Habib Iddrisu: Challenges Ghana Speaker Drug Probe Rejection

• First Deputy Minority Whip Habib Iddrisu challenged Speaker Alban Bagbin's rejection of a motion for a parliamentary inquiry into major narcotics seizures linked to Ghana.
• Speaker Bagbin cited potential prejudice to ongoing judicial proceedings and investigations as reasons for rejecting the Ghana parliamentary narcotics inquiry.
• Iddrisu argued that Parliament's constitutional oversight powers, particularly under Article 103, should not be overridden by Standing Orders.
• He referenced the Kpandai parliamentary dispute as a precedent where the Speaker made a ruling despite an active court case, demonstrating Parliament's ability to act concurrently.
• The challenge underscores a debate on the extent of Parliament's investigative authority versus the sub judice rule in Ghana.

Iddrisu strongly disagreed with the Speaker's reasoning, particularly the argument that a parliamentary investigation would prejudice judicial outcomes.

Ghana's First Deputy Minority Whip, Habib Iddrisu, has formally challenged Speaker Alban Bagbin's decision to reject a Minority motion calling for a parliamentary inquiry into significant narcotics seizures linked to the country. Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express on Tuesday, September 29, the Tolon MP asserted that Parliament possesses inherent constitutional oversight powers that remain exercisable even when related matters are concurrently before the courts.

Speaker Bagbin had dismissed the Minority's motion during an extraordinary sitting, citing concerns that a parliamentary narcotics inquiry would overlap with existing investigations and judicial proceedings. He articulated that allowing the inquiry to proceed could potentially prejudice the interests of parties involved in ongoing court cases. This rejection came after the Minority caucus had campaigned for Parliament to be recalled, prompted by a series of major drug seizures that raised alarms about Ghana's potential role as a transit point for illegal substances, notably a nearly 3.9-tonne cocaine haul by French authorities at the Port of Dunkirk from a container originating in Ghana.

Iddrisu strongly disagreed with the Speaker's reasoning, particularly the argument that a parliamentary investigation would prejudice judicial outcomes. He contended that the Speaker's reliance on parliamentary Standing Orders should not supersede the broader constitutional mandate of Parliament. Specifically, Iddrisu pointed to Article 103 of the Ghana Constitution, highlighting subsections (3) and (6), which he argued explicitly grant Parliament robust investigative powers.

In contrast, Speaker Bagbin had cited Standing Order 103(f) as the basis for his rejection. This Standing Order stipulates that a motion shall not "be the subject matter of an action in which a judicial decision is pending, in such a way as may, in the opinion of the Speaker, prejudice the interests of parties to the action." However, Iddrisu emphasized that Article 103(3) clearly states that a parliamentary committee "shall be charged with such functions, including investigation, enquiry into activities, administration of ministers, department as Parliament may determine, and such investigations and enquiries may extend to proposal for legislation," underscoring Parliament's inherent right to conduct such inquiries.

To bolster his argument, Habib Iddrisu referenced the Kpandai parliamentary dispute as a significant precedent. He recalled that in the Kpandai matter, the Speaker had proceeded to make a ruling concerning whether Martin Nyidam should vacate his seat, despite the existence of an active court case related to the issue. Iddrisu noted that the Speaker did not, in that instance, decline to act on the grounds that a judicial decision was pending.

This Kpandai case precedent parliamentary oversight, according to Iddrisu, demonstrates that Parliament has historically exercised its functions even when matters are simultaneously before the courts. His challenge to the Speaker's rejection of the Ghana parliamentary narcotics inquiry thus frames a critical debate over the scope of parliamentary powers and the interpretation of sub judice rules, affirming Parliament's constitutional oversight powers in matters of national importance like Ghana drug trafficking parliamentary investigation.

This case establishes a precedent for challenging the Speaker's rejection of parliamentary inquiries based on sub judice rules, affirming Parliament's constitutional oversight powers. Lawyers should note this for advising clients involved in matters that could be subject to both judicial and parliamentary scrutiny in Ghana.

Source: Original reporting via Abubakar Ibrahim