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.
The motion, filed by First Deputy Minority Whip and Tolon MP Habib Iddrisu, invokes Standing Order 127 of Parliament’s Standing Orders.
Speaker Bagbin, on September 29, 2026, ruled the proposed inquiry inadmissible, citing concerns 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 investigation into major narcotics seizures linked to Ghana.
Speaking at a press briefing ahead of Parliament’s resumption on Tuesday, November 3, Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin said the motion was not intended to undermine the Speaker’s authority 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 cited several major narcotics seizures involving consignments linked to Ghana, arguing that the incidents raised questions about the country’s capacity to prevent illicit drugs from being trafficked through its ports and other entry points.
Among the cases he referenced 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 mentioned seizures in Amsterdam, Antwerp and Sydney, alongside suspected cocaine interceptions in Ghana, including incidents within the Tema Harbour enclave and at Pedu Junction.
According to the Minority Leader, the incidents raise concerns about port security arrangements, cargo inspection procedures, customs controls, intelligence coordination and the broader institutional framework for combating transnational organised crime.
He maintained that ongoing criminal prosecutions should not prevent Parliament from investigating possible institutional failures that may have facilitated drug trafficking.
“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.
Afenyo-Markin stressed that the proposed inquiry was not intended to determine the guilt or innocence of persons facing criminal charges but to examine the performance of public institutions.
He argued that criminal courts and Parliament perform distinct constitutional functions, insisting that the existence of ongoing court proceedings should not automatically prevent parliamentary oversight.
“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.
