The Deputy Minority Chief Whip, Habib Iddrisu, has rejected the argument that ongoing court cases should prevent Parliament from investigating Ghana’s alleged role as a transit point for illicit drugs.
The Tolon MP disagreed with the reasoning attributed to Speaker Alban Bagbin for rejecting the Minority’s motion seeking a parliamentary inquiry into the drug scandal.
The Speaker cited ongoing investigations by state security agencies and related cases before the courts as part of the reasons for not admitting the motion.
However, speaking in an interview, Mr Iddrisu argued that Parliament’s constitutional mandate to investigate should not be overridden by its Standing Orders.
“No, I strongly disagree with whether that is actually the reasoning of the speaker, because it’s part of the reason that he has given.”
He said the Constitution should take precedence, particularly Articles 103(3) and 103(6), which provide Parliament with powers to conduct investigations and inquiries.
“But I don’t think that what he actually quoted in our Standing Orders supersedes the provisions in the Constitution and Article 103, particularly when you look at the Constitution Article 103(3) and that of Article 103(6); it made it clear and gave Parliament that power.”
Mr Iddrisu also cited the Speaker’s handling of the Kpandai case as an example of Parliament taking action even when a matter is before the courts.
“For instance, there are matters that have been before the courts, but yet Parliament makes decisions on it.”
He said the Kpandai case showed that the existence of court proceedings did not automatically prevent the Speaker from exercising his parliamentary authority.
“A typical example was when the Speaker read his ruling on the Kpandai matter. There was a court case. Did he say that because the case was in court, he was not going to do any ruling whether Martin Nyidam leaves his seat or not? He did not. He went ahead to do what he has to do as a Speaker.”
The Minority’s motion was filed following concerns over major cocaine seizures linked to Ghana and allegations that the country was becoming a transit point for illicit drugs.
The Minority recalled Parliament to seek an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the seizures and Ghana’s alleged role in the international drug trade.
However, the Speaker rejected the motion, relying on Standing Order 101(3)(F), which restricts motions concerning matters before the courts where parliamentary action could prejudice parties involved in the case.
Mr Iddrisu quoted the provision but maintained that it should be considered alongside Parliament’s constitutional power to investigate.
“But when you read the standing orders that the Speaker quoted to rely on or heavily rely on with regard to this matter, he said, ‘Standing Order 101(3)F, which says that a motion shall relate to defined issues and not, and then the F be the subject matter of an action in which a judiciary decision is pending, in such a way as may, in the opinion of the Speaker, prejudice the interests of parties to the action.’”
He again referred to Article 103(3), which outlines Parliament’s investigative powers.
“But if you read the Constitution in Article 103(3), it states that a committee of Parliament shall be charged with such functions, including investigation, enquiry into activities, administration of ministers, departments as Parliament may determine, and such investigations and enquiries may extend to proposals for legislation.”
