Speaker of Parliament Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin has warned that his ruling to reject a Private Members’ Motion seeking an inquiry into recent narcotics seizures does not shield anyone from accountability or prevent Parliament from exercising its oversight responsibilities.
He said the ruling was strictly a procedural determination on the motion’s admissibility and did not determine the underlying allegations against any individual.
He clarified this after ruling the motion inadmissible because its proposed scope substantially overlapped with ongoing investigations and criminal proceedings before the courts.
Also read: Patrick Boamah credits Godfred Dame for Ghana’s Tullow arbitration victory
“This is a procedural determination. It is not a determination of the underlying allegations,” the Speaker said.
According to Mr Bagbin, Parliament’s oversight mandate remains intact. He said Members could, subject to the Constitution and Standing Orders, seek information from ministers, scrutinise the performance of relevant public institutions and examine the adequacy of Ghana’s narcotics control laws and regulatory framework.
Parliament could also consider broader issues relating to port security, border security and national narcotics policy.
“What Parliament must avoid is conducting a parallel fact-finding exercise which may prejudice the interest of parties whose cases are presently before the courts,” he ruled.
The Speaker also reminded Members of the meaning and purpose of a Private Members’ Motion under Order 6 of Parliament’s Standing Orders.
He explained that such a motion is a request by a Member who is not acting in the capacity of a leader or committee member for Parliament to take an action, order something to be done or express an opinion on a matter of public interest.
“Sometimes members overlook these definitions. It’s important you take them on board when you are submitting business for consideration,” he cautioned.
Mr Bagbin said the strength of Parliament is not measured only by the powers granted to it by the Constitution, but also by how those powers are exercised.
He stressed the need to protect freedom of expression, the right to criticise and the ability of the Minority to hold the Majority to account.
At the same time, he said Parliament must defend the dignity of its institutions, citizens’ rights, the integrity of judicial proceedings and the standards of conduct necessary for democratic governance.
The Speaker also explained that the emergency recall of Parliament followed a request by the requisite number of Members under Article 112(3) of the 1992 Constitution.
He stressed that he had discharged his constitutional duty by summoning Parliament, but the recall itself did not automatically make every proposed substantive motion admissible.
For these reasons, including the overlap with ongoing investigations and pending court proceedings, Mr Bagbin ruled the narcotics inquiry motion inadmissible under Standing Orders 56 and 103(F).