OSP–MANASSEH AZURE IMPASSE DEEPENS: QUESTIONS OVER ACCOUNTABILITY, TRANSPARENCY AND PRESS FREEDOM

A growing standoff between Ghana’s Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) and investigative journalist Manasseh Azure Awuni has triggered national debate over transparency in anti-corruption investigations and the relationship between state institutions and the media.

The impasse stems from recent publications by Manasseh alleging procedural concerns and perceived inconsistencies in the OSP’s handling of certain high-profile corruption cases. The OSP responded strongly, accusing the journalist of misrepresenting facts and undermining public confidence in the institution.

Background to the dispute

Manasseh Azure, known for his award-winning investigative reporting on procurement abuses and public sector corruption, published commentary questioning:

delays in prosecuting major corruption cases announced by the OSP
the withdrawal or suspension of some investigations
transparency in communicating progress to the public

His analysis suggested that the public deserved clearer updates on cases involving politically exposed individuals.

The OSP, however, issued a statement refuting the claims, insisting that its work follows strict legal procedures and confidentiality requirements. It argued that public commentary that misinterprets its processes could jeopardise ongoing investigations.

OSP pushes back

In its response, the OSP described the journalist’s assertions as misleading, stating that:

active investigations cannot be fully disclosed legally
prosecutorial decisions are guided by evidence and admissibility standards
public pressure cannot dictate legal action

The office maintained that it remains committed to fighting corruption “without fear or favour,” and warned that speculative reporting risks compromising sensitive operations.

Manasseh stands by publication

Manasseh Azure has defended his position, stressing the role of journalism in ensuring accountability. He argued that:

the OSP was created with public funds and must be open to scrutiny
transparency strengthens, rather than weakens, public trust
criticism of state bodies should not be treated as hostility

He further stated that constructive questioning helps institutions deliver on their mandate.

Public reaction

The confrontation has divided opinion:

✅ Supporters of the journalist say the media must hold the OSP accountable, especially on cases that attract national attention.

✅ Supporters of the OSP argue that investigations require confidentiality and that premature disclosure could undermine prosecutions.

Civil society organisations have called for calm and encouraged both parties to engage constructively.

Analysts weigh in

Legal and governance experts note that the disagreement highlights:

the tension between transparency and investigative secrecy
slow progress in high-profile corruption cases
public frustration over the perceived lack of outcomes in anti-corruption efforts

They argue that strong collaboration between watchdog journalism and independent state institutions is essential in combating corruption effectively.

What next?

Observers say the OSP may need to improve its public communication strategy to maintain trust, while journalists are encouraged to verify complex legal procedures before publication.

Calls are growing for:

clearer periodic updates from the OSP
respectful engagement between the media and state institutions
reforms that ensure accountability without compromising investigations