ACEP boss accuses EOCO of 'institutionalised lawlessness' in PDS probe

Benjamin Kwabena Boakye, an energy governance professional and Executive Director of the Africa Centre for Energy Policy (ACEP), has expressed “deep concern about institutionalised lawlessness masquerading as the exercise of lawful authority”, where broad discretionary powers are applied in a “heavy-handed and abusive manner”. Boakye criticised EOCO’s handling of investigations into the botched Power Distribution Services (PDS) takeover of the Electricity Company of Ghana (ECG), particularly the treatment of executives of PDS and lawyers from Minkah-Premo, Osei-Bonsu, Bruce-Cathline and Partners (MPOBB). In a post on X, formerly Twitter, Boakye questioned the reported requirement for the suspects and their lawyers to report to EOCO every three days while investigations continued. He said such bail conditions could appear “excessively heavy-handed and disproportionate”, arguing that they risked becoming a form of punishment rather than measures to secure cooperation with investigators. “Investigation is not punishment, and bail conditions should not become punishment by another name,” he said. According to him, “many have become increasingly concerned about the modus operandi of EOCO, where the exercise of discretionary powers can appear excessively heavy-handed and disproportionate. “In some cases, bail conditions seem less about securing cooperation with an investigation and more about imposing continuing restrictions on individuals, almost as though guilt has already been established and the benefit of the doubt no longer applies.” Boakye said he could not fathom why “executives of PDS, as well as their lawyers who were arrested by EOCO, have reportedly been required to report to EOCO every three days while the investigation continues”. The ACEP boss said he was concerned about the approach adopted by EOCO in its ongoing PDS investigation, insisting that “the rule of law requires that we establish the debt before we establish the crime”. He warned: “Ghana should be very concerned about that precedent.” This follows the arrest and detention last May of two lawyers of MPOBB, Justice Kusi-Minkah Premo and Sophia Kokor, by the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) and EOCO over investigations into the transfer of GH¢850 million from a CalBank account allegedly belonging to ECG. Following the arrests, the law firm named several significant figures, including the Attorney-General, the Minister of Justice, and the Managing Director of ECG, as persons with knowledge of key facts surrounding the resolutions reached on the botched PDS transaction. According to the firm, while Dr Dominic Ayine, the current Attorney-General, represented ECG in the arbitration proceedings, which were duly concluded with an award delivered in November 2025, the current ECG Managing Director, Julius Kwame Kpekpena, participated in a related matter as the then Chief Operating Officer of the Millennium Development Authority (MiDA), which resulted in a solution termed the “Interim Protocol”. MPOBB, in a statement released on Friday, 8 May 2026, clarified the circumstances surrounding its lawyers’ involvement in the matter and addressed claims relating to their arrest and detention, which were first announced by the Minister for Government Communications, Felix Ofosu Kwakye, and later reiterated by Benjamin Alpha, a spokesperson for the Attorney-General’s Office. The firm insisted that PDS does not owe ECG any money, contrary to claims by Ofosu Kwakye, who stated in a Facebook post that a PDS “quartet”, including Justice Kusi-Minkah Premo and Sophia Kokor, had been arrested and granted bail in connection with money “believed” to belong to ECG. In his post on Saturday, Boakye said he had appeared on Newsfile earlier in the day and was struck by “Samson’s take”, which, he said, rekindled his “deep concern about institutionalised lawlessness masquerading as the exercise of lawful authority, where broad discretionary powers are applied in a heavy-handed and abusive manner”. He said many people had become increasingly concerned about EOCO’s modus operandi, particularly the manner in which its discretionary powers could appear “excessively heavy-handed and disproportionate”. “I learnt for the first time that executives of PDS, as well as their lawyers who were arrested by EOCO, have reportedly been required to report to EOCO every three days while the investigation continues,” he said. Boakye also claimed that EOCO had frozen the accounts of PDS, its executives and some of its lawyers, including the private accounts of individuals who had no direct dealings with the State in the transaction under investigation. “And then comes the extraordinary part: I understand EOCO commenced a process of sweeping the frozen funds into an account under its control,” he said. “I thought frozen accounts remain under state control until a determination is made or the order expires? Most banks reportedly declined to do so without a specific court order. CAL Bank is the only bank that complied. “I wonder what legal advice led CAL Bank to take a position that the lawyers for the other banks apparently refused.” Boakye questioned the basis for the alleged criminal conduct under investigation, particularly the claims concerning the professional fees charged by the lawyers. “What exactly is the alleged crime?” he asked. “As I understand it, part of the allegation is that the lawyers overcharged for their professional services. But who determines what constitutes an appropriate professional fee for lawyers advising on a complex, multimillion-dollar international transaction? “Is it EOCO? Is there a statutory tariff for such transactions? Or is the mere allegation that a fee was excessive now sufficient to trigger a criminal investigation, frozen private accounts, and reporting to EOCO every three days?” He said the lawyers had spent their entire professional careers practising in Ghana and were now approaching the twilight of their careers. “If there is evidence of professional misconduct or criminality, let it be established through due process. But an allegation about the level of professional fees cannot itself become a presumption of criminality. “Investigation is not punishment, and bail conditions should not become punishment by another name.” Boakye also said the PDS matter required “some intellectual honesty”. “The arbitration established that ECG was entitled to terminate the transaction and that it validly exercised that right. PDS was absolved of fraudulent claims pursued by ECG. “But there is another critical part of the Award that seems to be getting lost in the public conversation: the Tribunal declined jurisdiction over the claims arising from the Interim Protocol on the transaction.” He explained that the Interim Protocol was the mechanism governing the financial relationship between ECG and PDS during the period in question and contemplated the reconciliation of amounts due and owing between the parties. “The Tribunal did not undertake that reconciliation because it found that disputes under the Protocol fell outside its jurisdiction,” he said. “Therefore, the consequence of the Award is not that the money in PDS’ account has magically become criminal proceeds. The parties must first follow the dictates of the Protocol and establish, through reconciliation, what each party owes the other. “That is fundamentally a civil and accounting matter.” Boakye said if the reconciliation subsequently revealed evidence that someone had deliberately falsified accounts, diverted funds, stolen money or otherwise committed a criminal offence, then the matter could be investigated and prosecuted. “But you cannot reverse the sequence: criminalise the disputed account first and reconcile it later,” he said. Boakye questioned the basis on which EOCO was acting and whose money was allegedly missing. “If the allegation is that money belonging to ECG or the State is missing, then where is the reconciliation establishing what was due to ECG, what PDS collected, what PDS paid, what remained outstanding and why?” he asked. He noted that the arbitration did not answer those questions because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction over the Interim Protocol. “ECG should therefore first undertake the reconciliation required under the Protocol and, if there is a disputed balance, pursue the appropriate civil process. “If that process subsequently uncovers evidence of criminal conduct, EOCO can then do what the law empowers it to do. “The State cannot use the coercive machinery of criminal investigation to determine a civil debt. “That is the larger issue here. When accounts are frozen, private property is targeted, and people are subjected to punitive reporting conditions before the underlying liability has even been reconciled, the process itself becomes punishment. “Ghana should be very concerned about that precedent. The rule of law requires that we establish the debt before we establish the crime.” Source: GhanaWeb (https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/ACEP-boss-accuses-EOCO-of-institutionalised-lawlessness-in-PDS-probe-2052095)