The government has announced plans to rename the National Investigations Bureau (NIB) as the Bureau of National Intelligence (BNI) as part of proposed reforms contained in the Security and Intelligence Agencies Bill, 2025.
The Interior Minister, Mohammed Mubarak Muntaka, told Parliament on Thursday, 19 January, that the change is intended to eliminate persistent confusion surrounding the NIB acronym, which is frequently mistaken for the National Investment Bank.
Addressing Members of Parliament on the floor of the House, the Minister argued that the overlap undermines clarity within the country’s security framework and runs counter to global practice.
“Everywhere in the world, you make sure that the acronyms for the security agencies do not match anything else, and in fact, it is supported by law to make sure that nobody can name anything after an acronym of any of the security agencies,” he said.
“Unfortunately, we have a situation where, when you say NIB, people are wondering whether you’re talking about the bank or you’re talking about the security agency. So Mister Speaker, one of the significant things that we are trying to do is to reintroduce the name BNI at this time. Even though the BNI of yesterday was the Bureau of National Investigation, this BNI will remain the Bureau of National Intelligence.”
The proposed rebranding forms part of broader institutional adjustments aimed at restructuring Ghana’s security architecture. Beyond the name change, the bill also seeks to abolish the specific portfolio of the Minister for National Security.
Under the new arrangement, the President would be empowered to designate a Minister to exercise oversight over the National Security Coordinator, rather than maintaining a standalone ministry.
Explaining the rationale, Mr Muntaka said the reforms are designed to prevent operational friction and role duplication within the security establishment.
“…A detailed ministerial role and the function of the national security coordinator, because he’s supposed to coordinate all the activities within the space. And if you assign or leave a ministry called the Ministry of National Security, which is likely supposed to play an oversight role, and if you are not careful, they begin to conflate, and they begin to have misunderstandings, and that affects the security architecture that we have in the country.
“So one of the things that we are trying to do is to keep this position as more or less that of the President, and then he gets one of his ministers to play that oversight without the necessarily fine, detailed designation of a minister for national security, so that as much as possible you try to avoid the conflict between the minister and the National Security coordinator”.
However, the Minority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, has mounted strong opposition to the Bill, cautioning that it risks concentrating excessive authority in the hands of the National Security Coordinator.
He questioned the necessity of the reforms, arguing that the memorandum accompanying the Bill fails to demonstrate shortcomings in the existing legal framework.
He said, “The memorandum before us does not provide any empirical evidence to suggest that ACT 1030 has failed. It appears that this bill is more founded on partisan political interest than a national security interest for good governance.
“What is being proposed? So much power is being given to the coordinator; it is not clear how his powers are going to be fettered, Mr Speaker. My submission is that if you give such powers to the coordinator, and you do not provide for a clear path of responsibility, accountability, and oversight, it becomes problematic to you yourself as a government, and when the rights of citizens are being abused, the man will come and tell you that in the name of national security. There will be the need for the Minister to sit with us as a house, do further winnowing, and incorporate the major concerns raised by the minority on this floor.”
The debate signals the likelihood of intense scrutiny as Parliament considers the Bill, with questions centering on accountability, oversight, and the balance of power within the national security framework.
About the Author
