Why EOCO and BNI Must Play by the Rules to Retain Public Trust

In a constitutional democracy, the legitimacy of law enforcement agencies does not rest solely on the number of arrests they make, the size of the bail conditions they impose, or the aggressiveness of their investigations. It rests squarely on public trust—a fragile social contract forged when citizens believe that those empowered to enforce the law are themselves subject to it.

When investigative bodies like the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) and the Bureau of National Intelligence (BNI) operate within constitutional bounds, they command moral authority and public confidence. However, when investigative processes begin to feel like extrajudicial punishment, public confidence erodes, prosecutions flounder, and the state's long-term capacity to fight crime is compromised.

This delicate balance is central to a press release issued on September 30, 2026, by the governance watchdog OccupyGhana. Titled "EOCO, BNI: STOP TURNING INVESTIGATION INTO PUNISHMENT: Fight Corruption Through the Law, Not Around It," the statement raises critical constitutional questions regarding account freezes, agency-imposed bail, travel restrictions and the treatment of legal counsel.

A thorough examination of the issues raised in the release reveals why our security agencies must recalibrate their operations to ensure that the pursuit of justice does not subvert the rule of law.

The Constitutional Imperative: Investigation is Not Conviction

The fundamental premise of Ghanaian criminal jurisprudence, enshrined in Article 19(2)(c) of the 1992 Constitution, is that every person charged with an offence is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction.

When state agencies utilise administrative measures such as indefinite account freezes, restrictive travel bans, or stringent reporting requirements prior to filing formal charges, they blur the line between pre-charge investigation and post-conviction penalty. As OccupyGhana points out, after five months of intense investigative activity in the Power Distribution Services (PDS) Ghana Ltd matter, including the freezing of roughly 66 bank accounts and repeated bi-weekly or tri-weekly attendances, no formal charges have been laid in court.

When coercive powers are deployed without judicial oversight, the investigation itself becomes the punishment. Suspects and, in some cases, uncharged third parties find their livelihoods disrupted, their reputations tarnished, and their personal finances frozen without a trial.

Public Confidence: The Currency of Effective Enforcement

For the BNI and EOCO to effectively fulfil their mandates, they require the cooperation and trust of the public. Citizens must feel confident that approaching these agencies with information will yield fair, transparent and lawful outcomes.

When investigative actions appear arbitrary or disproportionate, public perception shifts from viewing these entities as guardians of the public purse to viewing them as instruments of administrative overreach. Recent judicial rulings cited in the press release highlight this risk:

In March 2026, the High Court at Adentan revoked an account freezing order against Sesi-Edem Company Limited, finding that EOCO had acted outside its mandate in what was essentially a private contractual dispute.

In July 2026, BNI officers arrested former NAFCO CEO, Hanan Abdul-Wahab Aludiba, at the airport, days after a High Court had permitted him to travel abroad for medical treatment.

When state agencies disregard court rulings or exceed statutory boundaries, they undermine institutional credibility. A public that loses faith in the fairness of investigative processes becomes hesitant to cooperate, weakening the long-term effectiveness of the security apparatus.

The Chilling Effect on the Right to Counsel
Perhaps the most troubling issue highlighted in the press release is the treatment of legal practitioners representing suspects under investigation. In the PDS matter, two lawyers who accompanied their clients to the BNI were declared "persons of interest," detained overnight, granted GH¢50 million bail each, questioned about their professional legal fees and subjected to personal and law-firm account freezes and travel restrictions.

Article 14(2) of the Constitution and Section 19(4) of the EOCO Act (Act 804) guarantee every citizen the right to counsel of their choice at any stage of an investigation. Targeting lawyers for providing legal representation strikes at the heart of the justice system. If defence attorneys fear personal detriment or state sanctions simply for representing clients, the constitutional right to legal defence becomes illusory.

Agency-Set Bail vs. Judicial Authority
Another pressing legal concern is the practice of security agencies setting exorbitant bail conditions, sometimes reaching GH¢100 million or GH¢150 million without bringing suspects before a court.

While administrative bail exists to secure attendance during inquiries, setting conditions so high that suspects remain detained indefinitely circumvents Article 14(3) of the Constitution, which mandates that an arrested person be brought before a court within 48 hours. The Ghana Bar Association (GBA), CDD-Ghana, and the Africa Centre for Energy Policy (ACEP) have all raised alarms over this practice, noting that bail must remain reasonable, proportionate, and aligned with the presumption of innocence. A pending action before the Supreme Court seeking to determine whether investigative agencies possess the legal authority to set such onerous conditions underscores the urgency of resolving this practice.

Due Process Strengthens, Not Weakens, Prosecutions

Adhering to constitutional limits is not a concession to crime; it is the cornerstone of sustainable prosecution. As OccupyGhana cogently asserts, due process is what renders asset recoveries lawful and convictions enduring.

When investigative bodies bypass statutory procedures such as exceeding the statutory limits on account freezes outlined in Section 38 of Act 804, they build cases on flawed foundations. Evidence obtained through questionable methods or procedural violations risks being thrown out in court. When cases collapse due to procedural flaws, the public loses twice: first, the misappropriated funds, and second, the opportunity to hold offenders accountable.

The Way Forward: Institutional Accountability

To restore public confidence and align investigative practice with constitutional norms, the relevant authorities must take clear, actionable steps:

Firstly, they should either charge the suspects or release them. Suspects under investigation should either be formally charged in a court of law where sufficient evidence exists, or have their bail conditions, reporting requirements, and account freezes lifted promptly.

Secondly, judicial hierarchy should be respected. Orders issued by the High Court, whether on travel permissions or the unfreezing of accounts must be respected unconditionally by all security agencies.

Moreover, professional privileges must be protected. The right to legal representation must remain sacrosanct; lawyers should not face harassment or financial restrictions for performing their professional duties.

Also, Committees such as Parliament’s Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee and the Defence and Interior Committee must actively monitor EOCO's and the BNI's exercise of police powers to prevent administrative overreach.

The fight against corruption and economic crime must be uncompromising, but it must be fought on the high ground of the law. When investigative bodies operate strictly within the constitution, they protect both the public purse and the fundamental rights of the citizens they serve.