By Boakye Stephen, Kumasi, Ghana | Reporting for Ghanaian News Canada | May 11, 2026
Alexander Afenyo-Markin has strongly criticised the Executive Secretary of the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), Raymond Archer, accusing him of centralising authority within the institution.
Speaking on JoyNews’ Newsfile programme, Mr Afenyo-Markin expressed concern over what he described as excessive concentration of decision-making power in the hands of a single individual.
According to him, the current structure and leadership approach within EOCO risk weakening institutional independence and accountability.
He stated:
“Raymond Archer has made EOCO a one-man institution.”
The Minority Leader argued that state institutions responsible for investigations and anti-corruption enforcement must operate through transparent systems and collective institutional processes rather than depending heavily on the authority of one individual.
His remarks come at a time of growing political debate surrounding EOCO’s handling of several high-profile investigations involving former public officials, financial transactions, and corruption-related allegations.
The comments are also likely to intensify ongoing political discussions about the independence, neutrality, and operational structure of anti-corruption agencies in Ghana.
EOCO plays a major role in investigating economic crimes, organised criminal activity, financial fraud, and corruption-related offences within the country. Over the years, the institution has frequently found itself at the centre of politically sensitive investigations involving state officials and public institutions.
Critics of anti-corruption bodies in Ghana have sometimes raised concerns about selective enforcement, political influence, and institutional transparency, while supporters argue that strong leadership is necessary to pursue complex financial crime investigations effectively.
Although EOCO has not officially responded to Mr Afenyo-Markin’s latest remarks, the comments are expected to fuel further political and public debate over the operational independence and governance structure of the institution.
The issue also reflects wider national conversations about how state investigative agencies should balance strong leadership with institutional checks, accountability mechanisms, and public trust.
