OSP must probe Adom-Otchere’s property claims – Martin Kpebu

Private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu has questioned Paul Adom-Otchere’s claim of not owning any landed property in Ghana, describing it as misleading. He urged the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) to conduct more thorough checks on such declarations during bail processes.

Mr Kpebu’s remarks come amid growing public interest in the ongoing probe involving the former Board Chairman of the Ghana Airports Company Limited (GACL), who is under investigation by the OSP over the controversial award of a revenue assurance contract.

Speaking in a media interview, Mr Kpebu described Adom-Otchere’s claim of having no landed assets—submitted as part of his bail application—as “false” and “misleading,” insisting the OSP must go beyond verbal declarations in high-stakes corruption cases.

“Paul telling the OSP that he has no property is false. There are a thousand people today who can come and prove to you that Paul has houses in Accra,” he said. “Even beyond that, when authorities ask for landed properties as sureties, it doesn’t always have to be in your name. The OSP should know this.”

Mr Kpebu further alleged that he had received messages from individuals claiming direct knowledge of properties Adom-Otchere reportedly financed. “People are calling me, saying they’ll take me to the houses Paul paid them to build. I think he should be better advised,” he added.

The OSP had earlier disclosed that Adom-Otchere has failed to meet the bail condition requiring two landed properties as sureties, reportedly stating that he does not own any. The development has left the broadcaster in custody pending fulfilment of the requirement.

While the former GACL board chair is currently being investigated for alleged procurement infractions, including the potential misuse of public office, he has not yet been formally charged or convicted. His lawyer, Nicholas Lenin Anane Agyei, has maintained that his client is cooperating fully and voluntarily with the investigation.

The incident has reignited public debate over the effectiveness and transparency of bail-setting procedures, particularly in high-profile corruption cases.