A heated confrontation erupted in Parliament on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, after Damongo Member of Parliament Samuel Abu Jinapor was escorted out of the Chamber by a Parliamentary Marshal for refusing to withdraw an allegation that Foreign Affairs Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa was involved in the sale of Ghanaian diplomatic passports.
The incident, which unfolded during the opening sitting of Parliament’s Third Meeting of the Second Session, exposed deepening divisions between the Majority and Minority Caucuses over the conduct of the Foreign Affairs Minister and the Speaker’s handling of allegations raised on the floor of the House.
The controversy began when Mr Jinapor, a former Attorney General and Ranking Member of Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, made the allegation against Mr Ablakwa, prompting an immediate objection from Majority Leader James Agalga, who questioned the factual basis of the claim.
Following the objection, Speaker Alban Bagbin directed the Damongo legislator to withdraw his statement. However, after Mr Jinapor failed to comply with the directive, a Parliamentary Marshal was instructed to escort him out of the Chamber.
The development subsequently triggered a protest from the Minority Caucus, with its members walking out in solidarity with their colleague.
Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin strongly criticised the Speaker’s intervention, describing the decision to remove Mr Jinapor as harsh, high handed and unfair.
Speaking to journalists after the incident, Mr Afenyo-Markin questioned the justification for the disciplinary action, particularly because the Minority believed that Mr Jinapor had already withdrawn the disputed statement.
He argued that the Speaker should have exercised greater restraint and allowed the concerns raised by the Damongo MP to be referred to the appropriate parliamentary committee for further examination.
According to the Minority Leader, legislators should not be required to conclusively establish the truth of every allegation before bringing matters of public interest to the attention of Parliament, particularly when those concerns warrant institutional investigation.
He maintained that rather than insisting on the withdrawal of the allegation, the Majority Leader should have acknowledged the issues raised and supported the commencement of an investigative process to establish the relevant facts.
Mr Afenyo-Markin further argued that Parliament’s oversight responsibilities include scrutinising the conduct of public officials and examining allegations of administrative impropriety through its established committee structures.
The confrontation comes against the backdrop of mounting opposition scrutiny of Mr Ablakwa over two major controversies involving the expenditure on the evacuation of Ghanaians from South Africa and the issuance of diplomatic and service passports.
The NPP has questioned the circumstances surrounding the allocation of official travel documents to certain individuals, particularly six beneficiaries whose professional designations and institutional positions the party claims were either inaccurately represented or could not be verified.
The opposition has consequently petitioned the United States Embassy in Ghana to suspend recognition of the affected passports until an independent verification exercise establishes whether the beneficiaries satisfied the applicable eligibility requirements.
The passport controversy has also become a major political issue, with the Minority demanding greater transparency concerning the individuals authorised to receive diplomatic and service passports, the criteria governing their issuance and the officials responsible for approving them.
Beyond the passport allegations, the opposition has intensified its criticism of the Foreign Affairs Minister over the reported GH¢49.72 million expenditure on the evacuation of 1,964 Ghanaians from South Africa.
Earlier on Tuesday, NPP supporters, led by the party’s youth wing, staged a demonstration in Accra under the banner Yɛgye Yɛn Sika, demanding accountability and a comprehensive explanation of the expenditure incurred during the evacuation exercise.
The demonstrators questioned the reported financial outlay, drawing attention to alleged discrepancies in payment records, suspected duplicate entries and gaps in the supporting documentation presented in connection with the exercise.
They also demanded answers concerning the diplomatic passport controversy, insisting that the government should provide a transparent account of the beneficiaries and the procedures through which the documents were approved.
The NPP has called for Mr Ablakwa’s resignation or his removal by President John Dramani Mahama, arguing that the issues surrounding the evacuation expenditure and passport administration require an independent investigation.
Mr Ablakwa, however, has rejected allegations of financial misconduct and maintained that the evacuation expenditure should be subjected to an independent audit.
The Foreign Affairs Minister’s position has not prevented the opposition from pursuing further scrutiny, with the Minority insisting that the concerns raised deserve formal institutional examination rather than political dismissal.
Tuesday’s parliamentary confrontation has therefore added a fresh institutional dimension to an already escalating political dispute. Beyond the immediate disagreement over parliamentary procedure, the incident has brought into sharper focus the competing expectations surrounding legislative oversight, the privileges and responsibilities of MPs, and the accountability of ministers exercising public authority.
While the Minority maintains that allegations concerning public administration should receive appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, the Speaker’s intervention has raised a separate question about the boundaries of parliamentary debate and the responsibility of legislators to substantiate potentially damaging accusations against public officials.
Ultimately, the central issues surrounding the evacuation expenditure and the issuance of diplomatic passports remain matters requiring documentary verification and appropriate institutional investigation. The parliamentary confrontation, however, demonstrates how disagreements over accountability can quickly develop into wider disputes over parliamentary authority, procedural fairness and the relationship between the Majority and Minority.
