EOCO SAYS VISIT TO WONTUMI’S TEMA PROPERTY WAS FOR VALUATION, NOT A RAID

Ghana’s Economic and Organised Crime Office has rejected claims that its officers raided or ransacked the Tema residence of businessman and former New Patriotic Party Ashanti Regional Chairman Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, saying the controversial visit was instead a brief property-valuation exercise carried out jointly with officials from the Lands Commission. EOCO said the property had already been frozen under an earlier legal process that was confirmed by a court in 2025 and that Monday’s visit was part of the formal steps required to determine its value. The clarification came after Wontumi’s spokesperson, Dr. Palgrave Boakye-Danquah, accused officers of entering the residence while children and their grandmother were present, moving through parts of the house and taking photographs and videos, creating sharply conflicting accounts of how the operation unfolded.

In a statement issued on Monday, November 9, EOCO said its personnel accompanied officials from the Lands Commission to the Tema property to collect geographical coordinates and measurements required for a professional valuation. According to the Office, the exercise lasted less than 10 minutes and ended without confrontation or incident. EOCO said the activity had been mischaracterized in public reports as a raid or ransacking and urged the public to disregard what it described as false publications circulating in the media.

The Office’s account is straightforward: the property had already been placed under a freeze and Monday’s activity was part of due process relating to that freeze. EOCO said Lands Commission officials required accurate measurements and coordinates before producing a professional valuation, and its officers were present to facilitate the exercise. The agency did not announce that any property had been seized during Monday’s visit, did not say that items were removed from the residence and did not describe the operation as a search.

That version differs sharply from the account given earlier by Boakye-Danquah. Speaking on television and radio after being contacted by Wontumi’s family, the spokesperson said five officials arrived at the property at about 3 p.m. while Wontumi’s children and their grandmother were home. He said the grandmother went to the gate after being alerted to the presence of the officials and allowed them into the compound after they explained that they needed access to the property.

Boakye-Danquah alleged, however, that the officers subsequently moved beyond what the family understood to be an external measurement exercise. According to him, they walked around the property, entered the house, went upstairs and took photographs and video recordings. He said some of the children became frightened during the visit and later claimed the officials remained at the residence for roughly 30 to 45 minutes, far longer than EOCO’s account of less than 10 minutes.

The spokesperson also questioned whether documents previously served on Wontumi’s legal team gave EOCO authority to conduct what he characterized as an intrusive search. He said Wontumi’s lawyers, including lead counsel Atta Akyea, were seeking clarification about the legal basis for the officers’ actions and whether the scope of the visit was consistent with the court-related processes involving the property.

EOCO rejected that characterization. Its statement made no reference to a search of bedrooms, seizure of personal belongings or examination of private materials. Instead, it said officials were present only to collect the physical data required for valuation. The Office’s explanation therefore places the dispute on a narrower question: whether the officials stayed within the boundaries of a valuation exercise or entered and inspected parts of the house in a manner that the family reasonably viewed as a search.

That factual disagreement remains unresolved. There is no independent public record yet establishing precisely how long the officials remained at the property, which rooms they entered or what photographs and videos they took. EOCO’s statement is the official account from the agency involved, while Boakye-Danquah’s version is based on what he says the family reported to him. Responsible reporting must therefore distinguish clearly between those two accounts rather than describe either as conclusively proved.

What is not disputed is that the property is tied to a broader legal and investigative process involving Wontumi. EOCO said the Tema property was frozen in 2025 and that the freeze was subsequently confirmed by a court. A property freeze does not automatically amount to confiscation or a final determination that the asset represents proceeds of crime. It is generally a legal measure intended to preserve an asset while investigative or court proceedings continue.

Valuation is a common next step in such proceedings because investigators and courts may need to establish the approximate market value of assets under restraint. Professional valuation can help authorities understand the scale of property holdings, compare them with financial records and determine the significance of assets in forfeiture or confiscation proceedings. In Ghana, the Lands Commission is the state institution responsible for key aspects of land administration and valuation, making its involvement in the exercise unsurprising if EOCO is pursuing a formal property assessment.

The valuation process does not itself prove illegality. It establishes value, not guilt. Any attempt by the state to permanently confiscate property would have to follow the applicable legal process and would remain subject to challenge by the owner or other interested parties. That distinction is particularly important in Wontumi’s case because he has faced several separate legal proceedings and investigations, some of which remain contested.

Boasiako, one of the NPP’s most prominent political figures in the Ashanti Region for years, has been at the center of multiple investigations involving mining and financial transactions. His legal problems have significantly altered his public position and have intensified political debate around the conduct of state investigative agencies. Supporters have at times accused authorities of politically motivated enforcement, while state agencies have maintained that their actions are based on evidence and judicial processes.

The Tema property controversy now feeds directly into that wider argument. For Wontumi’s camp, the concern is not simply that officers entered a property linked to an ongoing investigation but that family members, including children, were present and allegedly distressed by the manner in which the exercise was conducted. Boakye-Danquah has said the family viewed the visit as intimidating and has argued that investigators should have shown greater sensitivity given who was inside the house.

On Tuesday, he expanded on those concerns, saying the children and their grandmother remained disturbed by the incident. He acknowledged that no one was physically injured and did not allege that property had been damaged, but he said the family had experienced emotional distress and questioned why officers allegedly entered inner areas of the residence if their purpose was only to take measurements. He also alleged that a recording made by one of the children had been deleted from an iPad, though that specific claim has not been independently verified and EOCO has not publicly addressed it.

EOCO’s position remains that nothing resembling a raid occurred. The Office says there was no confrontation, the activity was short, and the purpose was limited to valuation. Its language suggests concern that public reports may create the impression that investigators forced entry, searched for evidence or ransacked the property when, according to EOCO, officials were carrying out a procedural exercise connected to an already frozen asset.

The distinction between a valuation visit and a search is legally and politically significant. A search generally implies that officers are looking for evidence, documents, property or other material connected to an investigation, often under a warrant or other legal authority. A valuation, by contrast, is intended to assess the physical characteristics and economic value of an asset. If officers only measured the property and recorded necessary images for valuation, EOCO’s description would be consistent with that purpose. If they entered private rooms or inspected personal belongings beyond what valuation required, the family could argue that the exercise went further than they expected.

At present, the public does not have enough independent evidence to settle that question. Video footage, official records from the Lands Commission, court documents setting out the scope of the freeze and valuation, or a detailed response from Wontumi’s lawyers could provide more clarity. Until then, the strongest verified conclusion is that the visit took place as part of an asset-valuation process but that the manner and duration of the exercise are disputed.

The dispute also underscores the importance of transparency when state investigative agencies act against politically prominent individuals. EOCO possesses broad powers to investigate economic and organized crime, trace assets and seek court orders affecting property, but the legitimacy of those powers depends partly on the public understanding that they are exercised through established legal procedures. When an operation involving a politician’s home generates conflicting accounts, agencies face pressure to explain not only what authority they had but exactly what their officers did.

For Wontumi’s legal team, the next step is likely to involve closer examination of the court orders underpinning the property freeze and any related valuation or confiscation proceedings. If they believe EOCO exceeded its authority during the visit, they could challenge the conduct through legal channels. If the visit was fully covered by existing orders and limited to professional valuation, EOCO will likely rely on those documents to defend the exercise.

The broader confiscation process is also important. EOCO has reportedly pursued court proceedings involving assets it says are linked to alleged proceeds of crime, including property and financial holdings associated with Wontumi and companies connected to him. Such allegations remain subject to judicial determination, and the state must establish the legal basis for any permanent forfeiture.

Wontumi’s legal position is further complicated by other cases unrelated to Monday’s property visit. He has faced proceedings involving alleged unauthorized mining and financial transactions, and his lawyers have challenged several aspects of the state’s cases against him. Those matters should not be collapsed into a single narrative of guilt because different charges, assets and legal processes require separate proof.

Monday’s visit therefore should not be interpreted as a new finding that the Tema property is criminally tainted. The property was already under a freeze, and the latest exercise was, by EOCO’s account, part of the administrative and legal process surrounding that status. A valuation determines what an asset may be worth; it does not determine whether it should ultimately be confiscated.

The political context nevertheless guarantees that the episode will attract attention. Wontumi has been one of the NPP’s most outspoken regional figures and has built a public profile through politics, business and media ownership. Any state action involving his property is likely to be viewed not only through a legal lens but through Ghana’s wider partisan environment.

That makes careful language especially important. Calling the visit a “raid” without qualification would adopt the version advanced by Wontumi’s camp and rejected by EOCO. Calling it solely a routine valuation without acknowledging the family’s allegations would ignore a material factual dispute. The most accurate description is that EOCO and Lands Commission officials visited the property for what EOCO says was a valuation exercise, while Wontumi’s spokesperson alleges the officials entered parts of the residence and stayed substantially longer than the agency has acknowledged.

The next meaningful development will likely come from the legal process surrounding the frozen property itself. If EOCO proceeds with a confiscation application, the Lands Commission valuation could become part of the evidence before the court. Wontumi’s lawyers would then have an opportunity to contest both the valuation and the legal basis for any attempt to permanently deprive him of the asset.

Further clarification may also emerge regarding Monday’s conduct. If the Lands Commission releases details of the valuation exercise, if EOCO provides a fuller operational account or if Wontumi’s family produces video showing what occurred inside the property, the dispute over whether the visit amounted to a search could become easier to resolve.

For now, the confirmed position is narrower. EOCO says the Tema property was already frozen under a court-backed process, that officials went there with the Lands Commission to obtain coordinates and measurements, and that the exercise lasted less than 10 minutes without incident. Wontumi’s spokesperson says the visit lasted much longer, that officers entered the residence and took photographs and videos, and that family members were distressed.

Those competing accounts now sit alongside the larger legal battle over Wontumi’s assets. The valuation itself is part of an ongoing process rather than a final outcome, and no court ruling cited in Monday’s statements established that the property should be permanently confiscated. Until the underlying proceedings are resolved, the Tema residence remains an asset under legal restraint and public controversy, with the state and Wontumi’s representatives sharply divided over what happened when officials arrived there on Monday.