Parliament has officially passed the Security and Intelligence Agencies Bill, 2025, after it was read for the third time and approved by the House.

The legislation introduces significant changes to Ghana's security architecture, most notably reverting the National Investigations Bureau (NIB) to its former name, the Bureau of National Intelligence (BNI).

The bill, which has been the subject of intense parliamentary debate in recent weeks, also abolishes the specific portfolio of Minister for National Security.

• Read also: Majority, Minority clash over bill to revert NIB name to BNI and overhaul national security structure

Under the new framework, oversight of the National Security Coordinator will be exercised by a minister designated by the President, rather than through a standalone ministry.

Presenting the bill during its earlier stages, Interior Minister Muntaka Mohammed-Mubarak explained that the name change was necessary to resolve persistent public confusion between the intelligence agency and the National Investment Bank, which share the acronym NIB.

"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 on the floor of Parliament.

The Minister further argued that anchoring national security coordination under the President would help eliminate institutional friction between a Minister of National Security and the National Security Coordinator, streamlining the chain of command.

The passage of the bill did not come without opposition. Throughout the legislative process, the Minority raised concerns about the centralization of power and the potential weakening of parliamentary oversight.

Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin had previously warned that the bill concentrated "excessive authority" in the hands of the National Security Coordinator without clear safeguards. He argued that the memorandum accompanying the bill failed to provide empirical evidence that the existing framework under Act 1030 was ineffective.