Ghana’s Security and Intelligence Agencies Bill 2025: Parliament Holds Crucial Public Hearing

On February 10, 2026, the Parliamentary Select Committee on Security and Intelligence, in conjunction with the Committee on Defence and Interior, conducted a significant public hearing on the proposed Security and Intelligence Agencies Bill, 2025. This consultative session marks a pivotal moment in Ghana’s legislative process, aiming to refine the legal architecture that governs the nation’s security and intelligence apparatus. The hearing underscored a commitment to transparent lawmaking, inviting a spectrum of voices from security professionals, civil society organizations, and the general public to contribute to the shaping of this critical legislation.

Introduction: The Imperative for Modern Security Legislation

The current legal framework for Ghana’s intelligence agencies is fragmented, primarily drawing from various acts like the Security and Intelligence Agencies Act, 1996 (Act 526) and the Police Service Act, among others. Over two decades, operational realities, technological advancements, and evolving democratic standards have necessitated a comprehensive review. The Security and Intelligence Agencies Bill, 2025 is introduced to consolidate, clarify, and modernize these laws. The public hearing is not merely a procedural step but a foundational exercise in democratic governance, ensuring that the law balances the state’s duty to protect national security with the constitutional rights of its citizens.

Key Points of the Public Hearing and Proposed Bill

The hearing illuminated several core objectives and contentious areas of the proposed legislation:

Mandate Clarification: The Bill seeks to provide clear, unambiguous definitions of the roles, powers, and limits of each security and intelligence agency, eliminating overlaps and jurisdictional ambiguities.
Enhanced Parliamentary Oversight: A central theme was strengthening the role of Parliament, particularly the Select Committee on Security and Intelligence, in monitoring the agencies’ activities, budgets, and compliance with the law.
Operational Effectiveness: Stakeholders discussed provisions aimed at equipping agencies with the necessary legal tools to combat contemporary threats like terrorism, cybercrime, and organized crime effectively.
Safeguarding Civil Liberties: Extensive deliberation focused on embedding robust mechanisms to prevent abuse of power, protect privacy, freedom of speech, and ensure adherence to the 1992 Constitution of Ghana.
Transparency and Public Trust: The committees stressed that the consultative process itself is a tool to build legitimacy and public confidence in the intelligence sector, which often operates in secrecy.

Stakeholder Contributions: A Spectrum of Perspectives

Submissions revealed a divergence of priorities. Security experts advocated for broader surveillance powers and legal immunity for operatives acting in good faith. Civil society groups, notably from the media and human rights sectors, pressed for explicit whistleblower protections, independent review bodies for complaints, and narrow, precisely defined exceptions to privacy rights. Ordinary citizens expressed concerns about potential state overreach and the need for accessible redress mechanisms. This spectrum of input is precisely what the committees aim to synthesize into a balanced final draft.

Background: Ghana’s Evolving Intelligence Landscape

To understand the Bill’s significance, one must contextualize it within Ghana’s post-independence and Fourth Republican history.

Historical Legislation and Gaps

Ghana’s primary intelligence law was the Security and Intelligence Agencies Act, 1996 (Act 526). Enacted shortly after the return to constitutional rule in 1992, it established the basic structure of agencies like the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI), now the National Intelligence Bureau (NIB). However, critics argue Act 526 is outdated, lacking provisions for cyber intelligence, counter-terrorism coordination, and clear oversight protocols. Other relevant laws, such as the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunication Messages Act, 2009 (Act 769), address specific capabilities but not the overarching governance of the intelligence community.

Constitutional and International Obligations

Any new legislation must align with Chapter 5 of the 1992 Constitution (The Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms) and Ghana’s commitments under international treaties like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The Bill is therefore a test of how well Ghana can integrate its national security imperatives with its democratic principles and international human rights law.

Analysis: Deconstructing the Bill’s Core Provisions

While the full text of the 2025 Bill is subject to refinement, the hearing discussion points allow for an analysis of its likely pillars.

1. Institutional Mandates and Coordination

The Bill is expected to formally define the distinct but complementary roles of the National Intelligence Bureau (NIB), the military intelligence directorates, the police intelligence unit, and potentially other agencies. A key innovation may be a statutory requirement for inter-agency coordination and information sharing protocols, addressing a historical criticism of siloed operations.

2. Powers and Procedures: The Balance of Secrecy and Accountability

This is the most delicate area. Proposed powers likely include:

Surveillance and Interception: Procedures for lawful interception of communications, requiring judicial or ministerial authorization (a “double-lock” mechanism) for the most intrusive measures.
Data Collection and Retention: Rules on the collection, storage, and retention of personal data by intelligence agencies, necessitating alignment with the Data Protection Act, 2012 (Act 843).
Coercive Powers: Limits on powers of arrest, detention (in coordination with police), and search.

The analysis must focus on whether these powers are necessary, proportionate, and subject to adequate ex-post and ex-ante oversight.

3. Oversight Mechanisms: Beyond Parliament

Parliamentary oversight is the Bill’s cornerstone, but effective models often include:

A Dedicated Oversight Committee: The Select Committee on Security and Intelligence would have permanent, in-depth scrutiny powers, including access to classified information (with appropriate security clearances).
An Independent Inspector/Complaints Commissioner: An external, independent office to receive and investigate public complaints about agency misconduct, a feature common in mature democracies (e.g., the UK’s Investigatory Powers Commissioner).
Judicial Review: Ensuring decisions made under the Act (e.g., interception warrants) are subject to appeal or review by the courts.

4. Transparency and Reporting

The Bill may mandate annual public reports from the agencies and the oversight committee, summarizing activities in a way that does not compromise operations. This “openness about secrecy” is crucial for democratic legitimacy.

Practical Advice for Citizens and Organizations

The public hearing signifies that the legislative process is open. Here’s how stakeholders can engage effectively:

For Civil Society & Media: Prepare detailed, evidence-based submissions. Cite specific clauses that may be overly broad or vague. Compare with best practices from jurisdictions like South Africa, Kenya, or the UK. Focus on the procedural safeguards (who approves, how long, how to complain) rather than opposing all intelligence powers.
For Legal Practitioners: Analyze the Bill’s compatibility with the Constitution. Draft model amendments that insert clear definitions, limitation clauses, and robust oversight structures.
For General Public: Utilize the designated channels for public comment. Engage through community leaders, write to your Member of Parliament (MP), and participate in organized forums. Your concern should articulate the tangible impact on daily life: privacy of digital communications, freedom from arbitrary surveillance, and trust in institutions.
For Security Professionals: Articulate operational needs with precision, avoiding blanket claims of “national security.” Specify the legal gaps that hinder effectiveness, and propose technical solutions that incorporate privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs) by design.

FAQ: Addressing Common Questions

Does this Bill create a “secret police”?

No. The Bill’s stated aim is to regulate and oversee existing agencies within a democratic framework. The fear of a “secret police” stems from historical experiences and vague laws. The antidote is precisely what the public hearing seeks: a clear, public law that defines limits and mandates accountability, preventing arbitrary state action.

How can intelligence work be transparent?

Operational details must remain secret, but the law and its application must be transparent. This is achieved through parliamentary reports, independent oversight bodies publishing annual findings (with sensitive details redacted), and judicial scrutiny of warrant applications. Transparency is about the process, not the secrets.

Will this law affect my daily internet or phone use?

Indirectly, yes. If the law permits bulk data collection without stringent safeguards, it could impact the privacy of all digital communications. A rights-respecting law would require targeted, intelligence-led interception based on reasonable suspicion, authorized by an independent body, and subject to strict minimization procedures. Citizens should demand these safeguards.

What happens after this public hearing?

The Select Committees will collate and analyze all submissions. They will then prepare a report with recommended amendments. The Bill, as amended, will be presented to the full plenary of Parliament for debate and passage. After presidential assent, it becomes law, and the agencies will have a period to align their internal regulations and practices with the new statute.

Conclusion: A Critical Juncture for Ghana’s Democracy

The public hearing on the Security and Intelligence Agencies Bill, 2025 represents more than the revision of an old law. It is a national conversation about the soul of Ghana’s democracy in the 21st century. Can the state provide security without becoming a threat to liberty? Can secrecy coexist with accountability? The answer lies in the quality of the final legislation—a law that empowers agencies to protect Ghanaians from genuine threats while erecting iron-clad barriers against abuse. The active, informed participation of all stakeholders, from the expert to the ordinary citizen, is what will determine whether this Bill becomes a model for balanced governance or a missed opportunity. The committees’ emphasis on using this feedback to shape amendments is a positive sign. The next steps—the committee report and parliamentary debate—will be equally crucial.

Sources and Further Reading

Parliament of Ghana. (1996). Security and Intelligence Agencies Act, 1996 (Act 526).
Parliament of Ghana. (2012). Data Protection Act, 2012 (Act 843).
Constitution of the Republic of Ghana. (1992). Chapter 5 (Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms).
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Adopted by UN General Assembly 1966; ratified by Ghana 2000.
Official Hansard/Reports of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Security and Intelligence and Committee on Defence and Interior public hearing on the Security and Intelligence Agencies Bill, 2025 (February 10, 2026). [Note: Specific citation to be added upon official publication].
Comparative examples: UK Investigatory Powers Act 2016; South Africa’s Intelligence Services Act, 2002 (Act 65 of 2002).