Debates of 29 Jun 2005

MR. SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker 10 a.m.
Order! Order! Correction of Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, 28th June, 2005.
Mr. A. K. Mensah 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, on page 10, under “Committee on Education”, item number (i), the name of the school is not “Essargyir” but Essarkyir,” so the “g” must be changed to “k” to read “Essarkyir”. That is the correction. Again, at the same place, item number 1 (iii), Aburaman Secondary School is in Abura- Dunkwa, the district capital of Abura/ Asebu/Kwamankese and not Cape Coast. So “Cape Coast” should be replaced with “Abura-Dunkwa”.
Mr. Speaker 10 a.m.
Thank you very much, the corrections would be made. We have two Official Reports -- First, Friday, 24th June 2005.
Mr. Stephen Kunsu 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I did contribute to the discussion on drug abuse and illicit drug trafficking but, unfortunately, my contribution has not been captured in the Hansard.
Mr. Speaker 10 a.m.
I would suggest that you see the Editor of Debates for further correction, if any. That is all right; you may resume your seat at this stage.
Yes, the Official Report of Tuesday, 28th June, 2005; any corrections or omissions?

Item 3, Urgent Question, it stands in the name of the hon. Member for Bunkpurugu/Yunyoo.

URGENT QUESTIoN
MINISTRY OF ENERGY 10 a.m.
Minister for Energy (Prof. Mike oquaye) 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, this is essentially a question of time and if that is the essence of it, then as soon as I have prepared the brief, I will brief the House. If a specific question is also asked, I will answer accordingly.
Mr. Labik 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the West
Africa Gas Pipeline Project (WAGPP) is of great importance to this country. The Parliamentary Select Committee on Mines and Energy, in the last two Parliaments, even visited Nigeria, Benin and Togo on this issue. The power consumption of this country really needs this WAGPP and that is why I would want the hon. Minister for Energy to be specific as to when he would brief this House on the status of that project.
Prof. oquaye 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, as to
when, I can brief the House at the earliest opportunity, even if it be tomorrow.
Mr. Labik 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, at this point,
maybe, I will request of the hon. Minister if he can do us a favour by giving us the report now.
Prof. oquaye 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the West Africa Gas Pipeline Project is a unique effort by four (4) African States -- Nigeria, Ghana, Togo and Benin -- to tap gas resources from Nigeria for the mutual benefit of all the parties.
Very important strides have been made in the past few months. As you may already be aware, His Excellency President Kufuor formally launched the commencement of the construction phase of the project on Thursday, 9th June 2005 at the Pipe Cement Coating Plant site for the project at the Export Processing Zone (EPZ) in Tema. This should be a vital milestone in the industrial development of Ghana.
It will be recalled that the Ministerial Steering Committee of the West African Gas Pipeline Project met in Abuja, Nigeria on 21st April 2005. The meeting was attended by the Ministers for Energy of Benin, Ghana, Nigeria and Togo. Ghana's Energy Minister chaired the meeting in Abuja.
The Ministers reviewed progress of work on the project since the Final Investment Decision (FID) was taken by the sponsors in December 2004, and deemed work done to date as satisfactory. All relevant outstanding matters were resolved at the meeting including the harmonization of the legal regime.
The Ministers signed and issued Pipeline Licences on behalf of their respective Governments, to the West Africa Gas Pipeline Company (WAPCo) to enable it finalize preparations for the impending construction of the US$590 million regional gas transmission system.
Already over 190 kilometres of the pipe have been manufactured and the first shipment has arrived in Ghana.
The West Africa Gas Pipeline will be a 678-kilometre onshore and offshore high pressure transmission pipeline which will transmit natural gas from Nigeria to customers in Benin, Ghana and Togo. The pipeline is expected to have a maximum capacity of 470 million standard cubic feet per day (mmscfd).
The pipeline will be built, owned and operated by the West Africa Gas Pipeline Company whose current shareholders are: Chevron Texaco West African Gas Pipeline Ltd (38.8 per cent); Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (26.0 per cent); Shell Overseas Holdings Ltd (18.8 per cent); GOG-VRA Holding it on behalf of the Takoradi Power Company Ltd (Ghana) 17.0 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, some of the benefits that are expected to accrue to Ghana from the project include:
Reduced cost of thermal electricity generation through reduced fuel and maintenance costs.
Open access to the pipeline enabling the transportation of indigenous gas, once discovered.
Environmentally cleaner source of fuel leading to reduction of green house gas emissions; and
The development of a Secondary Gas Market for industrial and domestic use.
Mr. Labik 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, recent reports
Mr. osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:10 a.m.
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I need guidance from the Chair. The Question
Mr. Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Let him go ahead and
ask his question.
Mr. Labik 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I believe my
Mr. Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Please, ask your
question.
Mr. Labik 10:10 a.m.
My hon. Colleague only
wants to bully me on the floor of the House. My question is, recent reports indicate that we have discovered large quantities of gas in Ghana and I would like to know from the hon. Minister when this gas discovered in Ghana will be tapped for the use of Takoradi Thermal Plant and the Kwame Nkrumah Barge which is sitting at Takoradi.
Mr. Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Hon. Member, your
question does not arise out of this Question.
Mr. Felix owusu-Adjapong 10:10 a.m.
Mr.
Speaker, I am now trying to see the logic behind what the Majority Chief Whip said. Now, all of us must be interested in this and therefore this is an important

Statement which perhaps we should all be given the opportunity to contribute to as a Statement; but now it is being taken as a Question and the rules relating to Questions are different from those that you need to have when you are contributing, and that is why I am wondering whether we may not do a bit better by curtailing it.

Now, we have got the answer that the thing is readily available and we are even going to have it in the Hansard and therefore it should be possible for all of us to study it and perhaps invite the hon. Minister again to give us more information on the matter.
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Hon. Majority Leader, I could only determine the nature of the question when it is asked; and he was in the process of asking the question. After listening to the question he asked, raising his objection as to whether it arises out of this question -- [Pause] if you think it arises out of this Question you first asked, say so; then we would know what to do.
Mr. J. Y. Labik 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the
reason why I asked the Question on the West African Gas Pipeline Project was that the gas is needed to power the thermal plants we have in Ghana and for the other uses. That is why I went further to ask that now that Ghana has also discovered large quantities of gas in this country, I would want to know from the hon. Minister when this gas will be tapped for use by the Takoradi Thermal Plant and the Osagyefo Barge sitting in Takoradi as at now.
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Hon. Member, I would
advise you to come in the proper way.
Mr. Lee ocran 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want
to ask the hon. Minister; the West African Gas Pipeline Project is to service the thermal plant at Aboadze but now that there is a thermal plant at Efasu Mangyea will the gas line be extended to service that thermal plant, that is the Osagyefo Barge
at Efasu Mangyea?
Prof. oquaye 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I made a
Statement on the gas pipeline generally. I would be very willing to oblige my hon. Friend on the other side details in all such areas that he may want to ask questions on.
Mr. ocran 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister can give me an answer. I am not happy with his answer; he has not answered the question. Mr. Speaker, the question I asked was this -- [Interrup- tions.]
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Hon. Member, address
the Chair. What is the question you asked?
Mr. ocran 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the question
I asked was this: The West African Gas Pipeline was constructed to service the Aboadze Thermal Plant but now there is another thermal plant in Ghana at Efasu Mangyea, which is called the Osagyefo Barge, so, will the gas line be extended to service that pipeline too? That is the question.
Prof. oquaye 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I would
readily oblige if a Question could be duly laid in this regard; and it would be answered.
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Hon. Minister, I did not
hear the answer you gave.
Prof. oquaye 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I was
respectfully telling my hon. Friend on the other side to put the Question by way of giving notice in that regard, and it would be answered accordingly.
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
All right, he requires notice. That is it.
Maj. (Dr.) (Alhaji) Mustapha Ahmed
(rtd): Mr. Speaker, I would like to know from the hon. Minister whether there are plans to incorporate the large quantity of gas that has been found in the Western Region into the West African Gas Pipeline
Project.
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Hon. Member, I thought
this question has already been asked.
Dr. Benjamin Kunbuor 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I would want to ask the hon. Minister whether now that we have discovered large deposits of gas in Ghana it is still in the national interest to source gas from Nigeria under the West African Gas Pipeline Project.
Prof. oquaye 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, if this
Mr. J. Y. chireh 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
would want the hon. Minister to give us indication as to when he would come and give us the status report of the West African Gas Pipeline Project with details that would enable us to not ask him questions. I want the time when he would come because what he has given, I do not believe that is the report.
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Hon. Member for Wa
West, it does appear we are going farther and farther away from the substantive Question.
Mr. chireh 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am not
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
What question are you
asking?
Mr. chireh 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, my question
is, when is he coming to give us the full report?
Prof. oquaye 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, at the
appropriate time a full report will be given. In the meantime, if my hon. Friend on the other side will file a relevant Question, relevant answers will be given.
rose
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Hon. Minority Leader,
are you going back?
Mr. Bagbin 10:20 a.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I think the last part of the answer of my hon. Colleague, the Minister, is inappropriate because the relevance of a question is determined by Mr. Speaker. So when a question is put and Mr. Speaker calls the hon. Minister to answer he considers it as relevant and so laid. If the hon. Minister wants to say that, “Mr. Speaker, I would need notice to come back with an answer”, it is different from saying “. . . relevant question”. That is why I am saying the last portion of his answer is inappropriate.
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Joseph
Labik was the Vice Chairman of the Committee on Mines and Energy from 1997 to 2000 and he took part in the initial preparation of this Gas Pipeline Project. In fact, he was one of those who led the Parliamentary Team around the whole West African region; that is why he has serious interest in the project and he wants to be briefed.
Mr. Speaker, I also do not believe that this brief is adequate and I would want to really request that the hon. Minister should come to the House and fully give us an appropriate brief so that we can contribute; because that will be in the form of statement and hon. Members can make inputs into it.
Mr. owusu-Adjapong 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
am happy that my hon. Colleague, the hon. Minority Leader is saying the same thing that I exactly presented, that we would need the hon. Minister to come and give us a statement relating to the West Africa Gas Pipeline Project and more importantly its relation to the gas that has also been found in line with what is being suggested. So I would liaise with him to get a date so that we programme it for the Business Committee to look at.
oRAL ANSWERS To QUESTIoNS
MINISTRY OF ENERGY 10:20 a.m.
Prof. oquaye 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, under the pervious electrification projects, 21 communities were connected to the national electricity grid in the Afram Plains district. The breakdown is as follows:
Electrification of Volta Lake Resettlement Towns --
1 2
communities
Grid Extension to Donkorkrom and New Abirem --
9
communities
Under the SHEP-4 Programme, 12 communities in the Afram Plains district of the Eastern Region have been captured for connection to the national electricity grid. The entire SHEP-4 Programme is earmarked to connect over 2,000 communities to the national electricity grid from all the 10 regions of the country.
Mr. Ahaligah 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Mr. Speaker 10:30 a.m.
All right, go ahead.
Mr. Ahaligah 10:30 a.m.
I would like to know from the hon. Minister whether he is aware that only half of Mame-Krobo has been planted with the poles and wires have been put on the poles. When is he going to finish planting the poles in the rest of the town? It is only part of the town that has been connected, so I am surprised he is telling me they are coming to connect it to the national grid.
Prof. oquaye 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I spoke with the expectation that the community would be connected to the national grid
by the end of July 2005. Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that the community itself also needs to make the relevant contributions at all material times for these projects. And if their contributions have been duly made and yet service has not reached them, Mr. Speaker, we would definitely want to know details at the Ministry and follow this up. But we do not know of any difficulty at this moment.
Mr. Ahaligah 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know from the hon. Minister whether he is aware that his Ministry promised two hundred and fifty poles and they brought only one hundred and forty; the community also contributed a hundred poles, so the community has been able to fulfil its part.
Prof. oquaye 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, as to what the community has allegedly contributed, I would be glad if our hon. Friends on the other side would bring this to our notice so that we can cross-check what contributions have been made and what the community may be entitled to; these are details that can be worked out administratively in the office.
Mr. James Klutse Avedzi 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, in the Answer given by the hon. Minister he talked about the bushfire that burnt most of the electric poles that were given to the community. My question to the Minister is this; what is his Ministry's position on the use of the electric poles and the concrete ones?
Prof. oquaye 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of relative cost. And Mr. Speaker, if I may reiterate qualifications for the SHEP programme, the community must be within 20 kilometres from the source of power; it must secondly buy low voltage poles itself; and thirdly, they should have wired at least one-third of the houses which would benefit within the community.
Mr. F. A. Agbotse 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want to find out from the hon. Minister whether he is aware that contracts that have been awarded for clearing around the poles are taken by officers of his office and sublet to people, and as a result the supervision is very poor. If he is not aware, would he investigate and find out?
Prof. oquaye 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. Colleague for the information. The relevant investigations, if any, would be made.
connection of Bebuso to the National Grid
Q. 6. Mr. R. K. Ahaligah asked the Minister for Energy when Bebuso would be connected to electricity from the national grid.
Prof. oquaye 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Bebuso community is not listed under any of the ongoing electrification pro- grammes at the Ministry of Energy. The community may apply for consideration under the SHEP-4 programme if it meets the eligibility requirements.
Mr. Speaker, I may therefore simply
remind my hon. Colleague that these communities must be within 20 kilometres from the source of power; they must buy the low voltage poles and they should have wired at least one-third of the houses to benefit in the community, as the basic minimum requirement to qualify.
Mr. Ahaligah 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want to know from the hon. Minister whether he is aware that the Bebuso township is planted with electricity poles and even wired by his Ministry. Because, in his answer he says that they are not part of the programme now, so I want to know whether the answer he is giving here and what is in the town correspond.
Prof. oquaye 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the community is not listed; I would like to check on the availability of poles and what is the essence, and the background to those poles.
Mr. A. K. Agbesi 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want to know from the hon. Minister whether if a community is unable to buy poles, because it is in a rural area, the people are poor and they cannot afford to buy the poles, his Ministry will continuously deny such a community the use of electricity.
Prof. oquaye 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, non- qualification under the Self-Help Electrification Project (SHEP) does not necessarily mean perpetual denial. A community may still benefit from electricity under some other programme, but Mr. Speaker, the SHEP has got its own ramifications and qualifications which I have just stated. Mr. Speaker, emergency issues are also treated differently; needs are treated differently. Where there is a project that would bring special economic advantage to a community it may be treated separately, and so on; but basically this is the quintessence of SHEP.
Bui and other Hydro Dam Projects in Ghana (Status)
Q. 151. Mr. Joseph Yaani Labik asked the Minister for Energy the status of the Bui and other hydro dam projects in the country.
Prof. oquaye 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Bui hydro power project is considered to be the most attractive large scale hydropower project Ghana Consequently, it has been the subject of many studies.
The Bui gorge was identified as early as in the 1920s as a potential site for a major dam and hydroelectric project and has since been the subject of a series of studies. The site was studied in detail by J. S. Zhuk Hydroprojeckt of the former USSR, under the Nkrumah Regime, and subsequently, a feasibility study was performed by Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation (SMEC) of Australia in 1976. In 1994, the SMEC feasibility study was updated by Coyne Et Bellier of France (C&B) through a grant provided by the French Government.
The Bui site is currently sized at 400 MW and has an energy generating potential of 1,000 GWh which is about 15 per cent of the current national consumption. On the basis of the previous studies, the project is expected to cost about US$600 million inclusive of financing charges.
Even though the Bui project is designed primarily for hydropower generation, it has irrigation potential for agricultural development. This potential is estimated at 30,000 hectares.
The key challenge to the imple- mentation of the Bui project is the environmental impact which consists of the inundation of part of the Bui National Park and the resettlement of over 2,000 people. In this regard, the impact of
Mr. Labik 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am really
satisfied with the Answer given by the hon. Minister but I would want to ask a simple question. The question is that the Akosombo dam was built by the Convention People's Party (CPP) Government, that is Dr. Kwame Nkrumah; then came the Kpong Dam that was built by the late Acheampong; then came the Takoradi Thermal Plant that was built by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and so I would want to find out from the hon. Minister if the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and, for that matter, President Kufuor's Administration would make the Bui dam a landmark in addition to what we have in the country.
Prof. oquaye 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, Govern-
ment is very anxious to leave a landmark
Mr. Lee ocran 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know from the hon. Minister what happened to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was signed with Brown and Rhules in the year 2000 with regard to the Bui dam.
Prof. oquaye 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, it forms part of a number of proposals that are being studied in this direction.
Mr. John Mahama 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I am aware that in 2000, negotiations with Brown and Rhules were very far advanced, so what led to the abrogation of the MOU between the Government of Ghana and Brown and Rhules?
Prof. oquaye 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, as to what
led to that abrogation, we would definitely want to have details to give; but what is essentially the fact is that a number of proposals from a number of nations are all being looked at, scrutinized carefully, to bring out the best possible bargain for Ghana.
Mr. Mahama 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Minister has failed to answer my question. He either does not know or he needs notice. I am asking about what led to the abrogation of the negotiations between the Government of Ghana and Brown and Rhules.
Prof. oquaye 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, if the
question needs so much by way of detail for my hon. Colleague on the other side, he may lay a Question on it and it would be duly answered.

EcG and NED Merger

Q. 152. Mr. Joseph Yaani Labik asked the Minister for Energy what was the rationale behind the merger of Electricity Company of Ghana and the Northern Electricity Department of the Volta River Authority.
Prof. oquaye 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, as part of the reform of the power sector, the Government intends to merge the Electricity Company of Ghana (ECG) and the Northern Electricity Department (NED) of the Volta River Authority.
Mr. Speaker, originally, the then Electricity Corporation of Ghana (ECG) had responsibility for the operation of the distribution system throughout Ghana. In 1987, as part of the arrangements to extend the national grid to the northern parts of Ghana, i.e. the Brong-Ahafo, Northern, Upper East and Upper West Regions, the NED was created to manage the distribution system to these areas. Consequently the ECG Act of 1967 was amended to give effect to the separation.
Mr. Speaker, under the Power Sector Reform Programme, it is planned to merge the two utilities in order to consolidate and also take advantage of the synergies in their operations. Other benefits to be derived include the following:
1. the harmonization of the standards of performance to ensure that all consumers benefit from the same standards of service.
2. a single management will reduce the overall administrative and other overhead costs for power distri-bution in the country. This is particularly important given the relatively small size of the power market in Ghana.
Mr. Labik 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, from my understanding, I know that NED was established to fast-track electricity extension to many communities in the three northern regions and Brong-Ahafo Region. Mr. Speaker, with your kind permission, I want the hon. Minister to tell me when Bunkpurugu, the only district capital left in the Northern Region will be connected to the national electrification grid, so that I will be comfortable with this particular merger.
Prof. oquaye 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, it will be

Electricity to Binduri (completion)

Q. 153. Mr. Mark Anthony Awuni asked the Minister for Energy when the Rural Electrification Project in Binduri township will be completed.
Prof. oquaye 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Binduri community, located in the former Bawku East district of the Upper East Region was earmarked for connection to the national grid under the SHEP-3, Phase-2 Project. The major obstacle hindering the total completion of the project is the unavailability of appropriate low voltage (LV) poles, which are supposed to be the community's contribution under the SHEP policy. The available LV poles in the community are substandard and cannot be used for the project. The District Assembly or the community Mr. Speaker, will have to procure standard LV poles to allow installation works to be completed.
Under the National Electrification Programme 24 communities have been earmarked for connection to the national electricity grid in the Bawku district. The breakdown is as follows:
Project Number of communities Names of communities
Electrification in the Upper East Region 2
Bazua, Missiga
SHEP-3 Phase 2 Project 6 Kokore, Teshie, Binaba,
Binduri, Gbantango, Kusanaba
SHEP-3 Phase 3 Project 10 Mognori, Lamboya, Saka, Sapeliga, Tanga, Kubogo, Koboro, Kansongo Timonde,
Yaligu
SHEP - 4 Phase 1 6 Kulungungu, Bugri, Basyonde, Kuka,
Zankase, Yelwoko
We note that out of the six communities under the SHEP-3 phase - 2 project, three are yet to be completed. Mr. Speaker, the reason for the non-completion of these communities is mainly due to unavailability of LV poles or the procurement of substandard poles like the case of Binduri.
Mr. Awuni 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask the hon. Minister if the electrification was a two phase or three phase power?
Prof. oquaye 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, this is a
matter of little detail, which I do not have here, whether it is two phase or three phase.
Mr. Mahama Ayariga 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
the new district is now Bawku Municipal Assembly. So we could have simply added that. Mr. Speaker, the question that I want to ask is, he says that the non-completion of the project is due to the procurement of substandard poles. Mr. Speaker, just before the elections, these poles were brought by the former Member of Parliament for Bawku Central, hon. Hawa Yakubu. Is he suggesting that she procured substandard poles and brought to the constituency?
Prof. oquaye 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have
given what sorts of poles are acceptable, and these are from certified manufac- turers, which can be obtained from the ECG. I am not in a position to comment
Mr. Ayariga 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, will the
hon. Minister help us identify which of the poles are substandard because many of the poles are still lying in the communities, so we do not know which ones to use and which ones to leave. Is he in a position to help us identify which ones are substandard and which ones are up to standard for us to be able to continue with the project. They were all brought by hon. Hawa.
Prof. oquaye 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I do not
know whether my hon. Friend on the other side definitely wants to draw particular personality into any poles. But enough to say that there are certified poles and those who are interested in knowing which poles are certified should please go to the ECG or approach the Ministry and they will be duly advised on certified poles.
Mr. John A. Ndebugre 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, all the communities mentioned under SHEP-3 phase 3 save two of them are from my constituency and one of them is my village actually. Because of that, I am very interested in asking the hon. Minister what he means by “the project is

on-going”. I am asking him this because contrary to other people's beliefs, these eight communities under SHEP-3, phase 3 that I think are in my constituency have had these poles dumped there since 1996. It is not during the New Patriotic Party (NPP) period alone; since 1996, every time there is an impending election, the poles come.

Sometimes, the poles are taken away and when it is time for elections, the poles come again. So my Question is, can the hon. Minister tell this House what he means by “the projects are ongoing”? I want a stop to this thing. I do not want year 2008 to come and fresh poles will come there, whether they are standard or substandard. What does he mean by “on-going”?
Prof. oquaye 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, a project may commence and it may not move with the expected speed as a result of so many factors, including availability of materials and lack of funds. Sometimes, it is because some ECOMOG poles are also met on the way. These are some of the issues that will arise with that project.
Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon. Minister for
Energy, thank you very much for appearing to answer these Questions. You are hereby released.
Question Number 71 -- and it stands in the name of hon. Alhaji Mohammed Mubarack Muntaka, hon. Member of Parliament for Asawase; and it is directed to the Minister for Presidential Affairs.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I have the permission of the hon. Member who is currently out of town in his constituency to ask the Minister for Presidential Affairs the substantive Question and to pose three supplementary follow-up questions, Mr. Speaker, if you would permit me to do so.
Mr. K. T. Hammond 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
it is a matter of procedure. He said that he had the permission of his Friend. But Mr. Speaker, it needed your ruling but he went on straightaway to indicate -- [Interruptions] -- [Mepe kasa, mo mma me nka die meka.]
Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
Order! Order! Order! Order! Hon. Members of Parliament let us have decorum.
Hon. Member for Tamale South,
I grant you permission to ask this Question.
PRESIDENTIAL AFFAIRS 11 a.m.
Minister for Presidential Affairs (Mr. Kwadwo Mpiani) 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that the Government is not responsible for organizing Hajj in this country and therefore, is not in a position to determine when the 2005 pilgrims who returned from Mecca will receive their unaccompanied luggage.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to find out from the hon. Minister for Presidential Affairs, if the Government is not responsible, who is responsible?
Mr. Mpiani 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Government does not interfere with the running of religious affairs and therefore I would not be in a position to determine who runs the affairs of the Muslims.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want to find out from the hon. Minister, if he is aware that there is an established Board called the Hajj Board which is a creation of Government.
Mr. Mpiani 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the Hajj Board but I wish to inform the House that it was not created by the Government.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want to find out from the hon. Minister if he is aware that the Government is involved in the organization of Hajj to the extent that even the cost, part of it is subsidized by the Government and if he is unaware, he should tell us that, but not say that the Government is not involved.
Mr. Mpiani 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Government had never organized the Hajj but I wish to inform the House that when Muslims were stranded in Mecca, the Government, being responsible for the citizens of this country, went in to help the pilgrims.
Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
Order! Order! Order!
Mr. Mpiani 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, this Government is very much involved in the affairs of citizens of this country and therefore the welfare of the citizens of this country is very, very important to this Government. But the fact of the matter is that, religious affairs are not the responsibility of the Government.
Alhaji collins Dauda 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Hajj Board has a Chairman. I want to find out from the hon. Minister, who appoints the Chairman.
Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon. Member for Asutifi South, we are dealing with the return of the Hajj pilgrims. Your supplementary question does not --[Interruption.]
Alhaji collins Dauda 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is arising from the Answer he provided to this House. He said the Government was not responsible and I would want to find out who appoints the Chairman of the Board.
Mr. Mpiani 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I do not
Alhaji Sumani Abukari 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I would want to know from the hon. Minister whether it is not true that it is the Vice President's Office that appoints the Chairman of the Hajj Board.
Mr. Mpiani 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, that is not
true. But to help hon. Members, the Vice President is the number two gentleman of this country and he is also a very devout Muslim, and therefore naturally, he must be interested in the affairs of the Muslims.
Mr. Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Order! Order!
Dr. Benjamin Kunbuor 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
in the hon. Minister's Answer, he indicated that the Government is always interested in the welfare of its citizens. I would want to know from the hon. Minister whether luggages that have not arrived are not welfare issues of the citizens of this country.
Mr. Mpiani 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Question
to me was the responsibility of the Government as to the arrival of the unaccompanied luggage of those who went to Hajj. And since it is not the responsibility of the Government to bring
Mr. Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Hon. Members, we have
already exhausted our time -- over one hour. Thank you very much hon. Minister for Presidential Affairs -- [Uproar] -- You are discharged -- Order! Order!
STATEMENTS 11:10 a.m.
Mr. J. D. Mahama (NDc -- Bole/ Bamboi) 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the hon. Minister for making this Statement in the House today. I think that this House, as a critical institution of our democracy is the best place to discuss the issue of the Africa Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) in the proper context in which this whole Report has been issued. Having been one of the people in this august House who had the opportunity to participate in the process, I would like to commend those who guided the process and also commend them for the results that it has brought to the fore.
Mr. Speaker, recently, I think that there
has been the diversion from the value of the APRM Report, and that is the debate on whether this particular report is regime- specific or it covers a certain period of our nation's history. But Mr. Speaker, that problem has been self-inflicted by the Government of the New Patriotic Party (NPP). Mr. Speaker, when the delegation went to the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) where the APRM process was acceded to, I remember that when they came back, they were full of praise for the President and that despite the risk of their unknown about what the whole APRM process was, he was the first among his peers to submit himself to review.
Mr. Speaker, they did not talk about the country review at that time. Mr. Speaker,
I listened to Mr. Kwabena Agyapong, the Press Secretary to the President on several radio stations and he kept insisting that the President was courageous to submit himself to a review by his peers. Mr. Speaker, if a certain perception has been planted in the mind of the public that this process is about marking our President, then it is the fault of the NPP and its spokesmen; it is not the fault of the Ghanaian public.
Mr. Speaker, yes, there are issues in
the APRM Report that look at Ghana as it is today in terms of our institutions, where we have come from, where we have arrived at; yes, that is the case. But Mr. Speaker, a lot of the issues that have come up in the report have been generated by several things that have happened in the last few years and we cannot run away from them. Mr. Speaker, the issue about how many Supreme Court Judges we had was never an issue in this country; it never created any problem for anybody; the fact that the Constitution did not indicate an upper limit of Supreme Court Judges did not create any problem because there was never any abuse of that process.
Mr. E. A. owusu-Ansah 11:30 a.m.
On a point
Mr. Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Hon. Member, I hope
Mr. Mahama 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, just
Mr. K. o. Agyapong 11:30 a.m.
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, my hon. Colleague is deceiving the House. He said that the NPP Government deliberately increased the number. I want him to know that under the National Democratic Congress (NDC) Government, the Judges of the Supreme Court were thirteen -- [Uproar] -- Hold on! Let me educate them. They had thirteen Judges, two retired and one died leaving ten Judges, so if you add three, have you deliberately increased it?
Please, we are addressing the public as well as hon. Members of this august House; let the hon. Member come out with the truth, so he should not say that we deliberately increased the number whereas the number is still thirteen -- [Interruption.] Yes, we replaced it with the three so why is he saying that we deliberately increased the number? Please, we should not deceive the public.
Mr. Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Hon. Member, you were dealing with a point of order, which was raised by the hon. Deputy Attorney- General. Kindly deal with that matter, please.
Mr. Mahama 11:30 a.m.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I was just responding to the point made by the hon. Deputy Attorney-General, and I said that a press statement was issued by Mr. Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey who was then the Minister for Information, and he indicated specifically in that press statement --
rose
Mr. Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Hon. Deputy Minister
for Energy, are you raising another point of order?
Mr. Hammond 11:30 a.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is again on the deliberate misinformation of this House and of the country on the matter of the number that was put up to make sure that there was a certain quorum. Mr. Speaker, the House and the nation need to be informed that the Supreme Court sits in forum with a certain number. Mr. Speaker, whenever there is the need for a review, it is important, if there is a whole set of Judges for them to sit. If it is not, it is important, Mr. Speaker, for at least, a new set to be added. So if a certain number, say seven or nine sat on a particular occasion to have a review, you cannot have all of them to sit again.
It was in view of that that the Judicial Council recommended to the Executive for the number to be brought to a certain level so that that case could be reviewed. So Mr. Speaker, it is a wrong impression to be created that the Government deliberately decided to add to the number. In any event, as my hon. Friend has indicated, the number did not exceed what they themselves had set up as a precedent.
Mr. Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Hon. Members, please,
exercise patience. This is the point, which is being dealt with by the hon. Member for Bole-Bamboi; please, allow him to continue.
Mr. E. K. D. Adjaho 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
we need the guidance of the Chair. You rightly ruled that the hon. Member for Bole-Bamboi should respond to the point of order raised by the hon. Deputy Attorney-General, then in-between, you gave the chance again to other two hon. Members also to respond to the matter.
Mr. Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Hon. Deputy Minority
Leader, I have already ignored those two matters. Let him continue.
Mr. Adjaho 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, then rule
them out of order so that we are clear.
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon. Deputy Minority Leader, I am sure you would have by now known my style, so let him continue.
Mr. John Mahama 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, in
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Order!
Mr. John Mahama 11:40 a.m.
The number of
Supreme Court Judges never exceeded nine. Mr. Speaker, in any case, the point I am making -- and all the arguments they have made do not invalidate the point I am making. I am saying that the upper limit of the Supreme Court Judges was never an issue until Government increased the number of judges to determine the Tsatsu Tsikata case. That is all I am saying -- [Interruptions.] And Mr. Speaker, at the time the increase was done, a statement was -- [Interruption.]
Mr. owusu-Ansah 11:40 a.m.
On a point of
order. Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Member who just spoke is committing the same error -- the same misinformation that he made earlier on. He is saying that the number was deliberately increased to enable a matter to be determined a certain
way, which is incorrect.
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon. Deputy Attorney-
General, let me address this matter to the hon. Member for Bole/Bamboi at this stage.
Mr. owusu-Ansah 11:40 a.m.
Very well, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon. Member for
Bole/Bamboi, if you could withdraw that particular matter, we would make progress instead of generating this into a lot of argument.
Mr. John Mahama 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, with
all due respect, there is a Statement issued by the then Minister for Information (Mr. Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey) that indicated that additional judges were going to be appointed in order to adjudicate that particular case. [Interruptions.] Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that is available and it is on record.
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon. Member for
Bole/Bamboi, are you referring to the Statement which was made by the hon. Minister for Regional Co-operation and
NEPAD?
Mr. John Mahama 11:40 a.m.
No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am making a point and the point I am making is that the problem with the perception that the APRM is a review of the President is the creation of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) themselves. And I am saying that, in any case, while the review looks at the country under a certain microscope, there are some issues in that review that are regime-specific. And I
Prof. oquaye 11:40 a.m.
On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend who has just spoken must withdraw that part of the statement that states or implies that Government did an act with an ill-motive. Mr. Speaker, when you accuse an hon. Minister of State of doing an act with an ill-motive, then you must either prove it, when you say that on the floor of the House, or withdraw it. And Mr. Speaker, that is what is the essence of this matter.
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon. Member for Bole/
Bamboi, I thought you were coming to some conclusion on this particular matter. Let us hear you on that before we continue.
Mr. John Mahama 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
if you would hear me out, the point I made was that Government deliberately increased the number of the Supreme Court Judges to adjudicate the case on Tsatsu Tsikata versus Attorney-General -- Fast Track Court; and Mr. Speaker, this is a fact. I did not make any interpretation of a bad motive. I said that the number was increased to determine that particular matter, and it is a fact.
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon. Member for Bole/

Some hon. Members -- rose --
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon. Members, please, resume your seats, we are making progress. Let us listen to him.
Mr. John Mahama 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, if
rose
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon. Member for
Lawra/Nandom, is the hon. Member for Bole/Bamboi prepared to yield -- [Interruptions.] Order! Order! Hon. Member for Bole/Bamboi, are you yielding to the hon. Member for Lawra/ Nandom?
Mr. John Mahama 11:40 a.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Dr. Kunbuor 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, basically
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Order! Order!
Dr. Kunbuor 11:40 a.m.
It is because of the
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Order! Order! We want
decorum. Hon. Members, if we make this noise, we would never hear what is being said.
Dr. Kunbuor 11:40 a.m.
So Mr. Speaker, it was
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Order! Order.
Dr. Kunbuor 11:40 a.m.
If that directive had
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Order! Order! Hon.
Member for Bole/Bamboi, I thought in order to make progress you were going to take a certain course?
Mr. Mahama 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I will not be intimidated -- [Interruptions.] I will not be intimidated on the floor of this House. I said I would not be forced against
Mr. Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Hon. Members, let us
have decorum over this matter. The hon. Member for Bole/Bamboi is on his feet; let us have decorum.
Mr. Mahama 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the floor
Mr. Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Order! Hon. Member
for Bole/Bamboi, I thought we were having our own discussion; the two of us, we were.
Mr. Mahama 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have
Mr. Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Hon. Members, let us
have some decorum. Hon. Member for Bole/Bamboi, if you are saying you have the evidence then you may have to produce it at this stage -- [Interruptions.] Hon. Members, let us have order. If you do not have the evidence at the moment you may have to advise yourself and then bring the evidence later.
Mr. Mahama 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, this House

Some hon. Members -- rose --
Mr. Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Order! Order! Hon. Members, please, resume your seats. This is a discussion between the Chair and the hon. Member for Bole/Bamboi.
Mr. Mahama 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the fact
Mr. Mahama 11:50 a.m.


I have given on the floor of this House is the truth and if I am being coerced to withdraw a truthful statement, it sets a very bad precedent for this House.
Mr. Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Hon. Member, with the greatest respect to you, you said you have evidence but it seems you do not have the evidence here at the moment; and the normal practice is that if you do not, you withdraw and come back properly. That is all I am saying -- [Interruptions] -- Order! Order! Let us hear him. Hon. Members, do not distract the hon. Member's attention.
Mr. Mahama 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what I am being asked to withdraw. What am I being asked to withdraw? The fact that the number of Supreme Court Judges was increased in respect of the Tsatsu Tsikata case? I do not know what I am being asked to withdraw?
Mr. Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Hon. Member for Bole/ Bamboi you told this House that you have evidence and that you are going to provide the evidence. Whatever evidence you want to provide, you must know it; but at this stage I was advising you that since you do not have the evidence here, you might as well withdraw and come back properly. That is all I am saying.
Mr. Mahama 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to restate what I said -- [Interruptions.] I want to clarify what I said. Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify what I am being asked to withdraw.
An hon. Member: Why do you not want to withdraw?
Mr. Mahama 11:50 a.m.
I do not know what you are asking me to withdraw. I said that -- [Interruptions.]
Mr. Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Hon. Members, let us maintain decorum. [Interruptions.] Order! Hon. Members, resume your seats.
Mr. Mahama 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have said a number of things on the floor of this House. One of the things I said was that in the African Peer Review Report, there is something that is regime specific -- [Interruptions.]
Mr. Felix owusu-Adjapong 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I believe you gave some direction, a ruling, relating to the choice of a word, that is “deliberately”; and this is what hon. Colleagues are saying -- And then he alluded that an hon. Minister of State -- That is where his source of authority is. And you asked that if he can produce the evidence so that we could all be comfortable. You have given direction that in the absence of that he should withdraw the word “deliberately” and then we move on. Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that this simple thing that the hon. former Deputy Speaker has been using all along that if you are not ready, then you wait and bring it -- So if we can go on and let us make progress on the matter in the absence of the document.
Mr. Mahama 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I firmly and sincerely believe in the statement I made. If it would lead to a truncation of my participation I would yield to it.
Mr. Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Hon. Member for Bole/ Bamboi, nobody has ordered you to resume your seat.
Mr. Mahama 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the point I am making is that if the condition for my continuing is that I withdraw this Statement, I would rather not continue. That is the point I am making.
Mr. owusu-Adjapong 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the point is not whether he wants to continue or not. The point is that he has given information, which is being challenged; and he is supposed to produce evidence. If he has decided not to continue
Mr. Mahama 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I refuse to continue.
Mr. Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Hon. Member for Bole/ Bamboi I think before you refuse to continue, we were dealing with a matter which had cropped up and I want us to revisit that matter again. I want to hear from you again as to what you intend to do in terms of this matter which has created a lot of heat in this House.
Mr. Mahama 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, as a man of principle, I find it difficult to withdraw what is a truthful Statement. The point I made was that there was a deliberate increase in the number of Supreme Court Judges to adjudicate the Tsatsu Tsikata case and it is factual. So I do not see why I should withdraw it.
Mr. Hackman owusu-Agyemang noon
Mr. Speaker, I believe that after more than twelve years of practice in this House we know the rules of the game. The issue is not a matter of principle or non-principle; the issue is that objections were taken to the statement by the hon. Member for Bole-Bamboi and your goodself directed that the statement be withdrawn. That, under the rules of procedure and under the Standing Orders, is tantamount to a ruling. And when the Speaker rules, the rules of this House are clear; nobody disobeys it except by a substantive motion to challenge the ruling of the Speaker.
So the hon. Member for Bole/Bamboi cannot say that, “I have decided to discontinue”. Whether he decides to discontinue or not is his prerogative; but
once the Speaker has given a ruling, that ruling must be obeyed; otherwise, that flies in the face of the Standing Orders.
So we are asking that he now should obey the directive of the Speaker; and if the ruling of the Speaker is to be challenged in any way then he can do that by way of a substantive motion; otherwise, this is tantamount to disrespect for the Chair which I am sure my good Friend from Bole/Bamboi does not intend. The issue here, the gravamen of it is that the word “deliberately” is being challenged. The Speaker says “just withdraw that”.

Mr. Speaker, the article is very clear on what should be done and I believe that we must make progress by him obeying the ruling of the Chair. Any other issue would be tantamount to disrespect for the Chair, which I am sure my good Friend does not intend to do.
Mr. Speaker noon
Hon. Member for Bole/ Bamboi, the word that has been creating the problem is this word “deliberately”.
Mr. Mahama noon
Mr. Speaker, I respect the Chair very much and I guess that if there is anybody in this House who would show disrespect for the Chair, I would be the last person to do so -- [Hear! Hear!]
Mr. Speaker, I must just express concern that if we would conduct debate in this way, we would be inflicting harm on the rights of free speech in this House. Mr. Speaker, if on every issue one raises on the floor of this House, one must come with newspapers to justify what one has said then it would be better not to do any
Mr. Speaker noon
Order! Order! Hon. Member for Bole/Bamboi, the problem is with the use of the word “deliberately”, are you prepared to withdraw it?
Mr. Mahama noon
Mr. Speaker, there was an intentional increase in the number of Supreme Court Judges to adjudicate the Tsatsu Tsikata case -- [Interruptions.]
Mr. Speaker noon
Order! Order! Hon. Member for Bole/Bamboi, may I ask a question? Are you prepared to withdraw the word “deliberately” or not?
Mr. Mahama noon
Mr. Speaker, with respect to you, I have withdrawn the word “deliberately” and replaced it with the word “intentionally” -- [Interruptions.]
Mr. Speaker noon
Order! Order! I did not hear what you said.
Mr. Mahama noon
Mr. Speaker, I said in respect of the Chair, I have withdrawn the word “deliberately” and replaced it with the word “intentionally” -- [Hear! Hear!]
Mr. Speaker noon
With respect, are you saying you are changing the word “deliberately” to “intentionally”?
Mr. Mahama noon
Mr. Speaker, I said that there was an intentional increase in the number of Supreme Court Judges to adjudicate the Tsatsu Tsikata case. [Pause.]
Mr. Speaker noon
Hon. Member for Bole/ Bamboi, we have to make progress and it does not appear you have answered the question. Are you withdrawing the word “deliberately”?
Mr. Mahama noon
Mr. Speaker, in respect for the Chair, there was an increase in the Supreme Court Judges to adjudicate the Tsatsu Tsikata case.
Mr. Speaker noon
You have not answered my question.
Mr. Mahama noon
Mr. Speaker, I wish to continue. Mr. Speaker, I said in respect for the Chair, I have amended my statement to read, “there was an increase in Supreme Court Judges to adjudicate the Tsatsu Tsikata case”. That is all.
Mr. Speaker noon
May I take it that you have withdrawn the word “deliberately”?
Mr. Mahama noon
Very much so, Mr. Speaker -- [Hear! Hear!]
Mr. Speaker noon
Are you continuing? [Interruptions.]
Hon. Member for Bole/Bamboi, are you continuing with your contribution?
Mr. Mahama noon
By your leave, Mr. Speaker, I would continue.
Mr. Speaker noon
Then please, wind up.
Mr. Mahama 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, even the title of the process is defective. If you talk about a Peer Review Mechanism, “peer” has a certain meaning in English; and it means a person within the context of his colleagues, that is, people of a certain social class or standing in society or age group or that kind of thing.

So if you talk about an African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), you are talking about a mechanism where African Heads of State have the opportunity to review their peers, and in that sense the impression you give is that the Heads of State are going to be able to sit with each other and to review one another at a time to see how that person is scoring in terms of governance and politics, and in terms of corporate governance and all the other indicators that have been put under the

APRM.

Mr. Speaker, so in that sense, part of the misconceptions about the fact that this mechanism was going to be about marking our President also comes from the title of the process itself. And if Ghana as the first country to be reviewed has raised this kind of controversy, maybe, the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD's) Secretariat and the Heads of State would consider recreating a new title for this particular process.

Mr. Speaker, there are other issues such as matters to do with corruption. Mr. Speaker, Government cannot run away from leadership in the process of strengthening the democratic institutions of this country, and if particularly a Government that is being reviewed in all its manifestoes in the elections it has run till now has made specific promises on certain issues that for 5 years after being in government it has been unable to rectify, then there is ground for people to say that the regime must take blame for some of the issues that have not been corrected.
Mr. Joe Baidoe-Ansah 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member just made a statement that it was a campaign promise; it is not true. Mr. Speaker, he is misleading the House. The issue here is that the current regime started on the 7th of January, 2005. Mr. Speaker, the campaign for the current regime is the campaign that preceded 7th January, 2005. Mr. Speaker, there was no campaign promise that Government was
Mr. Mahama 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, this is clearly the case of a drowning man clutching at straws -- [Laughter.]
Mr. Speaker 12:10 p.m.
You continue, wind up.
Mr. Mahama 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, and so if the issue about the size of Ministers has come up, it is because under this Government and especially based on the promise that the President made, the size of Government has ballooned beyond what it was in the past. You cannot call this not regime-specific. Mr. Speaker, in any case, let us get rid of the hypocrisy that is associated with this process. This Government is prepared to bask in the glory of the positives highlighted by the APRM report, and yet when it comes to the negatives they want to run away and say, “Oh, it is above all of us”. Mr. Speaker, it does not make sense. Mr. Speaker, if you are prepared to take the glory, then you must be prepared to take the negatives. You cannot eat with one hand and take with the other. If you would take the positives, then take the negatives as well and that is part of the problem that we are plagued with. [Interruption.]
Mr. K. T. Hammond 12:10 p.m.
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, is he suggesting to the House that it is on record that anybody in Government has sought to dissociate the current Government from any negative aspects of this process which is specifically attributable to this Government? Is he suggesting that to this House?
Mr. Mahama 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, in any case, I do not think that the President and Government should be defensive about this report. I felt very sad when the President tried to question the objectivity of the report in the press interaction he had

after he came out of the presentation of the report. He tried to question the objectivity of the report. Mr. Speaker, all the things that have been highlighted in the APRM report are issues that we have known and talked about locally. Mr. Speaker, it did not need even the APRM to itemize these things that we have been talking about.

Mr. Speaker, if we had been listening to our own people, we would have taken corrective actions before an external body came to identify exactly the same matters that we have been talking about for the last five years or so. Mr. Speaker, therefore I think my hon. Colleagues on this side should not be defensive; we must accept the issues that are indicated here. Let us all get involved in terms of agreeing to the programme of action that is going to be submitted in August, and let us all be part of the process.

Mr. Speaker, the issues here are critical for our movement forward, strengthening the institutions of State, strengthening the fight against corruption. Indeed, I say that we would need the political will and the leadership to fight corruption. If we have a leadership that says that we shall not go on a wild goose chase about corruption and that we would only investigate corruption if you bring the evidence, we can give the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) whatever kind of money they want to expand, we can pass the Whistle-Blowers Bill but if we are not prepared to investigate the allegations of corruption, we would go nowhere.

Deputy Minister for Energy (Mr. K. T. Hammond): Mr. Speaker, I rise to associate myself with what has been said and first, to congratulate the Minister who is also a member of this House for this process in the country, and of course the President, who has made himself available for this review.

Mr. Speaker, the point has been made that the Government must take blame or indeed that there is some hypocrisy in this whole process, because to start with, you have a President who has opened himself up: for his peers to look into what has been happening in his country. Mr. Speaker, it is said that that is not in keeping with the process. Mr. Kwabena Agyapong has specifically been mentioned that he has made all those comments heaping praises on the Government and on the President. Mr. Speaker, I think we should put this in perspective.

A President is the head of a country and by its very nature, this process encapsulates having to look at the whole political, constitutional, and legal processes in a particular country. So by necessity the head would have to open himself up. And so if in the process of opening himself up a point is made, for example, that we have made progress in our democracy and that the progress has its genesis in the period when the constitutional regime started in the country and so the Government before the current Government took the reins of power in this country also must share in whatever the findings are, Mr. Speaker, I for myself, cannot see any hypocrisy in that.

Because seriously speaking, democracy on paper, at least, did not start with the Government of the NPP. It is the good governance as we witnessed that the NPP

takes credit for. [Hear! Hear!] We must be careful, Mr. Speaker, the kind of things that we say in this House. Television cameras, everybody, the world, they are listening. The hon. Member for Bole/ Bamboi, John Mahama, my very good friend -- I like him very much -- when he said that this House is the bastion of democracy.
rose
Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon. Member for Ashaiman, do you have any point of order?
Mr. Agbesi 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am looking at Order 72 and comparing it to what the hon. Member on his feet is doing. A Statement has been made and he is on his feet to contribute to that Statement. Mr. Speaker, but he is debating the comments being made by the hon. Member for Bole-Bamboi and that is not in line with Order 72. He is misleading this House and he must be brought to order.
Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon. Member, your attention is being drawn to this relevant rule that you may comment on the Statement given and not necessarily other arguments, but the Statement.
Mr. Hammond 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, he says Order 72; I do not have my Standing Orders here, so maybe he might want to quote so that we know exactly what it says.
Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon. Deputy Minister, you speak to the matter before us.
Mr. Hammond 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, that is
Mr. owusu-Adjapong 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the problem some of us are having is that an Order has been quoted -- Order 72 and we are not sure of its relevance to the matter at stake. That is why I think he is asking that if we can read the Order 72 to see whether it is relevant; otherwise people can just jump in here and there.
Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon. Majority Leader, I think the point he was making was that the hon. Member should speak to the matter in question, not necessarily replying to what others are saying. Go ahead and wind up.
Mr. Hammond 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the Order is really 72 -- [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon. Deputy Minister, please, go ahead and wind up.
Mr. Hammond 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, anyway, as I was saying, this is a House where the truth must be told to the world and to hon. Members and to Ghanaians.
Mr. Speaker, some of the matters that have been raised in the report are pretty clear and they are not that contentious at all. You talk about the limit for appointment of Supreme Court judges for example; it is a constitutional issue that can be resolved easily. Mr. Speaker, there are other matters that we all appreciate, we understand, are matters that in one way or the other are to be dealt with. What I find unfortunate, what I find contentious is even when a group of people organize press conferences and at these conferences again peddle untruths.
For example, Mr. Speaker, the other day, I think yesterday or the day before yesterday, a press conference was organized to explain or to explore
Dr. Kunbuor 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. Colleague is misleading this House about the press conference that was organized yesterday and at which I was privileged to be present. The press conference was organized not to give meaning to the word “peer” but to respond to a number of issues that have been raised by very, very significant figures in this country. So the press conference was not about going to ascertain the meaning of “peer”. It was only tangential to the response.
Mr. Hammond 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, if that is what my hon. Friend says, then I take that. When I heard it on the radio, the young man who was defending it was pretty clear in his mind that the press conference was called for that purpose. But hon. Kunbuor is my friend, so I will take that; I think it is a very serious intervention he has made.
But Mr. Speaker, that is how we are going to make progress, if we all pool our resources together, if we do not segment the issues into NPP Government, NDC Government. In any event, if there are defects in the Constitution, this is the Constitution that was brought in at the time of the NDC. So why should anybody bring NDC into it. That is not important.
I caution that those on the other side should look at the issues as objectively -- that the hon. Member for Bole-Bamboi has not done -- and not to fall into the same temptation that he has fallen into. Mr. Speaker, this is only a comment on the Statement and with these few words,
I thank you for the time.
Dr. Benjamin Kunbuor (NDc -- Lawra-Nandom) 12:30 p.m.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this significant Statement that seems to be running into unnecessary stall. I say that because after listening to the hon. Minister, very, very fundamental issues in relation to the APRM have been raised; and I have taken his statement in relation to other commentaries that I have heard in the media in relation to the Peer Review Mechanism.
Mr. Speaker, one essential link that is missing in this entire debate is that people are not looking at the APRM within the thinking and the processes and the understanding of NEPAD. That is why any little activity or side comment seems to take us away from the very ideals of NEPAD and we engage in the type of trivia that we are beginning to witness also sometimes in the media.
The first lesson that Abuja teaches us in relation to this Peer Review Mechanism is that you certainly need a number of national preconditions before you can invite for the peer review. And that is one of the first significant lessons that we need to learn. And when you look at these preconditions, you begin to see clearly that if we had actually put our house in order, three-quarters of these issues would never have come up. I intend to look at this particularly within a wider context of the sector of which I am responsible in this House, and that is about the security sector and governance, which is a very, very key element in African collective security which the NEPAD document also espouses.
Why do we say this? If you look at the African agenda on collective security it has become clear, within democratization and the fact that most African countries have chosen the democratic path, that
we need to reorient our security sector in line with the democratic principles. And so the first condition for what pertains in any country in relation to the security sector and how it links up with governance becomes very, very significant. Why do we say this? One of the issues that embedded in the mandate of the APRM is that our security agencies must have civil control; civil control, in the sense that the elected representative of every country should actually be exercising oversight over that sector. And that is the point at which we begin to link the security sector with governance. But coming to the specific issue of the preconditions, Ghana, like most other countries that we have in Africa, because it has not satisfied a number of the preconditions. And I use this in terms of the security sector reform. I have been amazed to read on the Internet that people have delivered papers at seminars on a defence sector policy on Ghana. And I say this is completely erroneous and outrageous.

Ghana has no defence sector policy and I stand to be corrected, whether indeed, Ghana has a defence sector policy. We cannot have a defence sector policy in which all the stakeholders including Parliament and the main actors are not involved. People are confusing specific security operational matters with questions actually dealing with policies. Policy is for the civilian administration and they must actually generate it and that will be implemented by the technocrats in the field. Why this particular issue, Mr. Speaker, is very significant to the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) is that the African Union (AU) has clearly delineated three specific areas of security that identifies with governance.

There is regime security which deals with how the Government survives from day to day. There is State security that involves everybody and everybody is a stakeholder. And more significantly, there is human security that is a precondition for the other two elements of the security sector. And it has always been the position under the African Union that should actually ensure that there is human security on the African continent and the need for regime security and State security will become irrelevant. I say this, Mr. Speaker, also on how very specific issues have been raised in relation to governance and you will find out that the security sector that has been one of the bases of democratization in Ghana the Peer Review Mechanism and the outcome of Abuja has been very silent on. I think this is one of the significant areas. I say “silent on” in the context because, taking the ECOWAS subregion, only Nigeria last two weeks was able to submit a defence policy to its Senate and it is about to come into implementation.

The next other country that has a defence policy is Sierra Leone. There is no other ECOWAS country that has a defence policy and you are definitely not put in a position to be reviewed in relation to the activities of your security sector -- [Interruptions.] The most significant connection that I make in relation to this fact, Mr. Speaker, is that, should it become important that our rules of democratic engagement --[Interruption.]
rose
Mr. Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Hon. Member for Nabdam, are you raising a point of order?
Mr. Asaga 12:30 p.m.
Yes, I am raising a point of discipline in this House -- [Uproar.] A point of order.
Mr. Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Hon. Member for
Mr. Asaga 12:30 p.m.
It is a point of order.
Mr. Speaker 12:30 p.m.
A point of order to what he is saying?
Mr. Asaga 12:30 p.m.
It is of a conduct of a Member to what he is saying.
Mr. Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Hon. Member for Nabdam, please, at this state -- [Interrup- tion.]
Mr. Asaga 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think my point is well made because the hon. Majority Leader is saying I should sit down -- [Laughter.]
Dr. Kunbuor 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the summary about linking the governance sector to the security sector in this review in one nutshell is that, for me, it is a very significant sector that the African Peer Review Mechanism should be looking at in detail. The second significant point that I want to make which is one of the lessons that the Abuja development also suggest to us is this: Immediately, people have come to the conclusion that this is a final and a terminal report on Ghana. But as has rightly been said the real final position on what will be on Ghana will be in August when the Heads of State do meet here in Accra.
But why has it become so significant for our public to immediately come to the conclusion that the issue on Ghana has actually been addressed. It is the preparation for Abuja, because, all that we heard when the Head of State was going with the technical team to Abuja was that they were actually going to Abuja to be reviewed and that they were going to Abuja to defend a position. That, for me,
was quite odd. I say that if you are being reviewed by your peers, what were you going to Abuja to defend and for which eventually as was reported, you came out with flying colours?
What was going to be defended in Abuja if the issue was about being reviewed by your peers? And that was what led to the contrary information that started coming by some specific sectors. There were some negative remarks that were made in relation to Ghana; so people were asking the question, what did people go to defend and come out with flying colours only for this type of information on the various sectors that have been mentioned to be coming out? And that is why I agree with what hon. John Mahama has indicated, that the very preconditions and the way we even packaged this entire exercise, majority of the public run into a lot of difficulty in understanding it. I have had the opportunity to discuss with the Minister and subsequently, a seminar was organized at La Palm Beach Hotel.
At that particular time, one of the essential ingredients of NEPAD is ownership of processes that are ongoing. We in this House only got to know about the essentials of NEPAD and the African Peer Review Mechanism when we went to M-Plaza. So what is significant is that what prevented the Government, as a first precondition, in actually coming to lay the essential elements of NEPAD and the African Peer Review Mechanism before Members of this House so that we could educate each other and anticipate what will come out in terms of the processes?
Mr. Speaker 12:30 p.m.
You may, please, be winding up.
Dr. Kunbuor 12:30 p.m.
I have also seen very
interesting link that the Minister is trying to establish between what is going on in terms of economic governance and Tony Blair's suggestion of an African Commission for African Development, if I am right. And that is, for me, what is again the problem because it is only in their whole document on NEPAD; it is about the African Union's position that Africa intends to disengage from other western countries in terms of being self- reliant, in terms of the processes that we undertake only for you to start the third step that you have taken on Peer Review and you are again beginning to link it to what Tony Blair has for Africa. Where is the delinking and the self sufficiency even in the Preamble of the African Union and the constitutive arrangement of the NEPAD document?
Do we always have to wait for a Tony Blair to come to the rescue of the African continent before every initiative we undertake becomes relevant? And I think that that linkage, for me, is a very, very contestable one because if you ask me that African Commission that Tony Blair is setting in place we will very soon realize that the African Union by its own mission will become very irrelevant if it succeeds because current continental structures are being created in which one will be sufficiently more resourced than the other and will run into this type of difficulty.
I have a few more points, Mr. Speaker, but I will take a cue from you and resume my seat.
Minister for Public Sector Reform (Dr. Paa Kwesi Nduom) 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have sat and listened to a lot of the contributions made by hon. Members and it is quite unfortunate that much of what has been said really just tells us that there is the need for greater understanding over a lot of what we have been talking about over the Peer Review Mechanism,
over NEPAD and over the intentions of the Heads of State as far as the African Union is concerned. And it gives me great cause to worry because when you take a look at NEPAD itself, the leading item for consideration for all of what is going on is the area of governance which we are all a part of. Parliament, this House is an essential element when we talk about governance in this country.
When people talk about the Peer Review Mechanism and we make it appear as if it is Heads of State who are going to sit and review each other and also make it seem as if it is new in this world, it also gives me cause to worry because the European Union (EU) has such a mechanism in place and it is working.
It is not Heads of State sitting to review each other, there are bodies and technical groups that are engaged in these discussions and preparing materials for consideration by the Heads of State. This is the process that we are beginning. Since it is a process that we are beginning, it is important that we take time and find a role for Parliament in the process that we are going through in this country so that we are not too quick to take political decisions and positions one way or the other because we are just beginning a process that we here in Parliament must be a big part of.

So Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we do take time here in this Parliament and if we do not understand what is going on, if we need the hon. Minister to come back and engage us in further discussions so that we can enhance our role in the discussion on this matter, it will do us a lot of good as Parliamentarians to be able to speak properly and in a more informed manner when we are talking outside this Parliament. This is because much of what has been said shows a lack of understanding of what has been going on.
rose
Mr. Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Deputy Minority Leader, do you have a point of order to raise?
Mr. Adjaho 12:40 p.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is a point of order! Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Minister is misleading this House. Is he trying to tell the House that APRM and NEPAD were in existence during Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah's time? Is that what he is trying to tell this honourable House? -- [Uproar] -- The Statement is on NEPAD and APRM and is that what he is trying to tell this honourable House and the whole country?
Dr. Nduom 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, unfort- unately, this is one of the misunder- standings that I have been talking about -- [Laughter] -- There is an important point on the floor. It is on APRM and it is important that we place it in the proper context so that we do not rush to play a dangerous political game with this important matter, which involves the entire country, which involves not just our survival but also involves how we are going to be treated and how we are going to be seen in the comity of nations, and therefore where we are going to find
Mr. Adjaho 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, because I am in the leadership and other hon. Members from my side also got up, I sat down.
Mr. Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Then you may remain in your seat.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu (NDc -- Tamale South) 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I cherish the opportunity to contribute to the Statement made by the hon. Minister for Regional Integration and NEPAD and to commend him for that. But Mr. Speaker, I have a fundamental disagreement with the content of the Statement to the extent that he makes an attempt to extricate the President from the review process. Indeed, it is true that the African Peer Review is being discussed in the context of NEPAD and the hon. Minister is well aware that NEPAD was an initiative of African leaders.
I emphasize that, it is an initiative of African leaders who on their own volition, their own initiative decided to pledge themselves to deal with the problems of underdevelopment, to address issues of
poverty based on a blueprint. But Mr. Speaker, I would like to contribute to this Statement in the context of the Report which was unfolded on 19th of June, 2005 in Abuja.
Mr. Speaker, the significant thing is that whether the debate is about country report, or an evaluation of the Presidency, it is neither here nor there. The Report as was unveiled in Abuja does have in it some strengths and some weaknesses. In reviewing the President rightly so, reference will necessarily be made to the institutions and structures with which he works as the executive President of our Republic.
Mr. Speaker, may I refer to the NEPAD document? Indeed, one of the major and salient issues was about the fragility of the Ghanaian economy. We have heard over and time again in this House that the Ghanaian economy is buoyant, the Ghanaian economy is vibrant even when unemployment is on the high. Even when our local industries are folding up, we are told every other day -- Indeed, the Report rightly says that our economy is fragile.
Mr. Speaker, one of the immediate goals of NEPAD to which I am aware the hon. Minister is aware, is to have achieved a sustained GDP growth of, at least, seven per cent for the next fifteen years in order to achieve the millennium development goals to which African leaders subscribe themselves under NEPAD. We are not there. Ghana is not there. We will not be able to attain those goals. Indeed, part of the immediate goals.
rose
Mr. Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Hon. Member for Kwabre East, do you have a point of order to raise?
Mr. K. Frimpong 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member is seriously misleading this House. I do not know whether he is cursing us or what. In fact, not until he is able to give us the figures, why we can never be there, Mr. Speaker, I think it will be very prudent he withdraws that statement. This is because -- otherwise he is, maybe, cursing us. But as we all know, the GDP growth is on the increase. It is on the increase. So Mr. Speaker, if he cannot in any way provide us with facts and figures, then he should conveniently withdraw the statement and stop misleading this House.
Mr. Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Please, continue.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for your indulgence. Indeed, if he wants it, I do have the NEPAD document here and I can refer to it to please his requirement -- [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Hon. Member continue.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 12:40 p.m.
But Mr. Speaker, I was simply saying that, as a country, let us accept the prescriptions of the report and deal with the weaknesses that had been identified. For instance, part of the Report made comments about a Whistle-Blower's Bill. But we are aware that the Bill has been brought before this House. Indeed, I was making a comment on the economy and Mr. Speaker, let me go back there.
Mr. Speaker, in talking about the fragility of our economy, we have been talking about macroeconomic stability. For the last five years, one of the requirements of integration was the creation of a second monetary zone. It has collapsed and frustrated the integration process because the African countries, including Ghana, which committed themselves could not meet the convergence criterion, in particular, the criterion to bring inflation to a single digit. Indeed, one of the mid-
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 12:50 p.m.
term objectives of NEPAD is to sustain macro-economic stability, part of which is to achieve sustainable control of the rate of inflation. Unemployment is on the high.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the importance of NEPAD and African peer review is about self-reliance and empowerment. As a country, are we self-reliant when we are importing three hundred and fifty million dollars' value of rice? Are we self-reliant when we are killing our poultry industry by bringing tariffs down to favour people to bring in dead chicken from somewhere into the corridors of our country? It missed the point.
But Mr. Speaker, another important
issue which the Report captured was about the operation of the doctrine of separation of powers. Mr. Speaker, this august House is one of the institutions or organs of the State. In particular, it talks about the strengthening of Parliament. Indeed, a specific reference is made to the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, I am only hesitating in asking for the scraping of that particular Ministry to serve the interests of this House. Mr. Speaker, you should be the head of this House. Indeed, the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs is not a creation of the Kufuor Administration; the NDC Government did it. But we are saying that to the extent that it affects the effective operation of this House, that Ministry ought not to exist. The Right Honourable Speaker must be the head of this House. The hon. Minister cannot be given another status of a Minister and remain as Majority Leader. But the recommendation of the APRM is that we do not need a Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, comment is made about the decentralization process in our country and the weakness embedded in it. A few years ago we embarked on decentralisation. There too we have serious weaknesses. Even pensioners had to travel to Accra to process their pensions.
Mr. Akwasi osei-Adjei 12:50 p.m.
On a point of
order! Mr. Speaker, I just want to know whether it is the National Democratic Congress (NDC) policy to abolish that Ministry or it is his own view so that we can, at least, apprise ourselves.
Mr. Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Hon. Member, please,
continue and wind up.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I am simply saying that part of the recommendation of the Report is that in the view of the eminent persons, Ghana does not need a Ministry for Parliamentary Affairs. Part of the issue on economic governance -- It is estimated that 340 million people in Africa live below a dollar per day within Africa; and Ghana is not an exception to it. There are many Ghanaians who live below the expectation of a dollar a day. Indeed, part of the immediate long- and short-term goals was for us to reduce infant mortality, child mortality, maternal mortality. All these ratios are on the increase in Ghana today when you compare the 1998 and the 2003 figures.
Mr. S. Asamoah-Boateng 12:50 p.m.
On a point
of order! Mr. Speaker, my hon. Colleague there is making some statements that he needs to consider and withdraw. He just said that, they have revoked the
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
did say so. Mr. Speaker, I am aware that nominees were revoked for Bongo, for Ahanta, and for the constituency of the Minister for Public Sector Reforms and it was done because those people were opposed to particular candidates that I describe as questionable.
Mr. Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Hon. Member for
Tamale South, the problem we are talking about is whether you used the word “questionable”, That is all that we want know.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
if an Assemblyman decides that he does not like a particular appointee and is being compelled by way of revocation, for me, it raises questions. Mr. Speaker, it raises serious questions. I have it on record that the Bongo District Assembly, Komenda/ Edina/Eguafo Assembly -- they were revoked and then also for Ahanta, they were revoked -- I am simply using this to say that we are now strengthening the District Assembly concept in this country.
Mr. Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Hon. Member, I think
you must do something about the word, “questionable”, for the simple reason that those three persons are not here to defend themselves.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the
word “questionable” is withdrawn.
Mr. Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Thank you very much
and proceed.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, as I made reference to the doctrine of

separation of powers, we are aware that in this country, all the organs of government with the exception of the Executive arm are under-resourced. Parliament is one; the Judiciary is the other; they are all complaining. But Mr. Speaker, one of the goals of NEPAD under the commitments the African leaders made was the sustenance of democracy and stability.

Mr. Speaker, this is my final comment on stability. In trying to sustain democratic practice, we have had instances where people have needlessly lost their lives during the electioneering process such as the case of the late Issa Mobilla. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, reference is made in particular to chieftaincy disputes and political disputes in the Report -- chieftaincy disputes because the Dagbon crisis is still hanging on our head.

The Ya-Na and 40 other persons were murdered; we have not been able to unravel the misery; the Dagbon state remain in crisis. It remains an issue that can plunge this country into crisis which may undermine the stability and the democratic process of this country. That is part of the APRM Report.

In congratulating the Minister -- and I hope that in asking for the scraping of the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, that is not a personal issue against the Minister. I am simply saying that, we should accept the prescription and take steps in order to be able to address those issues.

With these few comments, Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with the Statement on the floor.

Nana Akomea (NPP -- okaikoi

South): Mr. Speaker, I would ask this House to join me in extending congratulations to the President for being the first President in Africa to offer himself for the peer review. [Hear! Hear!] By so doing the President has also placed this
Alhaji Sumani Abukari 12:50 p.m.
On a point

Mr. Speaker, that is what is leading to some of the misconceptions out there, that it is the President who is being reviewed instead of Ghana. So we should rather congratulate this country. It is true that the President is our leader but it is Ghana that is being reviewed, not President Kufuor. The hon. Member should not mislead the country.
Mr. Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Hon. Member for Okaikoi South, I hope you would take that on board.
Nana Akomea 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, when I
Mr. E. T. Mensah 12:50 p.m.
On a point of
order! Mr. Speaker, my good Friend is misleading this House. His statement that we should join him in congratulating the President contradicts the Statement on the floor that we are discussing. This is because in the opening paragraph of the Statement, the Minister of State who made the Statement drew attention to the fact that we were reviewed as a country and not the President. So he should be made to withdraw that misleading and deceptive opening statement.
Nana Akomea 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I will just continue. The statement that I have made brings to mind the issue of whether the review is country - specific or whether it is regime-specific, and a lot of contributions have dwelt on this point.
Mr. Speaker, let me state categorically for the benefit of all hon. Members that the review at the same time is country-specific and regime-specific. There is no need to make a distinction between regime and country. If you look at the issues raised by the review, it becomes very clear that some of the issues are regime-specific and at the same time, some of the issues are country-specific. And it does not take any magical activity to discover this.
Hon. Haruna Iddrisu raised the issue of Ministry for Parliamentary Affairs. Why? That the Ministry for Parliamen- tary Affairs is not regime-specific; it was in existence before President Kufuor became the President so it cannot be regime-specific.
Mr. Speaker, the Report raises issues
that are constitutional -- about the cap on numbers of Supreme Court Judges. Mr. Speaker, the issue of cap on numbers of Supreme Court Judges is not regime- specific. It is a constitutional issue. The issue about numbers of Ministers, for example, is regime-specific. So Mr. Speaker, the Report is, at the same time, regime-specific and also country-specific. So this business about trying very hard to find out whether it is country-specific or regime-specific is a diversion of the issue.
Mr. Speaker, a lot of interesting issues
have been raised by hon. Members which invite comments. The issue about the numbers of Supreme Court Judges have been raised and one hon. Member tried to infer malice and bad intention on the part of the Government on the issue of Supreme Court Judges. Mr. Speaker, that matter is very clear; the intention
Mr. E. T. Mensah 1 p.m.
On a point of order! Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member is misleading this House. The subject-matter that he is talking about was a subject of controversy and the Speaker asked the hon. Member who made the Statement to withdraw it, so it has been withdrawn so why is he speaking to it again?
Mr. Speaker 1 p.m.
I am so sorry, I did not hear what he was saying.
Mr. E. T. Mensah 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, he was making reference to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Bole/Bamboi.
Mr. Speaker 1 p.m.
Oh, that matter is over.
Mr. E. T. Mensah 1 p.m.
It is over and he is speaking to it.
Mr. Speaker 1 p.m.
Hon. Member, please go ahead.
Nana Akomea 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the issue about the number of Supreme Court Judges was raised or has been raised in the Report and I am just commenting on that issue irrespective of what some other hon. Member has said; I am just commenting on the issue as raised in the Report.
Mr. Speaker, the Government's nomination of an additional Supreme Court Judge, of course, at face value, can be interpreted as motivated by malice but it is not so at all. Mr. Speaker, what are the facts of the matter? There was a matter of constitutional interpretation before the Supreme Court. The nine Judges who were available at the time all sat on the matter and gave a ruling - five against four. The Government at that time called
for a review of the decision. Mr. Speaker, in a review of the decision, you do not have the same nine Judges review their own decision. It is prudent to add one more Judge.
There was one additional Judge of the Supreme Court who was away at the time of the original judgment. He had come back but then if you added him then the number of the Supreme Court Judges was going to be ten and you needed an odd number for a decision. So out of necessity the Government nominated one additional Judge so that the number of the Supreme Court Judges could be eleven; this cannot by any stretch of imagination be interpreted as deliberate or intentional or malicious; it was out of necessity to keep the machinery of justice moving.
Mr. Mahama Ayariga 1 p.m.
On a point of order! Mr. Speaker, my hon. Colleague on the other side is misleading this House. Mr. Speaker, my hon. Colleague is obviously not a lawyer but there is no doubt that there is no “necessity” under our Constitution to add more Judges to the Bench in order to have the review jurisdiction exercised. The same nine Judges who took the decision under our Constitution can, in fact, review their own decision. So to say that additional appointment was necessary in order for the court to exercise its review of its decision is completely misleading this House and the whole nation.
Mr. Joe Ghartey 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, with respect, that position is completely wrong. In the High Court and in the Court of Appeal, the Judge or the panel that takes the decision has the power to review it. In the Constitution - [Interruption.]
Mr. A. K. Agbesi 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that a point of order was taken and it is for Mr. Speaker to rule on that but another Member is also up on the same point.
Mr. Speaker 1 p.m.
Yes, you are right. A point of order was raised. Hon. Members, I would advise that this question of the Judiciary should be kept out of our arguments. You may all think in terms of separation of powers, so please, as far as possible, we should not bring the Judiciary into this argument.
Mr. Ghartey 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with you on the separation of powers but this is a point of information and I think it is important for all of us, especially those of us in this House to know the correct position of the Constitution. I was saying that in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal, the same panel or the same Judge has the power to review his decision.
rose
Mr. Speaker 1 p.m.
As I said, I will not entertain you. Hon. Member, please wind up.
Nana Akomea 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, an issue was again raised about the number of Ministers. Mr. Speaker, there is no constitutional cap on the numbers of Ministers. The numbers of Ministers adequate for any political administration is subject to interpretation of whoever is the head of Government; there is no constitutional matter on the number of
Ministers.
Indeed, when the President was not the President of this country he had definite ideas about the size of government; when he came into government those ideas changed and he was brave enough to come to this country and say that his idea on the size of government has changed; and he apologised. This is the mark of a great leader. [Hear! Hear!] Mr. Speaker, this is an action that should not be used against the President. The President changed his mind and - [Interruption.]
Mr. E. T. Mensah 1 p.m.
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend is misleading this House. He said, “when the President came to this country” - Is it because he has been a visiting President that he would want to allude to that fact? “. . . came to this country, he changed his mind”. Where was he; where did he come from? [Laughter.]
Mr. Speaker 1 p.m.
Hon. Member, please continue and wind up. We do not have much time.
Nana Akomea 1:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Prampram is my good Friend. Indeed, I call him “Washington” so I do not want to be nasty to him because of our friendship, so he should not try to be nasty to me. Mr. Speaker, what I said was that when the President changed his mind he came before the country -- that is what I said; and when he came before the country he admitted that he has had a change of mind as far as the size of government is concerned; and I said that this is the mark of a leader who is prepared to face up to an issue; that was what I said. The President deserves congratulations for coming before the country and admitting that “My views on this matter were not correct and I have changed them;” and this should not be used against him; rather he should be
congratulated.

Mr. Speaker, the issue about the fragility of the Ghanaian economy has been mentioned. Mr. Speaker, why? The economy is fragile; everybody admits that; but in the same breath as we say that the economy is fragile, for the sake of objectivity, we should also mention the strengths that the Ghanaian economy has taken on in the last couple of years, otherwise we would not be doing a fair assessment of the matter. It is true that our economy is fragile; we are still dependent to a large extent, on donor funding and external funding.

But we cannot also run away from the fact that in the last four or five years we have achieved a level of macro economic stability that has never been achieved in any corresponding five years in this country since the year 1981. We cannot run away from that fact, that the macro stability that we have achieved from the year 2001 to date has never been achieved in any corresponding period in this country, and so one cannot run away from that fact; one cannot run away from it and say that the economy is not good.

If we look at the Gross Domestic

Product (GDP) growth we have had consistent increase in GDP growth from the year 2001-2005. There has been no corresponding period in this country that we have had such consistent GDP growth. So when one talks about the fragility of the economy one must also mention this, that we are doing well; we are making progress and at the end of the day, that is the point of the matter. We are measuring progress, we are not measuring absolutes. If one looks at reserves, for example, from less than $300 million we now have

reserves of $1.7 billion; this is progress. And so while we admit that the economy is fragile, we should also admit that we have made progress; otherwise, we would not be making a fair assessment of ourselves.
Mr. Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Hon. Member, you may be winding up.
Nana Akomea 1:10 p.m.
Now, no journalist stands the risk of going to jail because of what he writes or what he says; that is a very good assessment of a government or the government of President Kufuor.
Mr. Speaker, let me wind up by saying - The hon. Minority Leader is looking at me expectantly and so I will wind up. Let me say that this report is something that all of us should take pride in; we should look at it with non-partisan eyes, for one never knows which government would be coming on after the next election, that all of us in a bi-partisan manner can see the shortfalls and the strong points and try and strengthen the shortfalls and not try and score political points out of this report.
Mr. E. K. D. Adjaho 1:10 p.m.
(NDc -- Avenor/Ave): Mr. Speaker, I must say -- and I do not want to hide my feelings -- that I am totally disappointed at the Statement made this morning by the hon. Minister for Regional Co-operation and NEPAD (Dr. Kofi Konadu Apraku) for only two reasons; and these are going to be the only subject matter of my comments.
Firstly, listening carefully to the hon. Minister who made the Statement, one of the reasons for the so-called
Mr. E. K. D. Adjaho 1:10 p.m.


And so how serious are we when we talk about the country's assessment when we have not even seen the report? The hon. Minority Leader has not seen the report and I doubt whether the hon. Majority Leader has seen the report. If he has seen it, he can say so; he is part of the Executive. Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the report and here we are talking about it and passing our comments when we have not seen the country's assessment report. Where do we stand? The misconceptions will continue, the problems will continue.

The whole APRM process, the involvement of Parliament will then be pushed to the background. I think that after today, the hon. Minister will take steps to make sure that, at least, copies of the country report are made available to this House so that together, as Parliament, as the people's representatives we will be fighting our way forward in addressing some of those concerns that have been raised in the report.
Mr. Speaker 1:10 p.m.
I was wondering whether the hon. Minority Leader wanted to add something. Or do you think that is enough?
Mr. A. S. K. Bagbin (NDc-- Nadowli West) 1:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, actually, I wanted to add a few points. Even though it is a statement, I have seen my Colleague the hon. Minister taking down notes, maybe, in an attempt to respond, but this procedure, I do not know whether Mr. Speaker can extend it to that level. When one makes a statement, people make comments and that is it. There is no debate on it and so the hon. Minister does not have the opportunity to react to what they have said. Unfortunately, we may need to move to another stage where Parliament
itself can properly be involved in this whole process of governance.
1. 20 p.m.
I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that we congratulate the local team which was actually led by Prof. S. K. Agyepong -- I hope I am correct -- for coming out with a report that has generated debate. I believe it is because of the objectivity of the report that both sides of the political divide are picking and choosing. When you pick and choose the tendency is that you fall into the trap that you set for yourself, and that is what is happening even on this floor.
It is not just country review, it is not just
regime review; it is also person review. When you go through the whole report you would see that there are comments that go to the entire nation; there are some comments that go to the regime, and there are some comments that are pointing to the leadership, that is the President himself; and that is what the review is about. As a country, I believe strongly that we should take it up as a challenge and see how far we can improve upon the areas of governance and, in fact, take the political advantage on the continent.
Mr. Speaker, I also believe that this was an opportunity for us, as a House, to fashion out a process by which we could always input continuously to the process. I recall the experts meeting in Kenya where this idea was mooted as to how to involve Parliaments in the continent, in the whole process of NEPAD and this African Peer Review Mechanism.
Mr. Speaker, after that conference they established what they call a Parliamentary Contact Group but I am not sure we have that Parliamentary Contact Group in this Parliament; I am not aware of its existence. Is it not right for us to set up a
-- 1:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Hon. Majority Leader, I know you are up but very important matters have been raised and I think I would be failing in my duty if I do not exercise my discretion in calling upon the hon. Minister who is here and give him some five minutes to deal with some of these very important matters which have been raised here.
Mr. owusu-Adjapong 1:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that should be after my contribution -- [Interruption] -- I want to talk because he has got to directly respond to what I may say.
Mr. Speaker, I join my hon. Colleagues in congratulating the hon. Minister for NEPAD for making this representation this morning. There are a lot of lessons,
Mr. owusu-Adjapong 1:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, my hon. Colleague, the hon. Deputy Minority Leader asked whether Parliament or my Office was contacted during these deliberations and the response I give to him is no; neither my Ministry nor the Leadership of the House was involved. I have checked with the Clerk's Office and there was no such invitation to Parliament; so if anybody tries to suggest that Parliament was involved then he needs to stretch the definition of Parliament.
What I have now been made aware of is that members of the Foreign Affairs Committee were involved. In my opinion, if it were going to be a representation of the House, through a committee, it could not have been the Committee on Foreign Affairs; it could have been another committee, probably, a joint committee here and there. So these are all lessons that are coming out and therefore we expect that our hon. Colleague, the Minister, would take this on board.
I remember in the last Parliament I suggested to him that we even needed to be briefed on the whole concept of NEPAD, but time was not available and therefore we could not do it. Perhaps, it is time that we started with some basic principles and get him to come and brief us on this whole concept of NEPAD and the whole concept of this Peer Review Mechanism and, of course, end up with what has been done.
I am saying this because when the report was supposed to have been made available to the public the hon. Minority Leader and I were not around; but what we were being told -- and a lot of things have been said here and there, including the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs and hon. Members of Parliament not becoming Ministers. I was asked about this in London and my response was that I do not gossip on matters and not until I see a copy
of the report it would be wrong for me to comment on the matter; because they are also fallible and they can err.
Therefore, it is for us now to make an appeal to the hon. Minister and if he is convinced that there is such document, then a copy needs to be made available to Parliament, and depending upon its size, we would decide what we would do next.
Mr. Speaker, this country can develop only through us; anybody else is helping and therefore when it comes to matters we should be bold to say what we know is right. I therefore hope that in future the Members, whether it is the Eminent Group, the Research Group, or the Technical Group, would accept one basic principle in all matters of interview that the people being assessed have always got to be given the opportunity to comment on what they are doing. Failure to do that does not make it a transparent report and I believe we would look at it.

As regards my Ministry, luckily we always say that we are hybrid, and therefore when I read the report I will make a comment on it, except that I am pleased to inform you that in Britain the whole of the Cabinet Ministers are Members of Parliament. The Prime Minister who leads the Government is a Member of Parliament and in addition to that they have a Leader of the House who is a Cabinet Member.

Please do not let us throw our history away and jump onto things. That is why I believe that good comments can be made by all of us after we have got a copy of the report. I hope that in future this major error, a poor definition of the title “stakeholders” -- [Interruption.] Because there could not have been any major stakeholder than Parliament, there could not have been any major stakeholder than my Ministry. I believe that in future

we shall do the right thing and continue to progress.
Mr. Speaker 1:30 p.m.
Hon. Minister for
Regional Cooperation and NEPAD, I am giving you the opportunity to comment, but very briefly.
Dr. K. K. Apraku 1:30 p.m.
Thank you, Mr.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at what has happened over the last few weeks, maybe a week or so since the report came out, you would come to believe that the President may have been very bold because of the possibility of misrepre-sentation, misunderstanding and misconception and the use that such a document could be put to for political purposes. Today, our country is becoming divided because people have chosen aspects of the report that they can use to advance their own political interests; and they have done so on both sides of the political divide.

When I started my Statement, I said that this was not a review of any particular political party or government. But indeed it could be, to the extent that government constitutes the executive arm of government, such as the parliamentary and all the other institutions; that a review at a particular point in time may be reflective of the government in power, as much as maybe going backwards it is reflective of governments that may have been in power in the past. But the problems that we have now, Mr. Speaker, are that the report is not out and therefore I cannot make that report available to

Parliament.

The report would be out only after August when the review process would have come to an end. I am not showing any disrespect to my hon. Colleagues or to this institution by not releasing the report. So please, I want that understood clearly. And because it has not been released and people are just picking aspects of it, things are being taken out of context.
Mr. Bagbin 1:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, he is rather confusing us because he started by saying that the report is not ready, but now he is referring to a report. He has to distinguish between them; he has to differentiate. He is talking about the report of the eminent persons, which is still part of the process; because when he says that the report is not ready but then he is referring to a report.
Dr. Apraku 1:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to confuse them. The report has been completed but it would now be subjected to a review, that is, the Peer Review itself. And there is a little technical distinction. When we went to Abuja we just presented the report on the assumption that we would have had adequate time for the Peer Review itself to take place.
The Heads of State indicated that they had not had the opportunity to read the entire report so comments on the report could be made -- A major presentation was made, a powerpoint presentation was made and two reports were presented --
the Country Report and the Panel Report -- and extensive discussions took place. But the actual review -- the extensive detailed review of the report has not taken place and when that would have taken place -- [Interruption] -- It does not mean that the report is not ready. It is the discussion of the report, extensive discussion of the report which will take place in August -- [Interruption.]
rose
Mr. Speaker 1:30 p.m.
Hon. Minority Leader, do you have any point of order to raise?
Mr. Bagbin 1:30 p.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am now getting him right, which means that the report is ready.
Dr. Apraku 1:30 p.m.
Yes, it is.
Mr. Bagbin 1:30 p.m.
Yes, and we are saying that we need a copy of that report. After the review by them they will make their comments. That is their duty. We, as a House, also need that report because we can also make comments.
Mr. Speaker 1:30 p.m.
Hon. Minority Leader, you have made your point, let him go on.
Dr. Apraku 1:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction. The report, according to the APRM Document, can only be released by the African Union (AU) and, in fact, it stipulates clearly that the report would be released six months after the review process.
So even though we have completed it -- And this is not something Ghana decided; this is not the choice of Ghana, that we can show hon. Members. It is said in the report that we are pushing for an early release because of the political misunderstanding and perhaps even sometimes misrepresentation. So the report itself and the whole process will
rose
Mr. Speaker 1:30 p.m.
Hon. Member, do you have a point of order to raise?
Dr. Kunbuor 1:30 p.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker. I want some clarification from the hon. Member. There is a document that is already on the website; is it the report or not? Was it with the permission of the AU that it was so posted? That is my difficulty.
Mr. Speaker 1:30 p.m.
Hon. Member for Lawra/Nandom, this is not the time for cross-examination, let him continue.
Dr. Apraku 1:30 p.m.
I am not aware of the particular document that he is referring to, so I cannot be precise; but I know that the Secretariat in South Africa has posted something on their website. Technically the report can only be released -- I am just speaking on what the rules are by AU. People have had access to the report through various ways -- [Interruptions.]
Mr. E. T. Mensah 1:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, in the hon. Majority Leader's presentation he indicated that lessons have been learnt by all of us including the Minister. We have a technical mechanism for releasing the report by the AU and as a major stakeholder, that is Parliament, we have not seen the report. That is our difficulty; we need to see the report as well. He was in London; people were interviewing him and he looked, excuse me to say, stupid
because he had not seen the report. So that is the angle that we want him to address.
Dr. Apraku 1:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I can only say that the release of the report is not the discretion of either the Minister or even the Government. The rules are very clear; the report would be released by the AU. Let me take their suggestions on board and see what I can do. But it is not the discretion of this Government to release the report.
Let me also say that the issues that have been raised are many and maybe given time constraint I would not be able to address them. But let me say that there are both good aspects and bad aspects to the report and it spreads over governments. Even where the emphasis has been on this current Government, on the issue of governance, the report is very clear that some beginning may have been made by the NDC -- and that has been brought up -- and perhaps improvement has been seen within the last two years. That is not a bad reflection.
When they talked about the fragility of the economy, which my good hon. Friend, Nana Akomea has done very well in answering, even when one takes the circumstances in which we find ourselves, that we think is not perfect, one would see that there has been continuous movement in the area of improvement in respect of macro-economic performance, in the area of freedom of the press, in the area of respect for human rights and many of the other areas. These are documented as reflecting improvement over time and that is what we expect will happen.
Now, I will respond to the issue of where the report is. The report is not available now. On the issue of the governing council, raised by my hon. Colleague, the Deputy Minority Leader, yes, it is an issue that we have referred to and I will come back and deal with
that issue. We are not trying to avoid the issue. The issue is not so easy to handle but we will nevertheless come back to inform hon. Members as to what the Attorney- General's recommendation is, in that respect.

One of my hon.Colleagues mentioned that we went to Abuja to defend something. We did not go to Abuja to defend anything. We went to Abuja to present a report and to respond to criticisms and suggestions that would come out of the report; so it was not a question of going there to defend a particular position as much as providing the answers and our responses to issues that came out of the report.
Mr. Dan Abodakpi 1:40 p.m.
On a point of
order. Mr. Speaker, I have an explicit point of order, that having listened to the various contributors from both sides of the House, having listened to our concerns, I thought that my hon. Colleague would just take note of those concerns, take them on board and then we bring this matter to a close. Because, the issues that he is raising, we have not seen the report. As a House we have not seen the report, but he is referring to the report, all the time. It is most unfair to the House to be making comments on a report that it had not seen. So he should just take note of the comments and then do the right thing the next time.
Mr. Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Hon. Minister, I hope you are taking this on board in winding up.
Dr. Apraku 1:40 p.m.
Very so much, Mr.
Speaker. There are issues that have been raised that obviously we need to take on board, but there are issues of misconception or misunderstanding that I thought needed to be clarified, so I was trying to do that. If perhaps because of time constraint we cannot do that, it is important for me, for example, to state that the connection that I made between the African Commission's Report and the need for resources to implement the recommendations coming out of the report is very timely.
Mr. Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Hon. Minister, hon. Members have raised a very fundamental matter that they have very little idea about this programme, NEPAD and also the mechanism which -- So I think you should take that on board and maybe come back later on, because that is a fundamental matter they have raised.
Mr. owusu-Adjapong 1:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I believe an important issue has been brought to the floor. Officially, this report has not been released but from the response the Minister gave to the hon. Minority Leader, it is on the Internet. I believe that in such situations we need to find a way of then making the report available to Parliament, because if it has been put on the internet by the secretariat then it has ceased to be a private document;
Mr. Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Hon. Member for
Lawra/Nandom, do you have a further comment on that?
Dr. Kunbuor 1:40 p.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think the difficulty that we are having is that beyond what is supposed to be the report on the internet, we have also seen attributes to Government spokespersons talking to the report. And this is one thing that they should have taken the lead to appreciate the fact that there is a particular context in which the report would be in the public domain. That is what I referred to, which the hon. Minister is responding to. It was not me who indicated that they went to defend anything; it was attributed to the Government spokesperson.
Mr. Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Anyway, hon. Minister, I hope you would wind up now.
Dr. Apraku 1:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, to be honest with you, I am not even aware that the report is on the internet. After this session I would go back to the internet and see whether what is there is indeed the authentic report; it may well
be some other report and it may not also be comprehensive enough, it may be a summary of the report.
I would take a look at it and I would confer with the NEPAD Secretariat in South Africa if there is any possibility to release the report earlier than the day which has been stipulated in the APRM document. Otherwise, I think we have had a healthy debate or discussion here. Issues that have been raised, have been raised with sincerity and goodwill and we intend to use this document as a basis of building consensus and advancing our national development.
I thank you and appreciate the comments that have been made.
Mr. Speaker 1:40 p.m.
At the Commencement of Public Business -- Laying of Papers. Minister for Energy?
PAPERS 1:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Item 7 -- Committee Sittings -- Leadership, any directions now?
Mr. owusu-Adjapong 1:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, after this meaningful debate on the floor of this House, I think it is right time that we allowed the committees that were supposed to have commenced meeting at 12.00 o'clock, 12.30 p.m. to move. I therefore move that this House do adjourn till tomorrow 10.00 o'clock in the morning.
Mr. Bagbin 1:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
ADJoURNMENT
  • The House was accordingly adjourned at 1.48 p.m. till 30th June, 2005 at 10.00 a.m.