Renowned US-based Ghanaian lawyer and scholar, Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare, has reacted to the suit filed against the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) by former Ghana Airports Company Limited (GACL) Board Chairman, Paul Adom-Otchere.

Adom-Otchere, in his suit, has accused the OSP of human rights violations over his detention by the office and abuse of power over an order for him to declare his properties and income.

Professor Kwaku Asare, who is widely known as Kwaku Azar, in a post shared on Facebook on Tuesday, October 28, 2025, explained that Adom-Otchere asked the High Court to quash the order for him to declare his assets because it is illegal.

He said that the former GACL board chair contends that the OSP has no power to give such an order, adding that the order was also wrong because the state has not charged him with any crime.

"Paul Adom-Otchere (PAO) argues that: The OSP has no power to demand asset declarations on its own. He states that Act 959 only allows the OSP to request a property disclosure after a court has confirmed a freezing order, not before. In his view, the OSP must first get court approval to freeze suspected assets before it can ask someone to list them.

“He hasn’t been charged or convicted. He says the OSP can only seek confiscation of assets after someone is convicted of corruption, not while they are just under investigation,” Azar wrote.

He said that Adom-Otchere, who is the host of Metro TV’s Good Evening Ghana programme, also argues that he is not a public officer and, therefore, he cannot be made to declare his assets.

Paul Adom-Otchere sues OSP

He added that the broadcaster contends that since there is “no freezing order exists in his case. Therefore, the OSP’s demand has no legal foundation.”

The legal luminary also stated that the court would essentially rule on three issues, namely:

Whether the OSP acted within its legal powers under Act 959 and LI 2374;

Whether PAO’s rights were violated by the OSP’s conduct, and

Whether the directive and threats amount to an abuse of power or were legitimate investigative steps.

Read the full post below:

Good Evening v OSP Without Tears

PAO, the former Chairman of the GACL is being investigated by the OSP for alleged corruption in a contract between GACL and a private firm, Evalex Logistics Company Limited.

He went to the OSP’s office for questioning, was detained overnight, and later released on bail.

A few days later, the OSP directed him to declare all his property and income within 30 days, warning that failure to do so could be an offence and that undeclared assets might be confiscated to the Republic.

Through his lawyers, PAO has filed an application for judicial review at the High Court seeking to:

OSP detains Paul Adom-Otchere, two others over GACL contract probe

1. Cancel (quash) the OSP’s directive asking him to declare his property and income.

2. Declare the directive unlawful, saying it violates the OSP Act (Act 959) and its regulations (L.I. 2374).

3. Stop the OSP from detaining or threatening him for not filling the forms.

4. Declare the OSP’s threats of “legal consequences,” “confiscation,” and “detention” as harassment and a violation of his rights.

5. Award him damages and costs for the alleged abuse of power. PAO argues that:

1. The OSP has no power to demand asset declarations on its own. He states that Act 959 only allows the OSP to request a property disclosure after a court has confirmed a freezing order, not before. In his view, the OSP must first get court approval to freeze suspected assets before it can ask someone to list them.

2. He hasn’t been charged or convicted. He says the OSP can only seek confiscation of assets after someone is convicted of corruption, not while they are just under investigation.

3. No freezing order exists in his case. Therefore, the OSP’s demand has no legal foundation.

4. He was not a “public officer.” As GACL Board Chair, he says he held a position in a private limited liability company, not a constitutional “public office.” So, he’s not subject to public asset declaration laws.

5. The threats were coercive and illegal. He claims OSP officers threatened to revoke his bail or detain him if he didn’t comply, which he says amounts to unlawful harassment.

6. He complied under protest. That is, he eventually submitted the forms to avoid further trouble but noted in writing that he considered the directive unlawful.

The OSP in response to a letter written by PAO’s lawyers, stated that:

• The forms and notice are a “verbatim reproduction of statutory provisions.” • The OSP was simply enforcing the law as written. • Therefore, PAO must comply with the directive.

To summarise,

PAO’s side:

The OSP is overstepping its powers. It can’t just demand asset declarations from people it’s investigating. The law only allows that after a freezing order or conviction. The threats are harassment.

OSP’s side:

“We are just applying the law as it stands — the forms and notice are literally what the law says. You must comply.”

What the High Court Will Decide:

1. Whether the OSP acted within its legal powers under Act 959 and L.I. 2374;

2. Whether PAO’s rights were violated by the OSP’s conduct; and

3. Whether the directive and threats amount to an abuse of power or were legitimate investigative steps.



BAI/AE

Tragedy as farmer drowns while seeking loan to send child to SHS

The wait is over! The GhanaWeb Excellence Awards 2025 is officially launched. Let's Celebrate impact, innovation and excellence across Ghana. Who deserves to be honoured this year? Nominate now 👉 https://ghanaweb.com/ghanaexcellenceawards/nominate