The Minority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, has stated that the Speaker of Parliament got it all wrong when he dismissed a Private Member’s Motion seeking a parliamentary inquiry into a series of narcotics seizures linked to Ghana.
He said the ruling by Speaker Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin improperly curtailed Parliament’s constitutional oversight powers.
In his view, the Speaker erred in relying on pending court cases to prevent Parliament from investigating the administration and effectiveness of public institutions connected to the narcotics incidents.
Read also: Narcotics seizures: Speaker Bagbin dismisses Private Members’ motion calling for parliamentary probe
Weakening Parliament
Addressing the press after the Speaker’s ruling during an emergency sitting on Tuesday (Sept 29), Mr Afenyo-Markin described the development as “a sad day for democracy and parliamentary oversight” and accused the Majority Caucus of using its numbers, with the support of the Speaker, to weaken Parliament.
“Mr Speaker tells us that there are certain matters before the court but he does not explain to us how these matters oust the constitutional jurisdiction of Parliament to enquire into the conduct, administration and effectiveness of public institutions involved in the matter.
“The Majority are resisting scrutiny and they quickly welcomed the Speaker’s decision and moved to adjourn the sitting,” he said.
Oversight role
The Minority Leader said the Minority-sponsored motion did not seek to interfere with criminal proceedings or determine the guilt or innocence of accused persons but rather to examine whether state institutions had effectively discharged their responsibilities.
He said Articles 93(2) and 103 of the 1992 Constitution vested legislative and oversight powers in Parliament, with Article 103(3) expressly empowering parliamentary committees to investigate and enquire into the activities and administration of ministries, departments and agencies.
He further cited Article 103(6), which gave parliamentary committees the powers, rights and privileges of the High Court for purposes including compelling witnesses to attend, examining them and requiring the production of documents.
“These provisions we submit are important because the motion we filed before the House does not seek to try any accused person.
“It does not ask Parliament to determine criminal liability, pronounce upon the guilt or innocence of any person, assess the credibility of prosecution witnesses or decide upon evidence that is properly before a court. The import of our motion is institutional oversight,” he said.
Proposed committee
Mr Afenyo-Markin said the proposed inquiry was intended to examine whether institutions responsible for narcotics control, customs administration, port and airport security, intelligence gathering, maritime surveillance and border protection had discharged their duties effectively amid a succession of major narcotics incidents since January 2025.
He acknowledged that the functions of the courts and Parliament were distinct.
“We submit that as far as we know, the courts are concerned with the criminal liability of particular accused persons but Parliament is concerned with the performance, administration and accountability of public institutions,” he said.
“These are separate constitutional functions even where they arise from some of the same underlying factors,” he said
He also challenged the interpretation of the subjudice rule the Speaker relied on in dismissing the motion, arguing that the existence of a pending court case should not automatically prevent Parliament from examining broader institutional issues.
He said the relevant question should be whether a particular parliamentary inquiry would prejudice the determination of a case before the courts.
“The proper question is not simply whether there is a case in court; the proper question is whether the particular parliamentary enquiry would prejudice a determination of that case,” he said.
The MP for Effutu pointed out that the proposed committee that Parliament should have set up could have been directed not to investigate the guilt or otherwise of accused persons, pronounce on evidence before the courts, or disclose information that could prejudice pending proceedings.
It could also have sat in camera where matters of national security or ongoing investigations arose, he said.
He said such an approach would have allowed Parliament to exercise its oversight mandate while respecting the authority of the courts.
The Minority Leader said the proposed inquiry could instead have focused on “container scanning procedures, customs control, port access systems, cargo inspection, intelligence sharing, institutional coordination, freight forwarding regulation, export controls, warehouse security, maritime supervision” and the capacity of state institutions to identify financiers and organisers of large-scale narcotics networks.
“None of those institutional systems is an accused person before a court. The scanning regime at our port is not on trial. The effectiveness of customs risk profiling is not on trial,” he said.
“The inter-agency intelligence sharing is not on trial. The adequacy of narcotics institutional capacity is not on trial. The integrity of our export control system is not on trial.”
