Security Consultant Richard Kumadoe has rejected claims that Ghana’s Economic and Organised Crime Office employs Rambo-style tactics in its arrests, challenging Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin to define the term before applying it to state investigative work.
Mr Kumadoe, a former Special Officer with the Bureau of National Investigation, made the remarks in an exclusive interview with The Vaultz News addressing the wave of political criticism EOCO has faced over recent high-profile arrests.
The interview comes amid sustained political fire directed at EOCO following arrests involving Dennis Miracles Aboagye, Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, Abdul-Wahab Hanan Aludiba, and Kofi Akpaloo, all of whom have faced detention and bail conditions ranging from GH¢10 million to GH¢60 million.
Questioning the “Rambo Style” Label
Asked how much of the Rambo-style characterisation reflects genuine procedural excess versus the normal friction of high-stakes financial crime investigations, Mr Kumadoe pushed back firmly, questioning what specific standard the term was even meant to describe.
“What is Rambo style? Which one is the Rambo style?” he asked, comparing the vague label to equally undefined terms like “Bruce Lee style” or “standard style.”
He broke the investigative process down into distinct stages, arguing that critics often conflate arrest, search and seizure, bail conditions, and prosecution as though they were a single undifferentiated activity, when in fact not every investigation proceeds to prosecution at all.
He stressed that once a person becomes a subject of a criminal or national security investigation, they do not get to dictate the terms of their own arrest, including where, how or when it takes place.
Mr Kumadoe framed this explanation as a matter of public education, insisting that without a clear definition of what conduct the Rambo style label was meant to capture, the criticism amounted to little more than rhetoric. “I don’t know the concept of the Rambo style and which elements fall under that,” he said.
Investigators Act Within Legal Boundaries, Says Kumadoe
Turning to whether intense political criticism changes how investigators handle a case mid-investigation, Mr Kumadoe firmly rejected the idea, describing investigative agencies as bound by legal accountability structures rather than public opinion.
He explained that agencies operate knowing their conduct can be challenged in court and scrutinised publicly, a dual accountability that shapes how they work without necessarily altering their approach to any specific case.
“So it creates a flexible framework for investigators to do their work without being concerned about the noise that comes from as a result of what they do, provided they are doing it rightly and in the interest of the state”.
Security Consultant Richard Kumadoe
He added that anyone who believes their rights have been violated retains the option of seeking redress through the courts, a safeguard he described as built into the system regardless of political noise surrounding a case.
Political Attacks Do Not Undermine Convictions, He Argues
Addressing whether sustained political attacks on EOCO’s credibility could weaken its ability to secure convictions in legitimate cases, Mr Kumadoe was unequivocal in rejecting the premise, insisting that court redress, not public criticism, is the appropriate channel for anyone who feels wronged by the agency’s conduct.
“No, no, not at all. If EOCO act out of line, or they act outside of the law that established them, people have the right to seek redress in court,” he said. He drew a distinction between the mandates of various security and investigative institutions, noting that the BNI, the police, the Cybersecurity Authority, EOCO, and the Special Prosecutor’s Office each operate within clearly defined scopes of responsibility.
According to Mr Kumadoe, these agencies largely remain insulated from public commentary, focusing instead on completing their statutory duties in line with standard procedure, regardless of the political conversation swirling around any particular case.
Mr Kumadoe’s remarks arrive against a backdrop of heated political debate over EOCO’s conduct, with critics accusing the agency of using unattainable bail conditions to extend detentions beyond what the law permits, while the government and EOCO point to GH¢617.5 million in recovered stolen funds as evidence of impartial enforcement rather than political targeting.
His comments offer a distinctly institutional perspective on the controversy, framing the agency’s work as governed by legal process and judicial oversight rather than by the intensity of political criticism surrounding any particular case.
Whether this framing satisfies critics who continue to question the fairness of EOCO’s methods remains to be seen, but Mr Kumadoe’s remarks add a security expert’s voice to an increasingly polarised national conversation about accountability, due process and the limits of political scrutiny over state investigative bodies.
READ ALSO: Spain Win Second World Cup Title After Ferran Torres’ Extra Time Strike
