Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, has firmly clarified that security agencies in Ghana do not require his approval before arresting or inviting a Member of Parliament for questioning, stressing that their constitutional obligation is only to notify his office of such actions and the circumstances surrounding them.
Addressing lawmakers during the opening of the Second Meeting of the Second Session of Parliament on Thursday, May 21, the Speaker sought to correct what he described as a widespread misconception regarding parliamentary privilege and the legal protections available to MPs under the constitutional democracy.
According to Bagbin, many people wrongly believe that the Speaker possesses the authority to either approve or block investigations and arrests involving legislators. However, he explained that the law does not grant him such powers.
“It’s not for the security agents to seek my permission before arresting or inviting a Member of Parliament for questioning. It’s not,” the Speaker stated emphatically on the floor of Parliament.
“It’s for them to inform me and include the circumstances or the allegations that have created the suspicion.”
The Speaker explained that once his office is informed, Parliament can then assess whether any parliamentary privilege or immunity applies under the specific circumstances of the case.
His comments come at a time of heightened public debate over the extent of parliamentary immunity in criminal investigations, particularly amid growing scrutiny of politicians and public office holders by state investigative bodies.
Alban Bagbin’s remarks also align with his broader position that no public official, including Members of Parliament, stands above the law — a position he reiterated strongly during his opening address to Parliament.
The Speaker has consistently argued that parliamentary privilege was designed to protect the independence and uninterrupted functioning of Parliament rather than shield lawmakers from legitimate criminal investigations.
The debate surrounding parliamentary privilege continues to generate differing legal and constitutional interpretations among lawyers, scholars and political observers.
Under parliamentary convention, particularly principles captured in Chapter 7 of the respected parliamentary authority, Erskine May, legislators enjoy certain protections while performing their official parliamentary duties. However, legal analysts argue that such protections were never intended to create blanket immunity from criminal processes.
Instead, parliamentary privilege is generally understood as a safeguard against interference that could obstruct MPs from discharging their legislative responsibilities.
Alban Bagbin’s clarification therefore appears aimed at drawing a distinction between preserving the dignity and independence of Parliament on one hand, and allowing law enforcement agencies to carry out their constitutional mandate on the other.
The Speaker indicated that the key constitutional requirement is not prior consent from his office, but proper notification to ensure Parliament is aware whenever one of its members becomes the subject of a criminal investigation or arrest.
His position is also consistent with the parliamentary history, where several MPs across different political administrations have been arrested, questioned or invited by investigative bodies without prior approval from the Speaker.
Among the notable historical examples are the late Ato Quarshie, who was invited by the Serious Fraud Office in 1994, and President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, who was invited by the CID in 1997 during his time as a legislator.
Others include former Minister and MP E. T. Mensah, who was invited by the Serious Fraud Office and the Bureau of National Investigations in 2001, as well as John Abu Jinapor, O.B. Amoah, Dan Abodakpi, Mahama Ayariga and Francis-Xavier Sosu, all of whom faced various forms of investigations or invitations by state agencies while serving as MPs.
