Debates of 18 Jul 2007

MR. SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker 10 a.m.
Correction of Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, 17th July, 2007 -- Pages 1 . . . 10? [Pause.] [No correction was made in the “Votes and Proceedings” of Tuesday, 17th July, 2007.]

Item 3 -- Statements -- Statement by the hon. Member for Shai Osudoku (Mr. David Assumeng).
STATEMENTS 10 a.m.
Mr. David Tetteh Assumeng (NDC -- Shai Osudoku) 10 a.m.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker for giving me the opportunity to make another Statement, this time, on the need for the State to pay appropriate compensation to the affected people living in the Lower Volta Basin due to the harmful effects of the Akosombo and Kpong hydro-electric dams.
Mr. Speaker, since 1963 when the Akosombo Hydro dam was constructed, economic activities of the people living in the Lower Volta Basin has come to
Mr. David Tetteh Assumeng (NDC -- Shai Osudoku) 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Lower Volta Basin stretches from Natriku in the Osudoku traditional area to the Volta Estuary at the Ada Foah. Mr. Speaker, the creation of these facilities have affected the free flow of the Volta River and therefore restrained the breeding of clams or oyster.
Mr. Speaker, these clams popularly call Afoli, Adode were the main economic backbone of the people. It has a very high nutritional value that prevented malnourishment among children in the region.
Mr. Speaker, many people who have higher education and are in high position today, including myself made it from proceeds from the clam or oyster business.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the environmental impact assessment plans and other research reports on these facilities are not being adhered to by the Volta River Authority (VRA) leading to these devastating effects.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Osudoku in the Dangme-West District who find themselves immediately below the last dam are the most affected amongst others living in the North and South Tongu, parts of Anlo and the Dangme-East Districts.
Mr. Speaker, reports suggest that malnutrition and bilharzia among school children is very high in the region. Malaria is the number one killer disease due to the very large mosquito population.
Mr. Speaker, with time, the river has become shallow due to siltation. The situation is impacting negatively on river transportation. Mr. Speaker, if adequate measures are not taken now, the lower
Ghana to really appreciate the problems emanating from the damming of the river.
Before the damming, the annual floods occasioned heavy harvests on the Volta and it was an enhancement of the lives of the people in the area going into the fishing of all manner of fishes including the clams mentioned by the hon. Member who made the Statement.
Since the damming, the main river has become very low and has occasioned situations that affect the people living along the banks of the river, especially the incidence of bilharzia.

It has not only reduced the health standards of the people because the tributaries and rivulets have dried up but also much of the economic activity, mainly fishing, has been affected. Therefore, the call for compensation to the people is a natural consequence of the sacrifice made by the people in the area, and it is a call that should have been heeded. But none of the report, as the maker of the Statement indicated, has been dealt with.

It is time for us, especially the Govern- ment to look at the plight of the people and to give them an alternative livelihood to improve upon their lives, so that they can also benefit from the resources that the country is getting out of the damming of the river.

The steps to be taken, as mentioned by the maker of the Statement, in terms of appropriate compensation, should be understood as interventions that would improve upon the economic activities of the people. I think we are not referring to cash payment to people who are affected, people who lose their lands along the banks of the river, but an overall intervention to replace the economic

Volta River would eventually be depleted.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to call on all to empower the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to vigorously carry out its plans to remove the aquatic weeds in the Lower Volta Basin and process it into organic fertilizer for farmers.

Mr. Speaker, the people need state intervention and international support to free them from their predicaments. I therefore call on the Government to initiate a move to identify people affected and pay appropriate compensation to make living meaningful to the people of the Lower Volta Basin.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for this opportunity.
Mr. A. N. Tettey-Enyo (NDC -- Ada) 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the Statement made by the hon. Member for Shai Osudoku (Mr. Assumeng).
A large segment of my constituency, the Ada constituency is within the Lower Volta Basin and therefore, the effects enumerated by the hon. Member are relevant issues to the people in my constituency.
The effect of the damming of the Volta River are very much known and well documented. We have to refer to the Lower Volta Basin Research Centre at Legon to see some of the serious effects of the damming of the river on the people both in the social and economic areas of their living. We also have to refer to the book entitled the Making of Ada by C. O. C. Amartey on the very effects on the people of the area. We can also refer to the recent research document entitled, Living in the Shadow of the Great Dams, written by Dr. Dzodzi Tsikata of the University of
Mr. A. N. Tettey-Enyo (NDC -- Ada) 10:10 a.m.


activities that they have lost, in order to raise the living standards of the people living along the banks of the river.

It requires therefore a whole package of intervention directed to the solution of the problems arising out of the damming. Desilting, for instance, in my area of the Anlo and the Luwe streams, the dredging of the banks of the Volta around the islands, the damming of the Taliba Kukudor valleys, and the rivers along that area which have not yet dried up should be done so that we can harness the waters there for irrigation in the Taliba, Folikope, Kukudor communities.

Already Mr. Speaker, there exists a body that is working consistently on the effects of the damming of the river on the people around the area, not only in the Dangme West constituency but also in the various Tongu constituencies. And that body which we call the Lower Volta Basin Development Forum is a body that can effectively liaise with Government in order to get a definite plan and an implementation strategy that would solve the medium to long-term effects of the damming of the Volta River.

I think that is something that we expect from the Government so that we learn from the lessons of the damming of the Volta, to be able to execute and manage the results of the Bui Dam which we have just taken up in this House.

Mr. Speaker, we hope the time has come now for the Government to rise up to this call, so that the despondency into which we have thrown the people living along the Volta Basin would end and that they would also count themselves as people who have also gained from the sacrifices that they have made.

With these few words, I support the Statement ably made by hon. David Tetteh Assumeng, Member of Parliament for Shai Osudoku constituency.
Mr. James Klutse Avedzi (NDC - Ketu North) 10:10 a.m.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to add my voice to the Statement made by the hon. Member for Shai Osudoku, which is a very important Statement touching on the issue of payment of compensation to people who are affected by the construction of the Akosombo and Kpong Dams.
Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the development of economic activities such as dams for power generation or for agricultural purposes, always in one way or the other, it impacts negatively on the people of the area. When we talk about economic development, it is the activity that brings benefit to the country as a whole, but in a small way people who are affected must be compensated to, in a way support them for the economic activity that they are also losing in the affected areas.
When we talk about this compensation, I think it is time now for all of us to revisit the issue of a policy on compensation so that when an economic activity is going to take place, we would all know what compensation package that would be given to the people who would be affected. This should not be done on an ad hoc basis. There must be a policy to be developed by Government so that once an economic activity is going to have negative impact on the people of that area, we would know the compensation package that would follow.
If we take the construction of Afife
Irrigation Dam as an example, the people of that area were highly and negatively affected. Farmers lost their farm lands and people living in that area lost their houses. There must be a compensation for relocation of those people who were
affected by the construction of the dam and mostly those people who lost their farmlands.
Mr. Speaker, as we are speaking today, the people of that area have not been compensated. So I think it is time for the Government to clearly come out with a policy on the issue of compensation so that when these activities are executed or projects are carried out, people who will be negatively affected are properly compensated.
With these few words, Mr. Speaker,
I thank the maker of the Statement for bringing the issue of compensation once again to the attention of this Government, and we want to call on the Government to come out clearly with a package for those who are affected in those areas.
Mr. S. K. Obodai (NPP - Agona West) 10:20 a.m.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to add my voice to this important Statement. Mr. Speaker, I am much concerned about the Statement made by the hon. Member for Shai Osudoku concerning appropriate compensation.

Mr. Speaker, anytime there is talk about compensation in itself I begin to ask myself a lot of questions about the way they go into negotiations when issues of this nature arise. Mr. Speaker, do they actually consider the effects that a particular project has on the people who live within that area, or how that thing is going to impact on the people there, how it is going to affect their economic activities, and so many other things?

Mr. Speaker, we realise that issues of this nature are coming up these days, and I think that it is time the Government sat up

and reconsidered them so that livelihood in such areas would actually improve.

Mr. Speaker, the maker of the Statement also talked about the increase of bilharzia in the area under discussion. Mr. Speaker, I think that bilharzia normally comes up when people bath in rivers and other things. So I will call on the appropriate bodies who are concerned with desilting of such rivers and dredging of river banks and other things to go into action.

Actually, I happened to have passed around a particular town in that area and Mr. Speaker, looking at the nature of the river in which people were fishing -- even the odour that come from that river -- we need to do a lot to help our people, especially where this is their main source of livelihood.

Mr. Speaker, on this note, I would want to call on the Government and all the agencies that are concerned with working on water and sanitation to rise up to this call and ensure that such areas are well treated. Mr. Speaker, I would want to thank the maker of the Statement for bringing this thing to the floor, and also for alerting the Government to take the appropriate action to bring order in such matters.
Mr. G. K. B. Gbediame (NDC -- Nkwanta South) 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity. Mr. Speaker, developments generally affect communities, and sacrifices are made here and there. It is just proper that the economic activities of the people, espe- cially within the area are seriously taken care of so that they will not be seriously disadvantaged.
Mr. Speaker, as the maker of the Statement made us aware, many of them who are educated today were educated through the moneys that were raised through the sale of the oyster, called Afoli or Adode.
Mr. Speaker, it is true -- those of us
who drive through the Akosombo road, at Adome Bridge, actually remember with nostalgia in those days how we would always buy these Afoli or Adode to our villages, because anytime you were coming from Accra, what the people expected was that you brought these things. But today, it is history, and it is not forthcoming. Therefore, it is proper that as he rightly said, the issue is seriously looked at so that their economic activities would not be seriously affected; and they will also be able to educate their children through that resource.
Mr. Speaker, as we are talking about compensation -- and he has rightly stated that it may not necessarily be in the form of cash but creating alternative livelihoods for the people to make life meaningful. Mr. Speaker, if you look at this Volta Lake or the Volta River, for that matter, it is a very important asset for us, that if it is properly harnessed, it can improve our living conditions, especially on tourism potentials.
We have talked about the silting of the Volta Lake. If proper desilting and for that matter dredging is carried out, cruising activities can take place which will attract tourists to the place and it will be another way of increasing their economic activity.
Mr. Speaker, secondly, with regard to irrigation activities, we have very fertile lands over there, and if irrigation activities are improved, I think that the production of vegetables can also be improved, and it can also go a long way in improving their living conditions.
Mr. Speaker, it is sad to actually note that fresh water like the one from the Volta Lake is just allowed to flow freely into the sea. I think that something can be done to re-channel this water to improve our
economic activities instead of allowing this fresh water to just flow into the sea.
Mr. Speaker, talking about the Volta Lake -- the lower basin -- I think that as we are talking about this basin, we must also look at what happens upstream. My constituency also happens to be within the Volta Basin, in the northern part, and the growth of water hyacinth actually impedes the smooth movement of water transport. Actually, it is even affecting the Dam, upstream. It is therefore, my wish and suggestion that as we are talking about the lower basin, we also look at the northern part, and try to improve upon water transport too, by removing this water hyacinths, which actually impede movement.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to mention that because of the low rainfall, a lot of islands are being created within the lake, and it can affect river transport. For that reason, it is very important that dredging is seriously considered, and also farming activities along the lake are curtailed in order to increase the lifespan of our all- important River Volta.
With these comments, I also lend my support to the Statement.
Mr. C. S. Hodogbey (NDC -- North Tongu) 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the Statement made by the hon. Member of Parliament for Shai-Osudoku. I come from the area under discussion. My consti- tuency and the district are entirely in that area. The people have approached me several times since I became the Member of Parliament concerning the failure to pay them compensation for crops, and for their lands. They have hired lawyers, approached the Estates Department of the Volta River Authority (VRA), but nothing has been done.
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the lands were acquired during the time of the two Governments -- the Kwame Nkrumah Government and the Acheampong Government -- excuse me to use the word, “dictatorial”. So the people never had the chance to fight for what they were supposed to get.
In view of that the lands were taken forcibly, and they never got anything. In the end, the construction of the two dams generated health hazards, agricultural problems, and migratory problems for our people. The health hazards include, as some other hon. Members have already said, bilharzia.
Today, if you go to areas along the Volta and you swim in the river, you are bound to get bilharzia. There are so many aquatic plants that the river is getting narrower and narrower everyday but nothing is being done.

Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate thing is that our colleagues who live upstream, Members of Parliament, are either given electric poles to give electricity to their people or fuel to go round to supervise projects undertaken by the Government. But those of us who are at the lower end never get anything at all. From Fodjoku all the way to Ada, the havoc caused by the construction cannot be mentioned. VRA has tried many times to give some token money to those at the lower basin.

An example is, when the Three Districts Water Project was initiated, we approached VRA and VRA planned to give money to the communities but this has never been done up to now. Act 46 which created the Akosombo Dam never gave the chance to the people, even to
Mr. C. S. Hodogbey (NDC -- North Tongu) 10:30 a.m.


negotiate over their own lands.

Today, if there is any investment project, especially agriculture, which falls along the banks, VRA would say you have to come to VRA to request before they can lease the land to you. This is hampering development. I do not think that was the intention of Dr. Kwame Nkrumah and General I. K. Acheampong. At least, something has to be done.

In the previous amendment, Mr. Speaker, we fought several times that at least, landowners seven kilometres from the banks should be given compensation; we do not want compensation to be a blanket thing to cover all traditional areas but at least, within seven kilometres radius. Before these last years, the last time they told us that this is not the appropriate place for this amendment -- I therefore call on the Government to at least, do something for the people.

The very water which is being used to provide electricity for all other areas in Ghana is the Volta but the Tongu people and all the people along the Volta are denied electricity, are denied even water to drink. Have we caused any problem just by giving out the waters for the country's development? Why? I appeal to the Government as much as possible, to come to their aid by paying the people compensation.
Mr. John A. Tia (NDC -- Talensi) 10:30 a.m.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to associate myself with the Statement because of an experience I had when I visited a community in the Lower Volta Basin. That community is called -- forgive me if I am not able to pronounce it very well -- Edumasa. Mr. Speaker, when I started my journey to this community, it was all rosy for me from Accra up to the dam site at Akosombo. Beyond that place, it took me more than two hours to be able to reach the community.
Mr. John A. Tia (NDC -- Talensi) 10:30 a.m.


The situation of the road there was so deplorable, so bad but I managed to get across this portion and got into the community and that was the moment I became very sad. I know the hon. Member of Parliament for that area, Mr. Ameyaw is here and he would testify to what I am saying.

The people are really dejected, if you have to put it mildly. You would wonder, if you cannot access this area then how do the people access health delivery? How do they get health facilities? How do they get other things? When you look around for what economic activity is there, you find nothing. So everybody there was just living at the mercy of God.

Mr. Speaker, the call for compensation, as rightly put, is not for cash and I think that call should be taken seriously. I want to use this opportunity to say that other areas that have similar projects should also be taken on board. The Vea and Tono irrigation dams are there. People along those dams too have similar problems and I think that in considering this situation at the Volta Basin, it should be done holistically; all other areas that have had these dams and other things and are feeling the social effects should be looked at and treated together.

With these few comments, I associate myself with the Statement.
Mr. Speaker 10:30 a.m.
At the Commencement
of Public Business -- Item 4, the following Papers to be laid. Minister for Finance and Economic Planning?
PAPERS 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Owusu 10:30 a.m.
None

Buyers Credit Facility between the Government of the Republic of Ghana and The Netherlands Government for an amount of four million, four hundred and ninety- five thousand, nine hundred and twenty-two euros and sixty-five cents (€4,495,922.65) to finance additional works in respect of the Sefwi-Wiawso-Benkyema Junction Road rehabilitation project.

Referred to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. Speaker 10:30 a.m.
“(b)” -- Chairman of the Committee on Mines and Energy?
Mr. Edward M. Ennin 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the report is not ready.
Mr. Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Deferred. “(c)”?
By the Chairman of the Committee --
Report of the Committee on Communications on the National Communications Authority Annual Report for the year 2005.
Mr. Speaker 10:30 a.m.
“(d)”. Hon. Member, are you a member of the Committee?
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I needed your guidance on an earlier matter because the hon. Acting Minister for Transportation is a resigned Minister and therefore you have permitted him to lay a Paper -- I was wondering what his new status is -- whether he is a presidential aspirant or still a Minister or a resigned Minister or outgoing Minister. Mr. Speaker, I needed your guidance on that.
Mr. Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Hon. Member for

By the Chairman of the Committee --

Report of the Committee on Poverty Reduction Strategy on the 2004 and 2005 Annual Progress Reports on the Implementation of the Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS).
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 10:30 a.m.
STAGE 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker 10:40 a.m.
(ii) -- clause 1-- there is an amendment in the name of hon. Member for Asikuma/Odoben/Brakwa.
Mr. P. C. Appiah-Ofori 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1, line 2, delete “to or”.
If this amendment is agreed to, then what I am saying here is that all clauses relating to bringing convicts from abroad to Ghana must cease. Mr. Speaker, whatever we do in this country, we must do cost-benefit analysis. You do not just stand up and do anything anyhow, regardless of the cost to the nation. We must consider two things: the cost involved, and the benefit that would accrue to the nation.
If the cost outweighs the benefit, we do not have to do it. If the benefit outweighs the cost, let us do it. That is the only way
Mr. P. C. Appiah-Ofori 10:40 a.m.


the Government would access enough funds to prosecute the agenda that would bring improved quality of life for the people of this country.
Mr. Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order against my hon. Colleague. Mr. Speaker, the amendment he seeks to effect really goes to the bottom of this Bill. Indeed, this principle was debated at the Second Reading and Mr. Speaker, he was here. Now he is coming back through the window to debate the principle.
Mr. Speaker, he is completely out of order, because if this amendment succeeds, what it would mean is that we would be considering a one way traffic for the Bill. And that is not the principle, that is not the motive behind this Bill! Mr. Speaker, so he is completely out of order and he is out of time. Mr. Speaker, I invite you to rule him out of order.
Mr. Appiah-Ofori 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, have you heard this before in this House, that somebody is moving an amendment and he is being told that he is out of order? Aaba. [Laughter.] Mr. Speaker, the major problem that faces us as a country is our inability, our failure to do the right thing at the right time. We spend money on useless things and allow people to go hungry, and then the people would charge us, accuse us that as a Government we have failed. [Interruptions.] [Laughter.]
Mr. Speaker, so the little money we have, must be used in a way that would bring improved quality of life to the people
for which we were voted. So why do we go and bring in criminals, those who have gone out to disgrace us, back here and feed them whiles there are many people in the rural areas who are dying of hunger? Why do we not use the money to take care of them?
So my argument here is that yes, let us go by this: those in Ghana who must go, must go. But those from outside who have stolen should remain there perpetually. [Laughter.] I want everybody to support me -- [Interruptions.]
Mr. Joe Ghartey 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot support my good friend, hon. P. C. Appiah-Ofori. The amendment he proposes, Mr. Speaker, seeks to change the whole tenor of this Bill. It seems to me that perhaps he has not understood or looked carefully at the whole Bill and what it seeks to achieve. It does not seek to achieve a wholesale transfer from outside Ghana, to inside Ghana, or vice versa.
This Bill merely seeks to create an opportunity and assuring that this is an opportunity that would be exercised responsibly by my goodself, for so long as I am Attorney-General and I believe by Attorney-Generals in the future.
Mr. Speaker, my friend, hon. P. C. Appiah-Ofori seems to suggest that if you have gone to prison or if you have been sentenced, then you are some kind of leper that we must totally ignore. I know he is a good Christian, and I want to remind him of the Bible saying that the surest way to go to heaven is to be kind to prisoners and criminals. Indeed, what the Bible says is that “I was imprisoned and you visited me”.
This Bill indeed, is recommended
to the House and this amendment is an amendment that should not have been brought forward at this time. His time is past, he is out of time, because the cost benefit analysis has already been made. As an Accountant, perhaps he sees cost- benefit only in terms of money but cost and benefit are not only in terms of money and I urge my friends on this occasion to totally ignore him. I am grateful, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Hon. Member for Asikuma/Odoben/Brakwa, it does appear that by your amendment you are seeking to discuss the principle rather than the details. It does appear you are not in order.
Mr. Appiah-Ofori 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, no! That is not true. Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General -- Mr. Speaker, are you ruling me out? -- [Interruptions.] He has ruled me out.
Mr. Speaker 10:40 a.m.
No, no, but let me listen to you. Yes, please go on, I want to hear you.
Mr. Appiah-Ofori 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I did not hear whether you said I have been ruled out -- If I have been ruled out, I have no objection, because I cannot challenge you. But if you have not ruled me out, then appeal to the people to -- [Inter-ruption.]
Mr. Speaker 10:40 a.m.
It does appear you are now dealing with the principle rather than the details.
Mr. Appiah-Ofori 10:40 a.m.
But what I said, did it not make any sense at all? [Laughter.] We are throwing away money to bring convicts here to feed them? All right.
Mr. Speaker 10:40 a.m.
So what do you propose to do? Are you withdrawing the amendment?
Mr. Appiah-Ofori 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, once you say you have ruled me out
-- but I am not withdrawing. If you put it to a vote and I am thrown out, I thank God. Other than that, I insist that -- Mr. Speaker, let us place Ghana's interest above any other consideration. Unless we do so, we are in danger.
Mr. Speaker 10:40 a.m.
I have already ruled you out of order.

Clause 1 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 -- Request made to the Republic by a competent authority of a sentencing country.
Mr. Osei-Ameyaw 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2, subclause (3), delete and insert the following:
“Subject to subsection 4, the Attorney-General shall within thirty days upon receiving an application, communicate a decision on the request to the competent authority of the specified country after consultation with the Minister for the Interior, the Director-General of the Prisons Service and other relevant state bodies.”
Mr. Ghartey 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, while I generally support the principle that it is good to put timeframes on things, I think thirty days is a little on the steep side. Indeed Mr. Speaker, knowing the capacity of the place, the people there and putting this burden -- I think it is rather harsh. I would suggest sixty days, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the second problem I have is that this amendment is not substantive because it subjects (3) to (4). Now, (3) says that upon receiving an application

he will communicate a decision on the request to the competent authority of the specified country, after consultation with the Minister for the Interior, the Director- General of the Prisons Service, and other relevant State bodies. Then (4) says:

“The Attorney-General may require a competent authority of the sentencing country . . .”

to provide further information.

First of all, (3) is independent of (4). Now, what they are suggesting seems to say that in every situation he should apply for further information. Indeed, the application itself may have enough information, which will render it unnecessary for him to apply for further information. So (4) is saying that if the application does not have enough information then he may apply for further information.

I think that “subject to subsection (4)” should be deleted and rather have “the Attorney-General shall within 60 days --” Because (3), Mr. Speaker, is independent of (4). If he does not have the information then he applies for further information.
Mr. Osei-Ameyaw 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the
rationale for the statutory requirement of 30 days is that your Committee was of the view that it is important that the administrative service of the Attorney- General's Department moves quickly so that people can be certain as to whether they are coming to the country or not. So it was on the basis that if we give them too much time and they do not move, people will be uncertain of their future. So if he is proposing 60 days we would consent to that.
Mr. Speaker 10:50 a.m.
You accept 60 days?
Mr. Osei-Ameyaw 10:50 a.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Osei-Ameyaw 10:50 a.m.


And on the issue of (3), subject to subclause (4), I do not quite understand the Attorney-General's argument because (4) says the Attorney-General “may” -- That is discretionary; it is not mandatory. So he does not have to seek further and better particulars each time the matter comes before him because of the “may”. That “may” does not make it mandatory.
Mr. A. O. Aidooh 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
support the Attorney-General's cotention that subjecting (2) to (4) is most unnecessary. Mr. Speaker, the two, as he said, are completely independent of each other and the Attorney-General does not have to -- Even the wording, “may” -- “he may seek further information” suggests that he does not have to do it and therefore when we say “subject to”, it means it cannot be more or less binding on him.
When we use the words “subject to”, it means he is invited to comply with (4); but (4) is only permissive. That is another angle to it and therefore subjecting (2) to (4) makes it more or less mandatory while the wording of S(4) itself is only permissive, and that makes it unnecessary. In fact, the two are contradictory, the way he wants it. And therefore, I also support the view that those words “subject to” must be deleted.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, while I agree entirely with the position of the hon. Attorney-General, I think the purpose for subjecting the new provision to subclause (4) is that the Attorney-General may require some relevant information on the convicted person. And they are saying that until he has the information he may not be well positioned to submit himself to the requirements of this Act. And I think that is why they are saying subject to it. It is
not really the use of the words “may” and “shall.”
I think it has nothing to do with that. Notwithstanding that, I agree with the position of the Attorney-General.
Mr. Osei-Ameyaw 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
think the hon. Chief Whip is correct. What the Committee was proposing to do was that the Attorney-General is given 60 days but in the event that he may require further particulars he should be given more time. So he is not restricted to the 60 days, that is why it is being made subject to subclause (4) so that in the case where he requires further material or further information he is not restricted by the provisions of subclause (2).
So that is the rationale behind it; but if the Attorney-General does not want that and he wants to restrict himself to the 60 days, then it is a matter for him.
Mr. A. O. Aidooh 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the
Chairman is now committing a greater wrong. Mr. Speaker, if he intends to give the Attorney-General more time beyond the 30 days, or 60 days this is not the way to do it. Now, is he saying that by subjecting (3) to (4) -- The Attorney- General, if he needs more information, can they stay outside the time limitation? Not at all. He still stands by the 30 days or 60 days given.
So saying that he may want further information and therefore he may want more time is completely wrong, because that will still not permit him to go beyond the 30 days or 60 days; he is bound by it. And so subjecting it the way he has put it, like I said, is even a greater wrong and he must work quickly to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Charles S. Hodogbey 10:50 a.m.
Mr.
Speaker, the problem I have with this particular amendment is that it does not
go further to say if the Minister or the Director-General of Prisons for some reason says no -- Application could be rejected, but there is no other clause in the Bill which gives latitude to the Minister of the Interior or the Director-General of Prisons to say, “no, we cannot accept this application”.
Therefore, I will suggest that a provision should be made whereby it will give authority to the Director-General of Prisons on the basis of say, space or other reason to equally say no, this application should be rejected.
Mr. Speaker 10:50 a.m.
We are dealing with this
amendment. Chairman of the Committee, what do you say to the suggestion from the Attorney-General?
Mr. Osei-Ameyaw 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
on the suggestion from the Attorney- General, my only reservation is that seeking information from outside may not be within the jurisdiction of this nation. So we cannot put a timeframe within which a country outside would bring that information to the Attorney-General; and that is the purpose. If we restrict it, then we have a problem. However, if the Attorney- General is comfortable, the Committee would be comfortable to accommodate his suggestion.
Mr. Speaker 10:50 a.m.
In other words, you
want to delete those words, “subject to subclause (4)”?
Mr. A. O. Aidooh 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, with that explanation the wording here does not achieve that intention. I therefore say that we defer this clause and then he comes with a different wording because he intends to give the Attorney-General more time where he needs some information from outside. But Mr. Speaker, this amendment that he has brought does not capture that intention; so we should defer
this clause and do the wording properly.
Mr. Speaker 10:50 a.m.
You want to defer it?
Mr. A. O. Aidooh 10:50 a.m.
Yes, sir.

Clause 3 -- Request by a convicted

person.
Mr. Osei-Ameyaw 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, subclause (4), line 1, after “submitted” insert “within thirty days”.
Mr. Ghartey 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thought that perhaps following from the previous change from 30 days to 60 days, it would be good to make this 60 days as well, rather than 30 days.
Mr. Osei-Ameyaw 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
have no objection to that.
Mr. Speaker 10:50 a.m.
You are therefore
amending it to read 60 days?
Mr. Osei-Ameyaw 11 a.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 3 as amended ordered to stand
part of the Bill.

Clause 4 -- Qualifications for the Transfer of a convicted person.
Mr. Osei-Ameyaw 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, head notes, delete “Qualifications” and insert “Conditions”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
Chairman of the Committee, do you have a further
Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.


amendment?
Mr. Osei-Ameyaw 11 a.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, paragraph (d), line 1, delete “term of imprisonment” and insert “sentence”.
Mr. A. O. Aidooh 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, clause
4, paragraph (a), I do not know whether that is what they agent intended to do. If I may read, that is qualifications --
Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon. Deputy Majority
Leader, are you dealing with paragraph (d), line 1?
Mr. A. O. Aidooh 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, no;
in fact, (a).
Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
Then let me put the
Question on this one and complete --
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. A. O. Aidooh 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, paragraph (a), “Quali- fications for the transfer of a convicted person”, delete “That the convict is or is believed to be a citizen of Ghana” and insert “That the convict is a citizen of Ghana”.
I think that we should be certain about the person we are importing or having transferred into Ghana. I do not know whether they will agree with me but I think it is an amendment worth considering.
Mr. Osei-Ameyaw 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, that is in order. I have no objection to that.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Dr. Kunbuor 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want to seek your leave to move a further amendment to clause 4. In clause 4, add another paragraph (h) after (g). And the
amendment is to read, in terms of the conditions for the transfer of convicted persons, to include:
“That the offence for which the person has been convicted and sentenced is one arising from a treaty obligation to which Ghana is a state party.”
Mr. Speaker, if you look at what we
are doing now, basically, we are trying to approximate some type of global standards and because of the peculiar nature of these treaty offences, there is a global consensus that is building around them in terms of the legal provisions for prosecuting them, the institutions that handle the prosecutions in turn, that is, the entire justice system in this matter.
That is why I believe that if we exclude this or make this as an exception to the principle of transferring the convicted person then we will be showing, for instance, the extent to which we are committed to fighting terrorism, the extent to which we are fulfilling treaty obligations arising from the trafficking in small arms and light weapons.

What I am saying is that (h) should read as follows:

“That the offence for which the accused has been convicted and sentenced is one arising from a treaty obligation to which Ghana is a state party.”

And that should be read together with the opening of clause 4, which says:

“The transfer of a convict to Ghana shall be subject to the following conditions . . .

And this would be an exception, that it should not be one of the offences that is arising from a treaty. It should not be so. If you are convicted, for instance, in country ‘A' for terrorism, they should allow you to serve your sentence in that country. So it should not come under this. What it means is that we can put it as a proviso, that is. I do not want to get into the drafting technicalities, but we can say that

“provided that the offence is not one arising from a treaty obligation to which Ghana is a state party.”
Mr. Osei-Ameyaw 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, to
that I believe there is a provision within the Bill that allows the other country to agree or to approve the transfer or not. So in the case which my hon. Colleague opposite is referring to, if it is an offence that falls within the same international treaty and that country is disposed not to allow the convict to be brought to Ghana, they will not accede to the request of transfer. So it is in-built and there is no need for us to put it in there.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I was rising to support the amendment proposed by the hon. Kunbuor and to urge hon. Members to support it. Mr. Speaker, this country has already committed itself to some treaty agreements arising out of which this House has passed legislation, especially for those where penal sentences have been defined.
He is simply urging that we put it in as an exception that in the case of even drug trafficking if a person is arrested
somewhere in Britain or in the United States (US) and goes through the process of a trial and is finally convicted, on the basis of that, let that person serve his sentence. But it does not depart from what is provided in the law where you will negotiate generally on other issues.
I do believe that we have passed through Second Reading but the truth is that some offences are not even offences in Ghana, properly speaking. If for instance somebody went through a trial for adultery or fornication in Saudi Arabia, his punishment is different. They would have stoned the person to death, while if you bring the person to Ghana -- Are you going to stone him to death?
So we are saying that we should make a provision so that some of these other offences, we still can allow those people in those peculiar circumstance to serve their sentences there. I believe that is the defect hon. Kunbuor wants to cure. In that direction, I support his proposed amendment.
Dr. Kunbuor 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Chairman of the Committee mis- understood the nature of the amendment. I want an outright disqualification. That is why I wanted it in the dis-quali-fication section. We cannot anticipate the number of countries from which we will transfer prisoners. His assumption is that that country might be a party to that treaty; it might not also be a party to the treaty to which that negotiation should take place. And I am saying, let us have this general provision that addresses that issue; but that does not still take away our negotiation with the other state from which the person is being transferred.
But this is just to indicate -- Because if I look at clause 4, where we changed “Qualification” to “Conditions”, it is
Dr. Kunbuor 11:10 a.m.


a very, very important clause in the entire Bill and that is why I want it actually strengthened and expanded in this particular manner so that it becomes clear to whoever is a prospective applicant for transfer to be aware that the nature of the offence to which he was convicted and sentenced in any jurisdiction is excluded, so that there is no doubt in the mind of the person coming to serve the penal sentence that there is difficulty here. That is why I am proposing the amendment.
Mr. A. O. Aidooh 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the amendment, in fact, most vehemently.
Mr. Speaker, going by what my hon. Colleague is saying, this Bill, I submit, would be rendered most impotent if this amendment is adopted. Mr. Speaker, he talked about offences arising out of treaties; even The Children's Act came out of a treaty, and so even offences relating to children would be disbarred. Narcotic offences, hijacking -- Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether he can give us what offences we have now that will then come under the Bill.
Mr. Speaker, what we should address is that this Bill deals with events after conviction. I have before me, documents relating to over 70 countries where similar laws are operating; not even one country out of the 70 has that kind of provision. We should all bear in mind that this Bill deals with handling criminals. The word is “convict” and therefore when this Bill is evoked, the “anteceding” events, the trial and the offence, become immaterial.
The Bill deals with treatment of prisoners and therefore if we begin to segregate and say this Bill applies to offences that are not covered by treaties, I submit that the Bill would be most impotent and I cannot imagine an offence
from a coup to assault that will be left. And therefore I suggest that we oppose the amendment seriously.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment is intended to render the Bill nugatory and impotent. It is a very clever ploy to derail the Bill. And I submit that the whole House must see the amendment as a clever amendment but it portends danger and therefore I submit strongly that the whole House be united in opposing the amendment.
Mr. Speaker, it is as if you are saying that we should withdraw the Bill. If this amendment goes through, it is as saying that the Bill must be withdrawn. And therefore, I vehemently oppose the amendment.
Mr. C. S. Hodogbey 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I tend to agree with the hon. Member for Lawra/Nandom, Dr. Benjamin Kunbuor. I think if we give blanket freedom to all convicted prisoners, like drug traffickers, sexual offenders or terrorists we shall be bringing people into this country where we do not have the effective mechanism to check them. Therefore, I tend to agree with Dr. Benjamin Kunbuor in this regard.
Mr. Ghartey 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Deputy Majority Leader said that the amendment portends danger. That danger is so great that with respect I will borrow the words of a hymnist who says that “the distant sea, one-step enough for me”. My hon. Colleague opposite's exceptionally brilliant proposals I must day, is seeking to undermine and render the entire Bill not worthy of the purpose it sought.
He said we should take away treaty obligations. We are on the floor of Parliament considering an amendment; he did not tell us what offences he is talking about, and he does not tell us what treaties he is talking about. Treaties which have been passed, treaties which
will be passed, treaties which have not been thought about yet are all subject, by virtue of his proposed amendment, to exclusion. All we need to do is to pass this Bill and continue to pass treaties, which will continue excluding everything.
Indeed, this amendment is in the nature of the amendment which was proposed earlier on by my hon. Colleague, Mr. P. C. Appiah-Ofori; it is an amendment that is not an amendment stricto senso but a proposal to completely derail our entire process.
Indeed, my hon. Colleague from North Tongu talked about freedom, and he saw it in the light of freedom. Mr. Speaker, with respect, I would take a minute, if he pays attention, to tell him that to think that this Bill is talking about freedom means, with the greatest of respect, that perhaps he has been slightly misinformed about the Bill. A person who is transferred is not free. A person who is convicted and transferred will not come to freedom in Ghana.
This Bill talks about matters arising after conviction. We are not standing here to pontificate; we are saying that when one is convicted, he should serve the rest of the sentence in his country. And anyone who is sentenced here should serve the rest of his sentence in his country. Nobody would be made free as a result of this Bill; they will move from one prison to another prison. And indeed, every prison, whether it is an air-conditioned prison or a hot prison is a prison. It was Nelson Mandela who said that it is when one's freedom is taken away that he will realize how important freedom is. The principle, like the value, is the same. A prison is a prison.
Mr. Hodogbey 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think when I spoke of freedom, freedom is relative. If we claim our prisoners are suffering in Bangkok and therefore it is
an inhuman situation and they should be brought to Ghana to be treated as Ghanaian citizens, is it not a relative freedom? Why can we not leave them there to serve the sentence if we think it is not freedom that we want to give them?
Therefore, when I said freedom I was talking about we not having the mechanism. When the hon. Minister for Justice and Attorney-General goes to Nsawam Prisons -- I was there yesterday; we do not even have a computerized system. A prisoner ran away some few days ago; we could not track him and we are talking about bringing convicted prisoners who are more sophisticated from abroad to come and influence our prisoners over here. What Bill is this?
Mr. Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Hon. Member for Lawra/ Nandom, I wish to make a suggestion that let us defer this amendment. In the meantime, kindly formulate it properly so that we know exactly what we are about.
Dr. Kunbuor 11:10 a.m.
Very well, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker 11:10 a.m.
The amendment is deferred.
Clauses 5 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10 -- Attorney-General to request the transfer of a convict.
Mr. Osei-Ameyaw 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10 -- subclause (4), line 2, after “shall” insert “within sixty days”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:20 a.m.
Mr.
Speaker, before you put the Question on clause 10, may I take us back to clause 10 (1). Mr. Speaker it reads:
“The Attorney-General may make
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:20 a.m.


an application through the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a competent authority in a foreign country to request the transfer out of Ghana to that country of a convict who is or is believed to be a citizen of that country.”

Mr. Speaker, in an earlier consideration we deleted the words “or is believed to be”. Mr. Speaker, first of all I beg to move for the deletion of the words “or is believed to be” and the deletion of the word “that” in line 3 and substitution of same with the word “the” so that the entire subclause would read:

“The Attorney-General may make an application through the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a competent authority in a foreign country to request the transfer out of Ghana to the country of the convict who is a citizen of that country.”

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit.
Mr. Osei-Ameyaw 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I will
agree to that.
Clause 10 as amended ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause 11 -- Issue of a warrant for
transfer out of Ghana.
Mr. Osei-Ameyaw 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
beg to move, clause 11, subclause (3), paragraph (b), line 1, before “not literate” insert “blind, deaf, dumb or”.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr. Osei-Ameyaw 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
beg to move, clause 11, subclause (5), paragraph (a), line 4, delete “convict's country” and insert “country of the convict”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.

Clause 11 as amended ordered to stand

part of the Bill.

Clause 12 -- Consent incapable of

withdrawal.
Mr. Osei-Ameyaw 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg
to move, clause 12, head notes, delete and insert “consent not to be withdrawn”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Osei-Ameyaw 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg
to move, clause 12, line 2, delete “can” and insert “shall”.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 12 as amended ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause 13 -- Appeals.
Mr. Osei-Ameyaw 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg
to move, clause 13, subclause (2), line 3, delete “8” and insert “9”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14 -- Pardon, amnesty,
commutation or review.
Mr. Osei-Ameyaw 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
beg to move, clause 14, subclause (2), line 3, delete “communication” and insert “commutation”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 as amended ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause 15 -- Transit.
Mr. Osei-Ameyaw 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg
to move, clause 15, subclause (1), line 1, delete “transfer convict” and insert “a convict on transfer”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 as amended ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clauses 16 and 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18 -- Regulation.
Mr. Osei-Ameyaw 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 18, line 3, delete “contents” and insert “content” and at end, delete “5 (2) and 10 (2)” and insert “6(2) and 11(2)”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19 -- Interpretation.
Mr. Osei-Ameyaw 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move,clause 19, “convict”, line 2, before “to”, insert “and sentenced”.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr. Osei-Ameyaw 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
beg to move, that Clause 19, page 8, line 4, delete “transit and boarding” and insert “transit, boarding and lodging”.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr. Osei-Ameyaw 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19, page 8, line 5, delete “‘Director-General' means the Director- General of Prisons”.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr. Osei-Ameyaw 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
beg to move, clause 19, page 8, line 6, delete and insert “ ‘Director-General' means the Director-General of the Ghana Prisons Service”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Osei-Ameyaw 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19, page 8, line 11, at beginning, delete “National”.
Mr. A. O. Aidooh 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have
two problems with this amendment. The first is that the word “national” appears in clause 14, line 2 and I think that is an attempt being made to define “national court”; it arises from this clause.
Mr. Speaker, I want to propose that we delete “national” both in the definition and in clause 14 so that we only have “court of competent jurisdiction” because you may have a treaty with a state in America which would not have the national court; it may have state court. So I think that we should delete the word “national” both from clause 14 and from the definition. That is, if we delete the word “national” then the definition would not be necessary.
So I propose that the word “national” in clause 14 be deleted and the definition too be deleted because we may have a court sentencing somebody in America, in Alabama State, that cannot be a national court of the United States. So we must just have “a court of competent jurisdiction” instead of “a national court”, otherwise

we will have problems. It would limit the rights of people to be transferred if they are committed by State courts in America or Russia.
Mr. Osei-Ameyaw 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, for
consistency sake, if we look at clause 14, it also has “adopted by a national court of competent jurisdiction”. If we are deleting “national” from clause 19, then I think the hon. Deputy Majority Leader is correct. I do not have any objection that “national” should be deleted from clause 14 as well as clause 19.
Mr. Mahama Ayariga 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
whilst it is appropriate that our attention is drawn to the use of the term “national”, let us also be minded of the fact that increasingly, we are having international courts that deal with specialized areas. What would be the relationship between the expression here, “national court of competent jurisdiction” and an inter- national court established in a country but which has jurisdiction over a set of international criminal offences?
So I do not think that if the word “national” is used it will preclude us from interpreting it to cover a state court or federal court, because “national” deals more with domestic courts and a federal court is a domestic court; a state court is a domestic court; a provincial court is a domestic court as against an international court.
I think the word “national” here will cover both state courts and federal courts. But there is a difference between the national courts that we see and the international courts and tribunals that also deal with criminal matters which are often defined as international offences. So let us try and sort this out otherwise one day, somebody will be convicted of an
international offence by an international court and the person will seek to benefit under this legislation.
Mr. A. O. Aidooh 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
believe my hon. Colleague did not get the point I made. Mr. Speaker, this Bill permits states to enter into treaties; it does not permit Ghana to enter into treaties with the International Court of Justice, for instance, so it has no application there. It has no application to the kind of scenario we are envisaging. This Bill will permit Ghana to enter into agreement with the United States of America but not with the International Court of Justice.
Mr. Speaker, the point I am making is that this Bill will also permit Ghana to enter into a treaty with a state of America, a state that does not have national courts. Therefore, we should delete the word “national” so that we do not have that problem. And the words “competent court” or “court of competent jurisdiction” is the normal phraseology; it is bereft of any problems.
So I still maintain that we should delete the word “national” in clause 14 and therefore delete the definition in the interpretation section as well. The scenario my hon. Friend is envisaging will never arise. Ghana will never have to enter into agreement with that kind of court. So it does not arise.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
Mr.
Speaker, I think the import of the intervention of the hon. Deputy Majority Leader is really to delete the word “national” as appears in clause 14 and indeed delete the interpretation for “national court of competent jurisdiction”, the entire definition. I think that is the purpose of the intervention by the hon. Deputy Majority Leader.
So we delete the word “national” as it appears in clause 14 (2) and also delete the interpretation.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 19 as amended ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Long Title.
Mr. Osei-Ameyaw 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, Long Title, delete “one country to another” and insert “the Republic to another country and from another country to the Republic”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Long Title as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon. Members, we have
come to the end of the Consideration Stage of the Transfer of Convicted Persons Bill.
Item 6.
Mr. A. O. Aidooh 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we are
left with two clauses -- clauses 2 and 4.
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Chairman of the
Committee, clause 2 -- let us continue with the Consideration Stage. Clause 2.
Mr. Osei-Ameyaw 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, for
clause 2, I would agree with the Attorney- General's amendment. So if the Attorney- General can repeat his amendment.
Mr. Ghartey 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg
to move, clause (2), delete “subject to sub section (4)”. So it starts from “the Attorney-General shall within 60 days”.
Mr. Ghartey 11:40 a.m.


Question put and amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Deputy Majority Leader,
there is one outstanding -- that is the (4) -- the new clause.
Mr. A. O. Aidooh 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I understand that Dr. Kunbuor has withdrawn the amendment.
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
He is yet to formulate,
except that he wants to withdraw.
Mr. A. O. Aidooh 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, he
conferred with the Attorney-General.
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Attorney-General, do you have the authority of hon. Member for Lawra/Nandom?
Mr. Ghartey 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we
conferred and he informed me that he is prepared to withdraw it.
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
So it is withdrawn. Deputy Majority Leader, we now come to the end of the Consideration Stage; we have dealt with all the clauses.
Mr. A. O. Aidooh 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg
to move, that this House do now adjourn till tomorrow morning at ten o'clock.
Mr. J. K. Gidisu 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT 11:40 a.m.