When the Advocate Becomes the Accused: Martin Kpebu’s Bail Conditions Mirror the System He Criticized

Martin Kpebu, Private Legal Practitioner

The recent arrest of Mr Martin Kpebu, an astute Ghanaian legal practitioner and a strong advocate for the rights of accused individuals, has triggered an intense scrutiny of the nation’s bail system. Mr Kpebu, known for criticizing punitive bail practices that undermine personal freedoms, was taken into custody by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) on December 3, 2025.

This incident arose from an alleged altercation with a military officer at the OSP premises, where Mr Kpebu was present to assist with information on allegations of corruption investigation involving the Special Prosecutor himself.

Upon his arrest, Mr Kpebu was subjected to stringent bail conditions that members of the public have described as excessive and punitive.

The bail conditions included providing proof of property ownership and securing a reputable surety, standards that created obstacles and ultimately delayed his release for several hours. The conditions applied to Mr Kpebu contradict the very bail practices he long campaigned against, revealing the inherent flaws in meeting bail conditions in the country.

In Ghana’s legal system, Mr Kpebu’s advocacy has swept through the waves, based on a series of landmark cases he initiated against the Attorney-General. In 2016, he boldly challenged Section 96(7) of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, a provision that denied bail to individuals accused of serious crimes such as murder and robbery. Mr Kpebu’s argument emphasized the principles of the presumption of innocence and the inherent right to personal liberty.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court deemed the provision unconstitutional, affirming that it excessively restricted judicial discretion and contravened Articles 14(1) and 19(2)(c) of the 1992 Constitution. This decision not only reaffirmed the fundamental principle that bail is not a privilege granted at the discretion of authorities, but also a constitutional protective right in Ghana’s democratic dispensation.

Mr Kpebu’s commitment to reforming the bail system did not end there. In 2020, he returned to the courts to confront similar bail restrictions imposed under the Anti-Terrorism Act. In the case of Martin Kpebu v. Attorney General (No. 2), he argued that the amendments made still allowed for blanket denials of bail, directly conflicting with the 2016 Supreme Court ruling.

On June 7, 2020, the Supreme Court again upheld its previous stance, declaring that courts must retain discretion in all cases, including those involving terrorism. This ruling stamped its authority on the principle that the right to liberty is paramount and cannot be compromised in the name of national security.

In 2019, Mr Kpebu tackled another unjust practice involving the unlawful detention of suspects beyond the mandated 48 hours due to weekends or public holidays. He argued that such practices violated Article 14(3) of the Constitution, which safeguards the rights of individuals against arbitrary detention.

The Supreme Court was convinced and decided on December 18, 2019, affirming that the 48-hour detention rule is absolute and that no calendar–related excuses could justify prolonged detainment. This ruling succeeded in making a powerful statement that justice delayed is indeed liberty denied.

These legal victories extend beyond mere case law to represent even greater declarations of principles that reaffirm the Constitution’s role as a guardian of individual rights. The Constitution must be viewed not as a mere suggestion, but as a binding promise that every accused person is inherently presumed innocent. It affirms that personal liberty is a fundamental human right, not a privilege conferred on individuals by the state. The courts must serve as the arbiters of justice, weighing each case on its merits rather than succumbing to rigid statutes and obnoxious bail conditions.

Imagine being arrested and locked up, not because you’ve been found guilty, but simply because the law says you can’t apply for bail. No matter your circumstances. No matter your story. That’s the reality Martin Kpebu has spent years fighting to change, and he’s made history doing it. These victories are, at best, supposed to make Ghana’s justice system fairer. They’ve reminded us that being accused of a crime doesn’t mean you’re guilty, and that our rights don’t disappear just because the charges are serious.

Still, it’s important to recognize the other side of the story. In some cases, strict bail conditions are necessary. If someone poses a real danger to others or might run away before trial, the courts need tools to protect the public. That’s a valid concern. But the key is balance. We can protect public safety without taking away people’s rights

Ironically, in a situation that highlights the very issues he has fought against, Mr Kpebu found himself unable to immediately meet the stringent bail conditions imposed upon him, igniting a nationwide debate on the fairness and consistency of Ghana’s bail system. The situation was met with open condemnation for being onerous and inconsistent with legal principles that are normally observed in civilized nations. There is no legal framework anywhere that should make it practically impossible to secure a rightful grant of bail.

The OSP, however, has defended its actions, staunchly denying any accusations that Mr Kpebu’s arrest was politically motivated or connected to his vocal criticisms directed at the Special Prosecutor’s office. This assertion will, however, find its footprints in the distant future.

As discussions unfold across the legal community and among civil society, Mr Kpebu’s case has become a critical flashpoint in the ongoing debate around legal reform in Ghana. It raises pressing questions: Are bail conditions being weaponized as tools of control? What does it reveal about the integrity of the justice system when even its most ardent reformers are trapped by the very flaws they strive to eradicate? As advocates and legal professionals rally to address these issues, this case could serve as a crucial catalyst for sweeping reforms aimed at enhancing access to justice throughout Ghana. It should not be swept under the carpet as business as usual.

If you believe in fairness, speak up when you see injustice. If you know someone facing pre-trial detention, help them understand their rights. Support organizations working for legal reform. Demand that lawmakers respect the Constitution and that courts are empowered to do their jobs without interference. Justice doesn’t defend itself; it needs us all, vigilant, informed, and unafraid to ask hard questions.

Authored By: Ebenezer Amponsah Lartey and Evans Mawunyo Tsikata.