|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Introduction
The attempted arrest of Manhyia South Member of Parliament (MP) Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah by officials of the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) on Sept. 23, 2026, sparked fresh debate about the extent of parliamentary privilege and immunity in Ghana.
While lawmakers under investigation cite Article 117 of the 1992 Constitution to resist arrest, some Ghanaians believe the debate must be settled.
What does Ghana’s law say about lawmakers’ immunity?
The principal constitutional protection is found in Article 117 of the 1992 Constitution. The said provision, sub-headed “Immunity from Service of Process and Arrest,” provides that:
“Civil or criminal process coming from any court or place out of Parliament shall not be served on, or executed in relation to, the Speaker or a member or the Clerk to Parliament while he is on his way to, attending at or returning from, any proceedings of Parliament.”
Similarly, Article 118(1) of the Constitution states that,
“Neither the Speaker, nor a member of, nor the Clerk to, Parliament shall be compelled, while attending Parliament, to appear as a witness in any court or place out of Parliament.”
Under Article 118(2), “The certificate of the Speaker that a member or the Clerk is attending the proceedings of Parliament is conclusive evidence of attendance at Parliament.”
Does Article 117 give MPs blanket immunity?
The Supreme Court has addressed this question. In Republic v High Court (Land Division), Accra; Ex parte Kennedy Ohene Agyapong, the Supreme Court considered Article 117 in the context of court process involving an MP.
The Court stated that Article 117 does not generally bar service of court processes on a Member of Parliament. Rather, it prevents service or execution of process while the Member is “on his/her way to, attending at or returning from” parliamentary proceedings.
“To our minds, Article 117 does not bar service of court processes on a Member of Parliament. It only forbids service of processes on a Member of Parliament whilst such a member is on his/ her way to, attending, at or returning from, any proceedings of Parliament,” the Court said at page 13 of the Judgment.
The decision demonstrates that the constitutional protection is circumstance-specific, rather than a blanket personal immunity attached to every MP at all times.
What other parliamentary privileges exist?
Article 115 of the 1992 Constitution provides freedom of speech, debate, and proceedings in Parliament, while Article 116 protects against civil or criminal proceedings concerning matters an MP brings in Parliament through a petition, bill, motion, or otherwise.
These provisions form part of the broader constitutional framework intended to protect Parliament and its proceedings. However, they should be distinguished from a claim that an MP enjoys unrestricted personal immunity from law enforcement.
Incidents of attempted arrest of MPs
There have been attempts to arrest MPs in the past, involving members of the two dominant political parties: the governing National Democratic Congress (NDC) and the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP).
One of the most prominent recent controversies occurred in 2021, involving the Madina MP Francis-Xavier Sosu, where police sought to arrest him in connection with events surrounding a demonstration in his constituency. Speaker Bagbin subsequently criticised the attempted arrest and said constitutional procedures governing the arrest and prosecution of MPs had to be respected.
The incident generated legal debate at the country’s Supreme Court over the extent of Article 117 and whether the circumstances in which the police sought to apprehend the lawmaker fell within the constitutional protection. See this and this for media reports on the action.
The second incident happened to the late Akwatia MP, Ernest Kumi, in March 2025, when officers of the National Investigations Bureau (NIB), now the Bureau of National Investigations, attempted to arrest him.
The Interior Minister, Mohammed Mubarak Muntaka, subsequently told Parliament that the operation was intended to execute a bench warrant dated Feb. 19, 2026, issued by the Koforidua High Court in connection with contempt proceedings.
Ernest Kumi’s incident involved an alleged attempt to execute a court-issued warrant against a sitting MP, rather than a law-enforcement agency’s invitation for questioning.
The third incident involved the Assin South MP, Rev. John Ntim Fordjour. The minority in Parliament raised concerns over an alleged attempt by NIB officials to arrest the opposition lawmaker in April 2025.
The lawmaker had alleged that two international flights that transited Ghana in Mar. 2025 were involved in drug trafficking and money laundering.
The Minority later petitioned Speaker Bagbin, arguing that the security officials had not followed established procedures governing engagements between security agencies and MPs.
The incident again brought the relationship between parliamentary privilege, law-enforcement investigations and the constitutional protection of MPs into public debate.
The fourth incident involved the Manhyia South MP, Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah. On Sept 23, 2026, EOCO confirmed that its officials attempted to arrest the MP at the Accra High Court Complex.
EOCO said the action formed part of lawful steps to secure the MP’s attendance in an ongoing investigation and that he had previously been invited twice in Feb. 2026, but refused to attend.
The Office said the situation escalated during the attempted arrest and officers ultimately discontinued the operation after assessing that further action could endanger public safety.
Baffour Awuah has disputed aspects of EOCO’s account. He said the official who approached him identified herself as an EOCO official but did not provide identification, proof of authority or an arrest warrant. He also said he offered to travel to EOCO in his own vehicle.
Does the Speaker have to permit an MP to be arrested?
A key question is whether the Speaker of Parliament must permit the arrest or service of court processes on an MP. Speaker Bagbin addressed this in Parliament in May 2026.
He said security agencies do not need the Speaker’s permission to arrest an MP suspected of wrongdoing. According to the Speaker, the security agency must notify him of the circumstances surrounding the arrest or detention, after which the applicable privilege or immunity can be considered.
This distinction between permission and notification is important. The Speaker’s position was that the law does not make his prior approval a prerequisite to an arrest.
However, Order 24(3) of the Standing Orders of Parliament 2023 requires that, when Parliament is on recess, and members are not engaged in any Parliamentary proceedings, all processes must be served through the Speaker.
The Order provides that:
“Where the House is on recess, and a Member, the Clerk or officer is not on the way to, or attending at a proceeding of Parliament, the Member, the Clerk or officer may be served a process from a court or a place out of Parliament through the Speaker.”
Conclusion
Article 117 of the 1992 Constitution refers specifically to a Member being on the “way to, attending at or returning from proceedings of Parliament.” The Supreme Court’s interpretation in Ex parte Kennedy Agyapong reinforces the importance of those specific circumstances.
The law, therefore, provides specific protection against the service or execution of civil or criminal process only in the circumstances expressly stated in the provision, and not beyond those instances.
