The Deputy Minority Chief Whip, Habib Iddrisu, has disputed Speaker Alban Bagbin's decision to reject a Minority motion seeking a parliamentary inquiry into major narcotics seizures linked to Ghana. Iddrisu argued that Parliament can exercise its constitutional oversight powers even when related matters are before the courts. He made these comments on Joy News' PM Express on Tuesday, September 29.
Speaker Alban Bagbin rejected the Minority's motion during an extraordinary sitting, citing the overlap between the proposed parliamentary inquiry and ongoing investigations and judicial proceedings. He stated that allowing the inquiry to proceed could prejudice the interests of parties before the courts. The motion was in response to a series of major narcotics seizures involving consignments linked to Ghana.
The Minority had raised concerns about Ghana potentially being used as a transit point for illegal drugs, particularly after French authorities seized nearly 3.9 tonnes of cocaine at the Port of Dunkirk from a container that had departed Ghana. Iddrisu pointed to the Kpandai parliamentary dispute as an example of Parliament acting while a matter was before the courts.
Iddrisu referenced Article 103(3) of the Constitution, which gives parliamentary committees investigative powers. He stated that this provision allows Parliament to conduct investigations and enquiries into activities and administration of ministers and departments. Iddrisu argued that the Speaker's reliance on the Standing Orders should not override Parliament's constitutional mandate.
The Kpandai case, according to Iddrisu, sets a precedent for Parliament to act even when a matter is before the courts. He recalled that the Speaker had made a ruling on the Kpandai matter despite a court case being ongoing. Iddrisu contrasted this with the Standing Order cited by the Speaker in rejecting the narcotics inquiry.
Iddrisu expressed disagreement with the Speaker's reasoning, citing the Constitution's provisions that grant Parliament investigative powers. He emphasized that Parliament's constitutional mandate should take precedence over the Standing Orders. The Deputy Minority Chief Whip questioned the Speaker's decision, arguing that it undermines Parliament's oversight role.
The rejected motion was one of the factors that triggered Parliament's recall. Iddrisu had previously expressed surprise at the Speaker's decision to reject the recall motion. The Minority had demanded a full data on Ghana's narcotics seizures, arrests, and prosecutions since 2025.
Key points
- Habib Iddrisu challenges Speaker Alban Bagbin's rejection of a motion for a parliamentary inquiry into major narcotics seizures linked to Ghana.
- The Kpandai case sets a precedent for Parliament to act even when a matter is before the courts.
- Iddrisu argues that Parliament's constitutional mandate should take precedence over the Standing Orders.
