Debates of 31 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 of Tuesday, 30th October, 2007. Page 1 . . . [Interruption] -- [Some hon. Members: We do not have copies of the Votes and Proceedings] -- Oh! We shall take it the next day.
Item 3 -- Questions -- Minister for the Interior.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 10 a.m.
MINISTRY OF THE INTERIOR 10 a.m.
Minister for the Interior (Mr. Kwamena Bartels) 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, in a response to a similar Question in Parliament, the Ministry indicated that it has adopted a holistic approach to solving the logist ic problems

particularly accommodation, vehicles and communication equipment facing the security agencies.

Mr. Speaker, a concessionary line of credit has been signed between the Government of Ghana and the Exim Bank of India, for the supply of 221 TATA vehicles to the security agencies including the Police. The Ministry has so far taken delivery of 173 vehicles and distributed them to the agencies including the Police. The last consignments of 48 vehicles are expected by the middle of next month out of which the Ghana Police Service would be allocated 19.

The Yeji Police Station would be considered alongside other deprived police stations in the country.

Mr. Speaker, in addition, Parliament recently approved a loan of $26 million for the acquisition of vehicles and other equipment for the Ghana Police and Prisons Services. The first consignment of 169 vehicles from Paramount Logistics is due early next year and Yeji would be one of the stations to be considered.

Mr. Speaker, on the i ssue of communication, the Government has identified that the best way to handle the situation is to look at the problem holistically. In this connection, a Chinese company has been contracted to provide communication network named “The GOTA” for all security agencies in the country. The first phase which is confined to Accra and its environs has just begun and would be extended to all the regional capitals early next year. This would be followed by the third phase which would be the extension of the facility to the district capitals and Yeji would definitely benefit.

Allocation of Fire Tender to

Nkwanta District Fire Station

Q. 1022. Mr. Gershon K. B. Gbediame asked the Minister for the Interior when a fire tender will be supplied to the Nkwanta District Fire Station.
Mr. Kwamena Bartels 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Nkwanta Fire Station was allocated a Quick Intervention Vehicle (Land Rover) which was relatively small for the area. Nkwanta is a very big district in terms of land mass. The vehicle has been out of use for the past three (3) years.
The Ministry has recognized the need to strengthen the capacity of the Ghana National Fire Service to combat fire out- breaks throughout the country. To this end, it has entered into negotiations with the ECOWAS Bank for Development for a loan of $24.7 million to procure new fire tenders for distribution to fire stations throughout the country, and Nkwanta Fire Station and other deprived areas would definitely be considered.
Mr. Gbediame 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister rightly acknowledged the vastness of the area and how it is prone to fire. In the interim, is there any measure or intervention that can be put in place until these new vehicles are procured?
Mr. Bartels 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, un- fortunately, we do not have any spare ones to send to Nkwanta. But we would like to assure the hon. Member of Parliament for Nkwanta that definitely, when the new ones arrive, Nkwanta would be considered.
Mr. Gbediame 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, may I know from the hon. Minister the time- frame within which this facility will go through.
Mr. Bartels 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we are

looking at the first quarter of next year.

Aflao Police Station (Upgrading)

Q. 1039. Mr. Albert Kwasi Zigah asked the Minister for the Interior when accommodation facilities at Aflao Police Station will be upgraded.
Mr. Bartels 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, in respect of accommodation, the problem at Aflao is not an isolated one. Government is aware of the deplorable accommodation conditions that all the Security Agencies including the Police had to go through. Again, tackling the issue holistically, the Ministry has come out with a couple of proposals to handle the situation.
However, the problem has been the issue of funding which would meet Government's conditionality requirement. However, attempts are being made to source the requisite resources both locally and internationally to handle the accommodation problems of the Security Agencies including the Police and Aflao would not be left out.
In addition, the Security Services including the Police have been asked to submit the list of all uncompleted projects with cost implications.
A committee has been set up to assess the total budgetary implications for the completion of the projects to enable the Ministry source for funds to complete them.
Mr. Zigah 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Minister. I think the Answer to the Question is almost similar to the ones on all previous Questions on the same subject. Mr. Speaker, the Aflao Police Station was established in the 1950s and has not undergone any major extension or rehabilitation. May I know from the
Mr. Zigah 10:10 a.m.


hon. Minister how long it would take his Ministry to rake up funds to do this very exercise.
Mr. Bartels 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we are looking at getting resources between the first and second quarters of next year to be able to tackle the accommodation problem of the security agencies in a holistic manner.
Mr. Zigah 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the police at
Aflao are living in nine different rented rooms between the past 10 and 40 years. May I know from the hon. Minister, whether his Ministry would provide a very good facility which can accommodate the majority of the servicemen for immediate response should the need arise as it is in the case of the CEPS and Immigration Services at Aflao.
Mr. Bartels 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the problem of accommodation for the security agencies is immense, and we need to look at it holistically. We are, as I said earlier on, looking for resources to be able to tackle this in a very, very holistic manner to be able to address the problem of ensuring that policemen are in barracks so that at a short notice, they can be called upon to respond to emergencies.
The kind of figures being discussed or bandied around are huge, and we believe that we need to address it totally, and that is why we have given ourselves roughly about six months within which we should be before this House asking for approval to source the kind of funding that will look at this problem and address it holistically.
Mr. Moses Asaga 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, my
question to the hon. Minister for the Interior is, what are the figures that are being bandied around that are very huge?
Mr. Bartels 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, addressing the accommodation requirements, office and residential accommodation re-
quirements of the security agencies, we are talking about figures in the neighbourhood of $120 to $150 million.
Mr. Asaga 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, my follow-up question is, have these figures that he has mentioned ever been captured in any of our budgets, the MTEF or the 2008 Budget that is going to be read?
Mr. Bartels 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, they have
not been captured in any previous budget. I said just a few minutes ago that we will be coming before this House with the proposal. They are new proposals.
Ms. Akua Sena Dansua 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know from the hon. Minister, if he will consider the accommodation problem of the Aflao Police as a special case, and therefore treat it as an emergency problem to be tackled.
Mr. Bartels 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is a suggestion worth considering seriously.
Mr. J. K. Gidisu 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I would want to find out from the hon. Minister whether he is hoping to hit a jackpot for the first and second quarters of next year, and that is why he is pinning all his hopes both for the Fire Service and other Security Agencies on that period.
Mr. Bartels 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, un- fortunately, I am not a gambler-- [Laughter] -- so I do not hope to hit the jackpot. But the point is that, we are coming up with proposals of getting extra budgetary resources to come before this House asking for approval to address the problem of accommodation -- office accommodation and residential accommo- dation for all the security agencies. Not only are there existing ones which have not been completed but also there are new ones which address the demands of the present. [Interruption.] We have got the Border Patrol Unit of the Immigration
Service and accommodation for them is a problem.
We got the Police to raise the level of their manpower and accommodation is a problem. The Prisons has accommodation problems. The Fi re Service has accommodation problems. So we want to look at all of these in a holistic manner and ensure that we address them in that same manner.
Mr. A. K. Agbesi 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister said the Ministry has come out with a couple of proposals. I want to know from the hon. Minister whether these proposals have been made known to the public so that we can know how to deal with the situation. I want to know from the hon. Minister whether they have published it or they have made it known to the public.
Mr. Bartels 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, these proposals, currently are before Cabinet.
Mr. A. S. K. Bagbin 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, from the answers the hon. Minister gave to the questions posed by hon. Moses Asaga to the effect that these are not captured in the MTEF, and they are not captured in the 2008 Budget, could he tell us how he intends handling this matter for Parliament to consider in the first quarter of next year?
Mr. Bartels 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I remember saying a few minutes ago that these will be extra budgetary, and I expect that it will definitely be part of the supplementary budget by the middle of the year. And I did also say that indeed we are looking at the first and second quarters. That was what I said.
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Question number 1068,
hon. Charles Hodogbey, Member of Parliament for North Tongu.
Mr. J. K. Gidisu 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Colleague unfortunately is outside the House. He is in the Constituency for some pressing assignment and has called me to seek your indulgence to ask the Question.
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Please, ask the Question.
Total Number of Foreign Nationals in Ghana Prisons and the Amount Spent
on Each Per Year
Mr. J. K. Gidisu (on behalf of Mr. Charles Hodogbey) asked the Minister for the Interior what is the total number of Foreign Nationals serving jail terms in Ghana Prisons and how much is spent on each per year.
Mr. Bartels 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the total population of inmates for the whole country was 13,800. Foreigners were 713, constituting 5.2 per cent and remand trial prisoners 4,2l8, constituting 31 per cent. Mr. Speaker, these are from 25 countries in Africa, Europe, The Far East and North and South America. In the year 2006, a total amount of ¢10.4 million was spent on each prisoner and it is estimated that ¢16 million would be spent on each prisoner this year.
Mr. Speaker, I will like to explain that this calculation is based on the total expenditure on the Prisons Service as a whole including rations, et cetera, divided by the number of prisoners.
Mr. J. K. Gidisu 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member's Question that has been handed over to us contrasts sharply with the information he is now providing. The updates are not here. Notwithstanding that, would he tell us the criminal background of these foreign nationals? What offences have been the cause of their being in prison?
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Hon. Member, this is not
a supplementary question.
Mr. Agbesi 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister
has given us a breakdown of the amount spent on each prisoner per year - that is the foreign prisoners. Mr. Speaker, I want to know from the Minister if ¢16 million will be spent on a foreign prisoner a year, what is the breakdown of the amount spent on a foreigner per day?
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Hon. Member for
Mr. Agbesi 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have a
Mr. Lee Ocran 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I will like
to know from the hon. Minister whether the amount of money spent on foreign nationals is the same spent on Ghanaians in prison.
Mr. Bartels 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the answer
is yes. The figure we gave is how much is spent on every prisoner or remand person in custody per year. The figure is not for foreigners only.
Mr. James K. Avedzi 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
will like to find out from the hon. Minister whether with the passage of the Convicted Persons Act he will envisage a reduction in the number of foreign prisoners who are serving in Ghana. And if yes, what number of Ghanaians who are serving outside Ghana are expected to come back and serve their jail terms at home?
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Hon. Member, would you want to come back properly? This is not a supplementary question.
Mr. J. Y. Chireh 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister in giving us the answer, did some calculations where he was dividing

by the number of prisons and -- I do not quite understand. Is it the same for every prisoner everywhere in Ghana or he is talking about that for the nearest one where he got this information from?
Mr. Bartels 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, it is the same for every prisoner everywhere in Ghana.
Mr. Bagbin 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the
calculations of my hon. Friend the hon Minister is stretching the issue too far. Mr. Speaker, he just told us that it is the total budget of the Prisons Service divided by the total number of prisoners, and including salaries paid to the staff and any other operational cost.
Mr. Speaker, does the Minister himself not consider this to be misleading? It is like saying that salaries paid to lecturers and buildings constructed at universities, divided by the number of students amounting to how much is spent per student. That is going rather too far because the employment of the officers and the rest is also for another purpose. It is not just for only serving the prisoners. If they were not employed, there would be social costs to the society.
So, it is unfair to calculate it this way because it is misleading. Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if the Minister agrees with me.
Mr. Bartels 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I totally disagree. This nation is spending a certain amount of money on the Ghana Prisons Service to keep these prisoners. So at the end of the year, we should look at how many prisoners are in our custody and on whom we have spent how much. The cost is how much has been spent on each one. So I believe the calculation is perfect; Parliament will be quite clear in its mind as to how much we are spending on prisoners every year. If there was no prisoner at all and the Ghana Prisons Service was dissolved, how much are we going to save
as a nation? That is why we believe that this calculation is correct.
Mr. Bagbin 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very contentious issue. Mr. Speaker, is he saying that one can say with all certainty that money spent on governance including all of us, Members of Parliament, the Ministers and other government institutions divided by the total number of people will determine how much is spent on each Ghanaian because without governance that is what we will be saving for the society?
I want him to know that there are other purposes for which you would employ somebody not specifically for the fact that he is going to superintend over a business, and I referred him to the social costs. So when you analyse it this way, it applies pari passu to that of governance. Mr. Speaker, does he agree with me?
Mr. Bartels 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the hon. Minority Leader. The point is that this question is on how much is spent on each prisoner. We are looking at how much this nation is spending on each prisoner by getting the prisons officers, by buying them vehicles so they can move them up and down, by feeding them, by clothing them, by providing medication for them when the need arises. All of this in totality is the amount of money that we spend on the prisoners.
The cost of paying our prisons officers, the cost of housing our prisons officers, the cost of maintaining our prisons officers, the cost of even maintaining the -- [Pause] - All of these constitute the totality of the nation's expenditure on the prisoners. I believe that in fairness, we should look at this as a true reflection of
the expenditure of this nation on prisoners.
Mr. J. B. Aidoo 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, is my hon. Minister trying to suggest that the ¢16,000,000 is the per capita expenditure of every prisoner and therefore it could be higher and lower in some cases?
Mr. Bartels 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I agree that it is the per capita expenditure on each prisoner. But what we have done is to do a straight line costing to show that indeed on the average, this is how much we are spending on each prisoner. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Raymond A. Tawiah 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want to know from the hon. Minister how much money is spent on each prisoner on food only per day.
Mr. Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Hon. Member, would you want to come back properly?
Use of Foreign Registered Motorcycles in Ghana
Q.1070. Mr. Francis A. Agbotse asked the Minister for the Interior whether foreign registered motorcycles from the Republic of Togo are authorized to operate commercially in Ghana, and if not, why the Police allow them to operate as such mainly along the borders in communities such as Kpedze, Aflao, Shia, Kpetoe, Nyive and Dzodze.
Mr. Bartels 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Police in the Volta Region have never identified any perpetrators of such offences and let them off the hook as alleged. According to information gathered from the Customs, Excise and Preventive Service (CEPS) and the Ghana Immigration Service at Nyive, Shia and Aflao, the licensed Togo motorcycle owners drop their “Passengers” on the side of their border and return to Togo; they do not cross over to Ghana for commercial purposes.
Mr. Agbotse 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am from a border town and I know what happens in these villages. I have been to Aflao, Dzodze and all other places before I asked this Question. Will the hon. Minister, in view of the answer given, form a small investigative team to go to these areas and verify the issue for himself?
Mr. Bartels 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I will seriously consider that.
Mr. John A. Tia 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want
to know from the hon. Minister whether by his answers to the immediate question, it means that he did not verify the question that the Member asked. If he has come to tell us that there is no such operation then, then it means he did not verify before coming here. Can he answer that?
Mr. Bartels 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I asked the Police, the Customs, Excise and Preventive Service (CEPS) and the Ghana Immigration Service (GIS) to bring me an answer to this Question; and they are the rightful people to do that. But the suggestion has come from the hon. Member of Parliament who is countermanding and challenging what the Customs, Excise and Preventive Service, the Ghana Immigration Service officers had given me as the Minister. In fairness, I believe that it should be possible for us to confirm if the Member of Parliament still believes that they did cross the border.
Mr. Tia 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, can the hon. Minister therefore tell this House how he wants to go by the verification? Is it going to be done by himself personally? From which other sources is he going to confirm the information from his officers, the CEPS, Immigration, Police and others since these are the sources he is not certain
Mr. Tia 10:30 a.m.


of? From which other officers is he going to get his information to confirm the answer?
Mr. Bartels 10:30 a.m.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there are so many agencies who could independently be commissioned to do this verification, including the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI). There are other agencies. We could even get the Armed Forces representative from Ho also to take part. So I do not believe that it is too difficult a task.
Mr. Tia 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, my good Friend is telling us in this House by his answers that he did not do a thorough job before coming to provide this Answer. Will he tell us whether he is going to believe in the BNI or he is going to believe in the Police officers, the Ghana Immigration Service and the CEPS people on the ground?
Mr. Bartels 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I disagree that a thorough job has not been done. The rightful people to provide answers in respect of border issues are the CEPS and the Ghana Immigration Service authorities, and these have given us this answer and I believe them.
But we have on the floor of the House an hon. Member who says, “if your people are not seeing so would you be prepared to put together a small team to verify?” I am prepared to do that by using a totally different group of people over and above the rightful people who ought to be investigating these and reporting to their Minister. So I believe in fairness, that is the rightful thing to do under the circumstances.
Mr. Lee Ocran 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am interested because my constituency is a border constituency. May I know from the hon. Minister whether the offering of a lift on a foreign-registered motorbike to
an Immigration official, a Policeman or a Custom official on the Ghanaian side of the borsder is a violation of the law.
Mr. Speaker 10:40 a.m.
This is not a supple- mentary question.
Mr. Bagbin 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want the hon. Minister to answer the issue raised in the Question. Is the hon. Minister aware that motorbikes are being used in the border towns and villages to drop passengers?
Mr. Bartels 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have explained earlier on that passengers are not being ferried across the border by foreign-registered motorcycles.
Mr. Bagbin 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about ferrying across the border, I am talking about them being ferried within those towns and villages along the borders, not across.
Mr. Bartels 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, they are not being ferried along the borders.
Mr. Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Hon. Minister for the Interior, thank you very much for coming to answer these Questions; you are discharged.
Item 4 - Statements. Statement by hon. Member for Amenfi East.
STATEMENTS 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Lee Ocran (NDC - Jomoro) 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Amenfi East for having come up with such an important subject. In fact, it is quite disheartening when you are in a taxi or any other vehicle and a person receives a call and the National Anthem is the tune of his mobile reception. You do not know whether to stand up in the taxi or to crawl just because that is the rule, you must stand up when you hear the National Anthem.
Mr. Speaker, it is an offence, I do not know whether the law has been repealed, but in the First Republic, it was an offence not to stand up anytime the National Anthem was played. If you were walking down the street and you heard the National Anthem, you stood still. Those days before the beginning of a film show in any cinema house, the National Anthem was played and everybody was required to stand up.
We must revere the National Anthem. I cannot see an American or a British or a German walking up leisurely or derogating his or her National Anthem but in our case it has become some sort of - even some people have composed the rap version of the National Anthem, hip-life version of the National Anthem on their mobile phones. I think we must order the Police to identify and arrest those people who are trivializing the National Anthem.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister for the
Interior is gone; I wish he were here. I would have requested him to set up a special task force for the arrest of those with the National Anthem on their mobile phones. I would be able to identify some of them --[Interruption] - The Attorney- General is here but he himself is hot.

Mr. Speaker, even in this House, some people are using it. Mr. Speaker, it is good that the hon. Member for Amenfi East has drawn our attention to this issue. I think - [Interruption] -- Mr. Speaker, it is important that from today it should come out clearly that no one in Ghana should be allowed to use the national anthem as a ringing tone for his or her mobile phone. I think if this comes out clearly, those who are ignorant and abusing the law would put a stop to it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me.
Mr. K. A. Okerchiri (NPP - Nkawkaw) 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, honestly when I first sighted the draft of this Statement, my immediate reaction was, is this so important that we have to engage Members of Parliament with, as others outside may like to say? But upon second thought and looking at it closely, I am convinced myself that it is very, very important.
Mr. Speaker, there are certain things
that hold nations together. They may be very sublime; you may not see them but collectively they make a nation what it is.
Mr. Speaker, if you go to some countries - If you go to America, what obsesses them is the “American Dream”. Mr. Speaker, I watched a film entitled Coming to America in which an African prince was supposed to have gone to America to realize his dreams. He started doing some menial work and fell in love with the daughter of the owner of the restaurant.
The father came and when he looked at the way the prince was working, he became very much annoyed and found
Mr. K. A. Okerchiri (NPP - Nkawkaw) 10:50 a.m.


out that he could not hobnob with such people. The father of the lady retorted that, “This is America, you could be whatever you are but when you come here, it is the American dream that we all look up to.”

Mr. Speaker, I went to Ethiopia; beggars there asked me for money and when I gave it to them, I saw them rankling something and when I asked the diplomat what they were doing, he said what they were doing was that they were asking God for forgiveness for taking money from such a sinner. [Laughter.] It meant I was a sinner.

I became annoyed and I said I was not going to give them money again but the diplomat said that, as far as the Ethiopian was concerned, I was a sinner. He may be very poor, he needs to collect the money from you but he has to pray to God that such a sinner has given him or her money. For them, that is what they hold on to. Just this year, they celebrated what we call “the Millennium”. It was celebrated this year; and I asked, this people, what are they about? They are proud of it.

Mr. Speaker, as has been said, I also watched an Akan Drama in which a supposed Minister was deceiving the wife. The drama is called Obra. The ringing tone of the mobile phone was the national anthem and any time he received a call, he would say that the President was calling him. Such little things belittle our national anthem. So for all us who have the tendency to think that this is too trivial, Mr. Speaker, I would strongly appeal to them to take this matter seriously.

As has been said by hon. Lee Ocran, when this national anthem blares on our mobile phones, you do not know whether to stand up or what to do. It is a big disgrace; it is an absolute disgrace to us. I think that we should all take this seriously.
Mr. K. A. Okerchiri (NPP - Nkawkaw) 10:50 a.m.


Whilst I may not subscribe to the issue of arresting people for putting our national anthem on their mobile phones, I think I would strongly appeal to them that we owe it a duty to make Ghana proud and they must desist from that.
Mr. J. Y. Chireh (NDC - Wa West) 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. Member who made the Statement but I thought that we should look at the matter much more closely than we are doing now. Is it not “patriotism” that these people are displaying? Just like the example that we are giving about Americans, anywhere you go in America, you would see them always holding their little flags.
So if we have a national anthem that is also a prayer, and somebody decides that he should play it to remind himself of the blessings of God, should we really say it is an offence?
Indeed, we have to give dignity and respect to our national symbols because they are the only symbols that hold us together. The national flag, the national anthem, the pledge, they symbolize Ghana but we have to now look at these -- Is it not the case that some people cannot remember the words in the national anthem and therefore they keep this as their ringing tone so that they can be reminded about it? So for me, it is good to respect all these things but at the same time let us fashion out a way. If it is a law that we need to make, that is fine. But as at now - [Interruption] -- If we are talking about patriotism -- Some people have made the assertion that you do not know whether to get up when you hear this anthem being played.
That assertion is not correct. This is because if I am driving past a function that is taking place and the President
arrives there and the national anthem is being played, am I supposed to stop in the traffic and get down? The answer is no. So it depends on the function that you are attending -- It is when you are present and it is officially stated that you should get up and respect the national anthem. So let us again examine it.
I do not again want us to go too far about whether to arrest people or not to arrest them; but let us give respect to our national symbols. Concerning that one, I go along with it, but when people are being patriotic, let us also not discourage them.
Mr. S. K. B. Manu (NPP - Ahafo Ano South) 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to contribute to the Statement made on the national anthem. Mr. Speaker, national anthems, by their nature, are national, and as has been canvassed by earlier contributors, when the national anthem is played, you get the sense that something very important is taking place nationally and you have to kowtow to that event - [Hear! Hear!]
Mr. Speaker, when people begin to use the national anthem as ringing tones for their phones -- Somebody is saying that it shows signs of patriotism; I beg to differ. This is because those who do that do not do it with the intention of dignifying the national anthem; they find it as a fanciful act.
When we put that aside, if you drive around Accra these days, you would find the Coat of Arms on people's iron gates and you would begin to ask yourself whether it is a government building or a private one. This is because the Coat of Arms is reserved for the nation; people are now using it as their private property which I think is very, very wrong.
I want to draw the attention of the security agencies to take note of this and if possible order that those Coats of Arms
be taken off the iron gates of people's houses because it is deceptive; it is very, very deceptive to whoever sees that. If you are not careful you may think that this is a government building; you enter and it may turn out to be an armed robber's house.

So I would like to appeal to the security agents to take a very serious view of the use of the Coat of Arms on people's private property because the Coat of Arms is the preserve of the nation and it must be respected as such and used as such.

On this note, Mr. Speaker, I rest my case.

Mr. Eric Opoku (NDC - Asunafo

South): Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this important Statement on the floor of this House. Mr. Speaker, the national anthem of Ghana is different from other national anthems in the world. This is because the national anthem of this country is a prayer calling on God to bless this nation to give us the courage to defend the course of development, to defend our Constitution, to protect our people. So ours is a prayer.

Mr. Speaker, the Bible says that we should pray always. So if this House should come out with a law preventing people from singing the national anthem, it is like we are asking them not to pray. So I think that the more people pray, the more the nation receives blessing from the Almighty God. So let us allow our people to sing the anthem so that always God will pour blessings on the nation.
Mr. K. Krah Mensah (NPP - Amansie West) 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the maker of the Statement for the brilliant exposition, but I want to differ a little bit. Can this be called an abuse of the national anthem? I think so.
Mr. K. Krah Mensah (NPP - Amansie West) 11 a.m.


I want to liken this to an American case which arose a few years ago, when somebody was prosecuted for using the American national flag as a toilet roll. The Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled that in prosecuting them it would amount to an infringement of their freedom of speech.

So I believe that although it would appear as if using the national anthem as in telephones is cheapening the national anthem or the essence of the national anthem, it would appear that those people are, at the same time, enjoying the national anthem. So to attempt to infringe on their rights of use, perhaps, would amount to controlling their freedom of expression.
Alhaji Sumani Abukari (NDC - Tamale North) 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think I want to contribute in the line of the last but one hon. Member who spoke, hon. Eric Opoku. It is not right, as the hon. Member for Ahafo Ano South, Mr. Balado stated, that people would trivialise the national anthem by using it as their signatures on their phones. I completely disagree with that. Like hon. Opoku said, the national anthem, if you listen to it carefully, starts with: “God bless our homeland …” And it continues to ask for all sorts of favours from God. Mr. Speaker, I have two phones; one has the national anthem on it - [Laughter] -- because I am always praying for Ghana. [Laughter.]
Mr. Speaker, I have a second phone that starts with the Islamic version of the Lord's Prayer. That is also a prayer I make to God everyday. So for me I pray for myself, and I pray for my nation because I love my country. So for anybody to say that I am trivialising the national anthem by putting it on my phone, is incorrect and I will beg seriously to disagree with that person.
Mr. Speaker, it depends on how you
understand it, how you appreciate the national anthem, and how you look at it spiritually. Maybe, if you do not have that spiritual insight you would not know how important this national anthem is. The composers of this national anthem have a good reason for putting it the way they did.
Mr. Speaker, let us continuously pray for our country, something Mr. Speaker does every morning here; and we will always pray for ourselves through the Lord's Prayer. I believe that any Christian who come here kneels down and says the Lord's Prayer at home before coming here. This I do in the Arabic version which I have here. So the same way I pray for my country every morning, I want to pray for my country continuously; and I want anybody whom God made to know that I pray for my country; that is why it is on my phone.
So to the extent that people should be arrested -- In fact, there is no legal basis for arresting anybody for using the national anthem on their phones.
Mr. Speaker, even though my very good hon. Colleague, maybe, intended well, I think that this time around I completely disagree with him and people should be encouraged more and more to use - In fact, Mr. Speaker, you would remember that when someone was being vetted, he was asked a simple question about the national anthem; he could not repeat it. But if you keep listening to this daily, at least, you would know the tune and the words would keep coming back to you. As they keep coming back to me everyday, I always end up with an Amen.
Mr. Speaker, I completely disagree with this Statement.
Maj. Derek Oduro (retd) (NPP -
Nkoranza North): Mr. Speaker, thank
Alhaji Sumani Abukari (NDC - Tamale North) 11 a.m.


you for giving me the opportunity. I think we have to commend the maker of the Statement.

Mr. Speaker, I do not go along with the last three contributors in the sense that what is wrong is wrong. A national anthem for a country is supposed to be respected. It is supposed to be given the due recognition such that as soon as it is being played, just like how members of the security agencies get up and pay their compliments -- if it is played in jest, anywhere, anytime, then are we confusing those who are supposed to act --

In fact, every citizen of this country is supposed to give that respect to the national anthem. It is just not a prayer. Those who think that it is a prayer are supposed to read the part that is a prayer and then go along with other areas that could be recited. It is just not a prayer and words in the national anthem are so designed, calculated that they give regulation and that no one should gloss over the misuse of the national anthem and we should all condemn those who use it as signature tunes on their phones.

With these few comments, I rest my case and thank the maker of the Statement while asking for more of those so that we can do away with wrong things in the country.
Mr. F. A. Agbotse (NDC - Ho West) 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think the essence of the Statement made by the hon. Member is to draw our attention to the importance of the national anthem and other national symbols. I think, as many people have said, the national anthem alerts us to an action. That is why when people who have it on their phones get their phones ringing, one is startled when one hears it -- what is happening? And then you realise it is on a phone.
Mr. Speaker, our attention is being drawn to the importance of these symbols, to the importance of the national anthem, that we as a people should hold our
national anthem dearly and keep it sacred, not to trivialise it. I thank the maker of the Statement for bringing this to our attention at this time when a lot of people are misusing the national anthem.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 11:10 a.m.
STAGE 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Clause 9 -
Mr. K.A. Okerchire 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
just want to seek your permission to get the Chairman of the Committee to sit by me so that we can confer.
Mr. Speaker 11:10 a.m.
That is all right.
rose
Mr. Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Are you going to take
objection?
Mr. John Tia 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am
Mr. Speaker 11:10 a.m.
I have granted him
permission to be there.
Clause 9 -Tenure of office of members.
Chairman of the Committee (Mr.
Kojo Armah): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 9, subclause (5), delete and insert the following:
“ ( 5 ) T h e P r e s i d e n t , b y a letter addressed to a member,

( a ) m a y r e v o k e t h e appo in tmen t o f t ha t member where there are sufficient grounds for the revocation; and

( b ) s h a l l r e v o k e the appoint- ment of a member at the request of the nominating body.”

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we had a little problem with the formulation of a new amendment to clause 9. We are now bringing forward what we consider to be the appropriate formulation.

Question put and amendment agreed to

Clause 9 as amended ordered to stand

part of the Bill.

Clause 18 --
Mr. Armah 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 18, subclause (4), line 2, delete “prescribed by Regulations”.
Mr. Speaker, I think yesterday, we agreed that the last three words ‘prescribed by Regulations' should be deleted altogether but they have appeared again so I will plead that we delete ‘prescribed by Regulations' as appears in subclause 4, line 2 of clause 18.
Mr. Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Which i s your
amendment? Is it delete “prescribed by Regulations'?
Mr. Armah 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have been told we have to do the consequential thing of leaving out ‘Deputy Chief Executives' because yesterday we agreed on one Deputy Chief Executive, so we would amend that one to ‘Deputy Chief Executive'. We would only take the ‘s' off and then delete the words ‘prescribed by Regulations'.
Mr. Speaker 11:10 a.m.
You are dealing with
clause 18, is that not so?
Mr. Armah 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we are
dealing with clause 18(4) and the sentence, as it stands, reads as follows:
“The Deputy Chief Executives and staff of the centre shall be subject to security screening prescribed by Regulations.”
And our amendment is that it should be “Deputy Chief Executive”. So the ‘s' that ends the “Executives” should go. And it will read as follows:
“ . . . and staff of the centre shall be subject to security screening”.
Mr. Speaker 11:10 a.m.
So we are deleting the words “prescribed by Regulations”.
Mr. Armah 11:10 a.m.
That is so, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. John Ndebugre 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I must indicate that at the committee level we agreed that we should delete the (4) totally because clause 16 (1) already indicates that the President shall in accordance with article 195 of the Constitution appoint one Deputy Chief Executive. Now there is a clause which has already made provision for the appointment of the Chief Executive.
Then the one in clause 16 makes provision for the appointment of a Deputy Chief Executive. And then concerning the other staff, we do not need to include it here that the President shall appoint labourers and sweepers and so on at the centre. So we thought that we should as well delete that paragraph (4) altogether. I do not know why we are still dealing with it.
Mr. Armah 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we are
not talking about appointments; we are
Mr. Chireh 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that
the amendment made by the Chairman of the Committee is correct. First of all we do not need the regulations in our prescribed rule, as we stated, and so that one, we delete the last three words. And for the argument about the appointments, if you read article 195, everybody under any public body is appointed by the President; you do not delegate the appointment to other people. So it should be as moved by the Chairman of Committee.
We delete “prescribed by Regulations” and, of course, we remove the ‘s' from the “Deputy Chief Executives” because we intend that it should be only one. I think that the motion should be supported.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Clauses19 to 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31 --
Mr. Armah 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 31, subclause (1), after “who” insert “or an institution which”. So the rendition will become, “a person who or an institution which knows or suspects . . .”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Armah 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 31, subclause (2), delete and insert the following:
“(2) Where a person suspects a
transaction to be linked to or used for the financing of a terrorist act as defined by law, the person shall make a report to the Centre within twenty-four hours of the suspicion.”
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr. Armah 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 31, subclause (3), delete.
Clause 31, subclause (4), delete.
Mr. Speaker, we are proposing that the
whole of subclause (3), from (a) up to (4) should be deleted. The whole of sub- clause (3) and, indeed, up to subclause (4) will be deleted because there is already an existing Anti-terrorist Act. So that instead of overburdening this particular Act we remove that and then we refer to the law and that is why in the amendment we are saying that “as defined by law”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 as amended stands part of the Bill.
Clause 32 - Conducting Transactions to avoid Giving Rights to a Reporting Duty
Mr. Armah 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 32, delete and insert the following:
“A person shall not conduct two or more transactions separately with one or more than one accountable institution so as to avoid the duty to report a transaction or in breach of the duty to disclose information, under this Act”
Question put and amendment agreed
Mr. Armah 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the
headnote will have a little amendment -- “Conveyance of currency to or from the Republic. We are just making it simply “Conveyance of currency to or from the country”.
I beg to move, clause 34, delete and insert the following:
“Conveyance of currency to or from the country --
34. (1) A person who intends t o c o n v e y c u r r e n c y t h a t e x c e e d s t h e amount prescribed by the Bank of Ghana to or from the country shall declare the part iculars of the currency and the amount to be conveyed to the Bank of Ghana or its authorized agent at the port of entry or exit.
x x x
(3) The declaration shall be made in accordance with the Fore ign Exchange A c t , 2 0 0 7 ( A c t 7 2 3 ) and Re- gulations made under that Act.”
Mr. K. A. Okerchiri 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what has necessitated this; the Chairman did not give us any reason. The value is the same - “the country”, and “the Republic”. I think that it must stay as it is.
Mr. Chireh 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, are we voting only on the headnotes or the whole sub-clause which has been substituted? In the first place, to be consistent, it should be “from the Republic”, and not “from the country”. All our laws refer to the Republic as being Ghana so in the headnotes there should not be any change, it should be “from the Republic”. Then he is talking about moving a substantive motion to substitute -- Is he moving that along the headnotes he was talking about?
Mr. Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Chairman of the
Committee, clarify the situation for us, please.
Mr. Armah 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, there is a
substantive motion to change clause 34 (1). I thought we should look at the head- notes first. But with the clearance I do not think there should be any problem.
Mr. Speaker, the substitution for clause
34 (1) will be --
“A person who intends to convey currency that exceeds the amount prescribed by the Bank of Ghana to or from the country shall declare the particulars of the currency and the amount to be conveyed to the Bank of Ghana or its authorised agent at the port of entry or exit.”
And then subclause (3) will be:
“The declaration shall be made in accordance with the Foreign Exchange Act, 2007 (Act 723) and Regulations made under that Act.”
Mr. Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Chairman of the
Committee, let us have clarification. In the proposed amendment you have (1) and (3), where is (2)?
Mr. Armah 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we are adding another paragraph and that is sub- clause (3) to the clause 34. So sub-clause (1) of section 1 will be,
“A person who intends to convey currency that exceeds the amount prescribed by the Bank of Ghana to or from the country shall declare the particulars of the currency and the amount to be conveyed to the Bank of Ghana or its authorised agent at the port of entry or exit.”
That will substitute subclause (1) of clause 34.
Mr. Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Do you want subclause (2) to remain?
Mr. Armah 11:20 a.m.
Subclause (2) will remain, Mr. Speaker, and then we add another one subclause (3).
Mr. Chireh 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, from the proposed amendment he is saying we should delete clause 34 and insert -- which means that we are going to substitute it. But he is now saying that we should also leave subclause (2). I think there is some problem about that. Are we leaving subclause (2)? And why are we leaving subclause (2)?
Mr. Armah 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we are not deleting clause 34 altogether. We are deleting subclause (1) and substituting this new amendment. The only problem there was about “the country”, and “the Republic”, but in our amendment we also used the word “country”, so I think the sub-headnote should remain and then we take the amendment as we are proposing for subclause (1).
Mr. Ndebugre 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Member for Wa West (Mr. Yieleh Chireh) has a point. The amendment as published says that we delete the whole of clause 34. So if we do that and we are inserting we must insert subclause (1) and (2) and then after that the proposed subclause (3).
But if we leave it like this, there is a
discord between what has been published and what we seek to do now. So maybe with your indulgence we should pray that we amend the Order Paper to read “delete paragraph (1) and insert -- then we insert what is there. And then after that “add a new paragraph (3)”, so that there will be consonance between what has been published and what we are doing. I believe that is the concern of the hon. Member for Wa West.
Mr. Bagbin 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, it is true that there is a problem with what is captured on the Order Paper and it should rather have read - “Amendment proposed - delete, not paragraph (1), but subclause (1) but insert the following”. So the proposed subclause (1) will be inserted. Then there should be another notice -- “Add a new subclause” and that will take care of the proposed subclause (3). So the first one is, “Amendment proposed, delete subclause (1) and insert the following” and you will have that one taking care of clause 34 (1).
Then there should be another publication on (ix) where it would be the same clause 34 but it will say “Add new clause 34” and that will be (3), and then that will take care of the proposed - I think the Clerk's Table knows how to do it. So that is how it should be moved; we cannot combine the two under this sub-clause.
11. 30 a. m.
Mr. Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Hon. Chairman, so that
finally you have subclause (1), sub-clause (2) and subclause (3). That is the point.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, if
the rendition as ably moved by the hon. Minority Leader and the hon. Chairman has been accepted, I would further wish to amend line 1 of the proposed clause 31(1)
Mr. Armah 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think we
would leave it as it is but it is possible to remove Ghana cedis to Togo.
Mr. Chireh 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, whilst
supporting the amendment without adding any “foreign”, I still want us to be consistent and change the “country” in the first subclause to “ the Republic” to specify that it is Ghana we are referring to, otherwise it could be any other country. So if he agrees, as a result of maintaining the headnotes to be “the Republic”, the third line of this proposed amendment should be “the Republic”. I support the amendment.
Mr. Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Hon. Chairman, what do
you say to this?
Mr. Armah 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I do not see
what violence the change of “Republic” to “country” would do to the law but that is consistent with the Bank of Ghana Act as well.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 34 as amended ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause 35 - Electronic Transfer of
Currency.
Mr. Armah 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 35, delete and insert the following:
“35. Where an accountable i n s t i - t u t i o n t h r o u g h
electronic means and in accordance with the Foreign Exchange Act, 2000 (Act 723) and Regulations made under that Act,
a) transfers currency to a place outside the country, or
b) receives currency from a place outside the country which exceeds the amount prescribed by the Bank of Ghana, the accountable institution shall within twenty-four hours after the transfer or receipt of the currency, report the particulars of the transfer or receipt to the Centre.”
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
with your indulgence, I have a problem with the 24 hours requirement there. I do not know if we could further add “either some 12 hours or 24 hours”. If you talk about electronic transactions for instance, it is done under a wide area network, but systems break down and it is possible that it may not be communicated.
Now if you make it a mandatory 24 hours, I am afraid that even in Ghana here if you do a local transfer from Tamale to Takoradi and in the event that the systems were not working and you tell somebody that he has 24 hours to give a report, that may be a little problematic. So if we can adjust 24 hours to maybe 36 hours or 48 hours.
I agree with the amendment but the limit of it being done within 24 hours, if we can further amend “24 hours” to maybe “48 hours”. We are saying that “electronic” means -- And nobody has control over that and in order that we do not tie the hands of the financial
Mr. Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Chairman, what do you
say to that?
Mr. Armah 11:20 a.m.
I believe what the hon.
Member is looking at is the possibility of systems breaking down which would not allow immediate action on it. But supposing it is a system breakdown, everybody would understand so we simply want to make sure that there is some efficiency in the reporting process of transaction that are looked at as a little out of the normal. So if there is a system breakdown then I believe everybody would understand so I do not see any problem.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, if there is a system breakdown, it means the transaction is incomplete and therefore it cannot be reported. So I am saying that I agree with the amendment but just let us be flexible with the time that a report is required in maybe 48 hours.
Mr. Ndebugre 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, this was
discussed extensively at the committee level and what they are saying, we understand, but the problem is that if we allow too long a time, then we afford the offender to take certain action to conceal -- That is why we thought we must make the time as short as possible but to be reasonably short. That is why we settled on 24 hours, otherwise if we allow too much time then we create the room for manoeuvre. That is the policy behind the 24 hours. So I think we should retain the 24 hours.
Mr. Chireh 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think we
should maintain the 24 hours, because as he is arguing, the thing is electronic and within a second the transaction is completed. But if now we add more time, it is possible for other things to happen. In fact, many of us try to argue that it
should even be 12 hours but, of course, 12 hours does not make sense in terms of transaction. That is why we put it at 24 hours and I still think that the amendment, as it is now, should still be 24 hours and not 36 hours.
Mr. Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Hon. Member for
Tamale South, are you abandoning your proposal?
Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, you may
put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed
to. Clause 35 as amended ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses 37 and 38 ordered to stand part
of the Bill
Clause 39 - Monitoring orders.
Mr. Armah 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move clause 39, subclause (3), delete.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Armah 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 39, subclause (4), delete “The Court may” and insert the following:
“The order lapses after three months except that before the expiration of the three months an application may be made to the Court to.”
Mr. Speaker, this has become necessary
because a court gives the order as in sub-clause (2) and in subclause (4) the order lapses after three months. It is just

to avoid repeating “the order lapses after three months” so after deleting “three” certainly the new amendment should take care of that.
Mr. Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Hon. Chairman, how is
it going to read? Read it for us.
Mr. Armah 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the new amendment is “The order lapses after three months except that before the expiration of the three months, an application may be made to the court.” Mr. Speaker: You have another word there -- “to”. Are you deleting that too?
Mr. Armah 11:40 a.m.
The present subclause
(4) is --
“The court may extend the order for a period of not more than three months at a time if the grounds on which the order is based still exists and the court is satisfied that the interest of justice may best be served by monitoring the person account or facility referred to in subsection (1) of this section, and in the manner provided for in the section.”
So we are substituting the first part of it. “The court may extend the order for a period of not more than three months” and substituting --
“The order lapses after three months except that before the expiration of the three months an appli-cation may be made to the court to --
(a) the grounds on which the order is based if the Bill still exists, .
. .”
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Chairman, I am not with you. You said subclause 4.
Mr. Armah 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, yes. Sub- clause 4 - “The court may. . .” Mr.
Speaker, we are deleting that one and inserting “The order lapses” --
Mr. Speaker, I think there is still a
mistake on the advertised paper. Mr. Speaker, let us stand it down. I will check it with the draftsperson.
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
All right.
Clause 40 - Offences related to records
and information.
Mr. Armah 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move clause 40, subclause (1), after paragraph (c), insert a new paragraph as follows:
“(d) fails to comply with section
28 (2)”.
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Chairman, I am still
not with you there. What is it? Are you deleting “c” entirely? What are we doing? We have “d” there, don't we?
Mr. Armah 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the amend-
ment proposed is subclause 1, after paragraph (c) -- “modifies a computer system pointed to section 27” -- we are inserting a new paragraph as follows:
“(d) fails to comply with section
28 (2)”.
So the further amendment then would be that subclause (d) of (1) becomes (e).
Mr. Chireh 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the problem
is we have (d) already. So we either delete (d) and substitute with the new one or -- If he is inserting a new subclause, then it should be at the end. But we are substituting because there is already a (d). So he should be clear about which one we are doing.
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Would you want us to
stand it down?
Mr. Armah 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think we

will stand this one down as well.
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
We will defer this one
as well.
Clauses 41, 42, 43 --
Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, with
your leave, I would wish to raise an issue in respect of clause 43 particularly as we are privileged to have the Attorney- General present here. I am wondering whether it is necessary for this Act to be spelling out jurisdictional issues such as the High Court and the Circuit Court. I thought that these are issues that the Constitution has clearly defined. We have defined the offence already. The minimum sentence is known and the maximum is known. Why are we specifically saying that the Circuit Court and High Court shall have jurisdiction over offences in this matter? I thought that it is a matter already known under the Constitution of Ghana.
Maybe I need your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not it is necessary at all to state a question of who has jurisdiction over this offence.
Mr. Armah 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, in the
opinion of the Committee, it is necessary that we should do that demarcation so that we know who had jurisdiction over the offences committed under this Act. But I do not know what the opinion of the Attorney-General would be. So while they confer we can go on with other matters.
Clauses 41 and 42 ordered to stand part
of the Bill.
Clause 43 - Referral of suspended
offences to investigating authorities and other public bodies.
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon. Member for
Tamale South, raise your issue.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, it is my proposed amendment that we delete the entire clause 43 (1). It is a matter that the Constitution has already dealt with comprehensively and we need not state that.
Mr. Okerchiri 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, clause 43 does not relate to jurisdictional issues.
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon. Member for Tamale
South, I think you have the problem that I had. You are using something which is not before the House now.
Mr. Chireh 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have clause 43 and it does not talk about jurisdictional issues.
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
I am sure he has
abandoned his application. Please, make extra copies available to the hon. Member for Tamale South.
Clauses 43 to 46 ordered to stand part
of the Bill.
Clause 47 - Trial court and proceedings.
Mr. Armah 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 47, delete and insert the following:
“In a trial for an offence for money laundering under this Act, the pro-secution proves its case if it establishes that the accused person
a) is or was in possession of pecuniary resources or property for which the accused person cannot or could not account and which is or was disproportionate to the accused's known sources of income, or
Mr. Armah 11:50 a.m.


b) had at the time of the alleged offence obtained access to personal pecuniary resources or property for which the accused cannot satisfactorily account; and the Court shall call on the accused person to open the defence.”
Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the amendment. I think that the proper thing to do is to delete the entire clause and leave it at that level. The Evidence Decree is clear on what one needs to prove at what level of an offence. It is not for us to define this in this particular Act.
So I think that the Chairman should withdraw the amendment and support a deletion of the entire clause. Even the matter of defining jurisdiction, in my view, has been dealt with by the Constitution. It was a particular provision I earlier wrongly referred to Mr. Speaker.
Mr. F. W. A. Blay 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the entirety of the argument raised by the hon. Member for Tamale South, Mr. Haruna Iddrisu. Indeed, I think the Committee should completely drop that clause and leave it in the hands of the courts and other relevant laws that are already in existence.
Mr. Okerchiri 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think
that while we generally know that an accused person stands innocent until he or she is proved otherwise, there are some offences that connote strict liability. If that is the intention of the originators of this law, then I think it is correct. The Attorney- General and Minister for Justice is here; if that is not the intention to make this offence one of the strict liabilities, then we can safely take this out.
Mr. Ndebugre 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, even
Mr. Ndebugre 11:50 a.m.
though the Evidence Decree is there, there are certain offences for which it is useful for the mode of proving the evidence against the accused person to be made admissible. An example is offences arising out of commissions of enquiry. I cannot cite the law immediately but there is a law which allows the court to consider the findings of a commission of enquiry as prima facie evidence against the accused person and based upon that, a court can call upon the accused person to open his or her defence. I think that this is what this clause is trying to do, to look at the nature of the offence: We suspect that we know the income of the hon. Member for Tamale South and suddenly he is having billions of dollars in his account. So we can ask him to explain how he came by it. I think that that is the policy behind this clause.
I only wanted also to explain that if you do not read it carefully, you will think that the amendment has no relationship with the original formulation. This is because the original formulation was dealing with jurisdiction. It was talking about the courts that have jurisdiction to try these matters, if I am right. It said that the High Courts and Circuit Courts have jurisdiction.
But it was done this way with “court” at the end of the clause so that we refer to the interpretation section for the definition of “court”. If you go to the interpretation section, you will see that “court” means the High Court or the Circuit Court. So there is a definite link between the proposed amendment and the original formulation.
But my main argument is that it is a special offence and we want to emphasize that in such a serious offence we should not just rely on the Evidence Decree. If we want, we can add that “. . . despite the Evidence Decree or any enactment to the contrary or . . .”
As the Majority Chief Whip is saying,

this is one example of an offence of strict liability and we pray that we look at the seriousness of the offence and then accede to this proposed amendment.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, maybe, the hon. Member for Zebilla is forgetting that Mr. Speaker himself is a very ably trained legal practitioner. Mr. Speaker, if you read the proposed amendment, they go further. Let me paraphrase it:
“The courts shall call on the accused person to open the defence.”
Mr. Speaker, this is legally untenable. We know even by our criminal procedure code, that the matter of an accused person opening defence is a matter based on evidence which has been submitted before the court and I do not think that we will determine for a court when an accused person should open his or her defence or not. Certainly, we cannot be dictating this to any competent court of jurisdiction. So I think that they should stay off this matter.
Attorney-General and Minister for Justice (Mr. Joe Ghartey): Mr. Speaker, at first glance, the arguments of my learned Colleagues who are opposing the amendment are very attractive. But upon a close reading of the proposed amendment and of the Constitution you cannot come to the conclusion that this has a constitutional backing.
Mr. Speaker, indeed, we all know that it is part of our law that a person is presumed innocent until he or she is proven guilty. Indeed, article 19(1) (c) of the Constitution says -- and Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I beg to quote:
“(2) A person charged with a
criminal offence shall --
x x x
c) be presumed to be innocent until he is proved or has pleaded guilty.”
I believe that that is the basis upon
which the arguments are being made, that this particular law seems to change that position. But Mr. Speaker, if you continue and go to article 19 (16) (a) -- and with your permission, I beg to quote:
“(16) Nothing in, or done under the authority of, any law shall be held to be inconsistent with, or in contravention of, the following provisions -
(a) paragraph (c) of clause 2 of this article, to the extent that the law in question imposes upon a person charged with a criminal offence, the burden of proving particular facts; or . . .”
Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what has been done in this case. We have put the burden as was envisaged at article 19 (16) (a) of proving particular facts on the person who is charged. Indeed, the amendment does not say that you are guilty. It says that when such a thing has happened you should be called upon to open your defence.
And indeed, in opening your defence, what you do is that you lead evidence to show that you got the vast sums of money that has suddenly come into your account or control or possession by means other than money laundering. I think that this amendment has constitutional backing; the framers of the Constitution had the creation of such offences in mind when they made that as an exception to the general rule that provides for presumption against innocence. This is what they were talking about.
So I propose that my hon. Colleagues should humbly support this amendment, having regard to the very serious nature of the offence we are dealing with.
Mr. Chireh 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that that portion where the court should
Mr. Chireh noon


call upon the person to open defence is a command to the court so that nobody can go to the court and say you have not proved your case against me, as we know should be the case. If the Attorney- General brings a huhudious charge against me and at the end of it all he has not proved any evidence, I can go to the court and say that he has not made any case against me. So I do not need to open my defence.

But we are now putting it in the law that as soon as your charge is made and you are before the court for trial, the court should call upon you - [Inter-ruption]-- we are commanding the court and that is what we are not [Interruption] -- amendment as it is -- But we are also asking the jurisdiction of the one accused to say that they could not prove their case against him. That one too should be there. Why should you remove it by law?
Mr. Ghartey noon
Mr. Speaker, I just want
to point out to my hon. Friend that he made a statement that if the Attorney-General brings a huhudious charge - [Laughter] -- but the truth of the matter is that, yes, when you bring a huhudious charge, it cannot be sustained. But if I may just read the proposed amendment so that we all understand the import.
“In the trial for an offence for money laundering, under this Act, the pro- secution proves its case if it establishes that the accused person:
(a) is or was in possession of pecuniary resources or property for which the accused person cannot or could not account, and which is or was dispro- portionate to the accused's known sources of income, or
Mr. Ghartey noon


(b) had at the time of the alleged offence obtained access to personal pecuniary resources or property for which the accused cannot satisfactorily accoun t . . .”

So the prosecution still has a duty; and the duty of the prosecution is that, you have in your possession certain funds and the funds are far in excess of what we know you to have, and so they call upon you -- So this law says that at that stage, the court should call upon you to open your defence -- show the court how you came by those resources.

So I agree with him. A huhudious charge? If your salary is ¢19 million and you have ¢19 million I cannot pick you, it would be indeed a huhudious charge. But if you have about $ 1million in your account and they call upon you to open your defence, I do not think it is anything that is strange -- [Some hon. Members: Fundraising] -- [Laughter] -- maybe good for the NDC.
Mr. Bagbin noon
Mr. Speaker, I think the
issue being raised is very germane. It is something that the Committee together with the Attorney-General will have to reconsider. Mr. Speaker, they are not even talking about the prosecution establishing a prima facie case; they are talking about proving the case. That is by they submitting that, the prosecution has proved its case.
I think that we are going into an area in which we are trying to constitute, not ourselves, but state the law to be the judge. At the end of the day, the judge suo moto can decide that the prosecution has established these facts but by his understanding of the law, they have not even establish a case for the defence to open his defense. The judge can do that
and dismiss the case. We are taking that away from the judge, and we are saying that once this is established, the case has been proved - it is proved. And then you are saying the accused would open his defence?
Mr. Speaker, I think they have to look at it again. We want to establish an offence of strict liability. We all understand offences of strict liability. But again, we should look at the earlier provisions that we have passed. Because I was doing other things, I did not follow some of them but looking at the offence that has been created - money laundering -- under clause 2 - Aiding and Abetting, and clause 3 - I do not know whether you have amended clause 3 - It says,
“Penalty for money laundering -
A person who contravenes section 1 or 2 commits an offence and he is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than five thousand penalty units or to a term of imprisonment” (I recollect that there was an amendment there) “of not less than twelve months and not more than ten years or to both.”
So Mr. Speaker, you look at the type of penalty that is being called for, look at the issue of strict liability and now we are going into even the trial itself and the onus of proof. Mr. Speaker, I think that that is taking away the functions of the court. I think that, yes, there is the need for it to be reconsidered, but we should not take a decision on it.
Mr. Ghartey noon
Mr. Speaker, I just
wanted to ask my hon. Friend for some clarification. But if the offensive word for you is “proof”, if the word there was
“the prosecution establishes a prima facie case”, would it be -- [Interruption] -- no, if I could please ask him. I believe that we are all on the same side; we are all trying to make sure that money laundering -- Would it be difficult if instead of “proof” -- Is “proof” the question that is difficult for him, if I may ask?
Mr. Speaker noon
Hon. Members, I think it is advisable to stand this down for some time. Let us do consultation.
Clause 48 - Freezing of transactions
or accounts.
Mr. Armah noon
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 48, subclause (4), delete.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 48 as amended ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause 49 - Prohibition of establishment
and operation of shell banks.
Mr. Armah noon
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 49, delete.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 49 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Speaker noon
You have another one.
Mr. Armah noon
Mr. Speaker, they are all going.
Clause 50 - Financial institutions not to transact business with Shell.
Mr. Speaker noon
Chairman of the Committee --
Mr. Armah noon
Mr. Speaker, we are deleting clause 50.
Mr. Speaker noon
Are you sure about that?
Mr. Armah noon
Mr. Speaker, that is so.
Mr. Speaker noon
Because there is another clause there, roman (xviii).
Mr. Armah noon
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 50, delete.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Mr. Armah 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we are
deleting clause 51 too.
Question put and motion agreed to
Clause 52 - Oath of Secrecy.
Mr. Armah 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, clause 52,
sub clause (1), line 5, before “Schedule” insert “Second”.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, in respect
of clause 52, I will have to seek your leave to propose a fresh amendment under clause (1), line 2 “. . . under this Act shall swear the oath of secrecy set out in the Second Schedule before assuming office. . .” My proposal is that we delete the rest of the words after office -- “or performing a function under this Act”.
Mr. Armah 12:10 p.m.
If we can hear hon. Haruna again.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, on oath of secrecy, I believe that a person who is appointed to an office or appointed to act in an office shall swear an oath of secrecy. I am wondering whether we should go forward to insist that he must swear the oath before he can perform any function under this Act.
Mr. Bagbin 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I also have a problem with the (c ) which goes with the proposed amendment he is making with the last phrase “authorized to perform a function” which meant that the person is not being appointed to assume an office. But we have not also mentioned who is authorizing. We are talking about whether it is practicable.
The Chief Executive sees somebody with some specialized knowledge and he calls the person and authorizes the person to perform some function by giving some consultancy services to him. It could be an advice and we are saying that before that function is performed, the person must swear an oath of secrecy. In trying to implement it, you definitely will come under some serious problems. The Chief Executive is performing his duties, he comes across the need for an advice and he calls on somebody with specialized knowledge in the area to give that advice. That is performing a function.
Will he have to swear an oath of secrecy to the Chief Executive before he gives the advice? There is a problem there. You may have it in the law and it may not be possible to implement it. But when you are talking about appointing somebody to assume an office, I agree. The (a) and (b) are - I agree totally that the person should swear the oath of secrecy because of the seriousness of the matter we are handling.
But just to perform a function I do not think that he should swear an oath of secrecy and if that is accepted the proposed amendment he is making will definitely

come in because that is why they put in “or performing a function under this Act”. So they are putting that clause there to cover (c) but I think that (c) should not even be there because it will be difficult to implement - “authorized to perform a function”.
Mr. Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Chairman, do you need time to study this?
Mr. Armah 12:10 p.m.
I think so, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Thanks. It is stood
down. Then Roman (xxi) - Chairman of the Committee.
Mr. Armah 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 52, subclause (2,) add a new paragraph (e) as follows - “as otherwise provided under any other law”.
Mr. Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Hon. Members, the
amendment is for the consideration of the House.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 52 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53 - Collaboration with Public Agencies.
Mr. Armah 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 53, subclause (1), line (2), delete “discharge of the duties” and substitute “performance of the functions”.
Mr. Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Hon. Members, the
amendment is for the consideration of the House.
Mr. Chireh 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, on a method
Mr. Speaker 12:10 p.m.
No! No! That has been stood down.
Mr. Chireh 12:10 p.m.
No. But he moved a
second one and it was approved. Okay.
Mr. Speaker 12:10 p.m.
He has resumed his seat.
Clause 53.
Mr. Armah 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 53, delete “discharge of the duties” as found in subclause (1), line 2 and insert “performance of the functions”.
Mr. Bagbin 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, there need
to be a new rendition because the heading is talking about collaboration with public agencies while the body is talking about co-operation with officers.
I think that “collaboration” is wider than “co-operation”. “Collaboration with Public Agencies” and it reads -
“53 (1) An officer of a public agency shall co-operate with officers of the Centre in the performance of the functions of the Centre under this Act”.
That is the proposed amendment. There will be a problem there in interpretation. “Collaborate”, “co-operate”. I think we should be consistent with the choice of words. If we want “co-operate” let us put it there, but if we want “collaborate” let us put it as such.
Mr. F. W. A. Blay 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I tend
to even agree with him. But even more “collaboration with public agencies” should be officers of public agencies collaborating with the Centre. If you put it that way it makes it look as though it is like the Centre which should collaborate with other agencies and so forth. So that one also must somehow change.
Mr. Armah 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, taking
the two objections into consideration, I believe we need to amend the heading “collaboration by public agencies”.
Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
H o n . Chairman, I sug-gest you do it properly. Let us stand this one down. Do it properly.
Clause 54 - Regulations.
Mr. Armah 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 54, subclause (1), paragraph (e), delete.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise
to oppose the amendment and it is in tune with an amendment that I have filed. If you go along, I am proposing a new clause to give legal backing to supervisory bodies. And if you go to earlier provisions we ourselves have created room for supervisory bodies under this Act.
So one is at a loss why he is seeking to delete it when in some instances they themselves have made reference to a supervisory body overseeing the accounting institutions that will perform some roles under this Act. So I do not know if he wants to stay off it until we come to the new clause we are seeking or he will want to oppose it.
But before then, Mr. Speaker, I had your indulgence even on clause 51 (1), the first line, “the Minister on the recommendations of the Centre” -- I think it should be “of the Board” not “the Centre”. It is consistent with clause 10; we said the Board -- the oversight for policy and other matters in relation to this Bill is the Board. So we should not say that on the recommendations of the Centre. We have to delete “of the Centre” and substitute “of the Board”.
Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon. Member, do not
take us too far; raise it latter on, please. Let us deal with clause 54. Chairman, what do you say to that?
Mr. Blay 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, can I hear
you again, please? I did not hear your direction.
Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
The hon. Member for
Tamale South was raising another issue.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, if you
look at clause 44 -- Responsibility for super-vision of accountable institutions -- they are seeking to delete under the Regulations that “specifying the institutions that qualify to be supervisory bodies”. That is what he is seeking to delete and I am saying that it should be maintained because of clause 44. Because under clause 44, we created a responsibility for the supervision of accountable institutions.
Therefore, regulations can be made to support the performance of the duties of those supervisory bodies.
Mr. Blay 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, that one is all
right with us. We are rather deleting (g).
Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
So you are abandoning
it? That is abandoned.
Mr. Armah 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 54, subclause (1), paragraph (g), delete.
Mr. Chireh 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is
fair that we delete it otherwise if you want to employ people it will take some time for any of them to be appointed; and for all those you now get regulations that will now tell you how to do it. It is not proper, so we should delete it.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr. Okercheri 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am
sorry. Hon. Haruna Iddrisu also made an amendment in respect of “the Centre” -- clause 54 (1), “substituting the Board for the Centre”. I do not know whether a Question has been put on that.
Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Was it clause 54 (1) or
51? Move it properly so that I have it clear.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg
to move, that clause 54 (1), line 1, delete “Centre” and insert “Board”.

Question put and amendment agreed

to.
Mr. Armah 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 54, subclause (2), delete.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 55 - Interpretation.
Mr. Armah 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 55, delete the following definitions:
“application software”
“essential services”
“lawyer”
“person”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 55 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Armah 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, schedule - insert the following as First Schedule:
“FIRST SCHEDULE
(Section 21)
Accountable institutions include:
a) an entity which is a bank or a non-bank financial institution which carries on the activity of :
i. accepting deposits of money from the public, repayable on demand or otherwise and withdrawable by cheque, draft, orders or by any other means;
ii. financing, whether in whole or in part or by way of short, medium or long-term loans or advances of trade industry, commerce or agriculture;
iii. issue and administration of means of payment including credit cards, travelliers' cheques, bankers' drafts and any other financial instru- ments;
iv. trade in foreign exchange, currency market instruments or transferable securities;
v. securities portfolio manage- ment and advice concerned withtghe portfolio manage- ment;
vi. dealing in shares, stocks,
bonds or any other securi- ties;
vii. leasing, letting or delivering goods to a hirer under a hire- purchase agreement;
viii. the collection of money or acceptance of;
ix. any other business activity that the Bank of Ghana may prescribe or recognize as being part of banking business:
b) auctioneers;
c) lawyers;
d) notaries;
e ) a c c o u n t a n t s , a u d i t o r s and actionists;

f) religious bodies; g ) n o n - governmental organizations;

h) a person whose business o r a p r inc ipa l par t o f whose business consists of p rovid ing f inanc ia l services that involve the remittance or exchange of funds;

i) operators of games of chance;

j ) a c o m p a n y c a r r y i n g on insurance business within the meaning of the Insurance Act, 2006 (Act 724);

k) a real estate company or agent, only to the extent that the real estate company or agent receives funds in the course of the agent's business to settle real estate transactions;

l) dealers in precious metals and precious stones;

m) dealers in motor vehicles; and

n ) t r u s t a n d c o m p a n y service providers.

Question put and amendment agreed to.

First schedule as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, add a new clause as follows:
“Supervision Body
(1) For the purpose of this Act, a supe rv i s o ry body s ha l l b e r e s - p o n s i b l e f o r t h e supervision of activities of
Mr. Armah 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think we already have elsewhere in the law a supervisory body that would be accountable by institutions. So I believe this new amendment is going to be a little bit superfluous and then burden the law. In fact, we have even identified the supervisory bodies; and then clause 23 talks about register of accountable institutions. But they really referred to supervisory bodies. So I do not think this new clause is very necessary.
Mr. Chireh 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I support the proposed amendment. What the chairman is saying, I do not understand. Accountable institutions are supervising bodies; and we are giving power under this Act to supervisory bodies to supervise the accountable institutions. So I do not see why he should be opposing it. He has not convinced me that he has read any part of the law that has already dealt with it.
Mr. Ndebugre 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose
the proposed amendment because “supervisory body” has been defined already. What the amendment seeks to do is to describe what a supervisory body is but if one reads page 24 of the Bill, “supervisory body” has been defined as:
“a body responsible for the supervision of the activities of accountable institutions under this
Mr. Ndebugre 12:30 p.m.


Act.” So I do not know the purpose of the proposed amendment in the face of this very clear and concise definition in clause 55. I will prevail on the hon. Member for Tamale South (Mr. Haruna Iddrisu) to abandon his unnecessary proposed amendment.
Mr. Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Hon. Member for Tamale
South, you mentioned this “supervisory body”; how is it to be set up?
Mr. H. Iddrisu 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, they,
under clause 44, created a responsibility for the supervision of accountable institutions. But there is no legal backing anywhere in the law for a supervisory body to undertake this activity. Now, if you do not have a registrar of accountable institutions, how are you going to supervise them? So this is a twofold amendment.
One is seeking to give legal backing
for somebody to supervise the accounting institution provided under clauses 22, 23 and others; and for them to keep a register of the institutions they are supervising. Not one entity may do it, you may have different supervisory bodies, different accounting institutions under them. So I still want to move forward with the amendment. I do not think and I do not agree with hon. John Ndebugre that it is unnecessary.
I think that we are giving legal backing and you are creating your accountable institutions. Who supervises them? The Chairman said that it is already in the law; maybe he should point out in the law where legal backing has been given to a supervisory body. It is not there. So this is not going to harm any aspect other than this adding more meaning to it and I think that they should be amenable to accepting it.
Mr. Osei-Prempeh 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, as
said by hon. Ndebugre, financial bodies are defined in the Bill and if one reads clause 23, it says -- and Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I read:
“Each f inanc ia l body sha l l furnish the Centre with a list of accountable institutions for which it is responsible.”
Hon. Iddrisu is proposing the amendment that ‘each supervisory body shall keep a register of accountable institutions” - In fact, I remember yesterday he even amended clause 23; and this shows that the financial body has a list of the institutions it supervises. So there is no need to bring another amendment. He is proposing something to create supervisory bodies but it already exists in the law.
In fact, I would have agreed with him if there was no definition and if it was coming as an earlier amendment to create it, then I would have given him the power. But it is already created in the law and the functions assigned to it all throughout the law. So I believe that there is no need for that amendment.
Mr. Armah 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, in the first
place, my good friend, the hon. Member from Wa West (Mr. Yieleh Chireh) would withdraw his remarks that I do not appear to have read the law. I think that he needs to withdraw that remark.
Mr. Speaker, the argument of the
Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and others, I believe, hold in this matter because every accountable institution that we have there has its own supervisory authority and we have the same supervisory authority in the interpretation. And it means “a body responsible for the supervision of the

activities of the accountable institutions under this Act.”

I believe that takes care of it. And if one reads clause 30, we are told that “a supervisory body” or a “regulatory body” becomes aware. So we have given them the function to work with. I do not think creating another clause defining a regulatory body is what we ought to do. I think it is already defined within the law.
Mr. Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Hon. Member for
Tamale South, do you intend to abandon it?
Mr. H. Iddrisu 12:30 p.m.
Not at all, Mr. Speaker, I will yield to hon. Yieleh Chireh.
Mr. Chireh 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the point
I want to make is that if we are creating supervisory bodies and we think we know them, I would want a further amendment to those things which are not known, where we also keep a register of the supervisory bodies so that that second subclause should read as follows:
“There should be a register of all supervisory bodies.”
That is what I think we should do. And the definition of the “supervisory bodies” will enhance a quick check on whether the supervisory bodies are doing their work or not. They should not be confused with accountable institutions because the accountable institutions, as we say, have been listed subject to certain changes. But when we talk about the “supervisory bodies” we are saying that everybody has his work but we need to have a register of them.
So I would want to see that amendment where we have subclause 1 then in sub- clause 2 where we need a register.
Mr. Armah 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think the
hon. Member for Wa West is rather dragging
the issue. If you take any professional body, the Ghana Bar Association, the Accoutants, the Surveyors, all of them have their supervisory bodies. And we are saying that consistent with what we have identified as accountable institutions, we have the supervisory bodies and these should be registered with the Centre.
Mr. Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Hon. Members, we will
stand it down.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we are
withdrawing the amendment.
Mr. Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Amendment withdrawn.
The Schedule ordered to stand part of
the Bill.
The Long Title ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Hon. Members, we
have come to the end of the Consideration Stage. Hon. Members, I am sure we will continue with it tomorrow to clear the outstanding clauses.
Item 6 -- Committee Sittings.
Mr. K. A. Okerchiri 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
there being Committee Sittings and having a rest for the day I beg to move, that this House adjourns till tomorrow ten o'clock in the forenoon.
Mr. Yieleh Chireh 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT 12:30 p.m.