted for, whether proven or not, have made budget appeals harder to defend in the court of public opinion.

Is More Money the Real Solution?

Supporters of increased funding argue that corruption costs Ghana billions of cedis annually and that a properly resourced OSP could recover significant public funds while deterring future abuse of office. From this perspective, underfunding the OSP is a false economy that ultimately harms national development.

Opponents, however, maintain that accountability must precede expansion. They argue that before demanding more funds, the OSP must demonstrate consistent results, institutional discipline, and transparent financial management. Without these, budget increases risk being perceived as rewards for inefficiency rather than investments in justice.

Conclusion

The controversy surrounding the OSP’s budget exposes a broader dilemma in Ghana’s governance landscape: institutions tasked with enforcing accountability must themselves be held to the highest standards. While funding constraints are real and cannot be dismissed, they cannot become a permanent excuse for underperformance.

If the Office of the Special Prosecutor is to regain public confidence and justify increased investment, it must move beyond rhetoric and deliver measurable, impartial, and timely results. Until then, the question remains unavoidable is the OSP truly underfunded, or simply underperforming?