By: Ebenezer Amponsah Lartey & Evans Mawunyo Tsikata
The recent arrest of Mr. Martin Kpebu, a distinguished Ghanaian legal practitioner and outspoken advocate for the rights of accused persons, has cast a spotlight on the inconsistencies and perceived injustices of the bail system.
On December 3, 2025, the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) took Mr. Kpebu into custody following an alleged altercation with a military officer at the OSP premises.
At the time, he was present to provide information related to an ongoing corruption investigation involving the Special Prosecutor himself.
Following his arrest, Martin Kpebu was subjected to stringent bail conditions that many have described as excessive and punitive. Among these requirements were proof of property ownership and the provision of a reputable surety—conditions that delayed his release for several hours.
The irony of the situation was not lost on observers: Martin. Kpebu, long a critic of rigid and punitive bail practices, now found himself navigating the very system he had campaigned to reform.
Martin Kpebu’s advocacy against restrictive bail practices is well-documented. In 2016, he challenged Section 96(7) of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, which denied bail to individuals accused of serious crimes such as murder and robbery.
He argued that such blanket denials violated the presumption of innocence and the constitutional right to personal liberty. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, agreed, ruling the provision unconstitutional for excessively limiting judicial discretion and contravening Articles 14(1) and 19(2)(c) of the 1992 Constitution.
This landmark ruling reaffirmed that bail is not a discretionary privilege but a fundamental right protected under the Constitution.
His efforts did not end there. In 2020, Mr. Kpebu again appeared before the Supreme Court in Martin Kpebu v. Attorney General (No. 2), challenging bail restrictions under the Anti-Terrorism Act that he argued allowed for blanket denials of bail. The Court upheld its previous stance, emphasizing that judicial discretion must be preserved in all cases, even those involving terrorism. This ruling further reinforced the principle that the right to liberty is paramount and cannot be compromised in the name of national security.
In addition to bail reforms, Mr. Kpebu successfully confronted the unlawful extension of pre-trial detention. In 2019, he challenged the practice of holding suspects beyond the constitutionally mandated 48 hours due to weekends or public holidays.
The Supreme Court, on December 18, 2019, ruled in his favor, asserting that the 48-hour rule is absolute and cannot be circumvented by calendar-related excuses. These victories collectively strengthened the notion that justice delayed is liberty denied, and reinforced the judiciary’s role as guardian of individual rights.
Martin Kpebu’s legal battles have gone beyond case law to underscore a broader message: the Constitution must serve as a binding protector of individual freedoms, not a flexible guideline subject to convenience. Every accused person is presumed innocent, and personal liberty is a fundamental human right, not a privilege granted at the discretion of the state.
His work has consistently reminded the nation that accusations are not convictions, and that legal protections exist to ensure fairness and equity.
Yet, the recent events illustrate the tension between principle and practice. While courts sometimes impose strict bail conditions to protect public safety or prevent flight risks, these measures must be balanced against the rights of the accused.
In Martin Kpebu’s case, the onerous conditions sparked nationwide debate, highlighting the inconsistencies and rigidity that continue to plague the bail system.
Legal practitioners and civil society groups have condemned the situation, arguing that no legal framework should make securing bail nearly impossible for a rightful applicant.
The OSP, meanwhile, has defended its actions, denying claims that Mr. Kpebu’s arrest was politically motivated or connected to his criticisms of the office. Whether these assurances satisfy the public or the legal community remains uncertain, as discussions around legal reform continue to intensify.
Martin Kpebu’s ordeal has become a flashpoint for critical reflection on Ghana’s justice system. It raises urgent questions: Are bail conditions being wielded as instruments of control? How does the system maintain integrity when even its most vocal reformers are ensnared by the very flaws they seek to correct? These are pressing issues for lawmakers, the judiciary, and civil society alike, and they may well serve as catalysts for reforming access to justice across the country.
In a society that values fairness, such incidents cannot be dismissed as routine. Citizens, advocates, and legal professionals must remain vigilant, informed, and willing to challenge injustices where they arise.
