Debates of 30 Oct 2007

MR. SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker 10 a.m.
Order! Order! Correction of Votes and Proceedings, Friday, 26th October, 2007. Page 1, 2, 3 … 9 and page --
Ms. Josephine Hilda Addoh -- rose
-- 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker 10 a.m.
Hon. Member for Kwadaso.
Ms. Addoh 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, just for the records. I am sorry to take you back to page 1, number 12. I was absent. I was in South Africa for the Pan-African Parliament Meeting. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker 10 a.m.
Thank you. Hon.

Item 3 -- Statements. Statement by the

Statement by the hon. Member for
Mr. Speaker 10 a.m.


Abura-Asebu-Kwamankese.
STATEMENTS 10 a.m.
Mr. A. K. Mensah (NPP -- Abura- Asebu-Kwamankese) 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to make this Statement on the floor of this august House.
The Ghana National Service Scheme was established under Act 426 (1980) under the 1979 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana. “The Scheme” is run by the National Service Board which consists of a Chairman, a Director and six other members appointed by the President in consultation with the Council of State.
Mr. Speaker, the Board is assigned the function of engaging people in the areas of agriculture, co-operatives, education, health, local government, military and rural development, which includes surveying, physical planning, civil engineering and rural industries. Again, the Scheme embarks upon Youth Programmes and any other field that the Board may prescribe from time to time as provided for in section 3 (1) of the Scheme.
The contribution of the Scheme to the socio-economic development of the country cannot be overemphasized. This is so because in the area of education, for instance, the Scheme has been of immense assistance for posting teachers to the rural schools where the professional teachers would often find excuses to refuse posting to teach.
It is an undeniable fact that education is the key to a country's manpower base needed for the socio-economic develop-ment. As regards the National
Service, personnel are found in the schools scattered around in every nook and cranny of the country's first and second cycle schools. Thus, these personnel are tasked with the production of the required manpower base needed by the country to bring about socio-economic advance-ment. Almost all other sectors of production of the country engage the services of the Scheme.
Mr. Speaker, in spite of the contribution of the Scheme enumerated above, there are financial problems that militate against the smooth operation of the Scheme which should not be glossed over.
Firstly, at the national headquarters, there is lack of office equipment, namely: computers, fax machines, photocopy machines, vehicles, et cetera. The same thing can be said of the regional as well as the district offices all over the country.
Secondly, the Personnel Emoluments for the year 2007 which has the ceiling of GH¢62,216,285.60 as the projected figure of estimates was slashed down to GH¢14,493,849.45 which is woefully inadequate for the smooth operation of the Scheme. Slashing the Personnel Emoluments, in effect, cripples the operations of the Scheme financially.
Mr. Speaker, the Scheme's budget estimate for the Administrative Activity for 2007 for the national headquarters, ten regional offices and one hundred and thirty-eight district offices was GH¢890,000.00 and it is now slashed to GH¢381,426.82. The reduction is fifty- seven per cent (57%).
Finally, Mr. Speaker, under Investment Activity of the Scheme, the budgeted figure of GH¢180,000.00 was cut down to GH¢80,000.00, that is a reduction cut
of fifty-six per cent (56%). Mr. Speaker, the effect of the cut-down of the budget allocation to the Scheme has resulted in the Scheme's inability to secure the afore- mentioned office equipment and vehicles for effective monitoring and evaluation.
Indeed, in some districts, there are no office accommodations for co-ordinating officers. For instance, in Kasena-Nankana District, the Service Co-ordinator shares a single office with many Departments. In the case of Talensi-Nabdam, there is no office accommodation for the Service Co-ordinator; he co-ordinates activities in the district from Bolgatanga.
Mr. Speaker, Act 426 (1980), section 20 of the National Service Scheme stipulates that: “The funds of the Scheme shall include such sums as may be appropriated to it by the Government or any other source.”
Mr. Speaker, the Act above implies that the Scheme must be resourced by the Government or any other authority that the Government mandates to do so. Yet, it is usually the case that the Scheme's estimated budgets are cut down heavily, rendering it not being able to function as expected.
Mr. Speaker, it is therefore incumbent on all of us Members of this honourable House to appeal strongly to the Ministries responsible for Finance and Education to consider enhancing the budget allocation to the Scheme. Mr. Speaker, this, when done, will position the Scheme to be able to procure office equipment, vehicles and other inputs for its offices so as to enable it render effective and efficient services to the country.
Thank you, Right Hon. Speaker.
Mr. Emmanuel A. Gyamfi (NPP -- Odotobiri) 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the hon. Member who made the Statement for bringing this to the attention of all Ghanaians.
Mr. Speaker, the importance of the National Service Scheme cannot be over- emphasized. It is very important that the Scheme is running even though some problems are associated with it. Mr. Speaker, there are so many institutions that need the support of the national service persons, especially in the schools -- primary, secondary and at times at the tertiary level. National service persons are needed in those areas to support the programme.
Mr. Speaker, again, in terms of gaining experience for the job market, the National Service Scheme is best suited for that. The one-year service by the national service persons affords them the greatest opportunity to learn a lot during the time of working in the various institutions that they are posted to.
Again, Mr. Speaker, the National Service Scheme also affords the service persons the opportunity to experience life in most of the areas which hitherto they have not been to before, especially the rural areas where most service persons are posted to offer various services to the communities.
National service, Mr. Speaker, should
be understood as a service to the nation and to the people of Ghana and not as what we see today or what we have been hearing, that national service is tantamount to national punishment. I would like to say that it is because of the problems that are associated with the provisions of the programme itself. Most of the problems which can be brought to the fore are the payment of allowances which is not only

enough for the service persons but in actual fact are not paid at the right time. As I am speaking, there is information outside that the allowance which is due them for the completion of the service has not been paid and all these are challenges that the Scheme is facing and which we need to work hard to minimize.

Mr. Speaker, one unfortunate issue with

the National Service Scheme is the refusal of the service persons to attend to their posting areas. For instance, many service persons refused to go to the rural areas where their services are mostly needed, and if this is continued, Mr. Speaker, it would not let the ordinary Ghanaian or the nation benefit so much from the National Service Scheme that is being run.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say

that with the Scheme in place, a lot of benefits can be derived from it, and I wish that the Government would take it seriously especially in the payment of the allowances so that the service persons would be, at least, better off and be very encouraged to give the necessary support that the nation needs from them.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the requirement that for a service person or for somebody to get employment in the country, that person should have served the nation for, at least one year, which is the national service period. This, Mr. Speaker, I believe, would help all of us to give something to mother Ghana before we also expect mother Ghana to give something back to us.

With this few words, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity.
Mr. J. K. Gidisu (NDC -- Central Tongu) 10:20 a.m.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to get associated with the Statement, and I would want to con- gratulate my hon. Colleague who has
brought this to the fore.
Mr. Speaker, over the years the National Service Scheme has been the main support for a lot of institutions and organizations in the country. Un-fortunately, over the years, not much has been given to that department in terms of resources and the support that they need to cope with this demand.
Mr. Speaker, the situation with the National Service Scheme over the years has been confronted with inadequate resources, more especially with regard to the payment of allowances to service personnel. This has seriously affected the moral of the students and for that matter the service personnel.
Over the years, the Service itself has
been struggling to generate some amount of internal revenue to support their activities. More often than not, they have to compete with established institutions for contracts and other works that could serve as the sources of income for them. I would want to appeal to, more especially, the District Assemblies and Municipal Authorities to look at areas where they could use the service personnel in terms of support. For example, they have resources for drilling boreholes and this could go a long way to give them adequate sources of funds to pump up their activities.

It is equally important for the beneficiary institutions to be more supportive to the mother organizations in terms of what they could be using from the services of the personnel to support the mainstream organizations so that they could extend support to a lot of these organizations that benefit from the services of the personnel.

Mr. Speaker, at the receiving end or at the district level, a lot of our people, more especially, institutions do not give
Mr. I. K. Asiamah (NPP -- Atwima- Mponua) 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the maker of this soul-inspiring Statement. I believe strongly that the National Service Scheme, indeed, prepares new graduates to face the challenges of life. It gives them the exposure. Sometimes if you are posted to a place and you do not know the place and you make an effort to interfere with the posting, Mr. Speaker, later on you would
regret that you have not gone to the place.
I remember when my posting came in the year 2000, little did I know that I was going to find a very comfortable place to live in Navrongo. That was my first experience in the north. The kind of interaction, the very good people that I met at the place informed me that, indeed, in Ghana we have something very positive to showcase to the world.
Mr. Speaker, when the time came for me to get back to the south, I nearly refused to come back to the south because of the great experience that I had in the north. Mr. Speaker, with the new ones who are yet to go to their new posting areas, they should see every place as part of this country and that they are yet to see so many important things where they would be going.
The greatest challenge service persons face is the issue of accommodation. You get yourself into a new area, you do not know anybody and the first challenge is where to lay your head. Yes, the call has been made to the District Assemblies; it is up to Ghanaians in general, our community leaders and our traditional authorities to assist these new graduates to find fairly comfortable places to live. After all, they come there to support education, agriculture and industry; they are needed at every stage of our national endeavour. So it is important that every community accords the service person the greatest respect and recognition.
Mr. Speaker, another issue -- and it is a challenge to the service persons -- is discipline, which is key. Some are going to teach students, especially the male service persons; some are going to teach young girls, girls who have attained eighteen years and above; and some are even nineteen years. The warning to them
Mr. K. Opare-Hammond (NPP -- Adenta) 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to lend my support to the Statement and wish to thank the maker of the Statement. Mr. Speaker, the National Service was set up for several purposes and I believe one of them is to give opportunity to our younger brothers and sisters to know other parts of this nation.
Of late, when these young men and women are posted to places other than the
towns and cities many of them refuse to go. I wish to use this opportunity to remind them and the whole nation that one of the purposes for setting up of the National Service Scheme is to have our brothers and sisters, the young people to know other areas of this nation and therefore they should accept whatever posting, they should accept whatever location that they are given in their posting.
I want to comment on one other thing that has to do with their postings and that has to do with the fact that many times we have a lot of them posted to this House. Mr. Speaker, what we were expecting is that some of them would be attached to Members of Parliament to work as supporting staff. However, we have a situation whereby all of those who are posted to this House are attached to various secretaries and sometimes you have a situation where you have five or six service personnel working or serving in one committee secretariat.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to suggest that service personnel should be attached to Members of Parliament to give us support. In the course of working with us we believe that they would learn a lot of things; we believe that through that we can also “mentor” them. There a number of them who would eventually grow up to become leaders, Members of Parliament, pastors and so on in this nation.
Mr. Speaker, we believe that by attaching them to us and getting them close to us they would learn a lot of things about leadership; they would learn a lot of things about the nitty-gritty that goes into the work of a Member of Parliament; they would learn about the politics of this nation and be able to serve the nation
Mr. Speaker, let us as a House request 10:20 a.m.
None

With these few words, Mr. Speaker, I once again say thank you and thank the maker of this Statement.
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Presentation and First Reading of Bills.
BILLS -- FIRST READING 10:30 a.m.
PAPERS 10:30 a.m.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 10:30 a.m.
STAGE 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Kojo Armah 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move clause 1, subclause (1), paragraph (a), delete “converts” and insert converts, conceals, disguises or transfers the property”.
Mr. Speaker, after consultations on the issue of pursuing an amendment -- We want to withdraw the advertised amendment and then propose the following: Clause 1 -- the new amendment may be “converts, conceals, disguises or transfers the property”. The original amendment was to delete “convert” and then add “changes or transforms the original identity of the property”.

Mr. Speaker, we are withdrawing that one by substituting it with this new one - “converts, conceals, disguises or trans- fers the property”.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, thank you. But I would wish that the Chairman of the Committee allows for more clarity. If you look at clause 1 (a) it is “converts or transfers the property”. Now he is using “convert, conceals, disguises”. I think that it is problematic. Are we maintaining 1(a) as it is? If so let us do that and come to (b) where he has - If he can reframe his amendments.
Mr. Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Hon. Chairman, your proposed amendment -- let us have it done.
Mr. Armah 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, our new amendment would read “converts, conceals, disguises or transfers”.
Mr. Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Which one are you dealing with? Is it (a)?
Mr. Armah 10:30 a.m.
Clause 1 (a).
Mr. Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Clause 1 (a)?
Mr. Armah 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, he is asking about clause 1 (b); clause 1 (b) deals with the origins of the property. This is dealing with the property itself.
Mr. Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Chairman, clause 1 (a) --
Mr. Armah 10:30 a.m.
We are dealing with
clause 1 (a).
Mr. Speaker 10:30 a.m.
You leave it as it is.
Mr. Armah 10:30 a.m.
No, clause 1 (a) -- we are adding the following: “converts, conceals, disguises or transfers the property”.
Mr. Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the amendment proposed by the Chairman is in order because there are two strands. The first
one talks about the property itself, that is, the nature of the property. The second one, which we have not gotten to yet is dealing with the origin of the property. So we need really to talk about the nature of the property first as captured in (a).
Mr. Speaker, indeed, if you go to the memorandum, the definition of money laundering as provided for in the first paragraph of the memorandum -- Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I would want to quote, the definition of money laundering adopted by Interpol. It states:
“Money laundering is an act to conceal or disguise the identity of illegally obtained proceeds”.
So we are talking here about the property itself. We are talking about converting, concealing, disguising or transferring the property. That is what the Chairman has said, and I believe my hon. Colleague, hon. Haruna Iddrisu now appreciates the need for the amendment.
Mr. John Ndebugre 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendment is still not clear. What we wanted to be clear in our minds -- [Interruption] -- Why are you looking at me? What we wanted to be clear in our minds is to understand the policy behind the Bill, to start with. That is why the definition is very important. If we do not understand the policy behind the Bill we will run into problems.
We said we wanted to determine for ourselves whether the word “convert” should mean or to be talking about the physical transformation of the property. The hon. Member for Wa West gave an example -- [Interruption] -- If original proceeds are in the form of money and you convert it into a car, for example, that is transformation for the purposes of changing the character of the property.
Or when you convert in the sense of legal or civil offence, where you have -- [Interruption] -- your property for the
purposes of concealing its nature again because somebody through a lawyer has come to give you laundered money and you can turn the money into an instrument, let us say, a treasury bill for yourself, pretending that the money is yours, you are converting the money for your own use.
So we wanted to be very clear in our minds as to what this clause is talking about. But the fresh amendment the hon. Chairman has proposed does not clarify the matter. So it appears to me that -- And even if you look at sub clause (c), it talks again about acquiring and using or taking possession. So if you look at A, B, C, they are confused. They are a bit confusing. We cannot see clearly the strands in these subclauses. So that is why we have said that we should carry out further discussion.

Early this morning the Chairman just passed to say hello to me and said, “Oh, let us abandon the amendment”. That is no discussion. So I think that we need to clarify for ourselves what we need to convey by this legal term because it is the foundation of the whole thing. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to
support the amendment of the Chairman. I am sure hon. Ndebugre was not listening to the hon. Deputy Majority Leader when he particularly referred even to the definition of the terms to make it consistent with the proposal from the Chairman. Now when we say “disguise”, “disguise” will take care of whatever attempt it is to -- There is only the use of the word “conceal” or; “disguise” that is an attempt to alter whatever dealing with the origins or the transfer of the property, and in that respect I urge hon. Members to vote massively for the Chairman's proposal.
Question put and amendment agreed

to.

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

Clause 2 -- Activities.
Mr. Armah 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want
to seek your leave to introduce a new amendment to clause 2 (b).
Mr. Speaker, clause 2 (b) is just a
question of streamlining the sentence there. Clause 2 (b), line 1, “the proceeds of unlawful activity” -- Mr. Speaker, 2 (b), line 1, we need to delete “of” and insert “from” -- “the proceeds from that unlawful activity”. And then line 2, we need to delete “that other person” too. It makes the reading a bit clumsy. So it becomes, “The proceeds from that unlawful activity are used to make funds available to the other person to acquire property.” So delete “that other person to acquire”.
Mr. Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Line 2 again.
Mr. Armah 10:40 a.m.
“The proceeds from that
unlawful activity are used to make funds available to acquire property on behalf of that other person.” So we delete the four words: “. . . that other person too”.
Mr. Iddrisu 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I support
the earlier amendment but I am wondering whether before the words “other person” he would just want to insert a new word “any” -- “to any person”-- and leave the word “other”-- to any person to acquire property on behalf of that other person”. So the word “any” -- A further amendment, add “other” to “any person”.
Mr. Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Chairman of the
Committee, what do you say to that?
Mr. Armah 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, it is all right
Mr. Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Chairman, what do
you say to that?
Mr. Armah 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that
small amendment is all right.
Mr. Speaker 10:40 a.m.
It is acceptable to you?
Mr. Armah 10:40 a.m.
Is it all right, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:40 a.m.
Mr.
Speaker, if one goes back to 2, the opening paragraph, they are talking about a person and a lot of things in the 2 (b); it emphasized that person who has been mentioned in the opening paragraph of clause 2. So if you read it -- Mr. Speaker, let me quote from the very beginning:
“A person commits an offence if the person knows or ought to have known that another person has obtained proceeds of unlawful activity and enters into agreement with that other person or engages in a transaction where the proceeds from that unlawful activity are used to make funds available to acquire property on behalf of that other person in any other way.”
So if you take it from there I believe the sense becomes clear. So I believe that we must stick to the original proposition from the Chairman.
Majority Leader (Mr. Abraham O. Aidooh) 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, apart from that I do not know whether the Chairman is “maintaining the last words, “in any other way”. I think they should be deleted, they do not mean anything. Those last words, “in any other way”-- so that we end with “acquire property on behalf of that other person”. The “in any other way” does not add anything and they are not relevant. So I move that those words should be deleted; the closing words “in any other way” must be deleted.
Mr. Chireh 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I support
the original amendment proposed and say that if we want to change the words, “of unlawful activity” then the first paragraph of clause 2 where you have “of” should also be changed to “from” and to say that we should delete “the other person too”. This is because we have already referred to the person in the main sentence and we do not need it here again.
I support that; and of course, “in any other way” if we leave it, it does not harm anything but it does not also define anything in any way and that is not elegant in drafting. I think we should leave it at “any other person . . . to the other person”.
Mr. Armah 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I believe
that the hon. Member from Wa West said “in any other way” does not really define anything. It also does not define anything if it is there. So I would not oppose its abandonment.
Mr. Speaker 10:40 a.m.
So let us have the final
amendment.
Mr. Armah 10:40 a.m.
The final amendment will
read: “The proceeds from that unlawful activity are used to make funds available to acquire property --” [Pause.] We are talking about 2 (b). “The proceeds from that unlawful activity are used to make funds available to acquire property on behalf of that other person.”
Mr. Speaker, that is the end.
Mr. Chireh 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted him
to take the thing from the beginning where “of activity” was substituted subsequently from. So if it is an amendment we must amend the whole clause and since I proposed that one, I still want to move that, “of” be substituted for “from”. And that is, “A person commits an offence if the person knows or ought to have known that another person has obtained proceeds from unlawful activity” instead of “of”. I so move.
Mr. Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Chairman of the
Committee, are you agreeable to that?
Mr. Armah 10:50 a.m.
That is so, Mr. Speaker.
I was not hearing what he was saying at first and leaving it, I think, makes sense. So I am agreeable to that, Mr. Speaker. We delete “of” and substitute “from”.

Question put and amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 -- Penalty for Money Laundering.
Chairman of the Committee 10:50 a.m.
Mr.
Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, line 2, delete “more” and insert “less” and in line 3, delete “more than ten” and insert “less than three”.
Mr. A. Ossei Aidooh 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, if you read clause 1 -- that creates the offence -- Mr. Speaker, this offence is defined as “a serious offence” and “serious offence” is defined in the interpretation section on page 24 as “an offence for which the maximum penalty is death or imprisonment for a period of --” [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Majority Leader, you are referring to which page? Page 24?
Mr. A. O. Aidooh 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I first said that I was opposing the amendment and I said that in clause 1, where the offence is created, this offence is described as a “serious offence”. And Mr. Speaker, on page 24, “serious offence” is defined as an offence for which the maximum penalty is death or imprisonment for a period of not less than twelve months. So when we peg the minimum sentence at three years, I think we are not aligning the laws well.
Alhaji Sumani Abukari 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the amendment too. I think I am minded to agree with the hon. Majority Leader because I now have a problem with provisions that tie the hands of judges. Any provision that tie the hands of a judge must be looked at again, especially with the new penalty units which are obviously on the high side.
We should be careful about giving provisions that do not give the judges some fair amount of discretion in taking their decisions. So making it “less than five thousand penalty units” or to a term of imprisonment not less than ten years or to both, to me, should not be accepted in this House. In fact, three years is even too much. The judge could be minded to give an offender less than three years but because of the provision, he will be compelled to give the offender three years. He could be minded to give him twelve months or even six months, depending on the gravity of the offence. I say this because here, the penalties are not aligned with the gravity of the offences. So my idea is that, the judge should be given a wider discretion and his hands should not be tied. For us to say “less than three years” we are saying that he must give a minimum of three years when maybe he intended giving --
Mr. Speaker, I have a very clear example which I wanted to bring to the floor of the House. For instance, if you
take motor bicycle offences now, there are cases where the Judge has been told not to give less than twelve million cedis and imprisonment not less than six years.
What has happened is that, you get someone on a rickety motor bicycle which is not worth about two million cedis who has been arrested because he was not wearing a helmet and then he is given a fine of twelve million cedis or to go to prison for six years and the judge does not hide her feelings. She tells the people in Tamale -- “It is not me, it is Parliament; it is mandatory for me. So if you have any appeals to make, make it to your Members of Parliament. I do not exercise any discretion here so even though I do not agree with it, I must apply the law as it is.”
So in Tamale area, everywhere that there are motor bicycles if you are caught riding a motor bicycle without a helmet, it is mandatory for the judge to give you a fine of twelve million cedis or mandatorily sentence you to six years if you cannot -- Maybe, you may be riding a motor bicycle which is less than two years old.
So we should be mindful of this and be careful about fixing sentences or tying the hands of judges and making fines and sentences mandatory. So if you say “not less than”, I disagree. Unless you can say “not less than this” and “not less than that”, like the hon. Majority Leader says. So I support the amendment as proposed by the hon. Majority Leader. I think I am opposed to this amendment, as it stands now.
Deputy Atorney-General and Minster for Justice (Mr. K. Osei- Prempeh): Mr. Speaker, I believe that the rendition in the Bill is sufficient enough. It gives the judge enough flexibility because it serves the maximum “not more than five thousand penalties and not more than ten
years”. So he can give whatever he thinks is comfortable. So I believe that we are not to disturb the rendition; it must be retained as such and the amendment withdrawn.
Mr. Armah 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we would abandon the amendment and go along with the hon. Attorney-General and the Majority Leader's --
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of the Committee is abandoning his amendment but I have an amendment still standing in my name and I wish to pursue that further. We need to appreciate money laundering as a grievous offence. What money is usually laundered? It is either money which is corruptly acquired or stolen which is sent somewhere. That is what money laundering means.
Therefore, it is an offence of some gravity and I think that a minimum sentence is important. If you say that the judge has to --I am going with the Deputy Attorney -General's position. It means that, “not less than five thousand penalties units”. The judge may as well decide that “okay, I will fine you five million cedis”. Mr. Speaker, assuming that the person involved in this act had laundered one million or two million dollars. It is easy for him to part with some twenty thousand dollars even for the purpose of a fine. So we are saying that, let us have a minimum custodial sentence. The object is that, you want to deter people from engaging in money laundering.
I am tempted, however, to abandon my three years and go with that of the Majority Leader that, at least, we should say “not less than twelve months” to be consistent with the provisions of what constitutes a serious offence and then we can say “not more than ten years” so that
the judge has between twelve months and ten years to decide. So I would wish that this amendment is maintained but we would go with the proposition of the hon. Majority Leader.
Mr. Armah 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that was what I meant by saying that we abandon what we have here and then go along with the proposition of the Majority Leader in doing the amendment. So his proposition will substitute for what we are doing. So, he can now state it clearly for us to take it.
Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
Yes, Majority Leader, let us have your amendment.
Mr. Abraham Ossei Aidooh 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, it will go like this.
“A person who contravenes section (1) or (2) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than thousand penalty units or a term of imprisonment not less than 12 months and not more than ten years or to both.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4 -- Establishment of Financial
Intelligence Centre.
Clause 5 -- Objects of the Centre.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, you would notice in the Order Paper that there is an amendment in respect of clause 6 standing in my name. It was because I was referring to the original law. It should come properly under 5. So, with your indulgence, I may want to move an amendment and abandon clause 6 as advertised.

If you read clause 5 (2), in particular, clause 5 (2) (a) it is my proposal that we insert the word “collate” before process -- [Interruption] -- “to achieve the objects, the centre shall” and then (a), I am proposing we insert the word “collate”. Before you can process and analyse any data -- [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon. Member, do not
be distracted. Are you abandoning your amendment?
Mr. Abraham Ossei Aidooh 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I believe he is right except that it is in --
“6 To achieve the objects, the Centre shall --
( a ) c o l l a t e , p r o c e s s , analyse disseminate and interpret information disclosed to or obtained by the Centre in terms of this Act.”
I believe that insertion is very relevant but it finds expression now in (6) (a).
Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon. Member for Tamale South, are you abandoning your amendment?
Mr. H. Iddrisu 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am continuing. It is the confusion as to what I am holding. You remember your goodself, were misled with the same kind of situation. Mr. Speaker, I think that I agree with the Deputy Majority Leader. It is just to insert the word “collate” and then we can make progress. Mr. Speaker, 6 (a), “Collate, process , analyse and interpret” --
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 -- Functions of the Centre.
Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon. Member for
Tamale South, are you abandoning your amend-ment?
Mr. H. Iddrisu 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to organize myself. I have just gotten the new Bill properly.
Mr. Joseph Y. Chireh 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the confusion is because he is still holding the old one and I think that for us to be able to follow what is going on, once we substitute the Bill, every Member of the House should be given a copy because -- This is the confusion. What he is advertising is on the original one as (6) and therefore whatever amendment he has made there is confusing. There is no need for it now because that is not what we are discussing.
Mr. A. O. Aidooh 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, when the old Bill was withdrawn and the new one laid, everybody had a copy of the new one. It was distributed to all hon. Members.
Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon. Member for Tamale South, are you abandoning clause
6?
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 11 a.m.
Rightly so, Mr. Speaker. You can put the Question on clause 6 and then we can move on.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7 -- Governing body of the Centre.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move an amendment to clause 7 (2) in respect of the appointment of the Members of the Board. Clause 7 (2) (a), first line before “Members”, insert “Chairpersons and Members of the Board in accordance with article 70 of the Constitution”
and then delete (b) because it becomes redundant. So it will read --
“The President shall --
(a) appoint the Chairperson and members of the Board in accordance with article 70 of the Constitution --”
It should end there, the word “and” subsection (b) be deleted.
Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
Chairman of the Committee --
Mr. Armah 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we accept the amendment proposed.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon. Member for Tamale South, do you have any further amend-ment to clause 7?
Alhaji Sumani Abukari 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am proposing that in addition to clause (1) we add the following new paragraphs.
“(e) one representative of the Ministry of National Security not below the rank of Director and
(f) one senior police officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner nominated by the Ministry of the Interior.”
Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
Chairman of the Committee, what do you say to that?
Mr. Armah 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we have discussed the amendment and we think it is all right except that for clause 7 (f) in the amendment instead of “Ministry of the Interior” it should be “Minister of the Interior”.
Alhaji Sumani Abukari 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think I agree with the Chairman.
Mr. John Ndebugre 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I do not have a problem with the proposed amendment except that I think a senior
police officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police is rather high. I think that Assistant Superinten-dent of Police should be all right. Assistant Commissioner is high. So I agree with the amendment subject to considering substituting “Assistant Superintendent” and for “Assistant Commissioner of Police”.
Minosrity Leader (Mr. A. S. K. Bagbin: Mr. Speaker, I think the proposal of Assistant Commissioner is rather better because the Assistant Commissioner is about the rank of Directors in the Ministry. Assistant Superintendent is a very low -- it is just the middle level, starting point of senior officers rank which is quite low -- graduate entry point. I think the Assistant Commissioner is proper.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker my little worry is in respect of the representative of the Ministry of National Security. We may not have a Ministry of National Security eternally. Shall we then say “one representative of the Ministry responsible for national security”?
Alhaji Sumani Abukari 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think the intendment is still the same except that I am wondering if my hon. Colleague at the other side foresees the change or deletion of that Ministry from the ministerial list. Otherwise, any Ministry responsible for national security is the same. So I would not fight with that. I think it is okay.
Mr. Bagbin 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot be making laws in anticipation of the change of Ministries. If we accept that principle he has just initiated, we would even have difficulty with the one for the Ministry of the Interior because we would be saying that it is likely that that one too could be changed. Therefore, it should be “Ministry responsible for Interior”. I think we cannot be giving that rendition.

The existing structure is what we know. If in future that Ministry is taken up by another Ministry, it would still be interpreted to mean the “Ministry responsible for national security”. National Security now in the scheme of things and in the process of good governance has taken a very prominent role and I do not anticipate a change anyway from the “Ministry of National Security”.

Throughout the world, you can see that governments are moving towards establishing it because of the importance of security and peace for us to be able to have good governance. So I think what is proposed now by the hon. Members from Wa West and Tamale South should be accepted.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think we have done this in constructing and fashioning out laws and I believe that the argument put forward by the hon. Minority Leader strengthens what proposition I am even making. In this nation, if you are talking about the Ministry of the Interior, at various times we have called it the “Ministry of Internal Affairs” and so on. So if we say the “Ministry responsible for the Interior”, then of course, if there is any change in designation, it would not affect the substance of the law. That is all we are saying.
Mr. Speaker, this is the reason why I am making the proposition that we may -- So definitely, what I proposed affects the Ministry of the Interior as well. So we should have “the Ministry responsible for Interior” so that if there is a change in name, the character would be the same; the value would be the same.
Mr. Chireh 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with his proposal because in our previous Bills that we have considered, we have always
made it “responsible”. Because of the current trend of mixing Ministries, hiving off Ministries, we want the person who has responsibility for national security ultimately to be the one who would get the board member on it. I think as proposers of this amendment -- We agree with the “responsible for” in both cases.
Mr. Armah 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think we would maintain the “Assistant Com- missioner of Police” -- [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker 11:10 a.m.
What about “Ministry responsible for National Security”?
Mr. Armah 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think it should be “Ministry responsible for National Security”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to abandon the amendment.
Mr. Armah 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, with the amendment earlier carried on in (iv) where the President shall appoint chairpersons and members of the Board, I believe all those amendments should be abandoned, that is (vii), (viii) and (ix). They all appear to be consequential.

Clause 7 as amended ordered to stand part of the bill.

Clause 8 -- Actions of the Board on

policy formation.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 8, line 1, after “formulate” insert “and ensure the implementation of”.
So that it would read:
“The Board shal l formulate
and ensure the implementation of policies necessary for the achievement of the objects of the Centre.”
This is just to clearly define the mandate of the Board which would have oversight of this Anti-Money Laundering Centre. We should not just limit their duty to formulation of policy but they are to also ensure that the policies are well implemented.
Mr. Armah 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we do not have any objection to the amendment.
Mr. Bagbin 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have a difficulty here because the responsibility of formulating policies is actually with the sector Ministries -- formulation of policies and implementation of policies. Now if you are giving those functions to the Board, what are the Ministries supposed to be doing? I know that the Board definitely would be the one initiating the policies but formulating it finally would be under the Ministry. So the Centre would initiate the policies in that direction and the Minister would take it up and go through the usual procedure to Cabinet and that kind of thing so that it becomes government policy.
So formulation is not done by the Centre but the initiation could be by the Centre. Implementation of the policy is the overall responsibility of the Ministry and not the Centre. So if you say, to ensure the implementation of the policies, it means it is the Centre that is to do that. So I have a difficulty there because that responsibility would be with the Ministry and not with the Centre.
Mr. Chireh 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment by the hon. Member for Tamale South and also to further explain -- because the hon. Leader
does not seem to understand what we were discussing at the committee -- that this is a centre that is to formulate policies on day-to-day basis on money laundering so that cannot be the duty of a Ministry. It is the Board, looking at the environment, that would do so.
Therefore, the formulation that he is talking about -- apart from formulating these policies based on activities and the environment, they must also ensure that on quarterly basis or whatever basis they find out from the staff and the Chief Executive of the Centre whether these policies that they have formulated have been implemented. So the overall policy of Government is different from the object.
Indeed, if one looks at the thing it is the object, not just the policy itself which would have to be at the level of the Ministries. But these are the objects and in corporate governance, it is the Board that should do this.
Mr. Osei-Prempeh 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, while not supporting the amendment, I disagree with the hon. Minority Leader. Mr. Speaker, the Centre which is being established is a body corporate with its own governing Board. It is not a department of a Ministry so that the governing Board is the body which will formulate policies and allow the management to implement it. That was why I said that while not supporting the amendment, to me, the amendment is superfluous.
A governing Board, while it formulates policies, sees to it that the management implements it day-to-day. It would not add anything to it. I will not oppose it but for the hon. Minority Leader's stance, I will say that the amendment is right in that as a body corporate with its governing body like any other company, it is not part of a Ministry for the Ministry to be formulating policies for it and directing it in its day-to- day affairs; no.
Mr. Chireh 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that

the amendment and what he is saying --if he presumes that boards are supposed to do something, then we are not supposed to give them anything to do. But we are saying that they are supposed to formulate -- even though we know that is what their job is. So we do not presume such a thing. So it is not superfluous. It is worth emphasizing; and he knows that.

Question put and amendment agreed to.

Clause 8 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 -- Tenure of office of members.
Mr. Armah 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 9, subclause (1), line 1, after “Board”, insert “other than the Chief Executive”.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, not to oppose what he said but just so that we would be clear in our minds that we are talking about the same person, let me state that the “Chief Executive” in clause 7 begins with “C” and “E”. Just so that we will seem to be talking about the same person, the rendition in clause 8 should begin with “C” and “E” -- the “Chief Executive”.
Mr. Armah 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, that is English Language; I agree with him.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Armah 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 9, subclause (2), lines 3, and 4, delete “acting on the advice of the Minister and in consultation with the Council of State” and insert “in accordance with article 70 of the Constitution”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 9, subclause (2), line 4, delete “Minister” and insert “nominating authority where applicable”.
Mr. Speaker, if one looks at clause 9 properly -- and this must be discussed in relation to clause 7 where we have governing body of the Centre -- we have for instance, the Bank of Ghana having a representative, the Minister for Justice making a recommendation of somebody. If I got a proper definition of who the Minister here is referring to, it is the Minister for Justice; is it the Minister for Finance? I may be tempted to drop my amendment.
But barring that, I think that we should substitute “Minister” for the “nominating authority” applicable so that in respect of Ministry of Justice, the nominating authority will then notify the Office of the President of the vacancy and then he could deal with it.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, “Minister” has been defined to mean “the Minister responsible for Finance”. So unless my hon. Colleague is saying that he does not want the hon. Minister for Finance to have a hand in this -- But clearly “Minister” has been defined as “the Minister for Finance”.
Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, with the previous amendment made by the Chairman the amendment being proposed is not necessary at this stage. It has been dealt with already by the Chairman in the previous amendment.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I believe once it is done in accordance with article 70, I would wish to abandon my amendment.
Mr. Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Hon. Member for
Tamale South, are you abandoning (xiv)
as well?
Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 9, subclause (4), line 2, delete “of the chairperson” and in line 3, after “number” insert “present”.
Mr. Speaker, I think that it is members present at the meeting who would determine that. So it is important that we qualify it with the word “present”, not just any member of the Board.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, let the Chairman advert his mind to the Order Paper for last week because for today's Order Paper, we do not appear to have (xiv) that he is alluding to. We rather have (xvi) so that means that (xiv) and (xv) are missing from this Order Paper. Let the Chairman advert his mind to it; if they are relevant then he could reinstate them and then we can go on. Otherwise, we may appear to be missing something.
Mr. Speaker 11:30 a.m.
But what do you say
to this proposed amendment which now appears at xvi?
Mr. Armah 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member for Tamale South will come again, then I will look at it properly. Because I cannot see what he is trying to amend here.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
consider those amendments abandoned until we get to the appropriate areas.
Mr. Armah 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 9, subclause 5, line 1, after “may” insert “and shall at the request of the nominating body . . .”
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
Mr.
Speaker, I think the meaning of the amendment is really not coming out well.
Because if you bring the insertion, the full rendition would be, “the President may and fire at the request of the nominating body . . .” Mr. Speaker, it does not look good for me. Mr. Speaker, the two going together makes it a bit clumsy. So if the Chairman can clarify the situation.
Mr. Armah 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we are
deleting the word “may” and inserting the word “shall”. I think it was a typographical error.
Mr. Speaker 11:30 a.m.
But Mr. Chairman, this
is not what your amendment is saying. So let us have the proper formulation of this amendment.
Mr. Armah 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, at clause
9, subclause 5, we are deleting the word “may” and inserting the following: “shall at the request of the nominating body . . .” In other words, the rendition will read “the President shall at the request of the nominating body by a letter addressed to a member, revoke the appointment of that member where there are sufficient grounds for the revocation”.
Mr. Bagbin 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with
the idea of not giving too many powers to the President. But looking at the kind of body that is being established, the inputs of that body should determine at most times what the President should do. So I agree to that but the formulation is very clumsy.
I think that we could put it this way, “the President shall at the request of the nominating body revoke the appointment of any member where there are sufficient grounds for the revocation”. Well, if you are going to revoke, definitely there would be communication and the need to say so by a letter. I think it is what is to be implemented if you are to write to the person revoking the appointment; it should be by a letter -- [Interruption] -- Radio announcement? Oh, I am told that they want to avoid radio announcements.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
Mr.
Speaker, I believe the Committee was minded not to tie the hands of the President. They wanted to give him some room. So I believe that the proper rendition, while retaining their own construction, should read like this:
“At the request of the nominating body, the President may by a letter addressed to a member and revoke the appointment of that member . . .”
I believe that gives some elbow room to the President.
Mr. Armah 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the various
renditions are all veracious of the English language but we wanted to make it mandatory that once the nominating body finds any reason to remove a member, they will then advise the President and the President shall comply with the advice. So we think that the word “shall” should be retained instead of the word “may”.
Mr. Chireh 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think
the President, once the nominating body revokes or withdraws the membership of a member, does not have to be given the discretion to sack the person; no. So the word “shall” is more appropriate. I think I support what the Minority Leader is saying, that once the nominating body decides that one is no longer a member, the President has no right to go and find out what is the reason. That one is not a problem. His is to issue a letter.
Alhaji Malik A. Yakubu 11:30 a.m.
Mr.
Speaker, you will find that there are other conditions added, that is, where there are sufficient grounds for the revocation; a question may arise as to whether it is indeed the nominating body which as a body is responsible. Some individual influential official in the authority may be actually behind it. And if the President finds that, indeed, there is some flaw in the recommendation purportedly coming from the nominating body, he should be able to see the mischief and rectify it.
So I think the word “may” is good, if the President also is not to be a robot and he is to see whether genuinely this request is coming from the proper authority. I think the word “may” should be there to allow the President to address any injustice that may be emanating from an individual rather than the body, where they will be saying that it is coming from the body when it is not coming from it.
Mr. Ndebugre 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I support using the word “shall” instead of “may” and I do not agree with the arguments advanced by the hon. Second Deputy Speaker (Alhaji M. A. Yakubu). This is because the appointment is a formaliza- tion process, and so the appointment by the President is just to formalize.
If you look at the whole clause carefully, it says, “the governing body of the Centre is a Board consisting of -- (a) one representative each from: (i) the Ministry of Finance not below the rank of Director”. Already, the President has a hand in selecting that person because it is the Minister who is the President's agent who is going to do that. The Bank of Ghana is supposed to be independent, so the Bank of Ghana will select a person.
The Chief Executive who is appointed
by the President -- Again, in accordance with the Constitution, one lawyer nominated by the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice -- The President has a hand in it again because the Minister of Justice is his agent. One other person from the private sector with accounting, banking and finance experience nominated by the Minister -- another agent of the President. So whether we even use “shall” or “may”, it is neither here nor there.
The President's hand is in it, so he can always advise his agents not to be capricious. I think it is the possibility of being capricious that the hon. Second Deputy Speaker was talking about. So I think that to give respect to those independent bodies that have nominated persons to the Centre, or the Board, the President should take their advice. Therefore, once they have agreed that there are sufficient grounds for the revocation of the appointment of a particular member of the Board, the President ought to comply.
So we should retain “shall”, but I do not even think that it makes too much difference. From my analysis, the President's hand is in all the appointments or nominations so it does not really make so much difference. But we should use “shall” in order that the President himself is not allowed to be capricious.
Alhaji Sumani Abukari 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I think I agree with my hon. Friend from Zebilla (Mr. J. A. Ndebugre); just that I want to get the rendition correct. In any case, the subclause is saying that, “revoke the appointment of that member where there are sufficient grounds”. It means in requesting the revocation the grounds have to be stated and the President has to be convinced that the grounds as stated are sufficient enough for him to revoke the appointment.
So that is left to his discretion, anyway. If he thinks the grounds are not sufficient he will send it back to the body and say the grounds are not sufficient. So Mr. Speaker, whether it is “shall” or “may” as he is saying, there is no difference. But I will prefer the word “shall”. So finally, I would want it to read as follows:
“At the request of the nominating body the President shall by a letter addressed to a member revoke the appointment of that member where there are sufficient grounds for the revocation.”
So it should start with “At the request of the nominating body …”
I think the President is the final decider as to whether the grounds are sufficient or not, even though those grounds would have to be stated in the letter requesting the revocation. So Mr. Speaker, if we put it this way I think that should go.
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon. Members, I will
suggest that we stand this down to have the necessary input from our draftsmen.
rose
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
We are standing it
down, at least.
Clause 10 -- Meetings of the Board.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 10 , subclause (8), delete “may” and insert “shall”, so that it is mandatory. So it will read, “Subject to this section the Board shall determine the procedure for its meetings”. I believe that is what is peculiar in legislations that we have passed, not to say “may”.
Mr. Ndebugre 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I do not
think that it is the standard practice to use “shall” in the circumstances of this nature. The Board is free to determine

its own procedure but if it wants another body to determine its procedure for it, why do we say it cannot? I do not think that it is appropriate to use “shall” in the circumstances of this nature. So I oppose the amendment.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I believe
this is just to reinforce the earlier provisions of clause 10. We could have ignored clause 10 (3), (4) and (5) and just leave it as a matter of procedure. For example, if you take Parliament, the Constitution says that Parliament shall determine its procedure; it has not precluded Parliament from having the Standing Orders to guide it. I think that -- and I am only suggesting that -- instead of “may” we should make it “shall”, because you yourself have already defined what the Board can do in respect of meetings.
Mr. A. O. Aidooh 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think
that we should oppose the amendment. Mr. Speaker, clause 10 details a lot of things that are quite procedural and these are binding on the Board.
Then it says, subject to this the Board may determine the procedure. Because clause 10 deals with quorum and other things which are more or less procedural and are binding on the Board; and subclause 8 says “subject to the above the Board may determine the procedure”. So I think the better word is “may,” yes. In fact, it means that the Board may not have to do anything because 1-7 may be enough. But subject to this the Board may determine the procedure and I think the better word is “may”.
Mr. Chireh 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think
that with subclause (2), “may” will be appropriate. So I will go along with the hon. Member who last spoke to say that he should withdraw his amendment.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, you
may put the Question.
Mr. Armah 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 11, subclause (2), delete and insert the following:
“ ( 2 ) w h e r e a m e m b e r
contravenes subsection (1), the chairperson shall inform the President who shall revoke the appointment of the member.”
This will be in place of simply the member ceasing to be a member of the Board. In this case the onus for revoking appointment is passed from the chairperson to the President. So we are proposing this insertion in place of the original rendition.
MR. FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have
a problem with this proposed amendment. In earlier provisions and even earlier amendments proposed here, we have said the Minister shall inform the President. Now we are saying that the chairperson who is a member of the Board is going to communicate directly to the President; I have a difficulty with that.
So maybe, we may want to substitute “chairperson” for “Minister”, or abandon it entirely because we have already maintained a principle here - that wherever there is a vacancy to be filled it is the Minister -- referring to the Minister for Finance as was defined -- who would then communicate with the President. So I have a difficulty with the chairperson communicating directly to the President and not through the Minister.
Mr. Ndebugre 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. Member for Tamale South (Mr. Haruna Iddrisu). For the sake of consistency, we ought to require that the Chairperson report to the Minister who would in turn report to the President for the revocation of a member. But to draw the attention of the hon. Member for Tamale South to the fact that the previous provision where a vacancy being created in the membership of the board -- [Interruption.] But this one is dealing with a board member failing to disclose his interest in a matter. So, the two are slightly different. But I still agree with him that the reporting process should be from the chairperson to the Minister for the President.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
So Chairman of the Committee, what do you say?
Mr. Armah 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, what we are saying therefore is that we propose a further amendment to the amendment that --
“. . . the Chairperson shall inform the Minister who shall inform the President . . .”
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Yes, hon. Member for Tamale South?
Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether it should not read:

Absolutely; so I agree with the Chairman of the Committee.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Very good.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg
to move, clause 12, subclause (1), line 1, delete “establish” and insert “appoint”.
Mr. Speaker, I am doing so for consistency. I have been looking at these laws of Ghana that we have had from the Environmental Protection Act and many other legislations, and we have consistently used “Appointment of Committees” which connotes assigning a responsibility to another body. When you say “establish” it connotes permanency and I think that the appropriate words used in earlier Acts that I have seen have always been “to appoint a Committee” and not “to establish the Committee”.
Mr. Armah 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, there should not be any problem. “Establish Committees” means “establishing Committees of the Board” and that should be the proper thing.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Hon. Member, when you talk about “Establish Committees”, is it not slightly different from “Appointing Committee”? Member- ship of the Committee could be appointed but the committee itself should be established. I do not know what your view is; are you therefore abandoning your proposed amendment?
Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, no, I insist. In fact, I have looked at the Environmental Protection Act and I saw the word “appointment” being used in respect of committees. I have also seen the Ghana's Shippers - [Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
In respect of committees where “established” is not used?
Mr. Ndebugre 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, for instance, if you have a Board and you want a committee to deal with administration and a committee to deal with operations, and a committee to deal with intelligence, the clause is saying that the Board may establish these committees but those who are to operate within the committees are to be appointed. So I think they are trying to confuse two things.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Hon. Member for Tamale South, are you paying attention? Let us make progress.
Mr. Ndebugre 11:50 a.m.
I am saying that Committee for Operations, Committee for Finance, Committee for Administration and so on -- the clause is saying that such committees can be established by the Board. But those who are to operate within these committees are to be appointed, which is a different matter; and that is what you are talking about. So the appropriate word here should be “establish” and not “appoint”.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Yes, hon. Minority Leader, do you want to make any contribution?
Mr. Bagbin 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I do agree with what has been said but I do not think the appropriate word is “establish”; it is “constitute”.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
I think “constitute” is better.
Mr. Bagbin 11:50 a.m.
The Board constitutes committees; they do not establish them. So, “the Board may constitute committees”. That is the word.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
So, hon. Chairman of the Committee, would you rather prefer the word “constitute” or you want to maintain “establish”, or you will prefer “appoint”?
Mr. Armah 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I would yield to better counsel. We shall use the word “constitute”. [Laughter.]
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Still on clause 12, item (xxii).
Mr. Armah 11:50 a.m.
We are abandoning that amendment.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Very well -- proposed amendment abandoned. Still on clause 12, item (xxiii), hon. Member for Tamale South.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 12, subclause (2), delete “a member” and insert “non-member”.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Hon.
Member, can you defend your proposed amendment?
Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, it is abandoned - [Laughter.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Very well.
Well, we are still on clause 12 - new subclauses proposed - hon. Chairman of the Committee.
Mr. Armah 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 12 add new subclauses as follows:
“(3) A committee composed entirely of non-members shall have
a member of the Board as Chairperson
(4) Section 11 shall apply to a member of a committee as it applies to a member of the Board.”
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Hon. Chairman, are you sure about what you are proposing for new subclause 3? That, a committee composed entirely of non- members should rather have a member of the Board as Chairperson? It is not very elegant. Can you couch it properly?
Mr. Chireh 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think he has omitted something. The original thing was that once a mixed committee can be chaired by any member of the Board, then if the committee is composed entirely of non-members, there is no reason why the Chairperson should be from the Board. So, it should be chaired by a non-member and not by a member.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
Mr. Speaker, we have already dealt with 12 (2), which states that “a committee of the Board may be chaired by a member of the Board”. The new addition, that is, the new subclause 3 is saying that it is possible to have a committee that is composed entirely of non-members.
Mr. Speaker, that is not possible, because by 12 (2) we seem to be saying that all committees of the Board shall be chaired by a member of the Board. So I think what we have to do is to abandon this one and instead of “a committee of the Board may be chaired by the Board”, we would say that “a committee of the Board shall . . .” And that would take care of the proposition that they are bringing forth.
Mr. Chireh noon
Mr. Speaker, I think
that at the committee level this issue was discussed, and the point was made that if you have any committee of which members of the Board are members, naturally you would have to maintain some order of seniority.
In this particular case we are forming a committee, maybe, an expert committee or some other committee that would do a specific job. So you appoint the committee of that nature and then you put a Board member on it. In any case, we are saying that it should be a non-member but because of the earlier statement that we have made, that is, if we leave (2), we need a section in (3) that would now make it possible for a non-member of the Board to chair the Committee.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker noon
Chairman of the Committee, what do you say to that? Can you explain it a little further? What exactly is your Committee's intention for this proposed amendment? [Interruption.]
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
Mr. Speaker, we have fashioned out boards in this House on many occasions, and I do recollect that in many instances we have allowed the Board to appoint committees, particularly of experts and specialists to proffer some counsel to the boards.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu, the proposal is not that the Board chairman should chair such a committee. It says, “a member of the Board to chair”. Is that what you really mean or you are kicking against that?
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the clarification in the mix- up. They are proposing that a member of the Board shall chair such a committee and I am saying that it is irrelevant. We could have the committee, maybe, of experts that would be proffering some counsel to the Board. In that case, we do not need a member of the Board to chair; otherwise, it would not be a committee of non-members. So Mr. Speaker, I do not think this one is necessary because their recommendations ultimately would come to the Board, and as I said, there have been several instances where we have allowed this.
Mr. Bagbin noon
Mr. Speaker, to start with, it is a contradiction in terms. The proposal is a contradiction in terms because it cannot be entirely of non- members when a member is chairing. This is because the member must be a member of that committee in order to chair. So it is not entirely made up of non-members. So that thing should be withdrawn.
Apart from that if -- [Interruption] -- You go out for consultancy and you want anybody or a group of persons to give you advice or some input, that would not be a sub-committee or a committee of the Board and the Board is allowed to go out for expert advice. But when we are now making law for committees of the Board, there is always a member of the Board in that committee and that is why we are talking about that member chairing.
So if that member is there and he is to chair, it cannot be a committee of non- members alone. So that thing is wrong. I think that, Mr. Speaker, we should oppose it and withdraw it from the amendments.
Mr. Ofori Boafo noon
Mr. Speaker, I
Mr. First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon. Chairman of the Committee, do you insist on your amendment or you prefer to reconsider it? [Interruption.]
Mr. Ndebugre noon
Mr. Speaker, I think that we must be very clear in our minds what we are talking about. If you look at the headnote of the whole clause 12, it says “the establishment of committees”; and the committees are conceived to be of two types. Committees that may be called sub-committees of the Board, in other words, Board members constituting themselves into different committees, or committees of itself, or committees that the Board may set up to handle a specific task for the Board, which may be made up of non- Board member as well.
That is why we abandoned the amendment which calls for substituting “for” in subclause (1) of clause 12. This is because if you use the word “for”, you are talking about a committee possibly outside the Board to be established or constituted by the Board for the purpose of handling a particular task for the Board. In that case we can have a committee made up entirely of non-members, and in that case it has to be chaired by a non-Board member.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon.
Member, I believe earlier on the hon. Minority Leader had indeed spoken on that and had explained a little further that a committee of the Board is a committee of the Board; it could be made entirely of all members or a mixture of both members and non-members or even non-members completely. And therefore the one that has been proposed earlier on takes care of it. I do not know whether you are considering that.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the matter is beyond dispute. This is because as you yourself have objectively countered, clause 12 (1) allows for a committee consisting of members of the Board. The second lodge
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Chairman of the Committee, indeed, we are over- whipping this issue. I want you to be very clear where you stand.
Mr. Armah 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think we could abandon (3) and retain (4) as (3).
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Very well. Hon. Members, in that case, subclause (3) as proposed by the Committee has been abandoned. Now we deal with subclause (11). Subclause (11) as proposed by the Chairman is for your consideration.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 13 - 14 ordered to stand part
of the Bill.
Clause 15 - Functions of the Chief
Executive.
Mr. Armah 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, consistent
with what has already appeared in the

Bill, we would abandon that amendment as well instead of adding “officer”. Earlier on it has been “Chief Executive”. So consequentially we would abandon this one too to maintain consistency.

Question put and amendment agreed

to.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
There is
another proposed amendment.
Mr. Armah 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, subclause (1), line 1, before “Deputy” insert “the”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 as amended ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause 16 - Deputy Chief Executives
Mr. Armah 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, clause 16, subclause (1), line 2, delete “two” and insert “one” which would consequentially mean that appointment of two Deputy Chief Executives should be one Deputy Chief Executive.
Mr. Ndebugre 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose the amendment, but instead of “one” we should just use “a” because if you use “one” it is as if you are dealing with several numbers. So we should just say that: “The President shall in accordance with article 195 of the Constitution appoint a Deputy Chief Executive” instead of “one Deputy Chief Executive”.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Clause 16 still, hon. Haruna Iddrisu?
Mr. Armah 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, hon. Haruna
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
It ought to be deleted -- yes, by the “Deputy Chief Executive” instead of the “Senior Chief Executive”. I think it is consequential. So we agree that it should be -- The Clerk's attention would be drawn for the relevant amendment to be effected.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17 -- Management Team.
Mr. Armah 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker I beg to
move, clause 17, delete.
Mr. Speaker, we are proposing the deletion of the whole of clause 17 following from the earlier amendment of having only one Deputy Chief Executive.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
So there would not be any need for any management
team?
Mr. Armah 12:20 p.m.
No.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Fair
enough. Hon. Members that is the proposal -- [Interruption] -- We deleted it completely, therefore -- [Interruption.]
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 18 -- Appointment of other staff.
Mr. Armah 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 18, subclause (3), line 1, delete “advisers” and insert “consul- tants”.
Mr. Speaker, we are proposing to delete
the word “advisors” and insert “consul- tants”. So it will read:
“The Centre may engage the services of consultants on the recommendations of the Board.”
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr. Armah 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 18, subclause (4), line 2, delete “prescribed by Regulations”.
Mr. Armah 12:20 p.m.
Clause 16 - “There shall
be one Deputy Chief Executive”.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
But in
this case, if even there were one Deputy Chief Executive, you also said that staff of the Centre shall be subject to security screening prescribed by regulations, and it has very little to do with the earlier proposed amendment. It stands on its own.
Mr. Armah 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think
at the committee level, we decided to delete sub- clause (4). But looking at it now, I believe the only amendment we can do there, is making “Deputy Chief Executives”, “Deputy Chief Executive”. And then the expression “prescribed by regulations” be deleted. So the new rendition will be --
“The Chief Executive, Deputy Chief Executive and staff of the Centre shall be subject to security screening.”
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
I think that
is all, is it not?
Mr. Armah 12:20 p.m.
It is.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
So you
are not deleting that?
Mr. Armah 12:20 p.m.
We are not deleting that.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon.
Mr. Armah 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we are deleting “prescribed by regulation”.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
So it should be “. . . shall be subject to security screening”. Is that so?
Mr. Armah 12:20 p.m.
Yes.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Then I will put the Question again --[Interruption] -- Chairman of the Committee, there is a little problem with it so I will jump over that and go to 19, and you can then look at it properly, maybe the draftsperson [Interruption.] We move on to clause 19 -- Hon. Haruna Iddrisu is not around. Is he going on with it? Has he not instructed anybody to move the motion on his behalf? The Chairman of the Committee, has he discussed it with you? [Inter-ruption.]
Mr. Armah 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19, paragraph (a), delete “provided” and insert “approved”.
From my notes here, I think at the committee level, we agreed with the word “approved”.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
You agreed with the amendment?
Mr. Armah 12:20 p.m.
That is so.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Very well. I will therefore put the Question, if you are in agreement. Unless somebody here is opposed to that, I will put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Clause 20 - Accounts and Audit. Chairman --
Mr. Armah 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 20, subclause (3), line 3, delete “Minister” and insert “Board”.
The amendment is also acceptable to us. Instead of the “Minister”, we inserted the word “Board”. So subclause (3) will be “The Auditor-General shall not later than three months after the receipt of the accounts, audit the accounts and forward a copy of the audit report to the Board”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
rose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
The amendment is carried but I want to give you a hearing. Hon. Deputy Majority Leader, do you want to say something?
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, already, the vote has been taken so I am not too sure where to situate an intervention.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
So you wait till we come to the Second Consideration.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, for clarity I just wanted to be sure of what we are doing. The Auditor- General audits the accounts of the Board and submits same to the Board and not to the Minister?
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Hon.
Chairman, are you with him? You are
saying that the audited accounts should be submitted not to the Minister but to the Board. Is that what it is about?
Mr. Armah 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, our under-
standing was that the report should first go to the Board and be referred to the Minister. That was the argument that was advanced. I am sure that if he were here he would have advanced it better.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
The
audited accounts should be forwarded to the Board and the Board will also submit it to the Minister; is that the case, hon. Member for Zebilla?
Mr. Ndebugre 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, if you
look at clause 21 in advance, it is saying that the Board shall within one month of the receipt of the audit report submit an annual report to the Minister. So the audit report goes to the Board and subsequently to the Minister.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Then we
are on course.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:30 p.m.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to know whether clause 21 is talking about one and the same report because 21 says the Board shall within one month after the receipt of the audit report “submit an annual report”. Is it talking about the audit report? “Submit an annual report” -- So we have to be sure whether we are talking about two reports; the annual report of the Board and the audit report which should be sent to the Minister because it is not clear there.
Mr. Ndebugre 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the
annual report will incorporate the audit report. The annual report of the Centre will incorporate the audit report. But the annual report cannot be sent without the audit report. That is why it is necessary for the audit report.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think clause 21 (2) takes care of that.
Clause 21 ordered to stand part of theBill.
Clause 22 -- Accountable Institutions.
Mr. Armah 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 22, delete subclause (1), and insert the following:
“For the purposes of this Act accountable institutions are as set out in the First Schedule.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Armah 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move clause 22, delete subclause (2), and insert the following: The Minister may by legislative instrument amend the First Schedule”.
Mr. Abuga 12:30 p.m.
Where is the Schedule?
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
The hon. Member, I could hear him ask where the Schedule was. Is that not correct?
Mr. Armah 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the First Schedule is not available yet.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
And we are approving of it when we have not seen it? When we do not know what it contains? Committee members, we are to endorse what we have already endorsed but not what we have not seen.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:30 p.m.
Mr.
Speaker, maybe, the Committee was not availed of the First Schedule that they are talking about. If indeed, they are not availed of that, then I believe what we have done would be wrong. But I want to believe that the Committee did a fair job with the First Schedule. If they did, they should inform us.
Mr. Abuga 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest we stand it down and then we get to know where the First Schedule is.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
How
do we get it? Unless copies are printed and shared amongst us? Is that what you are proposing? Is that so? Is that the consensus?
Mr. Armah 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, if you go
down to pages 14 and 15 of the Order Paper, you will see the First Schedule there.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Hon.
Members, that is it. Maybe, we have not done the paragraph. The Schedule is there in black and white. So we could proceed.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:30 p.m.
Mr.
Speaker, I just want to be sure that we are doing the right thing. We went through the first one, the one that we just did before coming to the present one, and I thought that we ought to do the right thing. It is there and so we can go along with it.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
It is
expected that we ourselves should have looked at it before we question them. We made a mistake but it is all right.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 22 as amended ordered to stand as part of the Bill.
Clause 23 -- Register of Accountable Institutions.
Mr. Armah 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 23, subclause (1), line 2, delete “for which it is responsible” and insert “which are registered with the supervisory body”.
In other words, subclause (1) will now
read “Each supervisory body shall furnish
the Centre with a list of accountable institutions which are registered with the supervisory body”.
Mr. W. O. Boafo 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, in line 1 of clause 23 we have the expression “supervisory body” already there; and it appears we are repeating it in line 2. Mr. Speaker, can we not make it ‘which are registered with such body' to avoid repetition?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Which one
are you referring to, is it line 2?
Mr. W. O. Boafo 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, line 2, instead of repeating the word ‘super- visory' we insert ‘ such body'.
Mr. Speaker 12:40 p.m.
But we have not dealt with line 1 yet --
Mr. W. O. Boafo 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, with your permission, if I may read the whole clause 23(1) --
‘Each supervisory body shall furnish the Centre with a list of accountable institutions for which it is responsible'.
And it is being proposed that we delete the words ‘for which it is responsible' and substitute therefore the words ‘which are registered with the supervisory body'.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
I under- stand. So what are you proposing?
Mr. W. O. Boafo 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am proposing that instead of repeating the words ‘supervisory body' which have already been referred to under line 1, we substitute it with ‘which are registered with such body'.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Very well, I think it makes sense. Are you against it, hon. Chairman of the Committee?
Mr. Armah 12:40 p.m.
No problem, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Bagbin 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I agree to
the principle but I do not see any harm in saying ‘which are registered with the body'. Why ‘such body'?
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
“With the
body” is even better. Hon. Members, are you okay with it?
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 as amended ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause 24 -- Accountable institutions to keep records.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
The
amendment stands in the name of hon. Haruna Iddrisu, but I want to know your opinion on that amendment.
Mr. Armah 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we really did not see much of relevance in that proposed amendment when he raised it at the committee level. But he thought he would bring it to the floor of the House and then advance further arguments. But since he is not here, I am not in a position to do that one for him.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
So you are not supporting it? We must as well consider it dropped.

Question put and motion agreed to.

Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25 -- Duration of keeping records.
Mr. Armah 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 25, add a new subclause as follows:
“(4) at the end of the six-year period, the accountable institution shall send the records to the National Archives.”
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I really do not see the import of these amendments because clause 25 (1) (a) reads as follows:
“(1) An accountable institution shall keep records required to be kept for
(a) not less than six years . . .”
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Yes, it
is the regular modus of operation by everybody to keep it for a while and then send it to the archives.
Mr. Armah 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, in the Public Records and Administration Act, there is a minimum period for keeping official records and at the end of it these records are transferred to the National Archives for safe-keeping. It does not mean that the department that has the records cannot
Mr. Armah 12:40 p.m.


request for it anytime they want it. But they are not supposed to keep all these records after six years. So we are saying that they are to keep the records for not less than six years. At the end of the six years, it is transferred to the National Archives for safe-keeping and thereafter they can be referred to at any time.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:40 p.m.
Mr.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
What are
you proposing? That the organization or the body should keep it for more than twelve years or keep it after six years? What do you do with it? What is your proposal, hon. Member?
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:40 p.m.
Mr.
Speaker, I do not have any precise construction in my mind but I believe that if you leave it to the discretion of the withholding authority it maybe proper, rather than saying that this is the period.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
My
understanding of what the law is saying is that you should keep the records for at least six years and even after the six years, you are obliged to keep it in the National Archives for other purposes. I think it is harmless, it does not do any harm at all.
Mr. Ndebugre 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, as
you have already said, it is to make it mandatory for the records to be kept for at least six years. You cannot destroy the
records before six years. After six years, it becomes burdensome for the accountable institution, and then it is in the interest of security as we are saying for the records to be transferred to a place where they may be reasonably secured. That is why we have proposed the National Archives.
Maybe he wants to propose that we replace ‘shall' with ‘may'. It appears that is what he wants to convey. But if you say ‘you may', well the management of the records after six years will also be concerned. The person is unable to manage the records after six years and may still keep it there inordinately and in the process the records may be tampered with or get destroyed. That is why we think that after six years, it should be mandatory for it to be transferred to the National Archives where it may be secured and available.
Mr. W. O. Boafo 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, considering the background of the Bill which is criminal in nature, I think that for consistency about criminal records, the period of six years is too short. We should have about twenty years for criminal records and I think we have to be consistent.
The second issue is to make an argument to support that of the Deputy Majority Leader, that if we submit these records to the National Archives, we expose it to the public domain. This is a legislation where we have a room for informants and in order to encourage them to come forth I think we need some protection so far as exposure to the public is concerned.
If we indiscriminately send these records to the National Archives, it is going to be disincentive for informants because at the end of the day they will be exposed to the public and they will
encounter all sorts of dangers in their lives.
So, Mr. Speaker, if we can make an exception to the general rule of submitting records to the National Archives after a certain lapse of time in favour of informants or any other persons who may be exposed to public danger, that I think will be in accord with encouraging information from the public.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
So, the hon. Deputy Minister's position on the matter is that the records should be kept in the offices of the Board, and it does not matter how long? What exactly are you advancing?
Mr. W. O. Boafo 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, my position is that the period of 6 years should be lengthened to 20 years. Secondly, that we make an exception to the provision that for the sake of informants and other persons who will be exposed to public danger, the information should be retained or kept in a place where they will be protected.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Well, that adds a new dimension to it. It is quite a proposition; what do you say to that? It is for your consideration.
Mr. Ndebugre 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Deputy Minister for Defence is misconceiving the whole issue. It is not about records being kept by the Centre. It is the record being kept by an accountable institution -- and if I may mention some of the accountable institutions as contained in page 15 of today's Order Paper -- auctioneers, lawyers, notaries, accountants, religious bodies, non-governmental organizations, operators of games of chance, real estate company agents et cetera.
These are bodies that will find it
Mr. Armah 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to what the hon. Member for Zebilla has said, I believe we need to look at the National Archives as a national institution which is properly situated and capable of handling matters of national interest. There are all sorts of records at the National Archives and it is not an open house where everybody can just go there and say that I want a document dealing with the Financial Intelligence Centre or whatever. Before you are able to take one document from the National Archives, you need to go through a certain procedure and I believe they are trained to do that. So it will be better to keep these national records for posterity.
There are documents that have gone through five hundred years and they also know how to keep papers from getting rotten. So I think the best thing is that after a certain number of years, and in this case 6 years, the documents from the accountable institutions are sent to a safe- keeping place, which is the National Archives as against just letting the papers fly off in the office with the possibility that any time there is a change of Minister or a change of Government or whatever, they may be shredded. It is not unusual that some of these papers get missing from offices of Ministers and things like that. So I believe the law, as it is now, should be allowed to pass.

Question put and amendment agreed to.

Clause 25 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 -- Unauthorized access to computer system or application data.
Mr. Armah 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we are substituting the following for what we have there, that is, the Headnote --“Un- authorized access to computer system or application” in place of “Unauthorized access to computer system or application data”. I beg to move, Mr. Speaker.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27 -- Unauthorized modification of computer system.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28 -- Duties of operators of Games of Chance.
Mr. Armah 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, clause 28, subclause 3, line 2, after the word “register”, add the following: “and after the six-year period, the register shall be sent to the National Archives”.
So the new rendition shall read:
“The register shall be preserved for at least 6 years after the last recorded transaction in the register and after the six-year period the register shall be sent to the National Archives.”
Mr. Armah 12:50 p.m.
It does, Mr. Speaker.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29 -- Request for Information.
Mr. Armah 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 29, subclause (1), line 2, delete “advise” and insert “disclose”.
Mr. Speaker, the new rendition would read 1 p.m.
“the Centre or an authorized representative of the Centre may request the accountable institution to disclose whether a person is or has been a client of the accountable institution et cetera.” Mr. Speaker, we are just substituting the word “disclose”for “advise”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Armah 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 29, subclause (4), paragraph (b), before “acted” insert “has”.
Mr. Speaker, the new rendition would read 1 p.m.
“A person is acting or has acted on behalf of the client of the accountable institution”.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr. Armah 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 29, subclause (2), line 1, delete “The Centre may request further information where the Centre” and insert the following:
“(2) The Centre may request
further and better particulars where the Board”.
Mr. Speaker, the rendition would read 1 p.m.
“The Centre may request further and better particulars where the Board . . .”
Mr. J. B. Aidoo 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think the word “better” is introducing con-fusion. I do not know why the hon. Chairman is looking for something better. It should remain “further” because if the Centre is looking for further information it is all right; it is adequate. I also want to suggest that the rendition should be “the Centre may request for further information”.
Mr. Armah 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am with him; we would abandon our earlier suggestion.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
Are you abandoning the words “further and better”?
Mr. Armah 1 p.m.
That is so, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
That is standard in terms of legal language.
Mr. Armah 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with you but then the feeling is that it is too legalistic and that we need to make the law easily readable by the ordinary person so we are abandoning our amendment.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, if the Committee has abandoned the amendment I just want to sensitize that construction -- “The Centre may request for further information immediately the Centre is of the opinion that the information given to it is not adequate.” The appearance of the word “Centre” three times in just one sentence is not all that good so if the hon. Chairman could
tidy it up. We can have, “The Centre may request further information where it is of the opinion that information given to it is not adequate.”
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
Chairman, do you agree with it instead of abandoning what is already there?
Mr. Armah 1 p.m.
I agree with him.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, “the Centre may request further information where it is of the opinion that the information given is not adequate.” So the word “Centre” appears only once.
Mr. S. K. B. Manu 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I further amend the amendment. The last word “not adequate” should read “inadequate” instead of “not adequate”.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
So your total rendition should be what? So that it can be captured -- [Interruption.]
Mr. Manu 1 p.m.
Hon. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu, your rendition is fine except that the last word should be “inadequate”.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, it would finally read:
“The Centre may request for further information where it is of the opinion that the information given to it is inadequate.”
Mr. Armah 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think there is some difference between “not adequate” and “inadequate”. So for the purpose of this I think the proper word should be “not adequate”; they did not find the information adequate enough. It should be “not adequate”.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
Hon. Members, could you leave that to the draftsperson's office so that the whole subclause which is meant to be amended could be tidied properly. It is still a legal document so we should leave it for it to

be properly taken care of. So we leave that subclause to the Clerk's Office so that the draftsperson could take care of it.

Clause 29 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Hon. Members, it looks like our attention span is diminishing at this stage. In the circumstance, hon. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu, I will ask you to advise the Chair as to what to do.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:10 p.m.
Mr.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
That is
where we were when you were occupied somewhere else.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:10 p.m.
Mr.
Speaker, that being the case, may I move that this House adjourns until tomorrow 10 o'clock in the forenoon.
Mr. Pele Abuga 1:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT 1:10 p.m.