Journalist and lawyer, Ken Kuranchie, has formally petitioned President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo to remove Kissi Agyebeng from his position as Special Prosecutor.
The petition, which outlines allegations of misconduct and incompetence, centers on claims that Agyebeng engaged the services of the United States’ Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to investigate staff within the Office of the Special Prosecutor.
Kuranchie asserts that these actions violate both the mandate of the Special Prosecutor and the rights of the office’s employees.
The petition invokes Section 15(1) of the Special Prosecutor Act, Act 959 of 2017, which provides a legal framework for the removal of the Special Prosecutor if grounds for “stated misbehaviour or incompetence” are established.
In his filing, Ken Kuranchie details alleged actions that he argues amount to severe breaches of ethical and procedural boundaries.
These accusations raise critical questions about autonomy and internal protocols of Ghana’s anti-corruption office, as well as its obligations to its staff and to Ghanaians at large.
Central to Ken Kuranchie’s petition is the claim that around March 2024, Kissi Agyebeng enlisted personnel from the FBI without the requisite approvals from the Board of Directors or formal governmental authorisation.
According to Kuranchie, this decision led to FBI officials questioning the Office of the Special Prosecutor’s staff and gathering their personal data. The petition alleges that more than 200 staff members underwent interviews and assessments conducted by FBI personnel who collected personal information as part of the purported investigation.
Kuranchie’s petition argues that these actions breach internal regulatory protocols, as well as Ghanaian laws on data protection and employee rights.
He contends that Agyebeng’s decision to involve the FBI is not only an overreach of the Special Prosecutor’s mandate but also an alarming precedent in a sovereign nation where governmental entities should operate within the bounds of national jurisdiction and governance.
The alleged absence of any documented government authorisation or board approval fuels concerns over transparency and the legitimacy of the investigation’s intent.
END
