Why Martin Kpebu was arrested by OSP

The arrest of private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu at the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) on Wednesday, December 3, has reignited public debate about procedural rules, institutional authority, and the conduct of outspoken critics in the anti-corruption framework.

While Martin Kpebu has criticised the OSP for the conditions of his release, the office maintains that the arrest was a lawful response to obstruction and misconduct on its premises.

Tensions Between Kpebu And the OSP

This confrontation did not arise in isolation. Martin Kpebu has for months been a vocal critic of the OSP, raising allegations of procedural lapses and corruption.

He has previously accused the office of mishandling investigations, including the probe into former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta, and has frequently challenged the authority of OSP staff in public statements.

According to the OSP, Martin Kpebu has on multiple occasions misrepresented events, especially in his interactions with security personnel and investigators.

Sammy Darko, the OSP’s Director of Communications, has said that the lawyer often presents “completely different versions” of incidents, prompting the office to monitor and record his visits for accountability.

Events Leading to the Arrest

On the day of the incident, Kpebu arrived at the OSP compound and stepped outside the gate to address media personnel. Security personnel advised him to move away from the entrance, prompting him to relocate to a nearby yam vendor’s spot to continue the interview.

After concluding the media engagement, Kpebu re-entered the OSP compound. It was at this point that security officers reminded him that photography and videography are strictly prohibited on the premises.

According to the OSP, Martin Kpebu reacted angrily, verbally insulting the guards and challenging their authority.

He allegedly told them that both the guards and senior management were “nobodies” who would soon be removed.

The confrontation escalated despite repeated warnings. Security personnel say that Kpebu persisted in obstructing officers from performing their duties, which led to his arrest for obstruction in accordance with the law.

The office emphasised that the arrest was carried out without force, and there is no record of assault or mistreatment during the process.

Bail Conditions and Public Criticism

Following his arrest, Kpebu was granted bail, but he described the conditions as “unreasonable.” In an interview with Joy FM, he said he was shocked when the OSP required him to provide proof of ownership of a landed property in his name.

“After I was arrested and I had written my statement, when it was time for them to grant me bail, they stated that I needed to provide a landed property in my name, and it looked like a joke to me,” he said. Kpebu added that the treatment felt heavy-handed, particularly in light of his claim that a soldier at the OSP had verbally abused him.

The OSP has not publicly responded to these criticisms but maintains that bail and procedural requirements were standard and legally justified.

Why the OSP Insists the Arrest Was Necessary 

Officials at the OSP argue that Kpebu’s arrest was not a “trap” or an act of retaliation. Rather, it was a necessary enforcement of rules to protect staff and maintain order on the premises.

They stress that compliance with institutional rules is required regardless of public profile, connections, or intentions.

The office also refuted Kpebu’s claims that “junior staff” were handling his case, clarifying that investigators are senior officers with ranks equivalent to Deputy Commissioners of Police.

The OSP further explained that fact-finding committees are designed to establish facts, not determine guilt or innocence, and that Kpebu’s allegations about “OSP investigating itself” were misleading.

Next Steps

Martin Kpebu is scheduled to report again to the OSP at 11 a.m. for further questioning regarding the obstruction charge. The inquiry into his separate corruption allegations will be scheduled at a later date. Analysts suggest that the case will continue to fuel discussions on how the OSP balances its mandate to enforce law and order with the rights of individuals who engage critically with the office.

Public Debate

The incident has renewed debate about accountability, procedural transparency, and institutional authority in the anti-corruption framework.

While Martin Kpebu maintains he voluntarily came to assist the office, the OSP sees his behaviour as obstructive and disrespectful.