The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) would have the public believe that shifting the corruption case of Mustapha Hamid and nine others from Criminal Court 3 to Court 4 is a mere "administrative reassignment." This explanation, while procedurally tidy, is a fiction meant for the naïve. In the high-stakes theatre of lawfare, where the judiciary is increasingly deployed as a political weapon, there are no coincidences - only calculations.

The core premise of the prosecution’s integrity collapses when we connect the timeline. The move to Court 4 did not occur in a vacuum; it followed immediately after the OSP dramatically inflated the charges from 25 to a staggering 54 counts and, crucially, just one day after Mustapha Hamid filed a GH¢20 million defamation suit against the OSP.

This confluence of events is damning. The tripling of the charges - from 25 to 54 - created the official pretext, manufacturing an "administrative need" to move the case. The defamation suit created the motive - a clear need to retaliate, regain narrative control, and shield the OSP from a direct challenge to its credibility and financial standing. The move from Court 3 to Court 4 is nothing more than a desperate attempt to strengthen the make-believe theatrics necessary to justify its ongoing legal war.

This move reeks of a practice known all too well in compromised jurisdictions: judge-shopping. In a robust judiciary, case assignment is randomized to prevent precisely this kind of tactical forum-shopping. The opaque, "administrative" nature of this reassignment sidesteps these essential safeguards, fundamentally inviting public skepticism about judicial independence. Such actions undermine the core constitutional principle of the separation of powers, where the executive (through the OSP) must not be seen to influence the structure or selection of the judicial forum.

The critical question is no longer what happened, but why it happened. The signs on the wall point to a disturbing motive:

Retaliatory Control: The defamation suit is a frontal assault on the OSP's credibility. The move to a new court allows the OSP to reset the proceedings, flood the zone with 54 charges, and project an image of overwhelming prosecutorial strength to counter the narrative of being sued for professional overreach.

 Seeking a Sympathetic Ear: Was Court 3 demonstrating a frustrating adherence to procedural rigor or showing signs of skepticism towards the OSP's expanding case? The transfer suggests a prosecution seeking a bench perceived as more favourable to its narrative, less likely to question the foundation of these new, hastily assembled charges, especially when the prosecution's own conduct is under legal fire.

 The Deepening Pattern of Predation: This is not an isolated incident; it reflects a troubling and documented pattern of institutional hostility toward the judiciary. This pattern is sealed by the Special Prosecutor's own public rhetoric. The SP's press conferences to publicly censure the courts for case losses constitute an unprecedented attempt to undermine judicial independence and exert improper pressure on judges. The constant shifting of goalposts, whether in charges, courtrooms, or through public attacks on the judiciary, is not the hallmark of a robust case, but of a political project in legal disguise. It violates the foundational principle, articulated by Lord Hewart, that "justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done." The inescapable appearance of impropriety here actively erodes the legitimacy of the entire process.

The public must see this for what it is: a shell game. The pea of "justice" is being shuffled under the cups of different courtrooms, not to find it, but to ensure it lands exactly where the manipulator desires. The move from Court 3 to Court 4 is a strategic manoeuvre that signals the prosecution's priority is control, retaliation, and political theatre - not clarity or justice. This judicial reassignment is not an isolated procedural step; it is the tactical execution of a broader political strategy. The prior mass appointment of 65 judges was the foundational manoeuvre; this courtroom transfer is its tactical implementation. We are not witnessing the pursuit of justice, but the orchestration of political persecution through a weaponized legal system. It is an act that should trigger rigorous scrutiny from the Ghana Bar Association and every institution dedicated to judicial integrity. When the state plays shell games with justice, every citizen has a duty to watch the hands, not the words.

J. A. Sarbah

Powered by Froala Editor