A pattern of misconduct
This is not the first—or even the second—time Mr. Kpebu has acted improperly toward OSP security personnel in the discharge of their lawful duties. After each incident, he publicly presents a completely different version of events.
Having monitored his conduct for some time, it became clear that unless his interactions were recorded, he would misrepresent the facts.
A notable example is his false claim that there were 16 petitions calling for the removal of the Special Prosecutor. When confronted by KSM on his show, he admitted that he merely repeated what he heard someone say on Newsfile, without verifying it. It is concerning that a lawyer would make such a statement without checking the facts.
The Investigation is separate from his allegations
The confrontation at the OSP has nothing to do with the ongoing inquiry into the unsubstantiated allegations he made against the SP and the Office. He continues to claim that he is “gathering evidence” and will eventually present it to an OSP Board—despite knowing there is currently no board in place.
This behaviour follows a familiar pattern: he refuses to cooperate, demands that certain officers be removed from the panel, gets his wish, and then introduces a new obstacle. Fortunately, the investigators have continued their work professionally despite his lack of cooperation and abusive conduct.
Misleading the public about investigators
Mr. Kpebu repeatedly misleads the public by claiming that those handling the case are “junior staff,” when in reality their ranks are equivalent to Deputy Commissioners of Police.
He also falsely claims that “the OSP is investigating itself,” which shows either a misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation of institutional processes.
Fact-finding committees exist to establish facts—not to pronounce guilt or innocence. Police misconduct is not investigated by fire service officers; GRA misconduct is not investigated by immigration officers; and alleged misconduct in one university is not investigated by another. The principle is the same.
What actually happened at the OSP premises
1. Events at the Gate
Upon arriving, Mr. Kpebu parked his vehicle and stepped outside the gate to conduct an interview. He always does this, brings in media men to speak to them before entering and after exiting.
Security personnel cautioned him to move away from the entrance, so he moved to the fried yam seller’s spot and continued speaking to the media.
Afterwards, he entered the compound alone. The guards reminded him that photography and videography are not permitted around the premises.
2. Escalation and Arrest
He reacted angrily to the reminder and insulted the guards. They issued a formal warning about his conduct, but he insisted he could act as he pleased and threatened to report them.
He told them they are nobodies, even their boss, the head of the agency, is nobody and will be removed soon.
His continued insults and obstructive behaviour led to his arrest for the offence of obstruction of officers in the performance of their duties.
He was informed of his arrest on suspicion of obstruction, in accordance with the law. The arrest was executed without force, and there is no internal record of any assault or mistreatment.
Bail, Processing, and Conduct of Counsel
1. Bail Granted
Following the arrest, bail was granted according to standard administrative procedures. The conditions were explained to him and his counsel. However, one of the lawyers refused to leave the premises until Mr. Kpebu was brought back.
She insulted officers and caused a scene, all of which was recorded. Despite her behaviour, officers removed her gently and without force. Their professionalism deserves commendation.
2. Transfer to Holding Area
Mr. Kpebu was transferred to a secured holding area as part of normal processing. Public concerns have been raised about the detention location, but internal records show that all transfers followed protocol. At no point was he denied access to counsel or due process.
No Trap — Just Accountability
Finally, the claim that the OSP “fell into a trap” is unfounded. The Office has not fallen for any trap. It has simply applied the law to protect its personnel and maintain order on its premises.
The message is clear: connections, public influence, or media prominence do not place anyone above the law. If this was intended as a trap, then the OSP passed—because it acted strictly within legal and procedural bounds.
Such unruly behaviour would result in an immediate arrest at any law enforcement facility. Could he attempt this at the Police Headquarters or the NIB Headquarters?
Mr. Kpebu is expected to report this morning at 11am after bail was granted last night for further investigations of the offence of obstruction of justice.
A different date will be announced for continuation of enquiry into his allegation of corruption.
ALSO READ:
OSP breaks down events behind Kpebu’s arrest, rejects ‘trap’ allegation
