In an address delivered on June 27, 2025, and reported by various news outlets, Johnson Asiedu Nketia, Chairman of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), reignited a critical national debate on the necessity of separating the Office of the Attorney-General from the Ministry of Justice.
According to Nketia, Ghana erred in fusing legal advisory functions with prosecutorial authority, a structure that, in his view, has fostered political interference in justice delivery and weakened anti-corruption efforts.
To observers within and outside Ghana, his call is not only timely but essential to strengthening democratic accountability. For those of us living in Norway, the difference in approach is stark and instructive. Norway provides a compelling example of how separating legal and prosecutorial functions can help build a more independent and trusted justice system.
Ghana’s hybrid model and its pitfalls
Since independence, Ghana has maintained a system where the Attorney-General serves both as the government’s chief legal adviser and the head of public prosecutions. The holder of this office is typically a political appointee and often serves concurrently as Minister for Justice. This dual role, while administratively convenient, has proven problematic.
At the heart of the problem lies a fundamental conflict of interest. The Attorney-General, as a Cabinet member, is expected to provide legal counsel to the very government it might one day need to prosecute. This structure makes it difficult to guarantee independence, particularly in cases involving political figures or public office holders. In practice, prosecutions can appear selective, aggressively pursued when opposition figures are involved and cautiously avoided when ruling party affiliates are implicated.
Moreover, the politicisation of the Attorney-General’s role contributes to public mistrust in the justice system. Many Ghanaians perceive prosecutorial decisions as being driven more by political expediency than by legal merit. This perception, whether accurate or not, undermines confidence in the rule of law and in the ability of the justice system to serve all citizens fairly.
A Norwegian contrast
Norway takes a fundamentally different approach. Here, the roles of legal adviser to the government and public prosecutor are not only separated but institutionally insulated from political influence.
The Regjeringsadvokaten (Government Attorney) is responsible for providing legal advice to the government and representing the state in civil matters. This office operates as a non-partisan institution and does not involve itself in criminal prosecutions.
On the other hand, the Riksadvokaten (Director of Public Prosecutions) leads the prosecutorial authority. Crucially, this office is entirely independent of the government. The Riksadvokaten is not a Cabinet member, does not answer to ministers, and is legally protected from political instruction in matters of prosecution. This guarantees that criminal investigations and prosecutions are based solely on legal grounds, not political calculations.
Living in Norway as a Ghanaian, the contrast is striking. One experiences a legal culture where justice is seen as a neutral instrument, not a political weapon. Public trust in legal institutions remains high, precisely because those institutions are visibly and functionally independent.
A Ghanaian in Norway reflects
From the perspective of a Ghanaian living abroad, particularly in a society like Norway, Asiedu Nketia’s call feels long overdue. The fusion of powers in Ghana’s Attorney-General’s office is a colonial legacy that no longer serves a maturing democracy. It hampers accountability, shields political elites, and frustrates efforts to build an impartial justice system.
This is not to suggest that Norway’s system is without flaws. No justice system is perfect. But the structural separation of powers between legal advice and criminal prosecution is a safeguard worth emulating. It reduces political pressure on prosecutors, limits conflicts of interest, and reinforces the principle that no one is above the law.
For Ghana, embracing such a reform would not only strengthen democratic governance but also signal a renewed commitment to transparency and the rule of law. The lessons are clear: independence in prosecution breeds public trust and blurred roles invite suspicion and impunity.
As Ghana edges toward constitutional review and reform, Asiedu Nketia’s proposal deserves more than a passing nod. It is a call to de-politicise justice and align national institutions with best practices observed in mature democracies like Norway. For Ghanaians abroad who witness daily the benefits of institutional integrity, the message is simple: justice must not only be done, but it must also be seen to be done without fear, favour, or political interference.
*Dr. Moses Deyegbe Kuvoame is an Associate Professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway. He earned his PhD from the University of Oslo, Faculty of Law, Department of Criminology and Sociology of Law.
