The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) has issued a detailed account of the events that led to the arrest of private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu, accusing him of repeated misconduct toward its security personnel and a pattern of publicly misrepresenting his interactions with the Office.

In a statement, the OSP said this is not the first time the lawyer has acted improperly on its premises, claiming that after each incident, he narrates a “completely different version” in the public domain. According to the Office, it became necessary to record his interactions because he consistently misrepresented facts about his engagements.

One example cited was Mr. Kpebu’s claim that 16 petitions had been filed for the removal of the Special Prosecutor a statement he later admitted on television to have repeated from hearsay without verification.

OSP separates arrest from ongoing inquiry

The Office stressed that the confrontation that resulted in his arrest is entirely separate from the ongoing inquiry into the corruption allegations he made against the Special Prosecutor. It noted that Mr. Kpebu continues to insist he is “gathering evidence” to submit to an OSP Board, although he is fully aware that no board currently exists.

The statement accused him of a consistent pattern: refusing to cooperate, pushing for certain investigators to be removed, having his demands granted, and then creating new impediments to the inquiry. Despite this, the OSP said investigators have remained professional.

“He misled the public” — OSP

The Office also dismissed Mr. Kpebu’s repeated claims that the investigators handling his matter were “junior staff,” insisting they hold ranks equivalent to Deputy Commissioners of Police.

It rejected his assertion that “the OSP is investigating itself,” explaining that fact-finding bodies are mandated to establish facts within their own institutions similar to how police, universities or revenue authorities investigate their own personnel.

Chronology of the incident at the OSP

1. At the gate

According to the OSP, Mr. Kpebu parked outside the gate and began his usual routine of granting interviews to journalists before entering. Security personnel asked him to move away from the entrance, after which he relocated to a nearby food vendor’s spot to continue speaking to the media.

When he eventually entered the premises, guards reminded him that filming or photographing the compound is prohibited.

2. Escalation and arrest

The OSP alleges that Mr. Kpebu reacted angrily to this reminder, insulted the guards, and dismissed them as “nobodies,” adding that even the head of the agency would soon be removed.

Security officers reportedly warned him formally, but he insisted he could behave as he wished and threatened to report them. His conduct, the Office said, constituted obstruction of officers performing lawful duties, leading to his arrest.

The arrest, according to internal records, was conducted without force, and no assault occurred.

Bail and conduct of counsel

The OSP said bail was granted in line with standard procedures, but one of Mr. Kpebu’s lawyers refused to leave the premises, hurled insults at officers, and disrupted operations. She was eventually removed “gently and without force.”

Mr. Kpebu was later transferred to a secure holding area as part of normal processing. The Office insisted he was not denied legal access or due process at any point.

“No trap — just enforcement of the law”

The OSP rejected claims that it fell into a trap by arresting the lawyer, saying it simply applied the law to protect its personnel and maintain order.

“Public prominence does not place anyone above the law,” the Office stressed, adding that similar conduct at any national security installation would trigger immediate arrest.

Mr. Kpebu is expected to report to the OSP at 11 a.m. for further investigation into the obstruction charge. The Office will announce a separate date for the continuation of the inquiry into his corruption allegations.