A recent confrontation between security officers from the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) and Manhyia South MP Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah outside the Accra High Court has sparked debate on the extent of parliamentary immunity in Ghana. According to legal analyst Samson Lardy Anyenini, Article 117 of the 1992 Constitution only shields MPs from arrest while attending parliamentary proceedings, not at all times. This clarification comes after a clash between EOCO officers and the MP, who claimed he was not given an arrest warrant and feared for his safety.
Anyenini, speaking on Joy FM's Top Story, emphasized that the protection afforded to MPs under Article 117 is often abused, leading many Ghanaians to wrongly believe that MPs are beyond the reach of investigators. He pointed out that Parliament is currently on recess, which undermines the claim that Baffour Awuah's confrontation with EOCO officers occurred within the constitutionally protected window. Anyenini urged EOCO and other interested parties to verify whether any parliamentary business was taking place at the time of the attempted arrest.
EOCO has stated that it invited Baffour Awuah twice in February 2026 to assist with an ongoing investigation, but the MP did not respond. The Office claims that the attempted arrest was not completed due to concerns for public safety. EOCO maintains that parliamentary membership does not exempt an individual from investigation or the law, while respecting the constitutional privileges of Parliament. In contrast, Baffour Awuah claims he was approached by officers who did not produce an arrest warrant, prompting him to drive away for fear of his safety.
Deputy Speaker Alexander Afenyo-Markin has called on President Mahama to rein in EOCO following the incident. Meanwhile, Speaker Alban Bagbin has clarified that security agencies do not need his permission to arrest or invite an MP for questioning but must notify his office with details of the circumstances and allegations. Anyenini suggested that agencies inviting an MP should copy the Speaker's office in their correspondence, a practice already followed by the Office of the Special Prosecutor.
Under Article 118(2) of the Constitution, a certificate from the Speaker confirming an MP's attendance at parliamentary proceedings serves as conclusive evidence of that attendance. Anyenini also noted that arrest warrants can be obtained where necessary but cautioned against treating them as mandatory in every case, as the law grants certain law enforcement officers powers to arrest with or without a warrant. This nuance is crucial in understanding the balance between parliamentary immunity and law enforcement powers.
The dispute highlights the tension between MPs' ability to shield themselves from investigation and the public's perception of fairness in law enforcement when public officials are involved. The incident has sparked concerns about the extent to which MPs can use their immunity to avoid accountability. As the situation unfolds, it remains unclear whether EOCO will renew its attempt to question Baffour Awuah now that Parliament is on recess.
The clarification from Anyenini and the Speaker's office has significant implications for the interpretation of parliamentary immunity in Ghana. As the debate continues, it is essential to consider the constitutional provisions and the need for accountability among public officials. The incident serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between the privileges of Parliament and the powers of law enforcement agencies.
Key points
- Article 117 of Ghana's 1992 Constitution only shields MPs from arrest while attending parliamentary proceedings, not at all times.
- Parliamentary immunity is often abused, leading many Ghanaians to wrongly believe that MPs are beyond the reach of investigators.
- Security agencies do not need the Speaker's permission to arrest or invite an MP for questioning but must notify his office with details of the circumstances and allegations.
