Former Special Prosecutor Martin Amidu has stated that an examination of the Security and Intelligence Agencies Bill, 2025 leaves one with “the irresistible impression of an unconstitutional power grab for the National Security Coordinator and/or a fight for territory.” He contends this is happening within a security architecture not derived from Article 83 of the 1992 Constitution.
Amidu highlighted that the existing framework, the Security and Intelligence Agencies Act, 1996 (Act 526), was re-enacted with upgrades as Act 1030 less than four years ago. He noted that Parliament acted “bi-partisanly” to ensure the “full attainment of the constitutional objectives of democratic and civil control of the security and intelligence apparatus.”
Focusing on parliamentary procedure, Amidu pointed to a specific constitutional requirement. “The first threshold hurdle the Security and Intelligence Agencies Bill, 2025 has to overcome,” he stated, “is to demonstrate compliance with Article 106(2)(a)” of the Constitution.
He elaborated on this requirement, quoting the constitution: “No bill… shall be introduced into Parliament unless- (a) it is accompanied by an explanatory memorandum setting out in detail the policy and principles of the bill, the defects of the existing law, the remedies proposed to deal with those defects and the necessity for its introduction.”
Amidu asserts that the new bill fails this test. “One cannot find in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the bill laid before Parliament compliance with Article 106(2)(a) of the Constitution,” he said.
Noting the bill’s rapid progression, Amidu observed that the explanatory memorandum is “signed and dated 3 July 2025.” He recalled that the President assigned ministerial responsibility for national security to the Minister of the Interior on 7 March 2025, pursuant to the current Act 1030. “Soon thereafter,” Amidu concluded, “preparation of the bill before Parliament started, approved by the Cabinet and submitted to Parliament under the signature of the Minister for National Security.”
