Investigative journalist Manasseh Azure Awuni has raised questions about the legal basis of the arrest of private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP). Speaking on the impasse, Awuni questioned what specific work Kpebu obstructed, noting discrepancies in the OSP’s narrative.
“From the OSP’s narration, Martin Kpebu did not insist on conducting the interview in the compound of the OSP. He walked out of the compound to meet the reporters. The security men asked him and the journalists to move away. He did not argue with them. He obliged,” Awuni said.
He further highlighted that the journalists reportedly wanted to protest, but Kpebu instructed them to comply. “(The Joy FM reporter present said the journalists wanted to protest, but Martin Kpebu asked them to comply and move away.) This narration says they moved as far as the yam seller’s spot to conduct the interview. After the interview with the journalists, Martin Kpebu entered the premises of the OSP alone,” he explained.
Awuni questioned the justification for the arrest, pointing out that the confrontation that followed involved a security guard and verbal exchanges, rather than interference with an ongoing investigation. “Martin Kpebu is arrested for obstruction, and his lawyers said the bail condition included a landed property registered in his name. So, what work of the OSP did he obstruct: the investigation he came there to assist or the security guard’s confrontation with him about his interview outside the OSP?”
He also raised legal and constitutional concerns regarding Kpebu’s right to speak to journalists outside the OSP premises. “Is there a law against speaking to journalists outside the premises of the OSP, whose wall shares a boundary with a road? Does Martin Kpebu have the right to speak to journalists outside the compound of the OSP, a right which should not be obstructed by the security men?” Awuni asked.
The comments come amid widespread public debate over the OSP’s handling of Kpebu and the limits of the agency’s powers, highlighting tensions between state authority and individual rights.
