By Nana Karikari, Senior Global Affairs Correspondent
A fundamental shift in Ghana’s intelligence landscape has ignited a fierce legislative confrontation between the Majority and Minority caucuses. The Security and Intelligence Agencies Bill seeks to dismantle the Ministry for National Security and revert the National Investigations Bureau (NIB) to the Bureau of National Intelligence (BNI). While the government frames these changes as administrative corrections, the opposition warns of a dangerous centralization of executive power.
The Case for Institutional Clarity and Efficiency
The Minister for the Interior, Muntaka Mohammed-Mubarak, introduced the bill on Thursday, February 19, 2026, with an emphasis on functional clarity. A primary driver for the name change is the persistent confusion between the intelligence agency and the National Investment Bank. Both entities currently utilize the NIB acronym, a branding conflict that has persisted since the agency was renamed under Act 1030 in 2020.
The government intends for the agency to become the Bureau of National Intelligence (BNI). This title distinguishes it from its former historical title, Bureau of National Investigation. Beyond nomenclature, the bill aims to eliminate friction within the security hierarchy. Mr. Mohammed-Mubarak noted that the new structure prevents conflict between a Minister for National Security and the National Security Coordinator. He argued that coordination should be firmly anchored under the President with ministerial oversight rather than a standalone ministry.
“Unfortunately, we have a situation where you say NIB, people are wondering whether you are talking about the bank or the security agency. So one of the significant things we are trying to do is to reintroduce the name BNI… Bureau of National Intelligence,” he stated.
Minority Concerns Over Accountability and Centralization
The opposition has voiced sharp resistance to the proposed restructuring. Critics argue that removing the dedicated ministry reduces parliamentary oversight and places too much authority within the Presidency. Former Defence Minister Dominic Nitiwul raised concerns about the long-term stability of the intelligence sector. He suggested that frequent structural changes based on the whims of the sitting government could undermine the profession.
“If in four years you are no more in power, are we expecting a new government to also bring a new Act to reflect their direction?” Nitiwul asked. He further cautioned that “It will be dangerous for this nation to make that office and agency so powerful without proper accountability. It’s a misplaced priority, and if you do that, you’ll suffer.”
Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin echoed these sentiments. He questioned the lack of data supporting the repeal of the current framework under Act 1030. Afenyo-Markin suggested the bill is driven by political interest rather than administrative necessity.
“The memorandum before us does not provide any empirical evidence to suggest that Act 1030 has failed,” he remarked. He also highlighted the potential for civil liberties violations under a less regulated coordinator. “So much power is being given to the coordinator, and it is not clear how his powers are going to be fettered. Without clear responsibility, accountability and oversight, this becomes problematic. When citizens’ rights are abused, it will be justified in the name of national security.”
Correcting Historical Wrongs and Streamlining Governance
The Majority maintains that the bill is a necessary correction to an inefficient system inherited from the previous administration. This move aligns with the 2026 Budget’s broader goal of reducing government expenditure by merging redundant portfolios. Majority Leader Mahama Ayariga defended the move as part of a broader strategy to reduce the size of the cabinet. He characterized the existing requirement for a National Security Minister as an unnecessary imposition on the executive’s prerogative.
“We decided to cut down the number of ministers, and among the ministries we guillotined was the Ministry for National Security,” Ayariga explained. He contended that the previous legal framework was a mistake. “What you [NPP] did was to force the hand of a President to appoint a Minister for National Security. It was a wrong thing for us to have done as a Parliament, and this historical wrong has to be corrected.”
The debate reflects a classic tension in democratic governance. The government prioritizes a streamlined, presidentially led security apparatus for faster coordination. Conversely, the opposition champions a decentralized model with clear ministerial accountability to prevent the over-concentration of power. As the bill moves through the legislative process, the challenge for Parliament will be balancing these competing visions of national stability.
