The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, has ruled that a private member’s motion filed by the Minority, which sought a parliamentary investigation into the recent spate of cocaine-related arrests in the country, is inadmissible. In a detailed ruling delivered on the floor of the House, Speaker Bagbin cited the potential for the proposed inquiry to prejudice ongoing judicial proceedings and conflict with the constitutional separation of powers.
The Minority’s motion had requested that Parliament establish a committee to investigate the circumstances surrounding the arrests and the handling of the cases. However, Speaker Bagbin determined that the matter was already before the courts. He stated that the proposed parliamentary inquiry would traverse factual matters directly connected with the criminal justice process, potentially evaluating evidence and determining issues that are the preserve of 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,” the Speaker said. He added that permitting the motion to proceed in its present form would likely prejudice the interests of parties involved in the pending judicial proceedings.
The ruling, which was met with some visible discontent from the Minority benches, was grounded in Standing Orders 5, 6, and 103, Sub-Rule F. While the Speaker acknowledged the constitutional right of members to request a meeting and submit motions, he emphasized that every motion remains subject to the standing orders governing admissibility. He subsequently dismissed the motion in limine—at the preliminary stage—along with Standing Orders 192 and 233.
Speaker Bagbin was emphatic that his decision was a procedural determination and not a judgment on the gravity of the drug situation. “I am not ruling that Parliament can never inquire into these matters. Neither am I suggesting that the matters raised by the requesting members are unimportant,” he clarified. He warned a member against shouting “cover-up,” threatening drastic action if the remark was repeated, underscoring the tension in the chamber.
The Speaker outlined that Parliament’s oversight responsibilities remain intact, but must be exercised without interfering with the judiciary. He advised that members could still seek information from ministers, scrutinize the performance of relevant public institutions, examine the adequacy of narcotics control legislation, and consider broader questions concerning port security and drug policy.
Concluding his ruling, Speaker Bagbin emphasized that the strength of Parliament is measured not only by its constitutional powers but also by the manner in which it exercises them. He stated that while Parliament must defend the country’s freedom, it must equally defend the dignity of its institutions, the rights of citizens, and the integrity of the judicial process to prevent democratic politics from becoming destructive.
EcowasNewsOnline.com
