Bagbin rejects Minority motion for bipartisan probe into narcotics seizures

Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin has ruled against a Minority motion seeking a bipartisan parliamentary inquiry into major narcotics consignments linked to Ghana, citing the risk of prejudicing ongoing judicial 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.

Among the incidents cited was the seizure of 3.9 metric tonnes of cocaine by French Customs at Dunkirk on September 10, 2026, as well as the seizure of 320 kilogrammes of methamphetamine by the Australian Border Force in June 2026 and earlier cocaine interceptions in Takoradi and Pedu in Cape Coast.

However, ruling on the motion at Parliament’s emergency sitting on Tuesday, September 29, Mr Bagbin said there was substantial factual overlap between the proposed parliamentary inquiry and matters currently before the courts.

He said the proposed investigation could involve evidence, witnesses, conduct and questions of responsibility relevant to pending judicial proceedings.

“The proposed parliamentary enquiry will traverse factual matters directly connected with matters presently engaging the criminal justice process,” Mr Bagbin said.

He explained that allowing the committee to proceed would require Parliament to examine how the narcotics transactions were conducted and determine the actions or inactions of various actors at ports of entry.

According to him, such an exercise could ultimately require Parliament to determine issues that should be left to 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 judicial 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 consequently ruled the private members’ motion inadmissible under the relevant 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.