Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin has rejected Speaker Alban Bagbin’s decision to dismiss the Minority’s motion for a parliamentary inquiry into recent cocaine seizures, insisting that the Speaker “got it wrong.”
According to Afenyo-Markin, the existence of criminal proceedings relating to some of the incidents did not automatically remove Parliament’s constitutional authority to investigate the performance of state institutions.
Speaking to journalists after the Speaker’s ruling on Tuesday, September 29, the Minority Leader said Parliament could have conducted the inquiry while taking steps to protect the integrity of ongoing court proceedings.
Also read: Speaker’s ruling has failed the integrity test – Afenyo-Markin
“Mr Speaker therefore got it wrong by using existing pending criminal proceedings to determine the scope and manner of the inquiry,” Afenyo-Markin said.
He argued that the proposed ad hoc committee was not intended to prosecute or determine the guilt of any accused person.
Rather, he said, the inquiry was designed to investigate the administration and effectiveness of public institutions involved in narcotics control, customs, border protection, intelligence gathering and port security.
Afenyo-Markin said the proposed committee could have been given clear restrictions to ensure that it did not examine issues directly related to criminal liability.
He said the committee could have been prevented from determining whether an accused person committed an offence, assessing the credibility of prosecution witnesses or ruling on the admissibility of evidence before the courts.
“The proper question is whether the particular parliamentary inquiry would prejudice a determination of that case, so the Speaker got it wrong,” he said.
The Minority Leader cited Article 103 of the 1992 Constitution, which provides for parliamentary committees and their investigative functions.
He also referred to Article 101 and Parliament’s Standing Orders in arguing that the sub judice principle should be applied carefully rather than treated as an absolute prohibition against parliamentary discussion of matters connected to litigation.
According to him, the rule should prevent actual prejudice to pending proceedings without extinguishing Parliament’s broader oversight jurisdiction.
Afenyo-Markin said Parliament has a responsibility to investigate whether the systems of state were functioning properly in the face of repeated narcotics seizures.
He identified areas such as container scanning, customs risk profiling, intelligence sharing, cargo inspection, maritime surveillance and border protection as legitimate areas for parliamentary scrutiny.
He also warned that failure to investigate institutional weaknesses could undermine public confidence and Ghana’s international reputation.
“The image of our country is on trial,” he said.
Afenyo-Markin accused the Majority of using its numerical strength to weaken parliamentary scrutiny, describing the development as a threat to effective oversight.
He nevertheless said the Minority would continue to pursue the narcotics issue through constitutional and parliamentary avenues.