Debates of 11 Jul 2006

MR. SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10 a.m.
CORRECTION OF VOTES 10 a.m.
AND PROCEEDINGS AND 10 a.m.
THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker 10 a.m.
Order! Order! Correction of Votes and Proceedings, Friday, 7th July 2006. Pages 1, 2, 3 . . . 6.
Mr. Lee Ocran 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, on both
Thursday, 6th July 2006 and Friday, 7th July 2006, members of the Committee on Environment, Science and Technology were in the Western Region, but all of us have been marked absent. We were all in the Western Region.
Mr. Speaker 10 a.m.
The correction will be
done.
Mr. John Gyetuah 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the
same problem. Members of the Committee on Transport were on a working visit to the Western Region but all the members have been marked absent. So there is the need for rectification.
Mr. Speaker 10 a.m.
Yes, the correction will
be done.
Pages 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. [No corrections

Hon. Members, we have the Official

Reports for Tuesday, 4th July 2006 and Wednesday, 5th July 2006. [No

We now move to item 3 -- Urgent

Question.

Hon. Minister for Health -- [Pause.] Hon. Majority Leader, is the hon. Minister for Health in the House?
Mr. Felix Owusu-Adjapong 10 a.m.
Mr.
Speaker, as we discussed at the briefing this morning, the hon. Minister is not immediately available and I want to crave your indulgence to allow the Deputy Minister, who is also a Member of Parliament, to stand in for him.
URGENT QUESTION 10 a.m.
Minister for Health) 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the guinea-worm disease is endemic in Ghana but more prevalent in areas where there is no safe drinking water. The most affected areas are the regions and districts that lie within the Volta Basin, principally in the Northern, Volta and Brong Ahafo Regions.
When the Ghana Guinea-Worm Eradication Programme was launched in 1989, there were nearly 180,000 cases in all regions/districts in Ghana. The case load has since reduced by about 98 per cent to 3,981 cases at the end of 2005. As at the third week in June 2006, Ghana has recorded 2,445 cases of guinea-worm disease compared with 2,699 cases for the same period last year, an insignificant
reduction of only 8 per cent. The current state of affairs is the result of sporadic outbreaks recorded in some villages, principally in Savelugu-Nanton, Tolon- Kumbungu, Tamale and Yendi districts in the Northern Region and Pru District in the Brong Ahafo Region. Pru District is one of only 20 districts that account for nearly 98 per cent of all guinea-worm cases in Ghana today.
Pru District was originally part of the Atebubu District and until this year, guinea-worm incidence in that area was measured for the entire district, the old Atebubu District. It was and is still a known fact that most of the endemic villages are from the sub-districts that make up the current Pru District, with its capital at Yeji.
During 2004, the old Atebubu District recorded 167 cases, with 160 of these coming from villages that make up the present Pru District. During 2005 the figures were 194 and 181 respectively. So far this year, of 74 cases reported from the Old Atebubu District, 57 cases, that is, 77 per cent of the total number of cases are from the Pru District.
Pru District is, therefore, the most endemic district in the Brong Ahafo Region. Only few villages, principally two, are responsible for most of the cases in Pru District. For example, 51 per cent of all cases in 2005 were from only two villages -- Bankama and Anyingbi. From January to May this year, 43 per cent of all cases reported were from the village of Mempeasem.
Since the second half of 2005, the Ministry of Health, through the National Guinea-Worm Eradication Programme and the Brong Ahafo Regional and Pru District Health Services, have progressively
supported district level field staff with technical and logistic assistance including the allocation of four motor cycles and 21 bicycles.
In addition, health education activities, including durbars, school health education, opinion leaders meetings, video shows, dramas, and regular door-to-door health education have been stepped up.
Regular household checks are being made to ensure that each household in endemic villages has a cloth filter and those who are eligible carry a pipe filter with them. Water sources that are identified as potential sources of contamination are treated with ABATE on a monthly basis.
As part of the awareness creation and social mobilization drive, the Ministry of Health led a team of partners from the WHO, the Carter Centre and UNICEF to visit some endemic districts, including Savelugu, Tamale, Kintampo and Pru last April. The team interacted with guinea- worm patients, volunteers and other frontline health workers, local chiefs and opinion leaders and the District Assemblies. The team also visited some contaminated water sources, assessed the general situation on the ground and offered technical advice.
We are very happy with the lead role that was taken by the Pru District Assembly in social mobilization and awareness creation. It is expected that all these activities will lead to a reduction in the number of cases this year.
Mr. Masoud 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think we
know that this guinea-worm infection, the life cycle of the organism has to do with contaminated water. So I would want to know whether there are any immediate
plans by his Ministry to provide boreholes to the inhabitants of the area.
Mr. Owusu-Agyei 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
this is not part of the Question but I will attempt to answer it. What I know is that a couple of years ago, ¢21 billion or so was released by the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning to the Ministry of Water Resources, Works and Housing to provide boreholes. Also, in 2003/2004, $1.5 million has been released. I am also informed that some funds are still being released for guinea-worm eradication programmes, including water supplies in the guinea-worm endemic areas.
I would like to assure the hon. Member that water supply, being the most essential aspect of eradicating guinea-worm, is taken note of and Government is addressing this particular issue. As we are aware, boreholes are being provided, on phase basis, in accordance with our limited resources.
Mr. A. Umar Abdul-Razaq 10:10 a.m.
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to find out from the hon. Deputy Minister the ranking of Ghana in terms of guinea-worm infestation.
Mr. Owusu-Agyei 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
know that Ghana ranks very high among just a couple of countries which are endemic with respect to guinea-worm; that is the reason why Government is making every effort to make sure that guinea- worm is eradicated.
Mr. Mahama Ayariga 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
the hon. Deputy Minister says that Ghana ranks very high. Mr. Speaker, I want to know exactly where Ghana ranks and in relation to which countries, et cetera.
Mr. Owusu-Agyei 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, according to the count, Ghana was second in ranking, but in terms of the numbers involved, it is not as high; I would give
him some figures and he can compare the figures for a few years back with the figures we have this year.
Mr. Speaker 10:10 a.m.
We move on to item 4.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 10:10 a.m.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Owusu-Agyei 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, it is assumed that the hon. Member of Parliament is interested in knowing the current status of the implementation of the National Health Insurance Scheme
(NHIS).
The NHIS is being implemented in stages. The current status of implemen- tation of the NHIS is as follows:
1. 125 District-wide Mutual Health Insurance Schemes have been established;
2. 125 schemes are managing claims, that is, insured members with identity cards can now access healthcare without having to pay out-of-pocket at the time of service delivery;
3. Again 25 per cent of the Ghanaian population has been duly registered, and of this, 10 per cent are holding cards to be able to access healthcare.
Our target for year 2005 was 10 per cent coverage, and by the close of 2005, the coverage was almost 18 per cent. Based on this accelerated performance,
the target for 2006 has been set at 50 per cent coverage.
We are hoping to achieve this target by the end of the year, as the issues of logistics are being addressed.
Mr. Speaker, the current levels of registration and participation are as expected, based on evidence from the pilot areas. This is due mainly to the “wait and see” attitude of many Ghanaians. For instance, it took the Nkoranza Scheme, almost 13 years to achieve the high levels of registration and participation they are currently enjoying.
Mr. Kuntu-Blankson 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know from the hon. Deputy Minister why the remaining ninety per cent are not holding cards, and how they would access the scheme if they fall sick.
Mr. Owusu-Agyei 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the
reason the remaining ninety per cent are not holding cards is due to logistics. We need computers, technical know-how to get this done. We have the technical know-how but we lack the number of computers we require to make sure that all those who have registered are provided with cards and are able to access healthcare. But normally, we have a waiting period. When one registers, there is a period within which you are supposed to have access to healthcare. So it means that at whatever time one is provided with the card, that is the registration card, one can access healthcare.
Mr. Kuntu Blankson 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
would like to know from the hon. Deputy Minister what factors his Ministry has considered before saying that they would achieve fifty per cent coverage in 2006.
Mr. Owusu-Agyei 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
would like to assure the hon. Member that this fifty per cent figure came from the current performance. As I indicated last year, we targeted about ten per cent registration and we ended the year with eighteen per cent registration.
All indications, with regard to the performance of this year, show that by the end of the year, we should be able to register fifty per cent of the entire population.
Mr. Kuntu-Blankson 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
he said in his response that knowing the Ghanaian attitude of “wait and see” -- I would like to know what mechanism he has put in place in order to address this attitude.
Mr. Owusu-Agyei 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Member is aware of this “wait and see” attitude that might have happened also in his constituency. People were not very sure and certain about the benefits that they were going to derive from the National Health Insurance Scheme. They were not even sure whether it was going to succeed or not; but after the initial success, people are now rushing to register -- [Interruption.] Yes, we are succeeding. So with the initial success that we are achieving in the various districts, inhabitants are now rushing to register; that is the evidence.
Illnesses Covered by the N.H.I.S
Q. 493. Mr. George Kuntu-Blankson
asked the Minister for Health what illnesses were covered under the National Health Insurance Council.
Mr. Owusu-Agyei 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the National Health Insurance Council (NHIC) has a minimum package of diseases that are covered under the scheme. These are diseases treated at the primary, secondary, and some referred tertiary cases. This package covers about
Mr. Kuntu-Blankson 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know from the hon. Deputy Minister, in the event of somebody reporting with a disease which cannot be found in the guidelines or the list of diseases.
Mr. Owusu-Agyei 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, in the event that any inhabitant of Ghana is afflicted with a disease not listed, the first course of action is to report to the primary level for healthcare, and the insurance scheme has the mandate under the law to pay any fee which covers a disease to be treated at the tertiary level.
Mr. Kuntu-Blankson 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know from the hon. Deputy Minister, what mechanism have they put in place for those diseases which are not listed and how they will be able to monitor to get value-for-money.
Mr. Owusu-Agyei 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, if I
understood the question properly, the hon. Member is asking about those diseases which are not listed and how we are going to get value-for-money.
Normally, if an insurance scheme would pay for a disease not listed at the primary level, it is the insurance scheme which makes reference to the tertiary level, and whatever happens with regard to the treatment -- will be referred to the insurance scheme. So on that basis, the reason why the insurance scheme is
involved is the fact that we want to make sure that we obtain value-for-money for whatever payment that we make for the treatment.
So the fact that the disease burden has been referred to the tertiary level by the insurance scheme, it also lies on the insurance scheme, the burden of making sure that it monitors and makes sure that we pay for the value of treatment accorded a particular patient.
Mr. Kuntu-Blankson 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I would like to also know from the hon. Deputy Minister, under which guidelines private institutions accredited to offer health services are going to operate.
Mr. Owusu-Agyei 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, under
the Insurance Act and the Regulation, the guidelines are listed. They are very elaborate and these passed through us here in this House.
Mr. Speaker, in order not to take the time of this august House, I will refer the hon. Member to the Legislative Instrument (L.I.) and he will see all the criteria listed there.
Mr. E. K. Bandua 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
want to find out from the hon. Deputy Minister that assuming someone who is registered under the scheme attends hospital and after having been examined, the hospital is not able to provide him with the prescribed drugs, if the person purchases the drugs out of his own means, would he be reimbursed, and if so where are the claims to be lodged?
Mr. Owusu-Agyei 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, if I got the question correctly, it was that, if a patient has been given prescribed drugs and the drugs are not available in that facility and he has to purchase the drugs outside -- Is that the question? If that is the question, yes. If the drugs have been prescribed by the doctor, the insurance
scheme will have to pay even if the person purchases from a private pharmacy shop which has been accredited.
Implementation of NHIS ( Role of Private Health Institutions)
Q. 494. Mr. George Kuntu-Blankson asked the Minister for Health what role private health institutions would play in the implementation of the NHIS.
Mr. Owusu-Agyei 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Private Health Institutions provide clinical services to patients on individual basis or to patients belonging to corporate organisations or institutions based on agreement between the facility and the organisation or the institution.
Under the health insurance scheme, private facilities will continue to provide the same services to patients who are registered with health insurance schemes. However, this will be based on a system of accreditation which will enable the schemes enter into agreements with private institutions to provide services to their clients at an agreed cost and quality. The accreditation exercise serves to guarantee a minimum standard in terms of quality of service.
The programme of accreditation is in place and some private facilities such as medical laboratories and pharmacies are already engaged in the provision of service. Claims based on such services are submitted to the district mutual health insurance schemes for payment.
Mr. Kuntu-Blankson 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, what monitoring mechanisms are put in place to make sure that those who patronise the private health institutions will be able to receive quality service and value-for-money?
Mr. Owusu-Agyei 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the
issue here is that if a private health facility
does not qualify in terms of the criteria set out in the L.I., there is no reason why that facility will be accredited. So we make sure that any facility which is accredited satisfies certain requirements, and we make sure that when those requirements are satisfied, there must be monitoring of the standards as and when we undertake the Health Insurance Scheme.
Mr. Kuntu-Blankson 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I would like to know from the hon. Deputy Minister, in saying that there are mechanisms or parameters or guidelines set for operation of those private institutions and based on that they will issue them the fiat to be able to operate -- I would like to know from him, if yes, what are the modus operandi that they are going to use in monitoring them? Because the mere fact that they have given them the contract does not end there; they must monitor and make sure that that contract is executed to its logical conclusion.
Mr. Owusu-Agyei 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
would like to assure the hon. Member that just as we monitor government health facilities, the National Health Insurance Council and the Secretariat will set out criteria for monitoring private health institutions. It is really important that the monitoring of private health institution is done more vigorously and rigorously than even the public health institutions.
Mr. Bradford D. K. Adu 10:30 a.m.
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to know from the Deputy Minister why it takes a long time after an applicant has gone through the formalities to get insurance card.
Mr. Owusu-Agyei 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
mentioned earlier on that logistic problems partially account for the delay in issuing identity cards. But even if identity cards are issued immediately, there is the need for a gestation period, a certain number

of months according to the criteria for accessing benefits. If that is not done, the danger is that just see a situation where somebody will not register and will wait until the last minute when he has a major disease burden.

For instance, I may have a major disease burden today and then tomorrow I go and register and be able to assess the cost involved. Because of that there is a reason why we should all wait and have a short gestation period before we assess the benefit.
Mr. F. K. Agbotse 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I would like to find out from the hon. Deputy Minister whether he is aware that some private hospitals, including Trust Hospital belonging to SSNIT do not accept the National Health Insurance Identity card, and that some of the private pharmacies do not dispense again because of what they have dispensed and have not been paid for.
Mr. Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Hon. Member, which
question do you want him to answer? There are two questions, which one do you want him to answer?
Mr. Agbotse 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I know
Mr. Owusu-Agyei 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the
first question is the SSNIT Hospital which does not provide services with regard to the National Health Insurance Scheme. I will have to find out whether it has been accredited yet. Every hospital will have to be accredited before it can provide service, so I will have to find out.
Then also, the second question related to payment of drugs. What exactly was the question? Claims -- why we are not paying? The issue is that the
National Health Insurance Secretariat settles all the claims on monthly basis. So probably, if any particular pharmacy shop is not providing drugs because there are outstanding claims, maybe there must be some lapse, some short delay in the payment.
But I want to assure my hon. Member Colleague that the claims are paid on a regular basis, currently. At least, by the end of the month, so long as the claims are submitted through the Secretariat, payment will be made.
So I will urge all those pharmacy shops
which are holding claims and have not submitted them to submit them to the Secretariat and payment will be made.
Mr. Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Question 459.
Alhaji Collins Dauda 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
hon. Sarfo-Mensah is in his constituency presently and with your permission, if I may ask the Question.
Mr. Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Go ahead.
Goaso District Hospital (Ambulance)
Q. 549. Alhaji Collins Dauda (on
behalf of Mr. Robert Sarfo-Mensah) asked the Minister for Health what plans the Ministry had to provide an ambulance for the Goaso District Hospital.
Mr. Owusu-Agyei 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the National Ambulance Service has a programme for the distribution of ambulances to the various health facilities. Currently the Service has taken delivery of 91 new ambulances and will be distributed to the various health facilities according to a certain criteria developed with the Ghana Health Service and other stakeholders.
The Goaso District Hospital has been earmarked in the programme to receive one (1) ambulance soon.
Alhaji Dauda 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, is the hon. Deputy Minister suggesting that the Goaso District Hospital will benefit from the 91 new ambulances that have been taken delivery of?
Mr. Owusu-Agyei 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
would like to assure the hon. Member that the Goaso District Hospital will benefit from one of the ambulances. Ever since I answered a similar Question last week or two weeks ago, I seem to be receiving an avalanche of requests for 91 ambulances in all. I want to assure my hon. Member that he will receive one of the ambulances from this particular consignment.
Alhaji Dauda 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want to
know from the hon. Deputy Minister how soon the distribution will be made of the 91 ambulances.
Mr. Owusu-Agyei 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
would like to assure the hon. Member that the ambulances are being distributed and very soon he will receive his share.
Alhaji Dauda 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, because
the distribution is going on, the Deputy hon. Minister should be able to say that in two weeks' time or in three weeks' time the distribution would have ended and Goaso would have taken delivery of one of the ambulances. I just want to know how soon his “soon” is likely to be.
Mr. Owusu-Agyei 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I would have to get in touch with the National Ambulance Service. I know that they have started the distribution but I know that within a matter of one month or even less, the distribution would be completed; and he is going to receive his.
Mr. Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Hon. Deputy Minister
for Health, thank you very much for appearing to answer these Questions. You are discharged.
Minister for Communications. [Pause.] Question 387.
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS 10:30 a.m.
Prof. A. M. Oquaye 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Apam Community FM Station, which operated on FM 96.5 MHz, was a facility under the purview of the Ghana Broadcasting Corporation (GBC) and for that matter the Ministry of Information and National Orientation. In this regard, should an application be made by the community through GBC, the National Communication Authority on its part has indicated that it could grant authorization for reopening the station guided by the guidelines on the operation of a Community Radio Station.
Mr. J. K. Hackman 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
am very much aware that the frequency, 96.5 has been given to Obonu FM Station. Could the Minister assure us that we would be able to regain our frequency?
Prof. Oquaye 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, a number
of commercialization arrangements are made in the FM management by the National Communications Authority from time to time. Mr. Speaker, it was under one such arrangement that the particular allocation was made. If an application is made it will be considered accordingly and the relevant community will be given the frequency.
Mr. Kingsley Hackman 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, could the hon. Minister give us guidelines
Prof. Oquaye 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, an
identifiable community may make an application for a community radio station. Mr. Speaker, this must be operated by the community. The management should be in the hands of those who listen to it, in other words, community-based people. Mr. Speaker, as much as possible, a District Assembly may be involved or individuals or corporate bodies or NGOs associated or identified with the community in question, so as to give it the community character that will enable a licence to be issued.
If I may add, Mr. Speaker, any eligible community desirous of setting up such a radio station may apply to the National Communication Authority (NCA) which will process the application; and upon being granted authorization this will be operated accordingly. All applicants must submit a letter of commitment that will be signed by such community-based people, as I have already indicated.
The authorization would be for a period of five years but subject to a yearly renewal to ensure that everything is being done properly. If broadcasts are made which offend good taste, religion or become tools of divisiveness in the society, these are likely to be matters that the NCA will take into account, if the facility should continue to be enjoyed. But as much as possible, the idea is to liberalize the air waves and to enable the communities to participate in broadcasting in a manner that would educate, entertain and also help in the socialization of the various communities.
Phone Booths in Ningo Prampram Constituency
Prof. Mike Oquaye 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
a survey is currently being conducted in many areas in the country, including the Ningo Prampram area by the Payphone Unit of Ghana Telecom to identify locations where the community can have easy access for the installation of fixed cellular terminals (FCT) to which public payphones will be connected. The survey will be completed by August 2006 after which the actual installation works on public payphones will commence.
Mr. Speaker, if I may add, some phone booths were actually installed in this particular constituency, as I am advised, but there was a stoppage due to limited resources. Now that the survey is being conducted, the moment that is concluded this community will also be served accordingly.
Mr. E. T. Mensah 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the
phone booths, which have already been installed, were installed on the basis of the survey that was earlier on conducted. And so the last time I asked the Question of his predecessor, he said he was waiting for supplies of new materials. I want to find out whether those materials have arrived and when they will continue the installation of the phone booths.
Prof. Oquaye 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I do not
have an inventory of actual materials that have arrived. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the moment the survey which is to be completed by the end of August is actually done, this is one of the areas that will be considered, and my hon. Friend can follow up accordingly.
Mr. E. T. Mensah 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I would want to know when these equipment arrived and why the delay in the distribution and the installation?
Prof. Oquaye 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, so far
as the Ministry is concerned, this is not a matter of delay. It is a matter of a survey that will be completed by the end of next month. When this survey is completed the community in question will form part of the project.
Towns in Prestea-Huni Valley Constituency (Telecom Fixed Lines)
Q. 389. Mrs. Gifty E. Kusi (on behalf of Mr. Albert Kwaku Obbin asked the Minister for Communications when the following towns in the Prestea-Huni Valley constituency would be connected to Ghana Telecom fixed lines and One Touch mobile lines: (i) Huni Valley, (ii) Aboso, (iii) Bogoso, (iv) Prestea.
Prof. Oquaye 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, One- Touch mobile service had been operational in Bogoso and Prestea since April 2006. With the availability of the mobile network in Bogoso and Prestea, prospective customers could apply to be connected to the fixed cellular terminal. With regard to Aboso and Huni Valley, these areas are expected to be covered by the One-Touch mobile service during the second quarter of 2007.
Mr. Speaker, particularly, with the new technology whereby fixed cellular lines are being connected in the absence of fixed land lines by copper, many more communities will benefit from the facilities in question. Mr. Speaker, the communities will therefore benefit accordingly, particularly with regard to the development of the mobile cellular that I
have spoken about.
Places in Wa West District (Telecom Mobile Phone Services)
Q. 480. Mr. Joseph Yieleh Chireh asked the Minister for Communications when Ghana Telecom mobile phone services wold be extended to the following places in the Wa West District:
i) Wechiau
ii) Dorimo
(iii) Nyoli
iv) Gurungu
v) Dabo
vi) Dornye
vii) Charile and
viii) Lassia-Tuolu
Prof. Oquaye 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, Ghana Telecom mobile phone services have been planned for deployment in phases. In the case of the areas mentioned, it is planned that mobile services will be available in Wechiau and Dorimo in the third quarter of 2007. Both Dornye and Lassia-Tuolu will be served via Wechiau in the third quarter of 2007; mobile service to Dabo will, however, be provided from Dorimo at about the same time, that is, the third quarter, 2007. Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that a plan therefore has been established.
Mr. Speaker, it is also planned that Nyoli will be connected to the network from Ga, which will also be covered in the first quarter of 2007. On the other hand, Gurungu and Charile will receive coverage by the first and second quarters of 2008 respectively.
There is a plan, therefore, and my hon. Friend on the other side can be assured that his constituency will be served accordingly.
Mr. Chireh 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, is it an assurance to this House including me that this would be the programme target date?
Prof. Oquaye 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the
programme has been duly put in place and subject to the availability of funds, material, all things being equal, definitely this programme would be followed to its logical conclusion.
Mr. Chireh 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted
to get an assurance but the last part of his Answer has given me cause to ask him another question; and that is, what indications are there about the availability of resources for me to have some hope?
Prof. Oquaye 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, a number
of arrangements are being made with our development partners and there is hope.
Provision of Landlines to Wechiau and Lassia-Tuolu
Q. 481. Mr. Joseph Yieleh Chireh asked the Minister for Communications when Ghana Telecom would provide landlines to Wechiau, the District Capital and Lassia-Tuolu, to enable the Lassia- Tuolu Senior Secondary School to be connected to the internet.
Prof. Oquaye 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, Ghana
Telecom has planned to provide landlines and Internet Connectivity to Wechiau and Lassia-Tuolu by the fourth quarter of 2007.
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Ghana
on its part has plans to speed up the process of ICT connectivity to the rural areas and is accordingly negotiating for the $30-million Chinese concessionary loan facility which will be devoted to the provision of backbone connectivity. This facility, I am happy to say, was signed some two weeks ago. We are indeed mindful that 2/3 of our population live in the rural areas and require connectivity so that IT-related services can be extended to them.
Mr. Speaker, Ghana Telecom has postulated 2007 specifically because of expected financial injection including the Chinese support and other support that we are expecting accordingly.
Mr. Chireh 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, from his
Answer, the hon. Minister has indicated that the agreement has already been signed. Can he then bring forward the target date of fourth quarter to at least, the middle of 2007?
Prof. Oquaye 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we would
do all that we can.
Mr. J. D. Mahama 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I want to ask the hon. Minister what happened to the target that was given to Telenor management partners that they would provide 400,000 broadband lines and connect every secondary school and training college within a three-year period.
Prof. Oquaye 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, respect-
fully, this is a question that does not flow from the principal Question. If my hon. Friend on the other side would ask a question on this, he would be duly answered in due time.
Telephone Lines to Dorimo (Repair)
Q. 482. Mr. Joseph Yieleh Chireh asked the Minister for Communications how soon the Ministry would ensure that the telephone lines to Dorino are repaired.
Prof. Oquaye 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the
subscriber radio telephone equipment in Dorimo is no longer under production by the manufacturer. In this regard, GT is expected to change the existing telephone lines in Dorimo to fixed cellular terminal on the Global System for Mobile (GSM) network by the fourth quarter of 2007. This will go a long way to enhance access in those environs.
Mr. Chireh 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I would like
to know why it is taking so long to have this changed from the present outmoded
technology to the new one.
Prof. Oquaye 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, it is an
ongoing process regarding which we are making progress, and if that particular equipment were not obsolete and the situation where it is no longer being manufactured by its very manufacturers, the problem would not have been, and we are making progress.
Mr. Agbotse 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I would
like to find out from the hon. Minister whether the policy of his Ministry and Ghana Telecom to provide hon. Members of Parliament with the rollout of developments in telecommunication is still in existence and when Parlia-mentarians would have them. This was promised by his predecessor, hon. Kan-Dapaah.
Mr. Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Hon. Member for Ho
West, is this a supplementary question?
Mr. Agbotse 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, this is
flowing from all the Answers he has given on all the questions so far. If hon. Members had this rollout, they would not be asking all these questions.
Mr. Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Hon. Member for Ho
West, I would ask you to ask the question appropriately.
Mr. J. D. Mahama 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
Dorimo and Lassia-Tuolu and a lot of the towns that the hon. Minister has been answering questions about are towns that have senior secondary schools. I would like to ask the hon. Minister what happened to the agreement with Ghana Telecom under Telenor management partners that every secondary school and training college be connected to the national Telecom grid within a three-year period.
Mr. Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Hon. Member for
Bole-Bamboi, this is not a supplementary question.
Mr. J. D. Mahama 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
crave your indulgence -- there has been a government policy to connect every senior secondary school and training college and local government offices to the national telecommunication grid within a three- year period. But the hon. Minister in his Answers is talking about 2007 and these are towns that have secondary schools and training colleges. So I am asking, has that policy been abandoned? What has happened to that policy? Why have they not been connected?
Mr. Speaker 10:50 a.m.
My point is that kindly
ask the question properly, not at this stage. The Question is that some telephone lines are to be repaired. This is not a supplementary question.
Mr. A . K. Agbesi 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want to know from the hon. Minister whether his Ministry has any plans to connect all secondary schools and training colleges to telecommunication.
Mr. Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Hon. Member for Ashaiman, this is not a supplementary question. Hon. Minister for Com- munications, thank you very much for appearing to answer these Questions. You are discharged.
STATEMENTS 11 a.m.
Mrs. Esther Dappah Obeng (NPP -- Abirem) 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, this Statement is being made to offer our support as women in Parliament and to demonstrate and share the sorrow and pain of Miss Delilah Kporxa and all others who suffer violence
Mr. Francis Aggrey Agbotse (NDC -- Ho West) 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, invariably, the emphasis is on the woman who suffers domestic violence. The men also suffer domestic violence except that they are not willing, for the masculinity sake of, to inform the police or to let it be known that the wife had beaten them. So the men suffer in silence whilst the women make a lot of noise about their suffering.
Before this House, is the Domestic Violence Bill. The maker of the Statement is the Chairperson for the Gender Committee which is handling this Domestic Violence Bill with Legal, Constitutional and Parliamentary Affairs Committee. I am hoping that the concerns she has expressed would make her hurry up to bring this Bill to the House for the House to discuss and pass it so that the solutions suggested in the Bill are enforced.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you. Deputy Minister for Trade, Industry,
Private Sector and President's Special Initiatives (Mrs. Gifty Ohene-Konadu): Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity. Mr. Speaker, we are all concerned about the issue of violence perpetrated against persons and we wish that it would not happen but, as human beings living together and associating with each other, these things are bound to happen but the issue is the intense and also the degree at which it happens.
Of late we hear of varying degrees of violence perpetrated against persons and we all recognize that there is the need to have a law to guard against people in respect of violence. It is therefore very gratifying that we hear that very soon, a Bill will come before this House which
rose
Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon. Member for Wa
West, do you have a point of order?
Mr. J. Y. Chireh 11:10 a.m.
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, the Bill is here and it has been referred to the Committee on Gender and Children Affairs and the Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee. Why is she talking of when the Bill will be brought?
Mr. Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Well, hon. Member,
please continue.
Mrs. Ohene-Konadu 11:10 a.m.
I will urge my hon. Colleagues to support it so that we can all have something to guide us against these kinds of actions perpetuated against persons. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Lee Ocran (NDC -- Jomoro) 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, this Statement came with some photographs being distributed to some of us. In this photographs, you see a man who has been seriously beaten but at the same time holding a stick, which seems to portray the man as both a victim and a perpetrator. [Interruption.] Well, maybe he is defending himself. But you can see, Mr. Speaker, that this man has been seriously beaten by his wife. Down here, you see a number of women who have also been beaten. Who knows whether they have been beaten by their rivals or by their husband(s), nobody knows -- [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Hon. Member for Jomoro, we do not want to debate this Statement; only comment on it.
Mr. Ocran 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that as others have said, it is time to wait for the Bill to come to the floor of the House so that we can debate it, and debate the photographs that are being distributed.
Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, National Integration and NEPAD (Ms Shirley Ayorkor Botchway): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to add my voice to the Statement before this House. Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of the consequences of domestic violence or any kind of violence against fellow human beings. Violence against persons affects the dignity and human rights and also affects the lives of millions of people worldwide, especially women and children.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to look at violence in the home, not just how it affects the victims but also other people, especially the children who live in the home. You would find out that most children who grow up in violent settings usually themselves become perpetrators. It is sad to note that these children also grow up not knowing anything better but they become abusers as well. They become very dysfunctional and they carry out the same thing in their homes. So I think that even as we pass this Bill, we should be looking at not just passing it but making sure that as Members of Parliament we do our bit. We have constituents; we have a lot of women and children who are really suffering and I think that we really should be looking at ways and means to sensitize our constituents a lot more.
I know that a lot of awareness has been created; people are educated on the effects and what violence in the home can do to us even as a developing nation. But I think that we need to go a little further to look at ways in which we can actually be involved in making sure that we stop this kind of
thing by probably having workshops or grouping the women to talk to them so that they can identify what exactly domestic violence is.
I know that for most women maybe, in the urban setting, the awareness is being created but when you go to the rural setting, it is very difficult because they see it as part of life and they see it as a very normal thing and therefore they do not see anything wrong with it. I think that we should be looking at ways in which we really should stop this because it is affecting the women and it is affecting the children and we do not want a situation where we would have not just a dysfunctional home but a dysfunctional society as well.
So with these few words, I think that Members of Parliament should do something about it in their own constituencies.
Fifth Anniversary of the African Women's Development Fund
Ms. Akua Sena Dansua (NDC -- North Dayi) 11:10 a.m.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to make this statement on the 5th Anniversary of the African Women's Development Fund.
Mr. Speaker, a little over five years ago, the African Women's Development Fund, AWDF which supports the work of African Women's Organisations through grant-making and technical assistance, set up its offices here in Accra, Ghana.
The AWDF was set up by three simple and selfless African women namely Joana Foster, a Ghanaian lawyer, social activist and campaigner for civil and political rights, Bisi Adeleye-Fayemi, Nigerian feminist, social entrepreneur, journalist
and organizational development specialist and Hilda Tadria, a Ugandan, private consultant on a variety of specialized areas for the World Bank, UNDP and UNIFEM.
Mr. Speaker, the mission of AWDF is to ensure that women's organizations in Africa have access to resource they need to meaningfully engage in the development of their communities.
In the realization of this aim, AWDF mobilizes financial, human and material resources to support initiatives for transformation led by African women in five thematic areas: economic empowerment, women's human rights; political participation, peace-building, and health, reproductive rights, HIV/ AIDS. Also, every year, AWDF religiously organizes 16 days of activism against gender-based violence.
Mr. Speaker, it might interest you to know that between October, 2001 and October, 2005, the AWDF funded over 214 women's organizations in 33 African countries to the tune of $1,737,004 and awarded over $519 million in grant in
2004.
We in Ghana are very privileged and honoured for this unique opportunity to host the AWDF which office could have been established anywhere else in Africa, because it is a Pan-African Fund.
Mr. Speaker, apart from enjoying the high profile of hosting the AWDF, many Ghanaian women, NGOs and CSOs have also greatly benefited from its projects and grants which have contributed to making life better for several thousands of Ghanaian women as well as their families.
Having said this, Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the untiring and hardworking executive founders of AWDF
Ms. Akua Sena Dansua (NDC -- North Dayi) 11:20 a.m.
as well as their hardworking staff for their commitment to improve the lives of African women. Other African countries benefiting from AWDF's magnanimity include Kenya, Zambia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Burkina Faso, Togo, Ethiopia, Liberia and Zimbabwe.
I would like also to commend donors who have variously contributed financial and technical resources towards the AWDF's mission, for their magnanimity towards African women.
Prominent among these donors are the Global Fund for Women, the Ford Foundation, Mama Cash and the Nelson Mandela Fund.
Mr. Speaker, it might interest hon. Members to know that the AWDF has very prominent collaborators including the following: the New Field Foundations which is assisting AWDF over two years with a grant of 165,000 for grant-making and institutional support; Cordaid of the Netherlands, assisting AWDF with 400,000 Euro every three years for grant-making and institutional support; the United Nations' Women's Fund (UNIFEM) is assisting AWDF with its communication programme with $30,000 and the Stephen Lewis Foundation, also assisting with the AWDF's HIV/AIDS fund.
I would, however, plead with these and other potential donors that since the AWDF has established itself as a credible philanthropic organization in Africa, they should feel encouraged to put their money where their hearts should be, that is towards AWDF and they would be supporting a worthy cause.

Mr. Speaker, as part of its 5th Anniversary celebrations, which took place in Accra in November 2005, the AWDF, launched its HIV/AIDS fund for Africa aimed at promoting the culture of awareness, compassion and responsibility around HIV/AIDS issues, particularly where they affect women and girls in Africa. The AWDF's HIV/AIDS fund at the time was worth one million dollars cash donation from the Nelson Foundation and pledges from elsewhere worth $500,000. I believe the Fund has appreciated greatly since then.

The AWDF has also launched its “Women of Substance” award which is to recognize the achievements of African women and raise the profile of those who do their work out of the limelight as well as encourage emerging leadership.

Coincidentally, one of the first recipients is the first woman President of Liberia and Africa, Mrs. Ellen Johnson- Sirleaf and Madam Joseph Quedrago, Acting Deputy Secretary-General of the UN's Economic Commission for Africa, Ghana's Ama Ata Aidoo, an accomplished writer and Dr. Musimbi Kanyoro, Global Secretary-General of the YWCA.

Also honoured were some friends of African women in the persons of Kavita Ramda, President (CEO) of the Global Fund for Human (USA) and Dr. Barbara Phillips, until recently with the Ford Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, from all these indications, one can conclude that the AWDF is, indeed, a formidable pillar behind African women. One can only wish AWDF more grease to its elbows and pray for more successful programmes, projects and grants which will contribute to the empowerment of African Women and
Mr. Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Statement by hon.
Member for Tarkwa-Nsuaem and member of the Parliamentary Population Caucus.
World Population Day
Mrs. Gifty E. Kusi (NPP -- Tarkwa
Nsuaem): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity.
Today, Mr. Speaker, is the World Population Day and Ghana joins the rest
of the world in celebrating this important day. The United Nations has set aside 11th July of every year as the World Population Day, a day on which the world's attention is focused on critical issues affecting the quality and life of the population and the need to devise strategies and programmes to address them.
Various activities are carried out worldwide not only on this day but throughout the year to constantly remind humanity of the importance and urgency of the issues. And as we speak now, this day is being launched at Wiamoase in the Ashanti Region. The global theme for this year's celebration is “Young People” and from this Ghana derived her country's specific theme “Investing in Young People, the Nation's Future”.
Mr. Speaker, to most of us, the uses
and meanings of the term, “young people”, “youth” and “adolescence” are sometimes confusing and are therefore used interchangeably. The definitions vary in different societies around the world depending on the political, economic and socio-cultural context. However, for the sake of uniformity, UNFPA defines them as follows: Adolescence is 10 - 19 years old; early adolescence 10 - 14; late adolescence 15 - 19; youth are 15 - 24 years and young people are 10 - 24 years.
Mr. Speaker, adolescence and youth
represent the largest generation in human history. Half of the world's population are under the age of 25 and are approaching adulthood in a rapidly changing world. Global statistics on young people are quite revealing and require urgent attention. For instance, some 1.2 billion people are between the ages of 10 and 19. Eighty- seven (87) per cent of this, adolescents live in developing countries.
An estimated 6,000 youth get infected with HIV/AIDS each day, one every
Mr. Speaker 11:30 a.m.


Also of major importance for young people are the Convention on the Rights of Children and the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

Mr. Speaker, Ghana l ike most developing countries, has a youthful population. Thirty-one per cent (31%) of her population are between 10 and 24 years. The National Population Policy (Revised Edition, 1994) places emphasis on young people since they constitute the driving force of society and form the bulk of the human resource potential which requires effective harnessing and mobilization to accelerate the development of the country. Appropriate policies, strategies and programmes have been put in place to address the special, diverse and complex needs of young people.

Some of the youth-related issues which confront us at this time of our development include HIV/AIDS, streetism, drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, violence, unsafe abortion, prostitution, early marriage, youth unemployment, trafficking of young women, et cetera.

Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Health, in collaboration with other MDAs and NGOs and with support from Government and Development partners, has embarked on Adolescent Reproductive Health (ASRH) programmes to reduce teenage pregnancy, early marriage and curb the spread of STIs including HIV/AIDS whose prevalent rate stands at 1.9 per cent among young people aged 15 to 24 years. At age 15, 7 per cent

of females and 4 per cent of males had sex and by age 18, the percentages had risen to 46 per cent and 27 per cent for women and men respectively.

It is worthy to note that the African Youth Alliance, a multi-sectoral project funded by Bill and Melinda Gates was successfully implemented in selected African countries including Ghana. The results achieved by this project in Ghana are stronger policies, laws and programmes targeting the youth in respect of their sexual and reproductive health.

Recent progress can also be seen in advocacy efforts, national data collection, training for health providers and expansion of youth-friendly clinic services. Furthermore, the Ministry of Manpower, Youth and Employment has embarked on a youth employment programme that seeks to equip the youth with employable skills. It is interesting to note that about 57 per cent of working children were engaged in agriculture, forestry and fishing while 21 per cent worked as hawkers.

There is therefore the need to equip them with the appropriate skills that will fit them into the job market and enable them play their appropriate role in society. Additionally, education and vocational training facilities have been expanded to ensure adequate preparation for more economic productive and social life for the youth within the family and society at large. This strategy also aims at reducing poverty among the youth in fulfilment of the Millennium Development Goals.

Migration of young people from the rural areas to the cities in quest of jobs and better living conditions has resulted in the creation of slums in our cities and urban areas with the attendant social problems such as streetism, child prostitution, high

incidence of crime, drug abuse, among others. About 52.4 per cent of street children were females and Greater Accra has the highest proportion (49.7 per cent) followed by Ashanti (26.5 per cent). Let us seriously consider the plight of the young female porters popularly known as Kayayee that have flocked our streets, markets and lorry stations and devise appropriate interventions to make them live moral lives.

Mr. Speaker, let me also mention that the young people of today are in the age of global telecommunication and globalization of a “youth culture” spread through the mass media and the internet. They often get information, on a variety of issues including sexuality and health from sources outside of the family whereas in the past the family used to be the traditional institution of imparting social norms about these issues to the youth. There is therefore the need for us as parents to control their exposure to such negative foreign cultures. One way of tackling this issue is the enactment of laws to regulate the operation of internet cafes.

The introduction by Government of Fee-free Compulsory Universal Basic Education (FCUBE), the Capitation Grant and the Free School Feeding Programme in schools have contributed tremendously to improvement in school enrolment and retention levels in the educational system. School enrolment was 30 per cent of the population (32.5 per cent were males and 28.7 per cent were females). In addition to this, the Ghana Educational Trust Fund (GETFund) has provided funds for infrastructural development of many educational institutions.

Mr. Speaker, as hon. Members of Parliament and constituting the legislative arm of Government, we have a crucial role to play in addressing the concerns of our young people and in shaping them to take
Mr. Alfred Kwame Agbesi (NDC -- Ashaiman) 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, it is good that we celebrate days like this to remind ourselves. Mr. Speaker, when I heard that the Statement was going to be made, I asked some hon. Members sitting next to me whether they knew the population of Ghana and their answer was that they did not know.
The point is that few things keep on changing daily. If you asked somebody today what is the population of Ghana, he will tell you that it is eighteen million. Another person will tell you that it is twenty million. And another person will tell you that it is about twenty million.
What is the population of Ghana? Mr. Speaker, I want to ask this question. This is because data-keeping in this country is poorly done. I would have wished that on this National Population Day, the Ministry concerned would tell us basic things. For, just three days ago, a junior secondary school boy asked me whether the population of Ghana was eighteen million or twenty million. I was confused. I was confused because the figure keeps on changing and the authorities keep on estimating it. Like the Statement said, “about”, “about . . .” What is the real issue on the ground?
Mr. Speaker, if you asked a question today, what is the population of Accra or Tema, the figures will keep on changing. If you asked the question today, what is the population of Ashaiman, as the Member of Parliament for Ashaiman, I may not give the correct figure because the authorities have not provided the correct figure.
Mr. Speaker, on the occasion like the National Population Day, it is relevant for us to know that we need concise and precise figures to be able to guide not only ourselves, but our children who are in school and who are learning and who are going to take examinations.
Mr. Speaker, do we even know the
population of the unemployed in this country? Do we know how they are faring? Mr. Speaker, at this stage, I would wish to say that whether it is the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning or the National Population Council, they have a lot to do for us to be able to know the population of the various places we come from. If we go to the districts, if we go to our towns, they may not be able to tell us the number of people living there. Mr. Speaker, if we were to know the population, the segment of the people in Ghana who are unemployed, we will go further to know whether they are faring well or not.
I would even ask that we should go further, get that figure and know what we are doing to the unemployed in the system. Is the Government concerned about the unemployed? If yes, let us do something for them. Let us even give them unemployment benefits because the unemployed are suffering. Mr. Speaker, that segment of the population needs to be looked at seriously.
Mr. Speaker, I will go further to say that the authorities must be able to tell us the population of this country. If every quarter we go to the authorities and ask about how many people have died or how many babies are born, they should know. Mr. Speaker, I would want to say that the Ministry concerned must be up and doing so that next year, when we are celebrating a day like this, I can tell exactly the population of Ghana or for that matter, the population of Ashaiman.
Mr. Harunah H. Bayirga (PNC - Sissala West) 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the Statement on the floor of the House. The Statement, to me, is a very critical one as far as the population of the world is concerned. What is most interesting to me in the Statement is the global theme for this year: “investing in young people, the nation's future”.
Mr. Speaker, I would want to ask hon. Members to find time and drive through Nima and Maamobi between the hours of 8.00 p.m. and 11.00 p.m., and also drive through James Town, Chorkor, Ashaiman and other suburbs in the country; they would see the youth in the streets walking aimlessly and this is across the country. If you go to Kumasi, you have it just the
same at that hour. The question I ask myself at times is. In the next five to ten years how would the population of these areas mentioned look like? It is getting to be an explosive situation and we need to take a very urgent and critical look at it.
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Member also made the Statement said, about half of the world's population are between 1 and 24 years. These are the very active and productive years and if we do not assist the youth and help them to grow up to be responsible citizens of the world, then the world is heading for danger. Mr. Speaker, the bubbling youth engage in all sorts of anti-social activities -- drug abuse, spread of HIV/AIDS, unwanted pregnancies, snatching of mobile phones, et cetera. Mr. Speaker, streetism and urban migration is also another challenge to the youth and which confronts Ghana. I know there are several interventions by the Government of Ghana for the youth but we urgently need to do more, especially in the agricultural sector which constitutes about 90 per cent of employment generation in the rural areas.
We need to resource the youth for they are our future and pride.
Capt. N. Effah-Dartey (retd) (NPP - Berekum): Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to the Statement. This day, 11th July, World Population Day, is indeed a very significant day. When my hon. Colleague from Tarkwa Nsuaem, Mrs. Kusi, was making the Statement, I tried to listen very attentively and I was overwhelmed with the statistics, the data that she gave.
Mr. Speaker, as she was speaking, my mind went to a certain place in Osu called Five Junction. If you drive through Five Junction at Osu in the night, especially from Five Junction towards the Castle Junction and you see the number of people walking in the streets, especially
BILLS - CONSIDERATION STAGE 11:40 a.m.
  • [Resumption of Consideration from 6-07-06]
    • Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    We will continue with the Consideration Stage. Hon. Members for Tamale South and Bawku Central, have you been able to settle on those issues relating to clause 8?
    Mr. Mahama Ayariga 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, add a new subclause as follows:
    “(4) A person to whom a disclosure of impropriety has been made under section 3, shall have such powers as are reasonably necessary to conduct investigation into the matter under subsection (1) of this section including the power to request information from any public officer to whom the disclosure is related.”
    Mr. Speaker, the reason why I proposed this amendment is that in the first place, we have given powers to a category of people to whom report of impropriety could be made, and that those people should conduct investigation and report the outcome of the investigation to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice.
    Mr. Speaker, it is only conse-quential that when you give powers to somebody to conduct an investigation, that person should have power to request for information in the process of conducting that investigation. If you vest in me the power to conduct an investigation and I do not have the consequential power of requesting for information in order to come to some conclusion in terms of the investigation that is being conducted, then that power will be rendered nugatory because in reality I cannot exercise that function.
    S o f i r s t a n d f o r e m o s t , i t i s consequential; it is necessary that if we give powers to individuals to investigate, we add the additional power to request for information in the process of conducting that investigation.

    Mr. Speaker, for me, the need to have

    this provision there to empower all the people that we have asked to conduct investigation so that they can request for information is very important, and I think that this should be added to the provisions of clause 8 of the Bill.
    Mr. A. O. Aidooh 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this amendment. Mr. Speaker, the Bill does not seek to grant powers of investigation to all the persons under clause 3; it does not do so. Mr. Speaker, under clause 3, in fact, as amended, we have added “Parliamentarians, Ministers of State, Office of the President and Assembly Members”, for instance.
    Mr. Speaker, these persons have been added not because we expect them to investigate. In fact, elsewhere under clause 8, we have this provision where the disclosure of impropriety is made to a person. Clause 8 (1), specified under section 3, says that a person shall investigate the matter except that where the person to whom the disclosure is made does not have the capability to undertake the investigation, the person shall refer the disclosure as recorded to the Attorney- General or another body as directed by the Attorney-General.
    So it is not the case that we expect all the people listed in clause 3 of section 3 to investigate any matter. And therefore, the attempt by my hon. Colleague to confer extensive policing powers on people like Parliamentarians, Ministers and even family heads is ridiculous, to say the least; and I plead that this amendment be rejected; it does not sit at all.
    Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the amendment by hon. Mahama Ayariga, and in doing
    so, to advance arguments that render the particular provision redundant, if it becomes part of the Whistleblower Bill.
    Mr. Speaker, if you do a perusal of clause 7, which this House has already approved, we have said that where a disclosure is made to persons specified under section 3, other than the Attorney- General, the person shall submit a copy of the written disclosure to the Attorney- General.
    Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General, by the powers conferred on him, has adequate powers to conduct investi-gations of any sort in this country, and I am not sure or I do not know of any hand that may bar the Attorney-General's Office from proceeding to do such an investigation.
    Mr. Speaker, how are we going to empower a chief or an Assemblyman to be able to demand information from a chief executive office of a public office? It will be difficult; it is not administratively possible. I see the sense of his amendment because he thinks that the powers of the Attorney-General must be watered down. I believe if we come further to the proposition being made by hon. P. C. Appiah-Ofori, and we do fine-tuning of his earlier statement, it can deal with the category of people who may conceal information or refuse to make information available.
    In that regard, I oppose the amendment by my very good Friend.
    Mr. Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Hon. Member for Tamale South, are you withdrawing your amendment? It is not a question of opposing your own amendment. Are you withdrawing it?
    Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I had the difficult duty to stand in when my good Friend was indisposed. I could not be in
    Mr. Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Are you withdrawing? All right, let me call on the Majority Chief Whip to contribute.
    Mr. Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, now that the twin sponsor, indeed, the twin brother has de-coupled himself from the amendment, I believe that we need not proceed further.
    Mr. Speaker, the issues are clear. My hon. Colleague seems to think that the list provided under clause 3, everyone of them there has been clothed with investigative powers; that indeed is not so. Mr. Speaker, that is not so and if that is not so, then the proposition by my hon. Colleague definitely would not find space because he seems to propose this consequential upon what obtains in clause 3; and his own understanding is really incorrect. I would not want to say that he is wrong. But clearly, his understanding is incorrect and I want to plead with him that he withdraws it.
    Mr. Speaker, we are talking about employers, Assembly members, chiefs and family heads - The first point of call that if you have trouble you may relate to. It does not mean that the family head should be clothed with investigative powers to delve into these matters for which reason my hon. Colleague is seeking these powers.
    Mr. Speaker, clearly it is a wrong understanding of the provision under clause 3 and my hon. Colleague would better help this House if he withdrew peacefully.
    Mr. Ayariga 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to advert our minds to
    clause 8 (1) of the Bill. And clause 8 (1), with your permission, states that where a disclosure of impropriety is made to a person, specified under section 3, the person shall investigate the matter. Mr. Speaker, first of all - [Interruption] -- They should not worry; I will read the rest of it.
    Mr. Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Yes, hon. Member, it is advisable to read all for clearer understanding.
    Mr. Ayariga 11:50 a.m.
    Yes, so I am saying that first of all, that part of the clause imposes some obligation to conduct investigation. Then the second part of it says that if you do not have the capacity to investigate, then you can refer the matter or you should refer the matter to the Attorney-General.
    Mr. Speaker, when we say that you do not have the capacity to investigate, what do we mean? Does it mean that you do not have the capacity to write a letter to an agency and request for further information so that you can come to some conclusion on the impropriety that has been reported, or that you are not legally clothed with the power to write to that institution and request for the information?
    There are two possibilities. One, that you just do not have the capacity, intellectually, et cetera. Secondly, that the law does not give you that power. And I think that for efficiency reasons, it might be more convenient, more appropriate that since we have imposed a duty to conduct an investigation on that person, then we should equally and logically give that person the power to request for information from that agency to enable him come to some conclusion on the matter.
    Mr. Speaker, let us look at the issue of the Attorney-General. If we want the Attorney-General to do everything, then
    we should state very clearly that this Bill is about asking people to make a report of impropriety to the Attorney-General so that the Attorney-General can conduct investigation. Because if we decide to expand the ambit of the recipients of information and the investigators of information, and yet we also do not expand the ambit of the power of those recipients to be able to conduct investigations, then indeed, we are not being fair. I think that we should amend all the provisions that say that we can report to other people other than the Attorney-General if the intention is not to invest them with the power to be able to conduct investigations.
    rose
    Mr. Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Majority Chief Whip, do you have a point of order?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
    Yes. Mr. Speaker, my hon. Colleague is misleading this House. But first of all, he is misleading himself. Mr. Speaker, there is no provision in this Bill which indicates that it is only the Attorney-General who may investigate. That is not there. Indeed, 8 (1), as was read to him by the Deputy Leader, clearly states and, for his sake, Mr. Speaker, I want to go over it:
    “Where a disclosure of impropriety is made to a person specified under section 3, the person shall investigate the matter except that where the person to whom the disclosure is made does not have the capability to undertake the investigation, the
    person shall refer the disclosure as recorded to the Attorney-General or another body . . .”
    Mr. Speaker, clearly, it is not only the Attorney-General who is clothed with the power to investigate. This is succinct; it is unambiguous and is stated here without any prevarication.
    Mr. Speaker, if a person reports to the Serious Fraud Office, or if it is a case of financial impropriety to the Auditor-General, or as added by hon. Appiah- Ofori, the Revenue Collection Agencies Board, Mr. Speaker, they can inverstigate. So clearly, it is not for the Attorney-General alone to investigate. So where he gets this understanding from and proceeds from then on to say that it is only the Attorney-General -- Mr. Speaker, clearly he is wrong in his understanding.
    Mr. Speaker noon
    Hon. Member for
    Bawku Central, conclude before I put the Question.
    Mr. Ayariga noon
    Mr. Speaker, with all due
    respect, my hon. Colleague on the other side has not read the clause properly. Mr. Speaker, it says that where the person does not have the capability to undertake investigation, the person shall refer the disclosure as recorded to the Attorney- General or another body directed by the Attorney-General.
    So whether you are referring the matter to the Attorney-General or not, if you want to refer it to another person under the direction of the Attorney-General - it is there -- [Interruptions.] You brought it to this House. So ultimately the power is vested in the Attorney-General to determine who else should conduct investigation apart from the Attorney- General himself.
    Mr. Speaker, the amendment might be defeated but the most important thing for
    Mr. Ayariga noon


    us to realize is that when we give powers to people to conduct investigations, it would be easier if we invested them with the legal powers to request for information. And I think that this is something that we should do in order to open up the system and ensure that we all play an effective role in ensuring accountability. We all know and we have all lamented in this House and in public, and at radio and television stations, about the difficult position of the Attorney-General as the principal legal adviser of the Government, as the only person who can initiate prosecutions and as a political appointee by the President.

    Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that these multiple roles that the Attorney- General is supposed to play clearly undermine the capability of the Attorney- General to be very impartial and very effective under certain circumstances. The more we open up the system for other bodies who have the capability to perform similar roles, the better for our system of accountability.

    Question put and amendment negatived.
    Mr. Speaker noon
    Let us continue the
    debate on the other clauses - that is clause 8.
    Mr. P. C. Appiah-Ofori noon
    Mr.
    Mr. Speaker noon
    Have you reached an
    agreement on this?
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori noon
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.
    Before I move this amendment I would like to make some minor corrections. I would
    like us to insert after “investigation”, “or is being investigated”, so that this matter will affect both the person carrying out the investigation and the person being investigated. I will prove that. Then we remove “evidence” and in place of it, we put “any information”. We will then delete “through” completely. And then also eliminate (a), (b) and (c) respectively. So the amendment will read as follows:
    “A person who undertakes an investigation or is being investigated in respect of any impropriety and in the course of the investigation conceals any evidence commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a term of imprisonment of not less than five years.”
    Mr. Speaker, article 36 of the 1992 Constitution states noon
    “The State shall take all necessary action to ensure that the national economy is managed in such a manner as to maximize the rate of economic development and to secure the maximum welfare, freedom and happiness of every person in Ghana and to provide adequate means of livelihood and suitable employment and public assistance to the needy.”
    This constitutional provision, Mr. Speaker, no Government in Ghana has been able to do it effectively because monetary resources are inadequate for the Government to prosecute the agenda that will give effect to this provision. Moneys which should accrue to the Government go into private pockets through corrupt practices, and this Bill is going to help us to curb corrupt practices so that money that accrue to the State will go to the Government, for the Government to use it to prosecute its agenda that will bring relief to the people of Ghana. So we do not have to give the chance. We do not have
    to allow this opportunity to slip through our fingers.
    Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to investigate some companies, for the Revenue Agencies Governing Board of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning. On one occasion, Mr. Speaker, I found that a company had collected excise duty and value added tax which ought to have been paid to Government in full but had appropriated ¢56.75 billion. The company denied the Government and the State access to this fund.
    Mr. Speaker noon
    Hon. Member for Asikuma, we are continuing with the debate. You made the same point last time.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:10 p.m.
    I just want to make my case so that I will get the sympathy of the people supporting me.
    Mr. Speaker, assuming 1,000 companies in Ghana were doing the same thing and at the same rate. During the period under review, the country would lose ¢56.75 trillion which could finance our annual Budget for two years.

    Mr. Speaker, the Revenue Agencies

    Governing Board (RAGB) asked someone to go and corroborate my findings and that person went to collect US$50,000 and then reduced the figure to ¢22 billion. That is not all. I looked into the accounts of another company. The information was brought to the RAGB by a worker there and then they sent someone again to go and investigate. He came with a finding of ¢72 million as liability but when I went in, I found a liability of ¢20 billion.

    Mr. Speaker, unless the person

    investigating is punished, if he conceals

    evidence, we are likely to lose. Unless the person being investigated and who conceals evidence is also punished, we would achieve nothing.

    So I beg to move and invite every hon. Member here to support this amendment so that together we would be able to safeguard the national economy to enable the Government create wealth for the people of Ghana.
    Mr. A. O. Aidooh 12:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    have some objection to this amendment. In the first place, the person referred to in clause 8 is the person to whom the report is made; and he is the person who investigates. Clause 8 does not talk about the person who is being investigated. That is one. And so the attempt to bring in that other person who is the subject of the investigation is misplaced.
    Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I have serious doubts about the propriety of the amendment which appears to seek to compel the person being investigated to volunteer a statement. A person under investigation has the right to be silent. So if you say, “Look, if you do not talk, you go in for five years”, that is serious. So, Mr. Speaker, the attempt to compel a suspect to give evidence which could be incriminatory, at the risk of going to prison for five years, is clearly unconstitutional and I would urge my hon. Friend to take it out.
    Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, this practice of
    setting minimal limits for punishment and not having an upper limit is also something that I do not think we should encourage. So the sentence is five years minimum, no upper limit, and the judge can give anybody 10 years, 40 years, 50 years for some offences.
    So, Mr. Speaker, on these grounds I oppose the amendment. We should
    Mr. A. O. Aidooh 12:10 p.m.


    oppose it unless it is better refined on these grounds.
    Mr. Chireh 12:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly support the amendment if only my hon. Friend can allow a small amendment; that is the sentencing side should not exceed five years. If he agrees to that I would support his amendment and say that it can be under clause 8, because it is talking about being investigated and the person who is doing the investigation. I do not see anything wrong with that.
    The reasons he has advanced are correct but we are talking about general crimes and if we are talking about the upper limit, it is not fair. This is because somebody may be accused of doing something which is less than ¢2 million and we put the person in for five years at the maximum. Really, it does not make sense. So I think that if he agrees with the amendment I have proposed, I would support whole-heartedly the amendment that he has proposed.
    Several hon. Members -- rose --
    Mr. Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon. Members, I deferred this to enable hon. Members put their heads together. It does not appear this has been done. Let us defer it again for the next hour or so.
    Clause 10 -- Hon. Member for Tamale South, you were to take a decision either to abandon the amendment or otherwise.
    Mr. Ayariga 12:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I hope that the statement is not going to prejudice my -- [Interruption.]
    rose
    Mr. Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon. Member, your name is not down here. We are talking about clause 10.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
    That is so, Mr. Speaker. There was supposed to be an amendment to clause 9 (a). I believe the Table Office did not capture it. Unfortunately, it is not here. We discussed it at the winnowing. I am surprised it is not here.
    Mr. Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    You discussed it behind the scenes?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
    Yes, sir.
    Mr. Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    I am not aware of that.
    Clause 10 -- Submission of report of investigation to the Attorney- General.
    Mr. Ayariga 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, subclause (1), at end, add “provided that upon the completion of its investigation, the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) shall not be obliged to report to the Attorney-General”.
    Mr. Speaker, if you look at clause 10, it makes provision for the submission of reports of investigations conducted to the Attorney-General. My own understanding of that clause is that when you go to clause 11, it does state what action the Attorney- General can take when a report has been submitted to him. And among other things it says that the Attorney-General may on receipt of a report under subsection (3) of section 10 take the following steps:
    (a) accept the recommendation;
    (b) ask for further investigation; or
    (c) reject the report and the recom- mendations.
    Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to note that the functions that are spelt out in the Whistleblower Bill that we are proposing are functions that are already being performed by the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice
    (CHRAJ). If we look at clause 1 of the Whistleblower Bill, it talks about reporting impropriety, et cetera.
    Mr. Speaker, if you look at article 218 (a) of the Constitution, and with your permission, I would like to read:
    “218. The funct ions of the Commission shall be defined and prescribed by Act of Parliament and shall include the duty --
    (a) to investigate complaints of violations of fundamental r i g h t s a n d f r e e d o m s , i n j u s t i c e , c o r r u p t i o n , abuse of power and unfair treatment of any person by a public officer in the exercise of his official duties.”
    Mr. Speaker, if you look at corruption, abuse of power, unfair treatment and violations of fundamental rights and freedoms, they are clearly along the same line as impropriety; and we have already vested CHRAJ with the power to conduct investigations in relation to these matters. When they conduct investigations, they have traditionally a number of remedies that are available.
    If, for instance, the impropriety relates to environmental hazards, the Commission might simply decide that it would invite the company; it might negotiate some arrangement between the company and the community that is affected; it might ask the company to carry out some amendment in its processes, et cetera, so that the environmental hazard would be terminated.
    Mr. Speaker, these are functions that the Commission has been performing and these are powers that have traditionally been available to the Commission.

    Now, my understanding of clause 10 of this Bill is that henceforth, if there is a complaint under the Whistleblower legislation and the Commission conducts an investigation, it can no longer proceed

    to implement some of these remedies that traditionally it has been doing. It now has to submit a report to the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General would then take a decision whether he would accept the report, he would reject the report, or he would ask for further investigations to be conducted.

    I am saying that with the passage of this legislation, there would be the tendency that many people who hitherto would have gone to the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) to report, would now prefer to report under this legislation. Because, this legislation has a provision for funding which would be made available to people who report, whereas under the CHRAJ legislation, you will have no financial support if you report impropriety; and the protection mechanisms under this legislation are broader than the protection mechanisms under the CHRAJ legislation.

    So it is most likely that many people would begin to report under the Whistleblower legislation instead of the traditional approach under the CHRAJ. And if we say that each time that a report comes to CHRAJ, CHRAJ should simply conduct an investigation and submit its report to the Attorney-General without taking any further remedies, for me, it is going to erode fundamentally the powers and functions of CHRAJ as intended by this Constitution.

    There are those who say that this amendment that I am proposing contradicts or violates article 218 of the Constitution, but that is not so. Article 218 mentions reports to be made to the Attorney-General but it says that the Commission can do other things in addition to reporting to the Attorney-General. It does not restrict the powers of the Commission to reporting to the Attorney-General. So it is not the case to say that this amendment contradicts the
    Mr. Ayariga 12:20 p.m.


    constitutional provision under article 218. I therefore urge my hon. Colleagues

    that, with a view to maintaining the autonomy, and indeed, the effectiveness of CHRAJ, let us rethink this particular clause of the legislation and let us consider the amendment that I am proposing, because that amendment would maintain the integrity, the efficiency and autonomy of CHRAJ.

    On that note, Mr. Speaker , I urge my hon. Colleagues to vote overwhelmingly in support of this amendment.
    Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    by the advertised amendment, I am a co-sponsor to this amendment but, Mr. Speaker, having listened to my very good Friend and hon. Colleague, I am not convinced to want to be associated with this amendment. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I am therefore withdrawing my sponsorship and standing opposed to this amendment; and I will give cogent legal reasons why I do not want to be associated with it.
    Mr. Speaker, may I refer you to article
    1 (2) of the Constitution, the very opening words of our Constitution. It states, and with your permission I quote:
    “This Constitution shall be the supreme law of Ghana and any other law found to be inconsistent with any provision of this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”
    Mr. Speaker, may you also refer to article 218. I am sure my hon. Colleague read it to satisfy his own thinking at the time. Mr. Speaker, article 218 is specific. This legislation cannot hold because CHRAJ is a constitutional creation; it is a body created by the Constitution and clothed with powers to perform the functions assigned to it under the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, if you read article 218 carefully, in particular article
    218 (e), it states and with your indulgence, I quote:
    “to investigate all instances of alleged or suspected corruption and the misappropriation of public moneys by officials and to take appropriate steps, including reports to the Attorney-General . . .”
    Mr. Speaker, “including reports to the Attorney-General . . .” His amendment wants to tie the hands of CHRAJ, to behave as if they have powers. Mr. Speaker, CHRAJ has no powers of prosecution; corruption as you know, under our Criminal Code, is a corrupt conduct. Even where they make adverse findings against any person, they can only proceed on a matter of prosecution.
    Again, Mr. Speaker, article 88 of the Constitution is clear. It says that the Attorney-General shall have the power to prosecute and therefore, I do not think that this amendment should stay. I urge hon. Members to oppose it. Indeed, I had advised my hon. Colleague to withdraw the amendment.
    Mr. Ayariga 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I just
    want to respond briefly to what my hon. Colleague has said. Mr. Speaker, I want us to look at clause 10 (1) of the Bill and relate clause 10 (1) of the Bill to clause 218 (e) of the Constitution and see whether there is any contradiction or conflict in terms of the amendment that I am proposing.
    Clause 10 (1) says: “A report on investigation conducted under section 8 shall be . . .” It is mandatory. If you refer to “shall” under “Attorney-General”, we are told what “shall” means -- “. . . shall be submitted to the Attorney-General for directives immediately the investigation is completed”. So under this Bill, immediately an investigation is completed, you are supposed to mandatorily submit a report to the Attorney-General.
    Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon. Member for Bawku
    Central, is this subject to the provisions of the Constitution?
    Mr. Ayariga 12:20 p.m.
    You mean clause 10 (1)? Yes, I agree with you; it is subject to the provisions of the Constitution.
    Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Then go on with the
    argument, if it is subject to that.
    Mr. Ayariga 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, let us now
    take article 218(e). It says that among the things that the Commission could do is “to investigate all instances of alleged or suspected corruption and the misappropriation of public moneys by officials and to take appropriate steps . . .” Is that all right?
    “Appropriate steps” could include a variety of things. It includes seeking a remedy without having to go to court; it would include inviting the agency that is engaged in the art of impropriety; and it could include recommending to that agency that it takes steps to mend its ways so that the impropriety would be abated. Mr. Speaker, it then says that it is to take appropriate steps, including reports to the Attorney-General and the Auditor-General resulting from such investigations.
    So reporting to the Attorney-General is among the things that it should do; but in this legislation, it is different. This legislation simply says that you should not take any steps; you should simply report to the Attorney-General. And if you report to the Attorney-General, it is then the decision of the Attorney-General to accept the report, to reject the report, or to ask that further investigations should be conducted.
    Mr. Kwame Osei-Prempeh 12:20 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, I want my hon. Friend to clarify that point. He says that when CHRAJ conducts any investigations -- This law is not going to take every function and put everything under the ambit of the law. Every investigation is conducted by CHRAJ under the ambit of this law. So what he is saying is too wide and is untenable. He must say it with reference to this Bill so that we can see if we can support him or disagree with him.
    Mr. Ayariga 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, with all
    due respect to my hon. Colleague, I am saying -- and probably he did not get this argument -- that if you look at the category of impropriety that anyone could make a report of, under this legislation, they fall into the same class with acts of corruption, abuse of public office, et cetera. If you steal public money, it is an act of corruption and yet it is also an impropriety under this legislation. Is that all right? If you engage in an act that would result in injustice being meted out to somebody, it is an act of impropriety under this legislation and at the same time it is an injustice under article 218 (a) of the Constitution, as part of the jurisdiction of CHRAJ.
    So I am simply saying that all the things we have enumerated here as acts of impropriety one way or the other also fit into the category of things that we have said that the Human Rights Commission should deal with.

    Additionally, under this legislation, we are saying that if one reports, there is a fund from which one can benefit and also we have put in place a lot of protecting mechanisms for the person who is going to report and we have undertaken to hide one's identity, if one wants his identity hidden -- So there are more incentives for people to begin to report under this legislation than under the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice
    Mr. Kojo Armah 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I

    sympathise with my hon. Colleague on the strenuous efforts he is making to rope in the Human Rights Commissioner through the back door to perform the functions of the Attorney-General.

    Mr. Speaker, the issues are very simple.

    Who does prosecution in this country? And then when the Attorney-General does the prosecution, I do not see the reason why the Commission on Human Rights should be given the power to do an investigation that would lead to prosecution. In any case, if the person is found culpable and not report the same investigation to the Attorney-General as the amendment seeks to do, the Committee does not see the logic in this matter and I think that we should let the matter rest as it is because under the Constitution, prosecution lies with the Attorney-General.

    What we are saying is that at the end of the day, when the whistleblower issue has been conducted by whoever does the investigation and the investigation leads to the fact that really something criminal had been committed, it is the Attorney- General who will prosecute. So to say that CHRAJ can investigate but not report to the Attorney-General, I think, is begging the question. So Mr. Speaker, I think, you must put the Question for us to move ahead.
    Mr. J. D. Mahama 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    am not a lawyer but I have been listening to the arguments and I seem to think that the mover of the amendment is making some sense. Of course, I do not know how it should be drafted, but the point is that the Constitution gives CHRAJ some powers and it says that they can investigate instances of corruption that are alleged or suspected and when they have investigated those cases, they can take appropriate steps including reporting to the Attorney-General and the Auditor-General. Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I want to read article 218 (e):
    “to investigate all instances of alleged
    or suspected corruption and the misappropriation of public moneys by officials and to take appropriate steps, including reports to the Attorney- General and the Auditor-General, resulting from such investigations.”
    This is what the Constitution bestows on the Commission. Now we are saying that by this law, in cases of reported corruption that are brought to CHRAJ under the Whistleblower Bill, CHRAJ has only one recourse; and that is to report to the Attorney- General for directives. We might seek by this law to be restricting the powers that CHRAJ has been given by the Constitution. That is why I am saying that I am not a lawyer but I do think that he has a point there.
    So the drafting should probably say that, upon completion of investigations by the Commission, “it shall take appropriate steps including . . .” so that it comes in line with the constitutional provision. Otherwise, I do not see why the restriction in this particular legislation when indeed, CHRAJ has more open powers under the constitutional provision.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    I am getting the impression that the hon. Member who spoke last, hon. Mahama has stated the case for hon. Ayariga a bit better because it looks like hon. Ayariga was really raising issues which were tangential to the provisions in the Constitution.
    Mr. Speaker, the article he quoted from
    the Constitution, that is article 218 reads:
    “The functions of the Commission shall (that is the duties of the Commission) . . . include the duty” --
    and (e) reads,
    “to investigate all instances of alleged or suspected corruption and the misappropriation of public moneys by officials and to take appropriate steps . . .”
    Mr. Speaker, if you exclude the construction there, it only means that they can take appropriate steps resulting from such investigations, and such
    investiga-tions include the reports from the Attorney-General and the Auditor- General. That is the import of it. It is such reports that they are supposed to act on, on their own investigations and also report. He read it to mean, including reporting to the Attorney-General.
    Mr. Speaker, that is not the construction. The construction there says “including reports to the Attorney-General and Auditor-General”. That means that CHRAJ can also take steps from reports from the Attorney-General and the Auditor-General. That is the import of it. Mr. Speaker, that indeed -- [Inter- ruption.] Yes, on the report to the Auditor- General. CHRAJ could take appropriate steps on reports to the Attorney-General as so directed by the Attorney-General. That is what it means in the construction.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am also
    not a lawyer but then my understanding of article 218 (e) is that CHRAJ can take certain steps but then the steps are not exhaustive and that is why the Constitution is empowering CHRAJ to also report to the Attorney-General and then the Auditor-General.
    Mr. Speaker, this does not conflict with the provision being made in this Bill, that is clause 10 (1) because what the Constitution is trying to say is that CHRAJ can do certain things but CHRAJ cannot also take certain steps and for which reason, CHRAJ would have to report to the appropriate authority. Here, the Constitution has actually made it very clear the authority being the Attorney- General and then the Auditor-General for them to take steps wherever necessary. So Mr. Speaker, I would urge my hon. Friend, hon. Ayariga to withdraw his amendment.
    Mr. J. D. Mahama 12:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, why I seem to think we must consider this carefully is that CHRAJ in its work, when it has done an investigation, these

    investigations do not always lead to prosecution. The confusion we are having is that the investigation would necessarily lead to a prosecution. Mr. Speaker, sometimes CHRAJ after investigating cases gives administrative directives to a particular Ministry or an MDA and says “take steps to recover these moneys from such an individual”. They do not always lead to prosecution.

    So it means that CHRAJ's powers are wider than just narrowing them down to the issue of making a report to the Attorney-General, which necessarily we are thinking is going to lead to prosecution because the Attorney-General must look at the report of CHRAJ and decide whether somebody should be prosecuted or reject the report or whatever action should be taken.

    Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we stand this amendment down, not take a vote on it and let the mover of the amendment confer with a few of the people because I do think that there is an issue here in respect of the amendment he has moved.
    Mr. A. S. K. Bagbin 12:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    I do not see the problem at all. I think that people are reading other meanings into the constitutional provision and also the Bill before us. Going through the Constitution, the article that is being referred to -- article 218 (e) -- is talking about instances of alleged or suspected corruption and the misappropriation of public moneys; they are two. This other provision is talking about impropriety.
    Mr. Speaker, impropriety is defined in the Bill and the instances that are captured under the definition section is what is stated in clause 1 (1). It talks about a crime that has been committed, is about to be committed or is likely to be committed. It is talking about another person who has not complied with a law or is in the process of breaking a law or likely to break a law
    or an obligation that has been imposed on that person, the miscarriage of justice.
    These are the areas that they are talking about impropriety. That is different from the Constitution talking about corruption and misappropriation of public moneys. Some are trying to put it under (a) -- general crime -- but Mr. Speaker, there is a specific law. If the crime covers corruption, it comes under article 218 but if the crime covers the areas that have been stated, it comes under this Bill, so there is no confusion there.
    I believe strongly that what it is simply saying is that, yes, after you have conducted the investigation -- it could be the person himself, it could be the person who has been directed to investigate, by the Attorney-General. Under clause 8, the report should be submitted to the Attorney-General for directives. It does not necessarily mean that any time you submit a report to the Attorney-General, it leads to prosecution; that impression is also wrong.
    The Attorney-General is not there to prosecute. The Attorney-General is also there to offer legal advice; and that is what this provision is covering. So I think that the proposed amendment is misplaced and I will urge my hon. Colleague to withdraw it. If he is unprepared to do so, I will urge Mr. Speaker to put the Question and then he will be voted out. I think the provision as it is now, is well in place and should be accepted.
    Mr. J. H. Mensah 12:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I will urge my hon. Colleagues to have patience and pursue this matter a little bit before we put it to a vote. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that there are two issues. The ambit of the Bill is much wider than the ambit of the provision of article 218 (e) of the Constitution. Article 218 of the Constitution only deals with instances of alleged or suspected corruption and the misappropriation of public moneys by officials.
    Mr. W. O. Boafo 12:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the
    amendment as being proposed by my hon. Colleague must be looked at with care. It appears that we are losing sight of the fact that article 218 is restrictive, because it is only restricted to corruption issues. But if you look at clause 1(1) of the Bill, it is wider. Corruption is there, environ-mental issues are there, health, safety and other things are there.
    Mr. Speaker, if you look at clause 1 (1) -- (a) deals with crime, (c) deals with miscarriage of justice, (d) deals with mismanagement of public resources by public institutions, (e) deals with environmental degradation and (f) deals with health and safety-related issues. Mr.
    Speaker, if you come to article 218, the provision you find there is in relation to corruption. So Mr. Speaker, if you pursue the argument on the other side, it would appear that where CHRAJ is involved, it is true it is an obligation to report to the Attorney-General for investigation, allegations relating to corruption.

    We can preserve that and maybe, consider another rendition of the amendment to the effect that we preserve the provisions under article 218, which requires the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) to report on matters of corruption to the Attorney-General. So if a matter of corruption, which is being investigated by CHRAJ, originates under the Bill, then CHRAJ should report to the Attorney- General, but if it does not, then we should not limit the constitutional ambit of the CHRAJ powers or responsibilities.

    So Mr. Speaker, I would support the amendment subject to what I have stated, that there should be a rendition to the effect that save, and except as provided under article 218, CHRAJ's responsibility of reporting to the Attorney-General is preserved.
    Mr. Joseph Yieleh Chireh 12:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think that the amendment is proper and it is going to make this House to be more consistent with law-making. In the first place, if you look at article 218 that we have been talking about and also the parent act of CHRAJ, they have given powers to CHRAJ to enforce some orders in the court; not through the Attorney- General.
    So in my view, because this provision is so pervasive and covers so many things, we should allow CHRAJ to do what it can and the fact that it should include the reporting to the Attorney-General, does not disturb the amendment at all, but it
    Mr. Mahama Ayariga 12:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, subclause (2), line 1, after “investigation” insert “conducted by a recipient of a disclosure other than the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice”.
    Mr. Speaker, the amendment is consequential, it is based on the earlier one that I proposed and since that amendment has been defeated, this amendment will no longer be able to find basis in the Bill.
    Mr. Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Right, thank you very much for that, so that is withdrawn.
    Mr. H. Iddrisu 12:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 12, Head Note, delete “against victimisation” and substitute “of whistleblowers” so that we have “Protection of whistleblowers”. I urge hon. Members to support it; it is a very straightforward amendment.
    Mr. Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Acting Chairman of the Committee, what do you say to that?
    Mr. Kojo Armah 12:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to it; we support it.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 12, subclause (2), paragraph (b), line 2, delete “or intimidation by a person or an establishment” and substitute “intimidation or harassment by a person or institution”.
    Mr. Speaker, this will be in conformity with what we have done earlier on and particularly with respect to clause 1 (e), following from which we have made the consequential amendments regarding the inclusion of the word “institution”. I beg to move.
    Mr. Kojo Armah 12:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we support the amendment. We do not have any problem with that.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. H. Iddrisu 12:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 12, subclause (3), delete.
    Mr. Speaker, it reads as follows 12:50 p.m.
    “A whistleblower shall not be considered as having been subjected to victimisation if the person against whom the complaint is directed has the right in law to take the action complained of and the action taken is shown to be unrelated to the disclosure made.”
    Mr. Speaker, this should not be part of this Bill. In any case, this Bill is about the protection of whistleblowers. People who have accrued rights in relation to other matters will necessarily proceed to court. We have also said somewhere in the earlier provisions of this Bill that the said disclosure must be made in good faith.
    So we are saying that whistleblowers will not just talk, they will talk on the basis that they have faith that there is substantial truth in the issues they are raising. I do not see what purpose this addition will serve as being part of this legislation. The Bill seeks to protect whistleblowers but here we are opening the gate for people to say that “I have this action against you, I have this other action against you”. Mr. Speaker, I do not think it should be part of the legislation. I so move.
    Mr. Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Acting Chairman, what do you say to that?
    Mr. Kojo Armah 12:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we are not in favour of the amendment. We think that the whistleblower also needs to be protected and if he finds that the complaint as directed is going to be against any action being taken, we think he also needs to be protected. Therefore, the clause needs to stand as it is. We are opposed to the amendment.
    Mr. H. Iddrisu 1 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, unless of course the Chairman of the Committee can convince me -- Mr. Speaker, if you read subclause (4) further, you will see how incongruous it is to let clause 12 (3) stand. It says that
    “Despite subsection (3), the person against whom the complaint is directed shall postpone a lawful action . . .”
    So who are we to tell somebody to postpone an accrued right in law? If you have the right, you have the right. If somebody does anything against you legally that you find offensive, we cannot tell that person that we are postponing exercising that right, it is not possible. So my view is that both subclauses (3) and (4) should not stand as part of this legislation.
    Mr. Ndebugre 1 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think my good Friend, hon. Haruna Iddrisu is misconceiving the provision of subclause (3) as well as subclause (4). Mr. Speaker, it is not about the accrued right; I will give him as example. If an employee whistleblower mischievously blows the whistle against his employer for example or a boss in his employment and the boss ordinarily according to the rules of the organization he is working with, had the right to suspend him and he goes ahead to suspend him, notwithstanding the whistleblowing, the boss should not be deemed to have victimized the blower because of two reasons:
    One, because the whistleblower blew mischievously and secondly, because ordinarily, in the course of things, the boss had the authority to suspend the whistleblower as a worker and not as a whistleblower. So if we look at it that way, we would find that it would be useful or it would be necessary for us to maintain subclause (3) as it is.
    He has talked about subclause (4)
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, we dealt with this at the level of winnowing. I believe my hon. Colleague just lost track of what we were saying and that was why he brought the amendment. In fact, we agreed to let what is provided for here stands and rather delete subclause (4); that was what we agreed to do.
    Mr. Speaker, the whistleblower has been given sufficient protection in clause 12(2); and 12(3) says that the employer, for instance, could take some action that is against the whistleblower if that action is considered unrelated to the disclosure need; and that is the import of clause 12(3). So I believe my hon. Colleague now appreciates the situation that we have made and so Mr. Speaker, if we may appeal to him to withdraw the amendment we could make progress; I believe he understands it now.
    Mr. Speaker 1 p.m.
    Hon. Member for Tamale South, what do you say to this?
    Mr. H. Iddrisu 1 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, if subclause (4) of it would be deleted
    then I so support the proposition. It is the subclause (4) which makes the (3) confusing; in one breath, you have the right in law, in another breath you are suspending that right.
    Mr. Speaker 1 p.m.
    So you are abandoning this (vii)?
    Mr. H. Iddrisu 1 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mr. Speaker 1 p.m.
    The amendment is
    withdrawn and deleted. We go on to (viii).
    Mr. H. Iddrisu 1 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 12, subclause (4), delete.
    Mr. Armah 1 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we oppose the amendment.
    rose
    Mr. Speaker 1 p.m.
    Deputy Attorney- General and Minister for Justice, we are now dealing with (viii) -- clause 12 ( 4).
    Mr. Osei-Prempeh 1 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that at the winnowing we sort of agreed that the mover would allow the (3) to remain and then we would look at (4). And Mr. Speaker, I promised my hon. Colleague that I was going to look at it. But it seems to me that looking in there, we are looking at only the realm of a legal action in court; but Mr. Speaker, that is not the only course -- An employer may even have the right to terminate the appointment of an employee whistle-blower, but at that time because an action is pending, what subclause (4) is saying is that you cannot proceed on that until after the matter has been investigated, concluded and 60 days have elapsed.
    So that if we remove it completely, we are removing part of the protection given to the whistleblower. If we are only talking about legal action, that is where I agreed with him, but there may be other
    actions. I can dismiss him now but there is an action pending of which he is the complainant. If I dismiss him now the investigation or anything can be impaired so even though I have the right to legal action, what subclause (4) is saying is that you should allow the person to be there until 60 days after the investigation report has been submitted. So I believe that by deleting the subclause (4), Mr. Speaker, we may endanger whistleblowers. I believe that it is for good reason that it may be allowed to be there.
    Mr. I. A. B. Fuseini 1 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the subclause (4) is directly related to subclause (3). Indeed, subclause (3) says that -- and with your permission I read:
    “A whistleblower shall not be considered as having been subjected to victimization if the person against whom the complaint is directed has the right in law to take the action complained of and the action taken is shown to be unrelated …”
    Mr. Speaker, that is the action that has been defined again in subclause (4) which reads -
    “Despite subsection (3), the person against whom the complaint is directed shall postpone a lawful action …”
    Mr. Speaker 1 p.m.
    Hon. Member, you are saying that if subclause (3) goes out, then automatically, subclause (4) too must go
    out; is that the point you are making?
    Mr. Fuseini 1 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we are saying that subclause (3) must stand to recognize that a whistleblower can be taken to court.
    Mr. Speaker 1 p.m.
    Hon. Member, that has been withdrawn.
    Mr. Fuseini 1 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, what has been withdrawn is the amendment; the amendment was to delete that subsection. Mr. Speaker, it stands and it is part of the Bill; it is the deletion that has been withdrawn and there was a further amendment to delete subclause (4).
    Mr. Speaker 1 p.m.
    Yes, that deletion has been withdrawn so it stands.
    Mr. Fuseini 1 p.m.
    And Mr. Speaker, we are saying that in subclause (3), we recognize the right of a person against whom a disclosure has been made to legal action, and now in subclause (4), we are saying that that legal action that we have recognized in subclause (3) must be suspended until the completion.
    Mr. Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Hon. Member, if subclause (3) stands, then subclause (4) too must stand, is that not it? Is that not the point you are making?
    Mr. Fuseini 1:10 p.m.
    No. We are saying that subclause (3) can stay. Because we have already said in this Bill that such a disclosure must be made in good faith; the whistleblower must reasonably believe that the information disclosed and the allegation of improprieties contained in it are substantially true.
    Mr. Speaker, these are grounds on which a person can take a legal action in
    Mr. Osei-Prempeh 1:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend seems to be confusing legal action with lawful action. Lawful action is not the same as legal action. Legal action means an action in court. Lawful action means an action which the person is permitted under law to take. So the two are not the same. That is the confusion he is having under subclause (4.)
    Mr. Fuse in i 1:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speake r -
    Mr. Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Hon. Member, I have not called you. Hon. Member for Tamale North?
    Alhaji S. Abukari 1:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think that subclause (4) must go, even though subclause (3) should be left to stand.
    Mr. Speaker, my point is that, subclause (3) is saying that a whistleblower shall not be considered as having been subjected to victimisation if the person against whom the complaint is directed has the right to take the action complained of and the action is shown to be unrelated to the disclosure made.
    Mr. Speaker, I think that the last portion of that subclause is very important. The action is unrelated to the disclosure -- completely unrelated. If that is so, he has the legal right normally to take any action that he wants; outside the premises of the whistleblowing. So how is it that we are now curbing that right by saying that the
    complainant should now withhold his right, which he is so entitled to take up in law? His lawful right, he should now withhold it for 60 days?
    Mr. Speaker, this clause will be curbing his legal right; he may not have taken action in court, but it is right to do so if he so wishes. He has not yet done this; he intends doing this and this clause is telling him that no, do not do it for at least 60 days, even though it is not related to the complain that the Commission is going to investigate. So how do the two relate? It will be curbing his right and it will be unjust; it will be unfair to say that he should withhold that right for 60 days.
    Mr. Speaker, I think that subclause (4) must go; it is unconstitutional.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 1:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think the purpose of subclause (4) is just to delay a lawful action against a whistleblower. Mr. Speaker, if that is not done, assuming this lawful action takes place and the whistleblower is jailed, for example, how is the Commission going to pursue the case of impropriety that has been brought against the person in question?
    So Mr. Speaker, for the Commission to exercise the powers that are given to it and also to investigate and take the necessary action against any person that a disclosure has been made, the whistleblower will have to be protected in a way. I believe that this clause is only seeking to give that protection, to let the action against the whistleblower delay for 60 days and after that, when everything has been done, then the person in question can take the whistleblower on for the lawful action.
    Mr. Speaker, that is my understanding of this subclause.
    Mr. J. D. Mahama 1:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, this clause needs careful consideration.
    Mr. Speaker, let us take the example where an employee is in occupation of an establishment's bungalow and he is not entitled to live in it and an eviction notice has been given to him, asking him to vacate the bungalow within three months. Let us assume in the course of the eviction, the employee blows the whistle about something that is happening in the establishment. Now the eviction is unrelated to the disclosure.
    What we are saying is that he is not being victimised by being evicted because it had nothing to do with the disclosure. But we are saying that at the same time the establishment has no right to evict him until the case has been disposed of and 60 days after a report has been presented. Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of scenario we are looking at, so I think that that subclause is not necessary.
    Mr. Speaker, if you come further down, under subclause 14 (2), it says that “The Commission in the course of conducting an enquiry under subsection (1) may make an interim order that it consider fit”.
    Mr. Speaker, I think that if the whistleblower has a problem with the eviction which is unrelated to his disclosure, he can bring it before the Commission and if the Commission deems it fit, it will make whatever orders are necessary.
    But as it stands in subclause (4), I think that we must leave it; if a person has a right under law to take certain action that right exists, we cannot say he should postpone that lawful right until after a certain case has been disposed of. If the person believes that there is any relation to his disclosure or he will be affected in terms of his evidence to the Commission and therefore he speaks against the eviction, then the Commission in its wisdom might decide whether to make any such orders or not.
    Mr. Yaw Baah 1:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I rise also
    to support the idea of retaining subclause (4). Because the postponement issue we are calling for is something like a cooling off period, and by then the issue might have been addressed by the Commission, that is CHRAJ. So that period we are asking for, the 60 days -- What I would rather suggest is that the last limb of that is when the 60 days have passed after the Commission's decision -- I do not see it to be quite relevant.
    But what is of relevance is the postponement, the cooling off period during which the body would have done its own investigation and come out with the conclusion as to whether the report was appropriate or not. So all that the postponement is asking for is a cooling off period and nothing else.
    Mr. Bagbin 1:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think there is a problem with that subclause. I think that that subclause should not be part of the Bill.
    Mr. Speaker, I do not think that it is right for us to legislate to postpone the enjoyment of a right. It is not right at all. I know my hon. good Friend was trying to distinguish between “legal” and “lawful”, but definitely, lawful is larger; legal is under lawful - it is a lawful act that you can take legal action. So I think that is not the germane issue.

    The issue here is whether we can legislate to postpone somebody's right. Now, a whistleblower owes somebody, for example, the head of department, money he has borrowed lawfully. The payment date is due and you want to take your money; the man has not got the money to pay so he blows something about the department. You are being asked that you should postpone your request for him to bring your money; you should postpone or you should not take action to recover your money from him until after the
    Mr. Bagbin 1:20 p.m.


    investigation, or 60 days - I do not think it is right.

    Mr. Speaker, we cannot do that because it has nothing to do with the issue that he is raising against the department; it is a lawful right of the person to take action to recover his money. Why should we say that he should wait until after the investigation of the matter that he has raised? I do not think it is fair; I think that we should actually delete this clause.
    Mr. Kofi Osei-Ameyaw 1:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, subclause (3) is not a right, if you look at it critically. Let us go to subclause (3) first, where it says that “action taken is shown to be unrelated to the disclosure made”. There is a caveat; it is a condition precedent; you would have to show first -- Although the hon. Member said it is a right, I would submit that it is not a right because it says that you will have to show first -- So that condition that the thing is unrelated -- When it is unrelated, you must show it first before you can move on to the next stage. It is only when it is shown that you get your right, otherwise it is not a right.
    Then when you go to subclause (4), it gives you a temporary stay that once you have shown that it is unrelated, then you can move on; but where it is related, then you do not lose that right as shown in subclause (4). So the investigation is very, very necessary and to say that it is a right under subclause (3), I do not think it is correct. So subclause (4) must be retained.
    Dr. Kunbuor 1:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I guess that people are involved in a type of circular argument that does not really address the issue. When you look at clause 39, a whistleblower is defined. If you take it within the totality of the Bill you can have a whistleblower in terms of individual identity and in terms of subject-matter. So if any other thing is not the subject-matter of whistle-blowing, the person is not a whistleblower; and once he is not a whistleblower, he is still
    subject to all the laws of the land. He is only being protected because he has fallen under the category of a whistleblower. But if he is are conducting himself outside the subject-matter of whistle-blowing, there is no issue about protection arising here to be taken away.
    So what I am saying -- [Interrup- tions] - Please listen. If you take clause 39, a whistleblower is not just anybody walking in the streets; a whistleblower is not anybody on a frolic of his own. He must have made a complaint in relation to impropriety recognized under the Bill to particular designated entities or individuals. It is at that point that he is clothed with the description of a whistleblower. So any other thing he would have done some years ago that has no bearing on the subject-matter does not make him a whistleblower at that time. So we cannot ask another entity to prevent them from taking lawful action that they could have taken that has no bearing, because in that particular relationship, he is not a whistleblower. That is the position and that is why he is saying that it makes it redundant. It is not relevant unless he can tell me that anybody in the world at large is a whistleblower.
    Unless he can tell me that any conduct at all gives rise to whistle-blowing, then we do not actually need this subclause. The circumstances under which one can become a whistleblower are spelt out in the Bill. And all that we are trying to say here is that there might be unrelated matters to this Bill for which action could have been taken. If there are no unrelated matters in law the person is not a whistleblower; so where does it arise?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, my hon. Colleague who just spoke has been making copious references to clause 39. Unfortunately, there is no clause 39 in the Bill; he is looking at something else. But the point is - I think
    his argument on one leg was all right, the second leg was a bit limpy.
    Mr. Speaker, the critical matter is that the whistle-blower has been involved in something else other than the issue that occasioned his whistle-blowing; that is what subclause (4) is trying to address. Now, the matter is whether pursuant to the issue involved in the whistle-blowing, any action on the person himself other than the issue that occasioned the whistle-blowing should stay -- any action should stay until the determination of the matter. That is the matter; that is the issue at stake.
    Mr. Speaker, I do not think so. I do not think we should freeze the right of anybody. Because, even if that action outside the issue that occasioned the whistle-blowing leads to the incarceration of that person, who says the matter cannot be investigated if the person is in prison? Who says the matter cannot be investigated? It still can be pursued. In any event, subclause (4) talks about the matter being dealt with by the Commission; and the Commission refers to CHRAJ. That is, clause 32 defines the Commission as CHRAJ (the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice).
    Unfortunately, we have a rather tall list of persons to whom disclosures of impropriety could be made, including the Attorney-General. Are we saying that they will not be covered by subclause 4? And clearly, they are not covered by subclause (4). The Attorney-General is not even covered by subclause 4, so what is the relevance of subclause (4)? I believe for that reason, and that reason alone, we should delete subclause (4), it has no basis there.
    Mr. A. K. Agbesi 1:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, subclause (3) and subclause (4), the two
    cannot stand, the two cannot be together. Subclause (3) is talking about a matter unrelated to the disclosure. Once it is unrelated, it has nothing doing with the whistleblower or the whistle-blowing matter. When we come to subclause (4), it recognizes the fact that the complainant has a legal right and once the complainant has a right, nobody can legislate to take away that right or to postpone the enjoyment of that right.
    So that is why I say that the subclause (3) and subclause (4) cannot stand. The complainant has a right under subclause (4), so why do we legislate to tell him when he is to go to court or when he is to enjoy his right? It cannot be legal; subclause (4) cannot be legal and in that case it must go for the subclause (3) to stand.
    Mr. Osei-Prempeh 1:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say that subclauses (3) and (4) have been put in for good reason. Mr. Speaker, the (4), when the hon. Minority Leader and hon. John Mahama spoke, what they said, the analogies they gave, rather supported it. Mr. Speaker, for example, I am in a company with you; you owe me ¢500,000; then I go and reveal something on you. Then you would say, “Oh, you have gone to say this? You owe me ¢500,000 so if you do not pay, I will put you into prison.” The debt I owe you has no relation to what I have gone to say, but I have my hand in your mouth so you decide to “show me”. That is the situation this section is trying to freeze.
    So if I owe you ¢500,000 and I see you stealing ¢1 million I can have the boldness to go and report you without fearing that you would “hijack” me and send me to prison or collect your money. Mr. Speaker, this is the reason why this has been put in. Mr. Speaker, in Akan we say that wo nsa hye obi anum a wompae napampam. But
    Mr. John Mahama 1:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the hon. Deputy Attorney-General misquoted the analogy I gave completely. I said that take for instance, that an employee lives in an accommodation that belongs to a company, and an eviction notice was served on him because he rightly did not have to be there -- in the course of carrying out that eviction, the employee made a disclosure. What I am saying is that the lawful act of evicting him is unrelated to the disclosure.
    What we are saying is that it must be held up until his disclosure has been investigated; and even if after it has been
    Mr. Haruna Iddrisu) 1:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 12, add a new subclause as follows:
    “a State or local governmental body may not suspend or terminate the employment of, or otherwise discriminate against, a public employee who reports a violation
    of the law to an appropriate law enforcement authority, if the employee's report is made in good faith.”
    Mr. Speaker, he also proposed that some further amendment be made to it before it is moved; that instead of “who reports in violation of the law”, it should be “one who reports on an impropriety”. It is not limited to only violation of law but impropriety as well.
    So Mr. Speaker, it would read as follows:
    “a State or local governmental b o d y m a y n o t s u s p e n d o r terminate the employment of, or otherwise discriminate against, a public employee who reports an impro-priety to an appropriate law enforcement authority if the employee's report is made in good faith.”
    Mr. Kojo Armah 1:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I do
    not see really the need for this amendment because it appears to be very superfluous. If you look at 12 (2) down, everything is stated there, and therefore, I do not think we need to overburden the law with this type of amendment. We are opposed to it, Mr. Speaker.
    Dr. Kunbuor 1:30 p.m.
    He should finish and
    listen to my submission.
    Mr. Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    No, I have not called
    you yet, hon. Member for Lawra/Nandom.
    Dr. Kunbuor 1:30 p.m.
    I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Yes, you are on
    your feet; have you finished with your contribution?
    Mr. Kojo Armah 1:30 p.m.
    Yes, Mr. Speaker, because I thought it was a straightforward matter. It is very superfluous, considering the number of cases that have been listed there. If we want to add the amendment, it would rather overburden the law as it is; so we are opposed to it.
    Dr. Kunbuor 1:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we are
    not seeking to add anything new. We are actually deleting the phrases “a violation of the law” and substituting it with “an impropriety” -- [Interruptions] -- Yes, but the proposal that he is making needs further amendments because he just drew my attention to it that he intends that this should be inserted. But what has been drafted here as the motion needs further amendment.
    Mr. Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    So at this stage are you withdrawing it?
    Dr. Kunbuor 1:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, yes, but
    the intention was to actually withdraw it and bring the new rendition.
    Mr. Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Yes, but whatever it
    is, let us withdraw that in the meantime. You can always come back at the Second Consideration Stage if you so wish. So it is withdrawn.
    Clauses 13 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 17-- Police protection.
    Mr. Kojo Armah 1:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am
    informed that that amendment has already been taken.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:30 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, I beg to move, clause 17, subclause (1), line 1, delete “reasonably believes” and substitute “has reasonable cause to believe”. Mr. Speaker, that will be in consonance with what we did for clause 1(1) and 1(4) (b), I think.
    Mr. Ayariga 1:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I beg to move the amendment on behalf of the hon. Member.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 17,
    subclause (1), paragraph (b), line 2, delete “of impropriety”.
    Mr. Speaker, with your permission, the clause reads 1:40 p.m.
    “A whistleblower who makes a disclosure and who has reasonable cause to believe that --
    (b) the l i fe or property of a member of the whistle-blower's family is endangered or likely to be endangered as a result of the disclosure of impropriety
    . . .”
    And we are moving that “of impropriety” should be deleted so that it would just be
    “as a result of the disclosure may request police protection and the police shall provide the protection considered adequate.”
    This is just to change the rendition; it does not really affect the meaning of the clause.
    Mr. Osei-Prempeh 1:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we agreed that we would leave this to the draftsperson to tidy up because that word appears in so many places. The draftsperson was there, so if we can leave that out.
    Mr. Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    So what do you say? You have no objection to that?
    Mr. Osei-Prempeh 1:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am saying that for now it could be withdrawn so that he takes it and looks at
    it in its entirety.
    Mr. Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Hon. Member for Bawku Central, are you withdrawing it?
    Mr. Ayariga 1:40 p.m.
    No. Mr. Speaker. If I understood the hon. Deputy Minister, he is saying that he agrees that it appears at two places in the Bill and we should leave it to the draftsperson to look at it to see whether it is appropriate. But I am saying that on the face of it, it is obvious that we do not need to have the words “of impropriety” stated there because we already know that the disclosure is about any of the things that have been mentioned under clause 1 of the Bill. So to add “impropriety” there is superfluous. So let us leave it at the “disclosure”.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the hon. Colleague is right except that what the hon. Deputy Attorney- General is saying is that in the Bill there are only two places where the words “of impropriety” do not follow “disclosure”. So we are leaving it to the draftspersons to clear everything, including the one that he is talking about, so that we have symmetry.
    Mr. Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Chief Whip, at this stage, do you agree to this amendment?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, when we had the winnowing, we agreed that because there are only two such places, we leave it to the draftspersons so that they clean the entire Bill; that is what we agreed on. This is because we cannot have “disclosure” being followed by “of impropriety” in all other places except two. So we are saying that we should leave it with them so that they do the cleansing in the whole Bill.
    Mr. Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Chief Whip, let us agree to this amendment and then give the necessary directions.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:40 p.m.
    That is so, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:40 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, I beg to move, clause 21, paragraph (a), line 1, delete the words “individuals resident in the country and abroad” and substitute “persons and institutions both within and outside the country”.
    Mr. Speaker, the reason for including institutions and individuals is that the voluntary contributions to the fund could come from other bodies, not only individuals; that is, residents in the country and abroad. That is why we decided to include the two personalities, that is, individuals and institutions both within the country and outside.
    Mr. Armah 1:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, in principle we support the amendment except that the rendition appears a little confusing. So we could leave that to the draftspersons for them to give us a clear rendition; but we agree that the amendment be carried.
    Mr. Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Which one do you want to leave to the draftspersons?
    Mr. Armah 1:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the amendment as proposed that individuals, persons and institutions resident in Ghana and abroad -- both within the country and outside.
    Mr. Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    We have to take a
    decision on this.
    Mr. Bagbin 1:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think there is no need for us to be specific as to the source of the contributions, because if we say “persons and institutions” and if they are coming from associations, if they are coming from organisations -- there are voluntary contributions. As for the source, whether it is from -- Yes, voluntary contributions to the fund. It could be from individuals, it could be from institutions, it could be from associations, it could be from organisations, whatever. It is voluntary. It could be from outside, it could be from within, from God himself; it is voluntary. So Mr. Speaker, I think that that would be a better rendition.
    Mr. Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    The point the Minority Leader is making is that we should stop at “fund”.
    Mr. Armah 1:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, that is all right with us.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 21 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 22 -- Object of the Fund.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I thought you were going to give me the opportunity to therefore withdraw my own amendment because as it is, mine has been held in abeyance.
    Mr. Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    So you have withdrawn
    --[Laughter] -- Thank you very much.
    Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the
    Bill.
    Clause 23 -- Compensation on
    conviction.
    Mr. Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Item (xv), Acting
    Chairman of the Committee, there is an amendment.
    Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 1:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    it looks like the hon. Minority Leader wanted to say something on the previous clause but he did not catch your eye.
    Mr. Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    The previous one? Is
    it clause 22?
    Mr. Bagbin 1:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, no, I was trying to draw your attention to something under clause 21 (b); it is just a small amendment. When you say “other moneys that may be allocated by Parliament for the Fund”, that is not good English -- “other moneys that may be allocated by Parliament to the Fund” not “for the Fund” -- allocated to the Fund.
    Mr. Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    In other words, it should
    have “to” instead of “for”?
    Mr. Bagbin 1:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, that is so.
    Mr. Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon. Members, we may have to go back to clause 21(b), delete “for” and substitute “to the fund”.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr. Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    We got to item (xv),
    Clause 23 -- Acting Chairman of the Committee --
    Mr. Kojo Armah 1:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    Mr. Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Clause 23, (xv), you
    have an amendment; you may wish to
    move it.
    Mr. Armah 1:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the
    amendment is in the name of hon. Kyei- Mensah-Bonsu.
    Mr. Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon. Chief Whip, are
    you withdrawing your amendment?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, no. The headnote for clause 23 reads: “Compensation on conviction”; but we are talking about compensation to individuals or to whistleblowers. So Mr. Speaker, in the context we are not even talking about compensation, we are talking about rewards for people who whistle- blow. So I thought that we would rather delete the words “compensation” and in its place insert “reward”.
    Mr. Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Acting Chairman, let us hear you first.
    Mr. Armah 1:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I tend to agree with the amendment except that in that case, we need to look at some other clauses where “compensation” has been used; for instance, from clause 20, where we have “Whistleblower compensation fund”. We have already passed that one but it should be “whistleblower reward”; or clause 22 -- “Object of the fund”, where we have “monetary compensation”, we make it “monetary reward”. So it should be consequential. Otherwise, we do not have any objection to the amendment.
    Mr. Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    You are agreeable to
    this amendment?
    Mr. Armah 1:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, that is so.
    Mr. Bagbin 1:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think that we need some time to do a better rendition because the whole fund is called “Compensation Fund”. That in itself is a problem. It could be Whistleblower's Fund but not Compensation Fund. Mr. Speaker, again, compensation connotes that you have suffered a loss or something and they are trying to give restitution. So Mr. Speaker, I think that we would look at those clauses later on and do a better rendition.
    Mr. Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    M a j o r i t y
    Leader, at this stage, any indications?
    Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 1:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think this may be the appropriate time to adjourn to enable us reflect on these things and also look at the dictionary. It will also enable Leadership to meet immediately after. I therefore move, that this House do now adjourn till tomorrow ten o'clock in the morning.
    Mr. Bagbin 1:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
    Question put and motion agreed to.
    ADJOURNMENT 1:50 p.m.
  • The House was accordingly adjourned at 1.57 p.m. till 12th July, 2006 at 10.00 a.m.