Minority files motion to review Bagbin’s ruling on proposed drug trafficking probe

The Minority in Parliament has filed a motion seeking a review of Speaker Alban Bagbin's ruling that declared inadmissible its proposed parliamentary inquiry into drug trafficking through Ghana.

On September 29, 2026, Speaker Alban Bagbin ruled the Minority's proposed inquiry inadmissible, citing the risk that it could prejudice ongoing criminal proceedings involving approximately 21 persons in four separate narcotics-related cases.

The ruling followed the Minority's attempt to secure a bipartisan parliamentary inquiry into major narcotics seizures linked to Ghana.

The motion, filed by First Deputy Minority Whip and Tolon MP Habib Iddrisu, invokes Standing Order 127 of Parliament's Standing Orders.

Speaking at a press briefing ahead of Parliament's resumption on Tuesday, November 3, Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin said the move was not intended to undermine the authority of the Speaker but to challenge what the Minority considers a restriction on Parliament's constitutional oversight powers.

“We respect the office of the Speaker and recognise the constitutional responsibility entrusted to its occupant. However, respect for the office does not require silence when a ruling raises a serious question about the constitutional powers of Parliament,” he said.

Afenyo-Markin referred to several major narcotics seizures involving consignments linked to Ghana, arguing that they raised questions about the country's ability to prevent the trafficking of illicit drugs through its ports and other entry points.

Among the incidents he cited 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 valued at approximately €225 million.

He also cited seizures in Amsterdam, Antwerp and Sydney, as well as suspected cocaine interceptions in Ghana, including incidents in the Tema Harbour enclave and at Pedu Junction.

“These developments raise serious concerns about the effectiveness of our port security arrangements, cargo inspection procedures, customs controls, intelligence coordination, and the broader institutional framework for combating transnational organised crime,” he said.

The Minority Leader argued that ongoing criminal prosecutions should not prevent Parliament from investigating possible weaknesses in public institutions responsible for preventing drug trafficking.

He warned that treating criminal proceedings as sufficient grounds to shield public institutions from parliamentary scrutiny could leave systemic failures unaddressed.

“The prosecution of individuals, however necessary, cannot absolve the government of its responsibility to account for the institutional and regulatory weakness that may have facilitated these incidents,” he said.

He added that Parliament's proposed inquiry was not intended to determine the guilt or innocence of people facing criminal charges.

Afenyo-Markin distinguished between the work of criminal courts and Parliament's oversight responsibilities, arguing that the two serve different constitutional purposes.

“A criminal court determines whether an accused person has committed an offence, whereas Parliament examines whether public institutions have discharged their responsibilities, whether existing laws and regulatory arrangements are adequate, and whether failures in public administration require corrective action. These are separate constitutional functions. The existence of one does not automatically extinguish the other,” he said.

The Minority has maintained that its proposed investigation would focus on institutional and regulatory weaknesses rather than the criminal liability of individuals standing trial.