Politics

Security bill fails constitutional test, a “self-serving” power grab

In a detailed legal analysis, former Special Prosecutor Martin Amidu has asserted that the Security and Intelligence Agencies Bill, 2025, is inconsistent with and contravenes Article 106(2)(a) of the 1992 Constitution.

He stated that the constitutional provision “mandatorily demands” that a bill be accompanied by a detailed explanatory memorandum, a requirement he claims the new bill fails to meet.

Amidu emphasized the urgency of this compliance, noting that “the government prepared and submitted this bill within six months of assuming office.”

He argued that the explanatory memorandum must therefore inform Parliament whether the existing Security and Intelligence Agencies Act, 2020 (Act 1030) is “tainted with any unconstitutionality or is fatally defective.”

He directly linked the bill’s timing to a specific personnel decision, stating, “after the new government assumed office… one of the first acts of the President was to appoint a still serving Assistant Commissioner of Police who was his Aide de Camp (ADC) during his previous administration… as the National Security Co-ordinator.” Amidu further noted that this individual was subsequently promoted twice within six months.

According to Amidu, this context is critical. He said this environment provides “background information and knowledge for assessing the attempt in the bill to give to the Office of the National Security Co-ordinator and the Co-ordinator supraordinate powers which the office never had.”

Addressing the bill’s stated policy, Amidu argued that the explanatory memorandum “failed to state in detail the policy and principles of the Bill.”

He specifically challenged the memorandum’s claim that “The policy direction of government is to provide for a security architecture where the National Security Co-ordinator co-ordinates the activities of the security and intelligence agencies.”

He concluded that this “self-serving statement… does not provide justification and compliance with Article 106(2)(a) of the Constitution for a sudden interference and dismemberment of the Security and Intelligence architecture in Act 1030 established under Article 83 of the 1992 Constitution.”

Related Articles

Back to top button