The Minority in Parliament says it will pursue another avenue under the 1992 Constitution and Parliament’s Standing Orders to push for an inquiry into major narcotics consignments linked to Ghana.
The decision follows Speaker Alban Bagbin’s rejection of the Minority’s motion for a bipartisan probe into the seizures at Tuesday’s emergency sitting.
Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin said the caucus would not allow the matter to end with the Speaker’s ruling.
“We say that we are left with another option, we would exercise an option within the Constitution and our own standing orders in ensuring that this narcotic issue, which has gotten out of hand and has gotten Ghana to gain notoriety as a transshipment point of narcotics back onto the front burner. We will not let this matter rest,” he said.
Mr Afenyo-Markin said the Minority would use Parliament’s oversight mechanisms to scrutinise the handling of narcotics consignments and the role of public institutions in preventing Ghana from being used as a transit point for illegal drugs.
He also challenged the application of Parliament’s Standing Orders in the Speaker’s ruling, stressing that public institutions must operate within the law.
“No agency is above the Constitution, no public institution should exercise power outside the law, and that, Mr. Speaker, must read carefully the standing orders when coming to a conclusion in a sensitive motion such as what we filed,” he said.
The motion, filed by First Deputy Minority Whip and Tolon MP Habib Iddrisu, sought the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee to investigate how major narcotics consignments were processed, inspected, cleared and exported from Ghana.
It cited the seizure of 3.9 metric tonnes of cocaine by French Customs at Dunkirk on 10 September 2026, and the seizure of 320 kilogrammes of methamphetamine by the Australian Border Force in June 2026. It also referenced earlier cocaine interceptions in Takoradi and Pedu in Cape Coast.
Mr Bagbin rejected the motion, saying the proposed inquiry had substantial factual overlap with matters before the courts and could potentially prejudice ongoing judicial proceedings.
The Minority maintains that its proposed inquiry was focused on the performance and accountability of public institutions, rather than determining the criminal liability of individuals before the courts.
