Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin has rejected a Minority motion seeking a bipartisan parliamentary inquiry into major narcotics consignments linked to Ghana, citing concerns that the proposed investigation could interfere with ongoing court proceedings.
The motion, filed by First Deputy Minority Whip and Tolon MP Habib Iddrisu on September 28, sought the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee to investigate how major narcotics consignments were processed, inspected, cleared and exported from Ghana.
It cited several cases, including the seizure of 3.9 metric tonnes of cocaine by French Customs at Dunkirk on September 10, 2026, the interception of 320 kilogrammes of methamphetamine by the Australian Border Force in June 2026, as well as earlier cocaine seizures in Takoradi and Pedu in Cape Coast.
However, ruling on the motion at Parliament’s emergency sitting on Tuesday, September 29, Mr Bagbin said the proposed inquiry substantially overlapped with matters currently before the courts.
According to him, the investigation could require Parliament to examine evidence, question witnesses and assess the conduct and responsibilities of individuals connected to the cases.
“The proposed parliamentary enquiry will traverse factual matters directly connected with matters presently engaging the criminal justice process,” Mr Bagbin said.
He explained that investigating how the narcotics consignments were handled at Ghana’s ports of entry could ultimately require Parliament to determine issues that fall within the jurisdiction of the courts.
“The combined effect of undertaking this evaluation, assessment, and investigation would be, at the end of the day, to determine the very issues that the Court of Competent Jurisdiction is supposed to determine,” he said.
Mr Bagbin said allowing the motion to proceed in its current form could therefore prejudice the interests of parties involved in the pending proceedings.
“Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that permitting the motion to proceed in its present form as presented by a Leader of the House at this particular time may prejudice the interests of parties to pending judicial proceedings,” he said.
He subsequently ruled the private members’ motion inadmissible under Parliament’s Standing Orders.
“I therefore rule, pursuant to Standing Orders 5, 6, and 103, Sub-Rule F, that the private member’s motion is inadmissible,” Mr Bagbin said.
