The Majority Leader and Member of Parliament for Builsa North, Honourable James Agalga, has described the Minority’s proposed parliamentary probe into recent narcotics seizures as premature, arguing that several related cases are already before the courts.
Speaking after the Speaker rejected the Minority’s motion at Parliament’s emergency sitting on Tuesday, September 29, the Majority Leader explained that state security agencies are still investigating the cases.
Honourable Agalga noted that the cocaine and methamphetamine seizures cited by the Minority have already resulted in arrests and court proceedings. He disclosed that close to 20 people have been arrested and arraigned, with some of the accused persons currently on remand as investigations continue.
The Builsa North MP questioned the purpose of launching another investigation while criminal investigations remain active. He explained that running separate inquiries into the same matters could produce conflicting findings and potentially interfere with cases before the courts.
“When you have multiple investigations running concurrently, the danger is that you may arrive at different conclusions.”
Honourable James Agalga
Directing attention to Parliament’s constitutional role, the Majority Leader emphasised that the House does not possess the mandate to conduct criminal investigations. He explained that such responsibilities rest with institutions specifically empowered by law to investigate offences, while Parliament’s role is to exercise oversight without compromising those processes.
Honourable Agalga further pointed to Parliament’s Standing Orders, which restrict investigations into matters before the courts where such action could prejudice judicial proceedings. He noted that the Speaker’s ruling is also supported by parliamentary precedent, including the 2016 Ford Expedition matter in which a Minority motion was dismissed while related petitions were before the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice.
Focusing on the Minority’s argument that its proposed review of port scanning, risk profiling and intelligence sharing falls within Parliament’s oversight mandate, the Majority Leader offered a different interpretation. He explained that examining those systems in the context of the current seizures could inevitably lead the House towards individuals and conduct already being investigated by security agencies.
“If you go on that tangent, you are investigating matters that are currently under investigation by the security agencies. The moment you start talking about profiling, you are talking about going after the persons who are the subject matter of investigations now.”
Honourable James Agalga
Consequently, Honourable Agalga reiterated that Parliament must allow the ongoing criminal processes to proceed without creating a parallel investigation that could affect them. His position follows the Speaker’s ruling that the Minority’s motion was inadmissible because its proposed inquiry substantially overlapped with pending investigations and judicial proceedings.
Majority Leader Defends Parliament’s Oversight Role in Drug Fight
The Majority Leader and Member of Parliament for Builsa North, Honourable James Agalga, also rejected suggestions that the Majority seeks to shield the Executive from parliamentary scrutiny over Ghana’s narcotics control system. He explained that Parliament continues to exercise its oversight mandate, but must balance that responsibility with the need to protect ongoing security operations and criminal investigations.
Honourable Agalga directed attention to Parliament’s dedicated security committees, including the Defence and Interior Committee and the Committee on Security and Intelligence. He explained that these bodies provide a mechanism for examining the work of security institutions while limiting the risk of exposing sensitive intelligence or operational information.
According to the Majority Leader, parliamentary scrutiny of security matters requires a careful balance between the public’s right to information and the need to protect investigations. He argued that Parliament should therefore avoid actions that could compel the disclosure of intelligence currently being used by security agencies.
“Nobody is saying that Parliament ought not to exercise its oversight over the executive arm of government; far from that. But we’re saying that while the security agencies are conducting criminal investigations, you don’t resort to conduct that can compromise the integrity of the investigations.”
Honourable James Agalga
Referencing the concerns raised by the Minority about port security and the capacity of the Narcotics Control Commission, the Builsa North MP indicated that government institutions are already implementing measures to strengthen the country’s response to drug trafficking. He pointed to investment in forensic laboratories and efforts to improve the human resource capacity of the Narcotics Control Commission.
Honourable Agalga argued that the existence of these interventions means Parliament does not need to begin a parallel inquiry to establish whether measures are being taken. He emphasised that the relevant institutions can continue implementing reforms while Parliament uses its established oversight structures to monitor their performance.
The Majority Leader also rejected the suggestion that the rejection of the motion amounts to Parliament abandoning its oversight responsibilities. He stressed that the House has not withdrawn from its constitutional duty to scrutinise the Executive and security institutions.
In this regard, Honourable Agalga emphasised the need for parliamentary committees to continue examining institutional performance within the limits of their mandates. He explained that such an approach allows Parliament to demand accountability while avoiding interference with ongoing criminal investigations.
READ ALSO: Tolon MP Shocked By Speaker’s Rejection, Challenges Basis For Ruling
