President of IMANI Africa, Franklin Cudjoe, has criticised the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) over its attempted arrest of Manhyia South Member of Parliament, Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah, at the Accra High Court complex.
Mr Cudjoe, however, has also expressed disappointment with the MP for allegedly failing to honour two formal invitations issued by EOCO in February 2026 in connection with an ongoing investigation.
His comments follow a confrontation between EOCO officials and Mr Baffour Awuah at the court premises on Wednesday, September 23, after the conclusion of court proceedings.
According to EOCO, its officers approached the MP as part of efforts to secure his attendance for questioning after he allegedly failed to respond to two invitations issued in February.
Reacting to the incident, Mr Cudjoe said EOCO should not have proceeded with the attempted arrest after the MP declined to accompany its officials.
“EOCO. No! You really shouldn’t have attempted the arrest once the MP reneged,” he wrote.
However, he maintained that the MP ought to have honoured the earlier invitations from the anti-graft agency.
“But the MP should have honoured two formal invitations sent to him by EOCO as far back in February 2026! I respect the MP so much and I am disappointed that he ignored EOCO’s invitation,” Mr Cudjoe added.
The controversy began after an EOCO official approached Mr Baffour Awuah at the Accra High Court complex and sought to take him to the agency’s office.
The encounter reportedly became tense as the MP moved towards his vehicle.
Video footage of the incident subsequently circulated on social media, showing a confrontation involving the MP, EOCO officials and other individuals around the vehicle.
Mr Baffour Awuah eventually left the court premises and proceeded to Parliament, where he addressed members of the Parliamentary Press Corps.
The MP, who is also a lawyer, said the woman who approached him identified herself as an EOCO official but did not provide identification or evidence of her authority when requested.
He also said he asked to see an arrest warrant and offered to drive himself to the EOCO office to verify the invitation.
According to his account, however, his suspicion increased when he was allegedly asked to use an EOCO vehicle rather than his own vehicle.
Mr Baffour Awuah subsequently left the scene, explaining that he had concerns about his safety and the circumstances surrounding the attempted arrest.
EOCO has defended the action, saying its officers were acting in connection with an ongoing investigation.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, September 23, the Office said Mr Baffour Awuah had been invited on two occasions in February 2026 to assist with the investigation but had failed to honour the invitations.
EOCO said it subsequently took steps to secure his attendance, describing the attempted arrest as one of the lawful measures available to the Office.
The agency said the operation was discontinued after the situation escalated and its officers assessed that continuing with the arrest could pose a risk to public safety.
EOCO also said it had identified two individuals who allegedly intervened to facilitate the MP’s departure from the scene and indicated that their conduct could be subject to further lawful action.
The Office further acknowledged that Mr Baffour Awuah proceeded to the precincts of Parliament after leaving the court.
EOCO said it recognises and respects the constitutional privileges and immunities enjoyed by Members of Parliament.
It stressed that its operations would be conducted within the framework of the Constitution and applicable laws.
The agency, however, maintained that membership of Parliament does not automatically bring an investigation to an end or place an individual beyond the reach of the law.
EOCO said the investigation remains active and that it would review the circumstances surrounding Wednesday’s incident, including available video evidence, before determining its next course of action.
The issue of whether Mr Baffour Awuah ignored EOCO’s February invitations has also become a major point of contention.
The MP’s lawyers have disputed EOCO’s account, arguing that the correspondence in February was directed to Mr Baffour Awuah in his capacity as Senior Partner of Sarkodie Baffour Awuah & Partners and related to an investigation involving the firm’s client, SIC Life Savings and Loans Company Limited.
According to the lawyers, Mr Baffour Awuah responded to EOCO on February 18, after becoming an MP, and referred the matter to the Clerk to Parliament for guidance.
They further claim that a representative of the law firm subsequently engaged EOCO investigators on March 4, March 18 and April 30.
The lawyers say information requested by EOCO was provided during those engagements, including a formal written statement submitted on April 30.
They have therefore rejected any suggestion that the MP simply ignored EOCO’s investigation.
EOCO, on the other hand, continues to maintain that two invitations were issued to Mr Baffour Awuah in February and that he failed to honour them.
The conflicting accounts have raised questions about the nature of the February invitations, the subsequent engagements between the MP’s lawyers and EOCO, and the circumstances under which the agency attempted to secure the MP’s attendance on Wednesday.
The incident has also brought renewed attention to the balance between EOCO’s investigative powers and the constitutional privileges and protections applicable to Members of Parliament.
By 1960news.com
