Charles Bissue: The man who wants a trial but challenges the trial

Charles Bissue is an interesting accused person. He says he wants a speedy trial and accuses the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) of delaying his day in court. Yet, his own legal history raises questions about how eager he has been to let the investigation and prosecution proceed. The OSP’s published records tell part of the story. Since 2023, he has filed 7 cases in respect of a case filed in 2025.

The suits include the following: Suit No. J5/8/2025: Republic vs. High Court, Accra Human Rights Division (Court 2); Ex Parte Charles Bissue – Applicant, Office of the Special Prosecutor and Attorney-General – Interested Parties. Suit No. GJ/0098/2023: Republic vs. Office of the Special Prosecutor; Ex Parte Charles Bissue. Suit No. J8/08/2025: Republic vs.

High Court, Accra Human Rights Division (Court 2); Ex Parte Charles Bissue – Applicant, Office of the Special Prosecutor and Attorney-General – Interested Parties. Suit No. GJ/0928/2023: Republic vs. District Court, Kaneshie and Office of the Special Prosecutor; Ex Parte Charles Bissue. Suit No. HR/0094/2023: Charles Bissue vs. Office of the Special Prosecutor Suit No.

GJ/0358/2023: Charles Bissue vs. OSP, Anas Aremeyaw Anas and Tiger Eye P.I. Suit No. HR/0101/2023: Charles Bissue vs. Kaneshie District Court. h. Suit No. H3/458/2025: Charles Bissue vs. Office of the Special Prosecution, Kaneshie District Court. These are not minor details. They show that legal proceedings initiated by Bissue formed part of the history that preceded his prosecution.

Yet, through sections of the media, he has suggested that he has been standing trial since 2017. The OSP was established in 2018. Investigations, civil litigation and criminal trials are not the same thing. One cannot simply collapse them into a single timeline. The OSP eventually filed fresh criminal proceedings on 1 July 2025 under CR/0559/2025, The Republic v Charles Cromwell Nanabanyin Onuawonto Bissue & 2 Ors.

Bissue faces nine counts relating to corruption and abuse of public office. Raphael Mensah and Dr Naa Dedei Tagoe are charged in connection with the alleged scheme. All three pleaded not guilty. The case is not about whether Bissue considers the alleged amount small. It concerns allegations that public office was compromised to facilitate the issuance of a concession sticker enabling a business entity to commence mining without a licence.

If proved, the alleged conduct would raise serious questions about the integrity of the public process, regardless of the amount involved. Thomas Andy Owusu, who was charged in the earlier case, pleaded guilty and was convicted in June 2025 under a plea agreement. His conviction does not establish Bissue’s guilt, which remains for the court to determine.

Now, the dispute has shifted to whether the earlier case was properly discontinued and whether the current proceedings can continue. His lawyers have also raised arguments concerning an earlier police investigation and alleged conflict of interest involving the Special Prosecutor’s past professional association with Anas Aremeyaw Anas. These arguments must be assessed against the relevant court records and rulings.

But the central contradiction remains: how does one repeatedly demand a speedy trial while pursuing legal challenges that may prevent the trial from proceeding? Bissue has every right to challenge the prosecution. The court must determine those objections fairly. But a procedural dispute is not automatically the end of a criminal case, just as a prosecution is not proof of guilt.

The OSP should not be interested in winning a public-relations contest. Its duty is to pursue justice. If the evidence fails, Bissue must be acquitted. If the prosecution proves its case, the law must take its course. A speedy trial should lead to a judicial determination—not become a slogan used against the prosecution while the proceedings themselves are being challenged.