Justice Scripts

Ghana has established numerous bodies such as the Ghana Police Service, CHRAJ, EOCO, and the Office of the Special Prosecutor specifically to curb corruption and strengthen public accountability. However, national and international assessments still show minimal progress. Ghana’s ranking on major anti-corruption indices has remained largely unchanged, reflecting persistent weaknesses in the country’s governance framework.

From an institutional standpoint, corruption continues to thrive not because of a lack of agencies, but because the systems supporting these institutions are structurally weak and often poorly coordinated. A closer evaluation of these agencies reveals why the fight against corruption is far from being won.

Why Corruption Persists

1. Mandate Confusion and Institutional Competition

Ghana’s anti-corruption bodies operate within mandates that frequently intersect. Confusion over which institution should handle specific cases has resulted in duplication, delays, and unresolved investigations. Overlaps between CHRAJ, the OSP, EOCO, and the Police often lead to bureaucratic conflict rather than efficient case handling.

2. Inadequate Funding and Technical Limitations

Most anti-corruption agencies work with limited resources. Insufficient funding, inadequate staffing, and lack of forensic tools hinder their ability to pursue complex investigations. Agencies such as CHRAJ and the OSP have consistently highlighted resource gaps that limit their operational strength.

3. Slow Investigations and Low Prosecution Rates

Several high-profile investigations have been initiated over the years, yet only a few have advanced to full prosecution. The slow pace of justice and the perception of selective enforcement weaken public confidence. Cases involving procurement irregularities, payroll fraud, and misuse of public office often remain unresolved for long periods.

4. Weak Collaboration Among Agencies

Anti-corruption work requires seamless cooperation, but Ghana’s institutions often function independently without coordinated investigation strategies. This lack of inter-agency communication undermines evidence gathering, delays case progression, and weakens prosecutorial outcomes.

5. Vulnerable Public Financial Management Systems

Irregularities in procurement, payroll management, and internal audits continue to expose loopholes exploited by corrupt actors. The recurrence of ghost names on public payrolls and questionable contract awards point directly to weak preventive measures rather than enforcement failure alone.

Evaluating Institutional Performance

Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP)

The OSP has introduced transparency through its public reports and asset recovery efforts. However, its overall impact remains limited due to legal challenges, overlapping mandates, and restricted operational resources.

EOCO

EOCO has handled several financial and economic crime cases successfully. Nonetheless, it still needs stronger technological tools and better collaboration with prosecutors to convert investigations into convictions consistently.

CHRAJ

CHRAJ’s constitutional authority covers human rights, administrative justice, and anti-corruption. Though it offers important oversight, its ability to undertake large-scale investigations is constrained by budget and staffing shortages.

Ghana Police Service

The Police Service serves as the frontline investigative body. However, corruption-related cases often require specialised forensic expertise that the service does not consistently possess. Public concerns about partiality also weaken institutional trust.

Recommendations for Strengthening Accountability

1. Streamline Mandates and Improve Legal Clarity

A national review should define clear operational boundaries for the OSP, CHRAJ, EOCO, and the Police. Eliminating overlapping duties and establishing clear referral systems will reduce internal conflicts and enhance investigative efficiency.

2. Increase Technical Capacity and Resource Allocation

Agencies need stable, adequate funding and modern investigative tools. Investment in forensic laboratories, digital evidence systems, and specialised investigative training will significantly improve the quality of corruption cases.

3. Strengthen Preventive Mechanisms in Public Finance

Mandatory e-procurement, stricter payroll audits, digital verification of public employees, and automated procurement systems will reduce opportunities for corruption before they occur.

4. Build Strong Inter-Agency Collaboration Frameworks

Joint task forces, shared databases, and coordinated investigative timelines will improve efficiency, reduce duplication, and allow complex cases to move faster through the system.

5. Safeguard Institutional Independence

Strengthening legal protections against political interference especially regarding funding, appointments, and dismissals will enhance public confidence in anti-corruption agencies.

Conclusion

Ghana’s anti-corruption institutions play essential roles, yet their collective impact is weakened by structural flaws, resource constraints, and insufficient collaboration. Reforming these weaknesses is critical. With clearer mandates, improved preventive controls, enhanced technical capacity, and stronger institutional independence, Ghana can make meaningful progress toward reducing corruption and reinforcing public trust in state institutions.