Private legal practitioner Oliver Barker-Vormawor has criticised the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) over its attempt to secure the attendance of Manhyia South Member of Parliament, Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah, for questioning at the Accra High Court complex.
Mr Barker-Vormawor questioned the manner in which the anti-corruption agency handled the encounter, arguing that the approach adopted by law enforcement officials could undermine the government’s goodwill.
Reacting to the incident in a social media post, he wrote: “Unprofessional law enforcement diɛ it is the weapon fashioned against the Gov’t oo. I su-err!”
He continued: “Everyday they wake up, it’s like they are determined to wipe out every goodwill of the Govt. Zero tact! Zero common sense. Hmm.”
His comments follow a confrontation between EOCO officials and Mr Baffour Awuah on Wednesday, September 23, 2026, after the MP had concluded court proceedings.
The encounter has since generated conflicting accounts over the circumstances leading to EOCO’s attempt to secure the MP’s attendance.
EOCO says its officials approached Mr Baffour Awuah as part of efforts to get him to report to the agency for questioning in connection with an ongoing investigation.
The agency maintains that it issued two formal invitations to the MP in February 2026, requesting that he appear before EOCO to assist with its investigations.
According to EOCO, Mr Baffour Awuah did not honour the invitations, prompting its officials to take steps to secure his attendance.
The agency has therefore rejected any suggestion that the attempted arrest or detention was without prior notice or that the MP had not previously been contacted.
Mr Baffour Awuah, however, has disputed EOCO’s account and insists that he has not personally been the subject of an investigation by the agency.
According to the MP, the matter concerns SIC Life Savings and Loans Company Limited, which is represented by his law firm, Sarkodie Baffour Awuah & Co.
He has also pointed to subsequent engagements between his lawyers and EOCO, including a formal written statement submitted to the agency on April 30, 2026.
The MP’s position is that these engagements contradict any suggestion that he simply ignored EOCO’s requests or refused to cooperate with the investigation.
The differing accounts have consequently created a dispute over what transpired after the February invitations and whether the subsequent correspondence and written submission were taken into consideration by EOCO.
The incident has also raised questions about the nature of the February invitations, including whether they were issued to Mr Baffour Awuah in his personal capacity or in relation to his professional representation of SIC Life Savings and Loans Company Limited.
There are further questions over the subsequent communication between the MP’s lawyers and EOCO and why the agency ultimately sought to secure his attendance at the court premises on Wednesday.
The confrontation has attracted reactions from lawyers and other public figures, particularly over the manner in which law enforcement agencies engage persons who are required to assist with investigations.
For Mr Barker-Vormawor, the issue goes beyond the immediate confrontation. His criticism centres on what he considers a lack of tact and professionalism in the conduct of law enforcement officials.
His comments suggest that, regardless of the substance of EOCO’s investigation, the manner in which enforcement actions are carried out can have implications for public confidence in the government’s administration.
The incident has consequently opened a broader discussion about law-enforcement procedures, the handling of invitations for questioning and the steps available to investigative agencies when persons fail to honour such invitations.
EOCO continues to maintain that it had formally invited Mr Baffour Awuah twice in February and that its officials were acting in furtherance of an investigation when they approached him at the court complex.
The MP, on the other hand, maintains that there had been subsequent engagement with EOCO and that a formal response was submitted on April 30.
The competing accounts leave the circumstances surrounding the February invitations, the subsequent correspondence and Wednesday’s confrontation at the centre of the controversy.
By 1960news.com
