The Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) has granted Manhyia South Member of Parliament, Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah, GH¢50 million bail with three sureties after his detention.
The MP reported himself to EOCO on Thursday, October 1, 2026, accompanied by his lawyer, after an Accra High Court issued a warrant authorising his arrest.
EOCO subsequently placed the MP under arrest and detained as investigators began questioning him over an ongoing investigation into transactions involving SIC Life Savings and Loans.
According to EOCO, the investigation concerns allegations including criminal conspiracy, financial loss to SIC Savings and Loans, money laundering and tax-related offences.
Also read: Front Pages: Top newspaper headlines for Friday, 2nd October, 2026
His lawyer, Samuel Atta Akyea has, however, criticised the detention of his client and questioned why his client was kept in custody after voluntarily presenting himself to EOCO.
“The power play is disgusting. If my client, who is a Member of Parliament, is treated this way, then who is safe?” the lawyer said.
He argued that Baffour Awuah had demonstrated his willingness to cooperate with investigators and questioned the need for his detention.
The detention followed earlier disagreements over attempts by EOCO to secure the MP’s attendance for questioning.
EOCO had told the High Court that it had exhausted reasonable means of securing Baffour Awuah’s voluntary attendance before seeking a warrant for his arrest. The agency also expressed concern that documents relevant to its investigation could be concealed, altered or destroyed.
Baffour Awuah has disputed EOCO’s account that he ignored invitations to appear before the agency. He has maintained that he did not personally receive the invitations and that representatives of his former law firm appeared before investigators and provided information requested by EOCO.
EOCO has also conducted searches at locations linked to the MP as part of its evidence-gathering exercise.
Mr Atta Akyea has separately questioned the basis of EOCO’s investigation, arguing that the transaction arose from a legal dispute that was subsequently settled and questioning whether the circumstances fall within EOCO’s mandate.