Parliamentary Storm: Speaker Bagbin Rejects Narcotics Probe, Igniting Fierce Afenyo-Markin Backlash

Ghana's parliamentary proceedings took a contentious turn on Tuesday, September 29, following Speaker Alban Bagbin's ruling that a motion seeking a parliamentary inquiry into recent major narcotics seizures linked to the country was inadmissible. The decision sparked strong condemnation from the Minority in Parliament, whose leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, described it as a "sad day for our democracy and parliamentary oversight," vowing to pursue the matter through every legitimate avenue.

Prior to the Speaker's determination, Mr. Afenyo-Markin had implored Speaker Bagbin to grant leaders of the respective parliamentary caucuses adequate opportunity to present their submissions. He underscored the profound implications of the issue for Ghana’s democratic image and international standing, noting that both the Ghanaian public and the international community were closely monitoring Parliament’s handling of the matter. He argued that allowing comprehensive presentations from caucus leaders would be crucial in assisting the Speaker to reach a well-considered determination.

The rejected motion, filed by First Deputy Minority Whip and Tolon MP Habib Iddrisu, sought the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee. This committee's mandate would have been to investigate a series of significant narcotics seizures, including the nearly 3.9 metric tonnes of cocaine intercepted by French Customs at Dunkirk on September 10, 2026, the seizure of 320 kilogrammes of methamphetamine by Australian authorities in June (year unspecified but within the context of recent events), and cocaine interceptions in Takoradi and Pedu in Cape Coast in March 2025. The proposed inquiry aimed to scrutinize how these consignments were processed, inspected, cleared, and exported from Ghana, including the specific ports of departure, the intelligence profiling, scanning, physical inspection, and customs procedures applied. It also intended to examine the roles of relevant companies and state agencies, assess the adequacy of Ghana’s security systems, and ascertain the status of investigations, arrests, and prosecutions stemming from these seizures.

Speaker Bagbin, in delivering his ruling during the emergency sitting, stated that he had meticulously reviewed the motion, its proposed terms of reference, ongoing investigations, pending judicial proceedings, and Parliament’s constitutional oversight responsibilities in conjunction with the House's Standing Orders. He highlighted a substantial factual overlap between the proposed parliamentary inquiry and matters already before the courts. The Speaker expressed concerns that allowing the inquiry to proceed could necessitate Parliament's examination of transactions, assessment of various actors' conduct, and determination of reasons for actions taken or opposed at Ghana’s ports of entry. He concluded that such an exercise could ultimately require Parliament to determine issues properly within the remit of a court of competent jurisdiction, thereby prejudicing the interests of parties involved in pending judicial proceedings. Consequently, he ruled the motion inadmissible, citing Standing Orders 5, 6, and 103, Sub-Rule F.

In response, Mr. Afenyo-Markin vehemently rejected the Speaker's ruling, asserting that Speaker Bagbin had erred by using ongoing criminal proceedings as a basis to determine the scope and manner of a proposed parliamentary inquiry. He challenged the premise that court matters could oust Parliament's constitutional jurisdiction to investigate the conduct, administration, and effectiveness of public institutions. Citing Articles 93 and 103 of the 1992 Constitution, the Minority Leader reiterated Parliament's inherent authority to establish committees for inquiring into the activities and administration of ministries, departments, and agencies.

Mr. Afenyo-Markin clarified that the Minority's motion was specifically designed not to interfere with judicial processes. He stressed that the inquiry did not seek to try any accused person, determine criminal liability, pronounce guilt or innocence, assess witness credibility, or decide upon evidence before a court. Instead, its unequivocal focus was on institutional oversight and evaluating whether state institutions had adequately responded to the circumstances surrounding the cocaine seizures. He further accused the Majority of being unwilling to subject the matter to parliamentary scrutiny, making a pointed remark, "The 24-hour economy has turned into 24-hour cocaine, and the Majority is not at all interested in scrutiny; we will not rest."

The Minority Leader characterized the ruling as having "failed the integrity test required of Parliament to discharge its duty," and alleged that it reflected the government's concerns about its own record. He warned that limiting Parliament’s oversight role could significantly weaken accountability and institutional checks on executive power. "When Parliament is weakened, accountability is weakened, and the institutions of state are left with fewer checks on the exercise of power," Mr. Afenyo-Markin stated, adding that a "supermajority must never become an excuse to weaken the minority, silence scrutiny, or diminish Parliament’s duty to oversight."

With the Majority supporting the Speaker's ruling and Parliament subsequently adjourned until further notice, the Minority Leader affirmed their commitment to using available options under the Constitution and Parliament’s Standing Orders to keep the issue on the public agenda. He concluded by assuring Ghanaians that the Minority would act in the national interest and would brief them on their next steps at the appropriate time.