Minority rejects Security and Intelligence Agencies Bill, cites ‘excessive executive powers’ – Life Pulse Daily

Introduction

The Minority Caucus in Ghana’s Parliament has firmly rejected the proposed Security and Intelligence Agencies Bill, 2025, citing excessive executive powers and inadequate safeguards for civil liberties. This decision highlights growing concerns over national security reforms that could centralize authority in the Presidency while weakening parliamentary oversight and human rights protections. The debate underscores the delicate balance between safeguarding the nation and preserving democratic freedoms.

Key Points

Background

The Security and Intelligence Agencies Bill, 2025 was introduced as part of efforts to modernize Ghana’s national security architecture. Proponents argue that updating intelligence and security laws is essential to address evolving threats and improve coordination among agencies. However, the bill’s provisions have sparked controversy, particularly regarding the concentration of power in the executive branch and the potential erosion of checks and balances.

Historically, Ghana has maintained a relatively stable democracy with strong parliamentary oversight of security matters. The proposed bill, however, would grant the President broad authority to appoint key security officials without legislative scrutiny, a move the Minority Caucus warns could undermine democratic accountability.

Analysis

Excessive Executive Powers

The Minority Caucus’s primary objection is the bill’s allocation of excessive appointing powers to the President. Under the proposed law, the President could appoint heads of intelligence and security agencies without parliamentary vetting. This centralization of authority is seen as a threat to the principle of separation of powers, as it removes a critical layer of legislative oversight over agencies that wield significant coercive powers and access to sensitive national data.

Weak Oversight and Self-Regulation

Another major concern is the proposed oversight structure. The bill designates the National Security Council, chaired by the President, as the governing body for intelligence agencies. The Minority argues that this arrangement amounts to self-oversight, as the same executive body that controls the agencies would also be responsible for regulating them. This lack of independent scrutiny raises the risk of unchecked executive action and potential abuse of power.

Surveillance and Privacy Concerns

The bill’s surveillance provisions have also drawn sharp criticism. It allows administrative authorization for intercepting communications, bypassing the traditional requirement for judicial approval. The Minority Caucus warns that this undermines the fundamental principle that only courts should authorize invasions of privacy. Furthermore, the bill imposes severe penalties—up to 10 years in prison—for certain disclosures, but offers no specific protections for whistleblowers, leaving individuals who expose wrongdoing vulnerable to prosecution.

Regional and District Security Councils

The composition and role of Regional and District Security Councils are also contentious. The Minority fears that their structure could lead to politicization, especially during election periods, potentially compromising the neutrality and effectiveness of local security operations.

Practical Advice

For policymakers and citizens concerned about the balance between national security and civil liberties, the following steps are recommended:

• Advocate for independent oversight mechanisms, such as parliamentary committees or judicial review, to monitor intelligence agencies.
• Support reforms that require judicial authorization for surveillance and data interception to protect privacy rights.
• Push for robust whistleblower protection laws to ensure accountability and transparency within security agencies.
• Encourage public debate and consultation on national security legislation to reflect diverse perspectives and safeguard democratic values.

FAQ