Kpandai case sets the precedent – Habib Iddrisu challenges Speaker’s rejection of drug probe

The Deputy Minority Chief Whip, Habib Iddrisu, has challenged Speaker Alban Bagbin’s decision to reject a Minority motion seeking a parliamentary inquiry into major narcotics seizures linked to Ghana.

The Tolon MP says Parliament can exercise its constitutional oversight powers even when related matters are before the courts.

Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express on Tuesday, September 29, he strongly disagreed with the argument that a parliamentary inquiry could prejudice ongoing court proceedings.

“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.”

Speaker Alban Bagbin rejected the Minority’s motion during an extraordinary sitting, citing the overlap between the proposed parliamentary inquiry and ongoing investigations and judicial proceedings.

He said allowing the inquiry to proceed could prejudice the interests of parties before the courts.

The motion followed the Minority’s campaign for Parliament to be recalled over a series of major narcotics seizures involving consignments linked to Ghana.

The caucus had raised concerns about Ghana potentially being used as a transit point for illegal drugs, particularly after French authorities seized nearly 3.9 tonnes of cocaine at the Port of Dunkirk from a container that had departed Ghana.

But Mr Iddrisu argued that the Speaker’s reliance on the Standing Orders should not override Parliament’s constitutional mandate.

“But I don’t think that what actually he 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 clearly and give Parliament that power.”

He pointed to the Kpandai parliamentary dispute as an example of Parliament acting while a matter was before the courts.

“For instance, there are matters that have been before the courts, but yet Parliament makes decisions on it.”

“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.”

Mr Iddrisu contrasted that with the Standing Order cited by the Speaker in rejecting the narcotics inquiry.

“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 judicial decision is pending, in such a way as may, in the opinion of the Speaker, prejudice the interests of parties to the action.’”

He said, however, that Article 103(3) expressly gives parliamentary committees 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, department as Parliament may determine, and such investigations and enquiries may extend to proposal for legislation.”

DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.

Tags:  

DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.