Legal practitioner Samson Lardy Anyenini has questioned what he describes as the broad use of parliamentary privilege under Article 117 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution to prevent the arrest or service of legal processes on Members of Parliament.

Speaking on Joy FM’s Top Story on Wednesday, September 23, Mr Anyenini said Article 117 does not provide blanket protection to MPs, but applies when a legislator is “on his way to, attending at or returning from” parliamentary proceedings. The constitutional provision contains that specific qualification.

His comments followed a confrontation at the Accra High Court involving Manhyia South MP and lawyer Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah and security personnel reportedly linked to the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO).

Mr Anyenini said the protection had, in his view, been “so abused”, arguing that being an MP should not automatically prevent law enforcement from taking action when Parliament is on recess or when there is no evidence that the legislator is engaged in parliamentary business.

He said where an MP claims to have been attending a parliamentary committee proceeding or other official business, that should be capable of verification.

“If there is a scheduled committee process in Parliament to which he was to be attending, that is not difficult to prove,” he said, urging EOCO, other interested parties and the media to establish whether such parliamentary business existed at the time of an attempted arrest.

Mr Anyenini also referred to Speaker Alban Bagbin’s clarification in 2026 that security agencies do not require his permission before arresting or inviting an MP for questioning. The Speaker said agencies are required to notify his office and provide details of the circumstances and allegations involved.

He suggested that law enforcement agencies inviting an MP should copy the Speaker in their correspondence, adding that the Office of the Special Prosecutor follows such an approach.

On arrest warrants, Mr Anyenini said a warrant could be obtained where necessary but cautioned against suggesting that one was required in every circumstance, noting that the law gives certain law enforcement officers powers to arrest with or without a warrant.

His comments come as competing accounts emerge over Wednesday’s incident. EOCO says it had invited Mr Baffour Awuah twice in February 2026 to assist with an ongoing investigation and later attempted to secure his attendance after the invitations were not honoured.

The Office said the attempted arrest was not completed after the situation escalated and officers assessed that further action could endanger public safety.

Mr Baffour Awuah, however, has said he was approached after appearing at the High Court and questioned why he was being taken to EOCO. He said he asked for identification and an arrest warrant, which he claimed was not produced, before driving away because he feared for his safety.

EOCO has maintained that parliamentary membership does not, by itself, bring an investigation to an end or place an individual beyond the reach of the law, while stressing that it would respect constitutional parliamentary privileges.

Article 118(2) further provides that a certificate from the Speaker stating that an MP or the Clerk is attending parliamentary proceedings is conclusive evidence of attendance.

Mr Anyenini said the current controversy highlights the need for greater clarity on when Article 117 protections apply.

“But generally, my position has been that the returning from any proceedings of Parliament. My view is that they have abused it just too much,” he said.

“Sometimes they are in their bedrooms, and then they will claim that they are attending to Parliament, and they are attending to the business of Parliament. You know, it's a difficult thing, so we need to be clear about some of these things.”