Failure to show ID card does not justify Baffour Awuah’s resistance – Brako-Powers
Legal practitioner and policy analyst Austin Kwabena Brako-Powers has argued that an Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) officer’s failure to immediately produce an identification card did not, on its own, invalidate her legal authority to act.
According to him, the issue of identification must be distinguished from the officer’s statutory powers, particularly where there is no evidence that she lacked the necessary authority.
Mr Brako-Powers said footage of the encounter showed that the Manhyia South MP, Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah, acknowledged that the woman was an EOCO officer.
He therefore argued that the absence of an identification card could not, by itself, justify physical resistance or non-compliance with the officer.
In an article titled “The Legality of the Attempted EOCO Arrest of Baffour Awuah: A Critical Legal Analysis,” published on Saturday, September 26, 2026, he cited Section 18 of the EOCO Act, 2010 (Act 804), which grants authorised EOCO officers powers and immunities applicable to police officers under the law.
Mr Brako-Powers further argued that the circumstances changed when the encounter escalated into what he described as public obstruction of the officer in the performance of her duties.
He cited Section 21 of Act 804, which makes it an offence to wilfully obstruct an authorised EOCO officer from performing a function under the Act.
He also referenced Section 10 of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30), which permits a police officer to arrest without a warrant a person who obstructs the officer in the execution of their duty.
Mr Brako-Powers therefore maintained that if the conduct captured in the footage amounted to obstruction, the EOCO officer could have exercised warrantless arrest powers.
He said the key legal question was not simply whether an arrest warrant was produced, but whether the conditions for a warrantless arrest had been met.
On the reason for the attempted arrest, Mr Brako-Powers said Baffour Awuah was already aware of EOCO’s interest in having him appear before the agency.
He noted that EOCO had publicly stated that the MP had been invited twice in February 2026 but had failed to honour the invitations.
The legal practitioner also examined whether the MP should have been informed of his rights at the point of arrest. He referred to what is commonly known as “Miranda rights,” while noting that Ghana’s applicable constitutional safeguards are contained in Articles 14(2) and 19(2) of the 1992 Constitution.
Article 14(2) requires an arrested, restricted or detained person to be informed immediately, in a language they understand, of the reasons for the arrest and of their right to a lawyer of their choice.
Mr Brako-Powers questioned whether the circumstances should be treated differently where an individual already knows why law enforcement seeks to speak with them and has requested the presence of counsel.
He, however, stressed that the relevant constitutional question is whether the requirements of Article 14(2) were satisfied at the time of the arrest.
Addressing the MP’s parliamentary status, Mr Brako-Powers said membership of Parliament does not provide blanket immunity from arrest or investigation.
He cited Article 117 of the 1992 Constitution, which provides specific protection to MPs against the service or execution of civil or criminal process while they are on their way to, attending, or returning from parliamentary proceedings.
EOCO has similarly maintained that while it recognises parliamentary privileges and immunities, membership of Parliament does not place an individual beyond the reach of the law.
By Esther Padmore Amonoo
