BY Daniel Bampoe
The Minority’s attempt to compel a parliamentary investigation into a series of major narcotics seizures linked to Ghana has suffered a major setback after Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin ruled the proposed inquiry inadmissible, triggering a fresh confrontation over the scope of Parliament’s constitutional oversight powers.
The ruling was delivered on Tuesday, September 29, 2026, during an emergency sitting of Parliament convened after the Minority raised concerns over a string of high-profile international drug seizures and called for a parliamentary examination of the ports, airports, intelligence systems and narcotics-control mechanisms.
The Minority had argued that the scale and frequency of the seizures raised serious national security questions and required Parliament to establish how large consignments of narcotics were able to move through Ghana without detection.
The proposed inquiry was to be conducted by an Ad Hoc Committee under Article 103 of the 1992 Constitution and Order 262 of Parliament’s Standing Orders. The motion, filed by the First Deputy Minority Whip and MP for Tolon, Habib Iddrisu, sought, among other things, to examine how the consignments were assembled, inspected and cleared, the effectiveness of Ghana’s scanning and risk-profiling systems, and the roles of state agencies, shipping lines, freight forwarders and clearing agents.
The Minority also wanted Parliament to examine the status of investigations and prosecutions arising from the seizures, the level of cooperation between Ghanaian authorities and foreign agencies, and efforts to identify alleged financiers, organisers and facilitators behind major narcotics trafficking operations.
But Speaker Bagbin rejected the motion after considering its terms of reference alongside ongoing investigations and judicial proceedings connected to some of the matters.
According to the Speaker, there was substantial factual overlap between the proposed parliamentary investigation and matters currently before the courts.
He expressed concern that allowing the inquiry to proceed could require Parliament to assess the conduct of individuals and institutions and determine why particular actions were taken or not taken at the ports of entry.
Bagbin said such an exercise could ultimately require Parliament to make determinations on issues that properly fall within the jurisdiction of the courts.
He consequently ruled, pursuant to Standing Orders 5, 6 and 103, Sub-Rule F, that the Minority’s motion was inadmissible.
The decision effectively halted the proposed parliamentary probe in its current form and immediately triggered a strong reaction from the Minority.
Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin accused the Speaker’s ruling of undermining Parliament’s constitutional oversight responsibilities and argued that the existence of court proceedings should not automatically prevent Parliament from examining the conduct and effectiveness of public institutions.
Addressing the media after the ruling, Afenyo-Markin said the Speaker had not adequately explained how pending court cases could extinguish Parliament’s constitutional authority to inquire into the administration and activities of ministries, departments and agencies.
He maintained that the Minority’s proposed inquiry was not intended to determine the criminal liability of any accused person or decide whether individuals before the courts were guilty or innocent.
According to him, the proposed committee was focused primarily on institutional questions, including whether state agencies had performed their responsibilities effectively in relation to the narcotics seizures.
The Minority Leader therefore described the Speaker’s decision as one that, in his view, had failed the “integrity tests” required of Parliament to discharge its constitutional duties.
The disagreement has brought into focus an earlier decision by Speaker Bagbin himself involving Parliament’s investigative powers and pending court proceedings.
In March 2021, the then Majority Leader and Minister for Parliamentary Affairs, Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu, challenged the admission of petitions by former Bank of Ghana Governor Dr Kwabena Duffuor and former UT Bank Chief Executive Prince Kofi Amoabeng concerning the revocation of their banking licences.
The objection was based partly on the fact that aspects of the dispute were before the courts. Speaker Bagbin nevertheless admitted the petitions and directed the establishment of a parliamentary committee to investigate the circumstances surrounding the revocation of the licences of UniBank and UT Bank.
The parliamentary committee was subsequently constituted and expanded to nine members, with First Deputy Speaker Joseph Osei-Owusu as chairman. Its membership included senior figures from both sides of the House, among them Alexander Afenyo-Markin, Patrick Yaw Boamah, Samuel Atta-Akyea, Cassiel Ato Forson, Isaac Adongo and Elizabeth Ofosu-Adjare.
Speaker Bagbin later defended the decision, maintaining that the parliamentary investigation could proceed despite the existence of court cases. He said the committee’s work could be handled in a manner that would not interfere with judicial proceedings.
He also referred to constitutional provisions, parliamentary rules and previous parliamentary and international precedents in justifying the decision.
That 2021 precedent has now become central to the Minority’s criticism of the Speaker’s latest ruling.
The Caucus is questioning why a parliamentary investigation was considered permissible in 2021 despite pending litigation involving the banking-sector clean-up, but a similar inquiry into institutional and systemic issues surrounding narcotics seizures has now been rejected because related matters are before the courts.
The controversy comes after the Minority raised alarm over several major narcotics seizures linked to Ghana.
The Caucus had pointed to the March 2025 interception of more than 3.3 tonnes of cocaine at Pedu Junction near Cape Coast, as well as subsequent seizures in Australia and France involving consignments traced to Ghana.
In June 2026, Australian authorities intercepted about 320 kilogrammes of methamphetamine concealed in containers carrying bags described as charcoal and traced to Ghana. The drugs were reportedly valued at about A$296 million. Ghana’s Narcotics Control Commission subsequently said it had commenced investigations and was cooperating with relevant international partners.
The Minority also cited the September 2026 seizure at Dunkirk in France of nearly 3.9 tonnes of cocaine concealed among recycled plastic in a container shipped from Ghana. The incident intensified concerns about the effectiveness of Ghana’s export controls and narcotics-screening systems.
It was against this backdrop that the Minority petitioned the Speaker for an extraordinary sitting of Parliament. Speaker Bagbin subsequently summoned the House to meet on September 29 under Article 112(3) of the Constitution and Order 53 of the Standing Orders.
The Minority’s proposed committee was expected to examine not only individual seizures but also broader institutional questions: how cargo was screened, whether intelligence was properly shared, whether risk-profiling systems were effective, and whether Ghanaian agencies were adequately equipped to prevent the country from being used as an origin, transit or operational point for international narcotics trafficking.
The rejection of the motion means those proposed terms of reference will not proceed in their current form.
For the Minority, however, the issue is far from over.
Afenyo-Markin insists that Parliament has a constitutional mandate to scrutinise the administration and effectiveness of public institutions and that the proposed inquiry would not have required the House to pronounce on the guilt or innocence of persons currently facing prosecution.
The Speaker’s ruling has therefore opened a broader constitutional and parliamentary debate over where the line should be drawn between Parliament’s oversight authority and the Judiciary’s responsibility to determine matters before the courts.
The immediate political question is now whether the Minority will seek another parliamentary route to pursue the institutional questions it says remain unanswered, or whether the Speaker’s ruling will bring the proposed cocaine inquiry to an end.
