BY Daniel Bampoe
The Minority in Parliament has escalated its confrontation with Speaker Alban Bagbin over the proposed parliamentary investigation into major cocaine seizures linked to Ghana, filing a formal motion to challenge a ruling that has prevented the House from proceeding with the inquiry.
The move sets the stage for a fresh parliamentary dispute over the limits of the Speaker’s authority, the constitutional oversight responsibilities of Parliament and whether ongoing criminal prosecutions can be used as grounds to prevent lawmakers from investigating possible institutional failures in the fight against international drug trafficking.
The motion, filed by First Deputy Minority Whip and Tolon MP Habib Iddrisu, invokes Standing Order 127 of Parliament’s Standing Orders and seeks a review of the Speaker’s September 29, 2026 decision, which declared the Minority’s proposed inquiry inadmissible.
Speaker Bagbin had ruled against the proposed investigation on the grounds that proceeding with it could prejudice ongoing criminal proceedings involving approximately 21 persons in four separate narcotics-related cases.
The ruling followed an attempt by the Minority to secure a bipartisan parliamentary inquiry into a series of major narcotics seizures involving consignments allegedly connected to Ghana.
However, the Minority is now challenging the basis of that decision, arguing that Parliament cannot abandon its constitutional responsibility to examine the performance of public institutions simply because criminal cases are before the courts.
Addressing a press briefing ahead of Parliament’s resumption on Tuesday, November 3, Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin insisted that the motion should not be interpreted as an attack on the Speaker or an attempt to undermine the authority of his office.
He maintained that respect for the Speaker did not mean lawmakers should remain silent when a ruling raises questions about the constitutional powers of Parliament.
According to Afenyo-Markin, the proposed inquiry is intended to investigate the institutional and regulatory circumstances surrounding the movement of illicit drugs through Ghana, rather than determine the guilt or innocence of persons facing criminal prosecution.
He argued that the increasing number of international cocaine interceptions involving consignments linked to Ghana demands a broader examination of the country’s port security arrangements, cargo inspection procedures, customs controls and intelligence coordination.
Among the incidents cited by the Minority Leader was the interception of approximately 3.9 tonnes of cocaine at the Port of Dunkirk in France on September 7, 2026.
The consignment, reportedly concealed in a shipment of plastic waste originating from Ghana, was estimated to be worth about €225 million.
The seizure has raised questions about how such a large quantity of narcotics could allegedly move through the international shipping chain and reach a European port without being detected earlier by the relevant authorities.
Afenyo-Markin also referred to other reported cocaine seizures in Amsterdam, Antwerp and Sydney, as well as suspected interceptions within Ghana, including incidents around the Tema Harbour enclave and Pedu Junction.
For the Minority, these incidents point to concerns that go beyond the individuals arrested or charged. The opposition argues that the country must establish whether weaknesses in its border protection systems, intelligence-sharing arrangements and institutional supervision have created opportunities for international drug trafficking networks.
The latest development also revives broader concerns about Ghana’s vulnerability to transnational organised crime and the effectiveness of the agencies responsible for monitoring the movement of goods through the country’s ports, airports and other entry points.
At the centre of the parliamentary disagreement is whether an investigation by the legislature can proceed without interfering with criminal cases being handled by the courts.
The Speaker’s September 29 ruling was based on the risk that a parliamentary inquiry could prejudice proceedings involving the approximately 21 accused persons across four narcotics-related cases.
But Afenyo-Markin maintains that criminal prosecution and parliamentary oversight are separate constitutional responsibilities and should not automatically be treated as mutually exclusive.
He explained that criminal courts are responsible for determining whether accused persons have committed offences, while Parliament is expected to examine whether public institutions have performed their duties, whether existing laws and regulatory frameworks are adequate and whether failures in public administration require corrective action.
The Minority Leader warned that allowing ongoing prosecutions to become a blanket justification for preventing parliamentary scrutiny could leave possible institutional weaknesses unresolved.
He argued that prosecuting individuals, regardless of the outcome of their cases, does not remove the government’s responsibility to explain how public institutions performed their duties and whether any administrative or regulatory failures contributed to the incidents.
The Minority has therefore maintained that its proposed inquiry would concentrate on the conduct and effectiveness of state institutions rather than the criminal liability of persons currently before the courts.
The controversy is particularly significant because the proposed inquiry was intended to be bipartisan, suggesting that the opposition wanted the matter treated as a national security and institutional accountability issue rather than merely a partisan dispute.
However, the Speaker’s ruling has placed the immediate question of whether Parliament can proceed with such an inquiry before the House itself.
The filing of the motion now brings Standing Order 127 into focus, as the Minority seeks to use the parliamentary procedure to challenge the ruling and reopen the debate over the admissibility of its proposed investigation.
The outcome could have implications for how Parliament handles future inquiries involving matters that are simultaneously under criminal investigation or prosecution.
If the Minority succeeds, lawmakers could have another opportunity to examine the institutional arrangements surrounding the reported cocaine seizures, subject to the limits required to protect ongoing judicial proceedings. If the ruling remains in place, the opposition’s proposed inquiry may face further procedural obstacles.
Beyond the parliamentary contest, the larger issue remains Ghana’s ability to prevent its ports and other entry points from being exploited by international narcotics trafficking networks.
The reported seizures across Europe, Australia and Ghana have placed renewed attention on the effectiveness of the country’s security and regulatory institutions. The questions being raised include whether cargo inspection systems are sufficiently effective, whether intelligence is shared promptly among agencies and whether existing oversight mechanisms can identify and correct institutional weaknesses.
The Minority insists that criminal proceedings must not become a shield against institutional accountability, while the Speaker’s earlier ruling reflects concern about protecting ongoing court cases from possible prejudice.
The motion filed by Habib Iddrisu will therefore test the boundaries between Parliament’s oversight mandate and the need to safeguard the independence and integrity of the criminal justice process.
