Legal expert Martin Kpebu clarifies EOCO arrest powers over Manhyia South MP despite court warrant

Private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu has shed light on the constitutional limits surrounding the Economic and Organised Crime Office's (EOCO) ability to arrest Manhyia South MP Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah, even after the Accra High Court issued an arrest warrant against him last week.

Speaking on Joy FM's Top Story programme on Wednesday, 30 September, Kpebu explained that whilst EOCO has secured judicial authorisation to arrest the legislator, the warrant does not grant officers unfettered powers to apprehend him in any location or circumstance. The distinction is crucial: a court order alone does not override the constitutional protections afforded to Members of Parliament.

When EOCO can and cannot make an arrest

Under Article 117 of Ghana's 1992 Constitution and Section 21 of the Parliament Act, 1965 (Act 300), sitting MPs enjoy legal immunity from arrest whilst attending Parliament, travelling to the chamber, or returning from parliamentary business. This protection is foundational to Ghana's separation of powers and ensures legislators cannot be detained to prevent them from fulfilling their constitutional duties.

Kpebu clarified that EOCO officers can only arrest the MP without prior parliamentary procedure if he is not en route to Parliament, not currently attending sessions, and not travelling away from the chamber. In other words, the immunity applies specifically to parliamentary activities and related transit—not to the MP's movements at all times.

The lawyer emphasised that while the technical legal window exists for arrest outside these protected periods, the optics and procedural propriety matter significantly. He recommended that EOCO follow the formal route outlined in Section 20, subsection 2 of Act 300, which requires notifying Parliament's Speaker before proceeding. This approach, Kpebu argued, ensures transparency and avoids the appearance of heavy-handedness.

The perils of informal enforcement

Kpebu cautioned that arresting the MP at inappropriate times or locations—such as at night, at a social gathering, a church service, or a funeral—could inflame public opinion and trigger broader constitutional debate about the handling of the case. These considerations extend beyond legal technicalities into questions of how state agencies exercise power and the public's perception of fairness.

His comments arrive in the wake of a confrontation at the Accra High Court on 23 September, when EOCO officers attempted to arrest the legislator during a hearing, resulting in a chaotic scene that drew public attention and criticism. That incident underscored tensions between law enforcement's mandate and the careful management required when targeting public officials.

Why this matters for Ghana

The case highlights the delicate balance Ghana's legal framework seeks to maintain between accountability and institutional protection. Parliamentary immunity is not a licence for misconduct; rather, it is a structural safeguard designed to prevent the executive or law enforcement from weaponising arrest powers against opposition figures or critical voices. Courts must issue warrants based on evidence, and EOCO must operate within that authority—but the procedures and timing of enforcement carry weight.

For Ghanaians observing the case, the outcome will signal how robustly the country's courts protect both the rule of law and constitutional checks on power. Proper procedure—including notifying Parliament formally—demonstrates institutional respect and strengthens public confidence in Ghana's democracy, even as the criminal investigation proceeds. The distinction Kpebu drew is not merely technical; it reflects the principle that how justice is pursued matters as much as the pursuit itself.