Parliament, Alexander Afenyo Markin, has challenged Speaker Alban Bagbin’s decision to reject a motion seeking a parliamentary investigation into recent major narcotics seizures involving consignments linked to Ghana, arguing that the ruling does not satisfy the constitutional standards required for Parliament to effectively perform its oversight responsibilities.
Mr Afenyo Markin made the remarks at a press briefing in Parliament on Tuesday, September 29, 2026, shortly after the Speaker declared the Minority’s proposed inquiry inadmissible during an emergency sitting of the House.
The Minority Leader contended that the Speaker’s decision could restrict Parliament’s constitutional responsibility to scrutinise the administration and effectiveness of public institutions whose activities are connected to the narcotics seizures.
“This ruling by Mr Speaker has failed the integrity tests required of Parliament to discharge its duties,” Mr Afenyo Markin said.
His comments followed Mr Bagbin’s ruling that the proposed parliamentary inquiry could substantially overlap with matters already under investigation and proceedings before the courts. The Speaker said such an overlap could result in Parliament examining questions that properly belong to the judicial process and could potentially prejudice parties involved in pending cases.
Mr Afenyo Markin, however, questioned whether the existence of ongoing court proceedings should, by itself, prevent Parliament from exercising its constitutional oversight authority.
“Mr Speaker tells us that there are certain matters before the court. He does not explain to us how these matters oust the constitutional jurisdiction of Parliament to inquire into the conduct, administration and effectiveness of public institutions involved in the matter,” he said.
In advancing his position, the Minority Leader referred to Articles 93 and 103 of the 1992 Constitution, which provide the constitutional framework for Parliament’s legislative and committee functions. He maintained that the House possesses the authority to establish committees to examine the activities and administration of ministries, departments and agencies.
Mr Afenyo Markin further sought to distinguish the proposed parliamentary inquiry from the criminal proceedings involving persons who may have been arrested or prosecuted in connection with the narcotics cases.
According to him, the Minority’s motion was not intended to transform Parliament into a criminal court or require lawmakers to determine whether accused persons were guilty or innocent.
“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,” he stated.
Instead, he said, the proposed investigation was principally concerned with institutional performance and accountability, particularly the manner in which public agencies handled the consignments before and after their departure from Ghana.
The proposed inquiry followed a series of significant narcotics seizures involving consignments connected to Ghana, including the interception in France of nearly 3.9 tonnes of suspected cocaine from containers that had departed Ghana. The Minority had argued that the circumstances surrounding the seizures warranted parliamentary scrutiny of port security, customs procedures, intelligence gathering, scanning arrangements and the conduct of relevant state institutions.
The motion filed by First Deputy Minority Whip and Tolon Member of Parliament Habib Iddrisu sought the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee under Article 103 of the Constitution and the relevant Standing Orders of Parliament. The proposed committee was expected to examine how narcotics consignments were processed, inspected, cleared and exported, as well as the roles played by companies, state agencies and other entities involved in the transactions.
The proposed investigation also envisaged an assessment of the adequacy of security and surveillance arrangements at Ghana’s ports, airports and other points of entry and exit. It was further intended to examine intelligence coordination and cooperation between Ghanaian authorities and international law enforcement agencies.
Mr Afenyo Markin maintained that these institutional questions were separate from the determination of criminal liability, insisting that Parliament could investigate the performance of state institutions without taking over the functions of the courts.
The Speaker, however, reached a different procedural conclusion. Mr Bagbin said the proposed inquiry contained substantial factual overlap with matters already before the judiciary and that conducting the investigation could require Parliament to evaluate issues that a competent court was already expected to determine. He consequently invoked Standing Orders 5, 6 and 103, Sub Rule F, to declare the motion inadmissible.
The disagreement therefore centres on the scope of Parliament’s oversight responsibilities in circumstances where related criminal investigations and judicial proceedings are simultaneously underway. While the Speaker’s ruling focused on avoiding interference with matters before the courts, the Minority Leader maintains that parliamentary scrutiny of institutional conduct remains constitutionally distinct from the adjudication of criminal responsibility.
The Minority has subsequently indicated that it intends to continue pursuing the matter through what it considers legitimate avenues following the Speaker’s decision.
