The Minister for the Interior, Mohammed Mubarak Muntaka, has explained that the proposed renaming of the National Intelligence Bureau (NIB) is intended to eliminate the confusion surrounding its acronym, which many people mistake for the National Investment Bank.
Addressing Members of Parliament on Thursday, February 19, 2026, the Minister argued that the overlap undermines clarity within Ghana’s security framework and runs contrary to global best practices.
“Everywhere in the world, you make sure that the acronyms for the security agencies do not match any other thing, 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, Mr 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 still remain Bureau of National Intelligence.”
Beyond the renaming, the Bill also seeks to eliminate the Minister of National Security portfolio as part of broader institutional reforms aimed at restructuring the country’s security architecture.
Under the proposed changes, the President would be empowered to designate a Minister to exercise oversight responsibility over the National Security Coordinator, rather than maintaining a standalone Ministry of National Security.
Mr. Muntaka explained that the move is designed to prevent operational friction and duplication of roles within the security sector.
“A detailed ministerial role and the function of the National Security Coordinator — because he is supposed to coordinate all activities within the space — can create conflict. If you assign or leave a ministry called the Ministry of National Security, which is supposed to play an oversight role, and you are not careful, they begin to conflate and have misunderstandings. That affects the security architecture that we have in the country,” he stated.
“So one of the things that we are trying to do is to keep this position more or less under the President, and then he appoints one of his ministers to play that oversight role without necessarily creating a detailed designation of a Minister for National Security, so that as much as possible, you avoid conflict between the Minister and the National Security Coordinator.”
However, the Minority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, has strongly opposed the Bill, warning that it could concentrate 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 weaknesses in the existing legal framework.
“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 on national security interest for good governance,” he said.
“What is being proposed? A significant amount of power is being delegated to the Coordinator, yet it is unclear how these powers will be effectively restrained. My submission is that if you grant such powers without providing a clear path of responsibility, accountability, and oversight, it becomes problematic — even for the government itself. When the rights of citizens are abused, the justification will be ‘in the name of national security.’ There will be the need for the Minister to sit with us as a House, undertake further scrutiny, and incorporate the major concerns raised by the Minority on this floor.”
