Martin Kpebu, a private legal practitioner, has revealed that the Attorney-General Dr Dominic Ayine had already indicated plans to intervene to ensure that Abronye is granted bail.
According to Martin Kpebu, Abronye should not be kept in custody for a week over his misdemeanour.
He revealed that the court can sit at any time, and the necessary legal processes can be filed to secure Abronye’s bail immediately.
Lawyer Kpebu cautioned the government to protect democratic freedoms and respect the rule of law.
Speaking on TV3’s Key Points program on Saturday, September 13, 2025, Martin Kpebu stated, “Ayine is stepping in so that, latest by Monday, Abronye should be out. This is not what we voted you guys in to do”.
He further added, “Abronye doesn’t have to be in custody for even one week. Today, the right process can be filed, the judge can sit today, and grant Abronye bail. If we don’t speak up, it will grow and become worse”.
“We have grown past the communist inferior tactics. I am not, for one moment, supporting the despicable comment by Abronye, but these are misdemeanours,” he indicated.
Also, the private legal practitioner in a separate interview highlighted that the NDC must know Ghanaians did not vote for them for this type of unlawful governance.
Speaking on Asempa FM’s Ekosii Sen programme on September 12, 2025, Martin Kpebu stated, “We must let the Attorney-General and IGP Yohuno know that this is not lawful. We didn’t vote for the NDC for this type of governance, and I cannot be part of this type of government”.
Lawyer Kpebu argued that the state must proceed to court while granting Abronye bail if they found the comments to be offensive.
He explained, “If they don’t want to forgive him, they can grant him bail as the case proceeds. When the verdict comes and it is too much, then we can talk about it”.
He cautioned that denying Abronye bail in a misdemeanour case sets a dangerous precedent “If in a misdemeanour case, Abronye cannot secure bail, then it means the verdict on my Kpebu Number 2 case in 2016 is void and useless. As citizens, we must get up and resist this, or else it will lead to tyranny”.
Lawyer Kpebu called on Abronye’s legal team to seek redress at the Human Rights Court.
“This is wrong and a sad day for our democracy. We must all rally support and speak against this because we cannot retrogress as a nation,” Kpebu said.
However, Circuit Court Judge Bright Acquah has explained the reason behind the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Bono Regional Chairman, Kwame Baffoe, popularly known as Abronye DC, being remanded in police custody.
Judge Bright Acquah detailed that while Abronye DC’s charges are misdemeanours, the remarks attributed to him had national security and public order implications.
According to Judge Bright Acquah, under two different regimes, the court has been consistent; he pointed to consistency in past cases under former President Akufo-Addo and President John Mahama.
Judge Bright Acquah explained, “It is always said that all persons are equal, but in practice, it is not so. Courtesy George Orwell in his book Animal Farm, one of the commandments is that all men are equal, but some are more equal than others. Translated into this case, all men are equal, but some are more equal than others”.
According to the Judge, freedom of expression in Ghana must be exercised responsibly, warning that if unchecked, insults could pollute the society and undermine national security.
He explained, “One of the codes of ethics for judges is that their decisions should be consistent. I have a case before me, The Republic v. Raphael Okai Ankrah, who appeared on May 16, 2023. He was an NDC sympathiser who openly insulted then-President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo and was given a two-week remand.
Just about two or three weeks ago, another matter came before me, The Republic v. Emmanuel Kwakye, a journalist from Wontumi TV, and he was also remanded for two weeks. So, under two different regimes, the court has been consistent, and the court does not see why it should deviate from that consistency”.
The judge in the Abronye case argued that while criticism of policies is acceptable, direct insults against individuals in authority are not.
He cited Section 96(5)(a) and (c) of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, asserting that bail could be refused if there is a likelihood of the accused repeating the offence or failing to appear in court.