Debates of 4 Jun 2008

MR. FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:05 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:05 a.m.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:05 a.m.
Order! Order! Hon. Members, correction of Votes and Proceedings for Tuesday, 3rd June 2008. Pages 1, 2....13. [No correction was made.]

Majority Leader/Minister for

Parliamentary Affairs (Mr. A. O. Aidooh): Mr. Speaker, may we start with the Questions for the Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Environment.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:05 a.m.
Very
well. Is the hon. Minister for Local Government, Rural Development and Environment here?
The first Question stands in the name of hon. Alex Narh Tettey-Enyo, Member of Parliament for Ada.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 10:05 a.m.
MINISTRY OF LOCAL 10:05 a.m.
GOVERNMENT, RURAL 10:05 a.m.
DEVELOPMENT AND 10:05 a.m.
ENVIRONMENT 10:05 a.m.
Mr. Tettey-Enyo 10:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Minister for updating the earlier response advertised; this response is self- explanatory. But Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Minister is saying there is no intention of Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies assuming responsibility for the payment of salaries of teachers, I believe the provision made under schedule
2, item 42, making the District Assemblies responsible for posting and payment of salaries is losing its effect, since that provision was made to strengthen the hands of the District Assemblies in the recruitment and control over the teachers' activities and services to the State.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. Minister, whether the Ministry thinks the present arrangement is the best and it is promoting the decentralisation process.
Mr. Adjei-Darko 10:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the
hon. Member is asking for an opinion but I think it is not the best.
Mr. Speaker, the Local Government Service Act (Act 462) was passed before the Ghana Education Service Act of 1995, and the Constitution had also stated that decentralisation was going to be the system of governance in the nation. But then, Parliament in its own wisdom, passed the Ghana Education Service Act centralising education. So once it is an Act of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, there is little the Ministry can do about it. But I must emphasise that the Local Government Act was passed before the Ghana Education Service Act but we found ourselves in this situation.
Mr. Joe Gidisu 10:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, having
operated the situation and in line with the current developments under the implementation of the decentralised policies with regard to those agencies and departments, would the hon. Minister as the head of that Ministry consider bringing a review of the two Acts to reflect the present reality on the ground?
Mr. Adjei-Darko 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, this is a major issue which cuts across two Ministries and different agencies. So we would have to put our heads together,

and even as I said, these are two Acts by Parliament, so it is perhaps difficult for the Minister to say here that I am going to amend this Act or the other Act.
Mr. J. Y. Chireh 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the
Minister is talking about the Education Act, but is he not aware and has he not been involved in the revision of the Education Service Act which now wants to redecentralize education?
Mr. Adjei-Darko 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we
have to distinguish between Education Act and then the Ghana Education Service Act. The Ghana Education Service Act was passed in 1995 and no amendments have been made to it. But I must repeat it, the same Parliament had earlier on passed the Local Government Act and this is where the conflict comes in. So perhaps we may have to look at it as a body.
Dr. Benjamin Kunbuor 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I want to find out from the hon. Minister, whether by the definition in section 2 (b) of the Ghana Education Service Act of 1995, the Day Care Centre Attendants are the responsibility of the Ministry of Local Government or the Ministry of Education.
Mr. Adjei-Darko 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, well,
by the definition the pre-tertiary should include the day care but unfortunately the practice was that day care had not been taken on board the main education stream; but now the education policy is that pre- school is part of the education system.
Dr. Kunbuor 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want
to find out whether the hon. Minister is aware that these Day Care Attendants have not been paid for a period of about 9 months now.
Mr. Adjei-Darko 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am
not aware.
Dr. Kumbuor 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, will he give an undertaking to this House that he will ensure that these Day Care Attendants are paid salaries they have duly earned?
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:15 a.m.
Hon.
Minister, the hon. Member is asking you to give an undertaking.
Mr. Adjei-Darko 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, in the
first place I am not aware, so how do I give an undertaking about something I am not aware of? And secondly, I have said that under the new education reforms these come under the Ministry of Education, Science and Sports so they are not with the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development.

Schools Benefiting from School Feeding Programme

Q. 1460. Mr. Edward K. Salia asked the hon. Minister for Local Government, Rural Development and Environment what was the distribution by district and by region of schools benefiting from the school feeding programme as at 31st December 2007 and the number of pupils in each region and district.
Mr. Adjei-Darko 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, a
total of 987 schools were benefiting from the school feeding programme in all the 138 districts with a pupil population of 477,714 as at 31st December 2007.
Mr. Speaker, I am saying 138 because the reference date is December, 2007; now we have more than 138 districts.
Mr. Salia 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask
the hon. Minister for Local Government and Rural Development whether prior to this Question that he is answering in the House, he had always been aware of these figures he has just presented to the House?
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:15 a.m.
That is a very peculiar question, hon. Member.
TABLE P. 7
That you have asked the question and he has answered it, and you wanted to find out whether he had knowledge of the Answer he has given before giving them or . . .? Honestly, I do not know whether he understands the question. But definitely, I do not really get your question.
Mr. Salia 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:15 a.m.
Hon.
Member, I very well understand the intention of why you want to ask this question but if you could go straight to the question, that will be better. Go straight to the question; if you want to ask whether it is equitable or inequitable, please do that.
Mr. Salia 10:15 a.m.
All right, Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask the hon. Minister, what is the basis for the distribution of the school feeding programme to the various regions and districts such that this is the outcome?
Mr. Adjei-Darko 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, by
the operational manual, the application originates from the school to the District Chief Executive, then to the School Feeding Secretariat, and that is where the applications are selected and then schools are put on board.
Mr. Speaker, I must emphasize that Ghana School Feeding Programme is not the only body which is taking part in school feeding. Mr. Speaker, for example, the Catholic Relief Services, they are feeding 820 schools in the three northern regions. Then the World Food Programme is also feeding 34 of the old districts in the three northern regions. Eighty (80) schools are involved in a programme where the Ghana School Feeding Programme takes care of these 80 schools for three days and then the World Food Programme takes care of these schools for two days.
Mr. Salia 10:25 a.m.
My question was on the basis. The impression I got was that it was based on application. I just wanted to find out from him, whether he can confirm that it is only because schools did not apply in the districts that had fewer schools, or they applied but were rejected because of some other conditions, which conditions I would like to know.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Hon. Minister, did you understand the question that you are attempting to answer, because I wanted it to be a bit clearer.
Mr. Adjei-Darko 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have already said that one, there should be an application. But that is not the only factor. We should also look at equity. Equity means where we have other institutions also taking the same programme, we would have to look at other areas where we do not have it. I know that the intention is to look at the figures for the three northern regions. They have had even more schools than other areas.
Then also, Mr. Speaker, even the number of schools, if we have concentration of schools within specific areas and we take it percentage wise, we would perhaps find that where we look at only figures we may say there is no equity. If it is translated into percentages, we would find that, that may
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Hon. Member for Jirapa, I will give you the last opportunity.
Mr. Salia 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised my hon. Colleague is reading my mind. He cannot know my mind. How does he know that I am talking about inequity in the three northern regions?
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Hon. Member, if you want to ask a question, do so, because you had earlier on talked about equity.
Mr. Salia 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I did not
specify the areas of equity.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Well, then continue with your question?
Mr. Salia 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am actually focusing my question on the school feeding programme, which is a national programme. I would want the hon. Minister to know that on average the national average for the allocation of the national school feeding programme by districts is about seven; every district has about seven schools on the average. But if one takes a total look, there are several of them that fall below that average. Indeed, some are just two schools per district.
I would want the hon. Minister to tell me whether in view of these disparities and the objectives of the school feeding programme, there would be a second look at the allocation of the programme so that there is broader equity nationally.
Mr. Adjei-Darko 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the intention of the school feeding programme is to let every school enjoy that facility. So we are working towards that.
I must assure the House that after we have streamlined things at the secretariat, we are even going to add more this year, and the apparent inequities will be addressed.
Mr. Lee Ocran 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I would want the hon. Minister to tell this House, how many pupils and how many schools should have been fed out of the figures that he has on the chart. Every pupil should have been fed, so how many schools and how many pupils do they have out of which they have only four hundred and seventy-seven thousand pupils who have been fed.
Mr. Adjei-Darko 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that question should be appropriately addressed to the hon. Minister for Education, Science and Sports. He will be in a position to tell us, as of today, the number of schools that we have in the country and the number of pupils who have been fed.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Hon.
Member for Jomoro, are you not satisfied? Do you want to ask another question?
Mr. Ocran 10:25 a.m.
I am not at all satisfied with the answer.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Fair enough. What is your next question?
Mr. Ocran 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister has the responsibility to feed all school children in the country. This is what he just told us so he must know the number of pupils he is supposed to feed. If he cannot liaise with the other Ministry to know, that one is his problem. He should tell us how many pupils should have been fed, out of which he is feeding four hundred and seventy-seven thousand pupils.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Hon. Member for Jomoro, are you asking the same question? I said, he has given the answer. Do you want to ask the same question or you want to ask some other question?
Mr. Ocran 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the answer is unacceptable.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
You are happy with the answer?
Mr. Ocran 10:25 a.m.
No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Unfor- tunately so. Let someone else ask another question.
Dr. Benjamin Kunbuor 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. Minister is aware that the school feeding programme is not an isolated one but part of the national poverty alleviation effort.
Looking at the distribution on the chart, he is certainly aware that the three northern regions and the Central Region are considered the poorest in the country. Why would he want to use the Catholic Relief Services (CRS) and other interventions to downsize the number of schools that are supposed to be fed in a national programme?
Mr. Adjei-Darko 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the intention is to feed pupils in schools and we cannot duplicate efforts. So if there is such a large number already, being done by other organisations, I do not think it will be prudent for the programme to go to the same schools and feed the same children. That will be duplication of efforts.
Mr. Speaker, even some of these organisations have a time frame of operation and the school feeding
Dr. Kunbuor 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, more specifically, how does this policy address the issue of reducing the death and incidence of poverty of about 22.4 per cent in the Greater-Accra Region, as against the 88.4 per cent in the Upper West Region, for instance? How does such a distribution address that issue of poverty alleviation?
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Hon. Member for Lawra/Nandom, I want to understand your question very well. What exactly do you want to find out?
Dr. Kunbuor 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I did preface my question by indicating that this programme is not isolated but it is actually one of the interventions to actually reduce the incidence of poverty. And the incidence of poverty map in this country is very clear. So if one sees whatever interventions other agencies might be undertaking in some of these schools, that is not sufficient in terms of the disparities, to decide that one will reduce the number of schools in these areas.
I have just given him the statistics of the incidence of poverty in the Greater Accra Region, that has 239 schools that they are feeding and the incidence of poverty, for instance, in the Upper West Region that has 17 schools. I want to see how this particular distribution addresses that question.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Very well, if the hon. Minister could answer the question.
Mr. Adjei-Darko 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I still want to repeat that answer. We have the Catholic Relief Services (CRS)
feeding 820 schools and the World Food Programme (WFP) also feeding 185 schools. So is the hon. Member saying that because of poverty, we should feed the same schools?
We should also take into account the number of schools in these areas, so that if we go to the ground, percentage wise, with all these programmes together, we may be feeding more schools in these areas than any part of the country.
Mr. Speaker, we should not be hammering on the poverty slogan. There is now growing urban poverty and we have to take cognisance of that.
Mr. J. K. Gidisu 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want
to state that the Catholic Relief Services has wound up with its services in terms of school feeding. That is a very core point.
Mr. Speaker, the first half of this year is almost ending; we are now in June and the school feeding programme has been very topical. I would want to find out from the hon. Minister why he chose to use December statistics to respond to this very important Question.
Mr. Adjei-Darko 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
would wish that the hon. Member read the Question.
Mr. J. K. Gidisu 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I did not get him well.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
You have
asked him why he is using some December figures to answer the Question and the hon. Minister is telling you that it has been specific. What he says is that the Question was asked with specific months in reference and that is exactly what he has answered.
Mr. J. Y. Chireh 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, first of
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
Hon.
Chireh, are you asking a question? Are you not running a commentary of answers that have been given?
Mr. Chireh 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am
prefacing my question from what his Answer is saying. He prefaced his Answer when we talked about inequity by saying that other interventions had been made. Meanwhile, the fact is that he has not compared the number of schools that were already being taken care of. Indeed, many of them have withdrawn from the feeding programme.
Is the hon. Minister saying that he has statistics to show the number of schools in these deprived areas? And then has he seen that so many of them were being fed already that he now wants equity to go to the less deprived areas?
Mr. Adjei-Darko 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the
statistics are available and these figures I am quoting are as a result of a field survey I put in place and the report was issued to my office in March 2008. So they are not figures we have collected from the district, but we put an independent team in place to go round the whole country and even collect names of caterers, bank accounts of caterers and every data about them. So the statistics are available.
Bats at the 37 Military Hospital
Q. 1493. Mr. Charles S. Hodogbey asked the Minister for Local Government, Rural Development and Environment what efforts were being made to control the invasion of bats at the 37 Military Hospital area.
Mr. Adjei-Darko 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the issue of the control of the invasion of bats at the 37 Military Hospital area is that of the Department of Game and Wildlife of the Ministry of Lands, Forestry and Mines.
My investigation revealed that the
military at one time tried to evict them but could not succeed.
Indeed, a committee hosted by
the Wildlife Division of the Forestry Commission studied the impact of the bats at the 37 Military Hospital area and a number of proposals were made as to how to manage that ecosystem.
I therefore, wish to kindly request the
hon. Member to redirect this Question to the appropriate agency concerned.
Mr. Hodogbey 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, my
concern is about the kind of diseases these mammals carry. They carry even rabies and when the excreta drops on your clothes it is very, dangerous. So now that the hon. Minister has told me that the Wildlife Division of the Forestry Commission has carried out some investigations about this, I would like to find out from him if he could shed some little light on the issue since he had access to the report.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
Hon. Member, I will not allow you that question. Let us move on to the next one.
Mr. E. T. Mensah 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the
“American man's” request for shedding little light is a question and I think you should allow the hon. Minister to shed a little light on the issue.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
Hon.
Member, continue with your Question.
North Tongu Constituency (District Assemblies)
Q. 1494. Mr. Charles S. Hodogbey
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.


asked the Minister for Local Government, Rural Development and Environment why the North Tongu Constituency had been left out in the creation of the District Assemblies in the last two efforts.
Mr. Adjei-Darko 10:35 a.m.
Mr.
Speaker, an attempt was made in 2004 to create the North Tongu Constituency as a district, but problems were encountered with the choice of Juapong as the district capital. I believe and the hon. Member is very much aware of this. I wish to state that the Ministry is still studying the whole situation so as not to again encounter what happened in 2004.
Mr. Hodogbey 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, first, I want to negate the statement that “the hon. Member is aware of the problems”. I would like to know what were the problems which were encountered in 2004 before I proceed with my next question.
Mr. Adjei-Darko 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, in
2004 during the exercise, a committee was set up which visited all communities where applications had been received for creation of districts and in this particular instance, there was a lot of acrimony, a lot of arguments about the ownership of the township of Juapong amongst certain groups within that constituency. Some were not in favour of creating that district and making that town the capital because it looked as if people had not come to understand the issue that creation of districts do not have anything to do with traditional authority or traditional influence over land and communities. Some tend to marry the two and in order not to stir the waters, we decided not to create that district.
Mr. Hodogbey 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I know it
is not the prerogative of the hon. Minister in the creation of districts. That is the prerogative of the Electoral Commission. But Juapong is the constituency capital
of North Tongu Constituency. If a group told you or a committee gave you the information that there was acrimony, based upon your own words, over the choice of Juapong as a capital, I would like to know whether those groups were existing when North Tongu was created as a constituency and they never made any acrimony about it.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Hon.
Member, your question is a little complicated. You are asking the hon. Minister of Local Government, Rural Development and Environment questions relating to the creation of districts. Now you are talking about creation of constituencies, you are mixing the two. If you want to repackage your question, I will allow it. Other than that, I am afraid, I will not allow you to ask that question.
Mr. Hodogbey 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, what
I was saying is when the North Tongu Constituency was created, Juapong was chosen as a capital. No group went against it, so I would like to find out if the same group which was quiet over the creation of the constituency, why they are now against the creation of a district.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Hon.
Member, I think your question is well understood but I will not allow the answer to be given by the hon. Minister. Let us find somebody else who has a question.
Mr. J. K. Gidisu 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I would
want to find out from the hon. Minister, knowing very well the political philosophy behind the creation of districts, why they will subject the people of North Tongu to the situation by the siting of a district capital at Juapong, denying the people from having a district as we have other towns and areas which could have been considered.
Mr. Adjei-Darko 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
have already said that the Ministry is looking at the issue. We have had instances where communities have come together, communities which even did not get the districts in 2004, later came together with a resolution appealing to the President to consider them in the next creation.
Mr. Speaker, one such example is Dormaa East. In 2004, we did not split Dormaa into east and west because we were aware of potential problems with regard to chieftaincy issues and so on. But later on, upon the insistence of the community where there was agreement as to what the Ministry should do, we have now created it for them. So we do not go to tackle a place where there is that potential of a conflict, unless the community comes together, and then we get to know that when we do this it is not going to bring any problem.
Mr. G. K. B. Gbediame 10:45 a.m.
Mr.
Speaker, a close look at the creation of the new districts has revealed a number of problems; principal amongst them is the siting of the district capitals as he rightly mentioned, about Juapong being the district capital. What steps is the Ministry taking to ensure that when a new district is being created, this issue of the location of the district capital will not be a problem?
Mr. Adjei-Darko 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I do
not think this is a supplementary question; it is a general question. But I must assure the hon. Member that the Ministry always takes the necessary steps.
If you create thirty-two districts and there are problems with about two, if it were examination, you will be talking about over 90 per cent. So it means the Ministry already takes the necessary steps to ensure that we achieve harmony. But in any human endeavour you will find
that there are people who would oppose practically everything.
Mr. E. T. Mensah 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the
hon. Minister just indicated that if you create about thirty-two, it will be over 90 per cent. Why do you not go ahead and create this district? Because, as you said, there are people who will find fault with everything. There are professional or born litigants, and if you want to listen to them, you will not do anything. So I want to know why with this, you did not go ahead to create the district.
Mr. Adjei-Darko 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
have already answered it. We want the communities to come together. We want to maintain our high record. So if we have had 95 per cent, we cannot add the one and come down to 85 per cent.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Hon.
Members, the next Question is in the name of hon. Rashid Pelpuo - Wa Central.
rose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Hon.
Yieleh Chireh, were you on your feet? You wanted to ask a question?
Mr. Yieleh Chireh 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, yes.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask your permission to ask the hon. Minister the Question on behalf of hon. Rashid Pelpuo.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Very well.
Go ahead.
Mr. Yieleh Chireh 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
instead of asking the Question, I will say that the hon. Minister attempted answering the Question last week. This time he is running away from answering the Question. I have therefore decided to withdraw the Question on behalf of my hon. Colleague.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Hon.
Yieleh Chireh, I do not understand.
Mr. Yieleh Chireh 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
last week's advertised Order Paper had an Answer to this Question. Today, the hon. Minister is running away from the Question. If you look at even the question of municipality, it has something to do with the hon. Minister himself. Even if the hon. Member wanted the Electoral Commission to answer the Question, it is still the hon. Minister who will come here to answer the Question. I therefore wish to withdraw the Question.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
No, no,
please, hon. Yieleh Chireh, you are not being fair to this House.
Unfortunately, you are not hon. Rashid Pelpuo; you wanted to ask the Question on his behalf. If you have had his mandate to do so, you can do it. But if you do not have his mandate, you refrain. Because the Question has been asked and a written Answer has been given for our Hansard. At this stage, then you said you are withdrawing. Of course, then you go ahead and make certain pronouncements. Maybe, it is fair to allow the hon. Minister to react to this questions that you have already raised.
Mr. Adjei-Darko 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the
hon. Member made a comment and that is why I got up. He said last week, the Answer was advertised and today, the Minister is trying to run away. He used exactly the same words. The hon. Minister is not running away.
Last week, I was not here, that is why those Questions were not answered, and when I came in and they were given to me, the hon. Member mixed constituency with district. What was given last week
should have been an answer from the Electoral Commission. The Ministry of Local Government does not create constituencies, and the Question is specific on constituency. So the hon. Minister is not running away from the Question.
The hon. Member, who asked the Question, I do not know his mind but if he wanted to ask specific Question about a district then I am afraid that is not the Question he asked, and so I am not running away from the Question. The Question was not properly put. If that is the intention, that it is constituency, it should go to the Electoral Commissioner.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Hon.
Members, there is one more Question to be answered by the hon. Minister for Lands and Forestry. Meanwhile, hon. Minister for Local Government and Rural Development, thank you very much for coming to answer Questions from hon. Members of this august House.
Mr. A. O. Aidooh 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Deputy Minister is here to answer Questions on behalf of the Minister who is out of the country.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Hon.
Deputy Minister, the Question is from hon. B. D. K. Adu -
Mr. Kwadwo Agyei-Addo 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. B. D. K. Adu is indisposed and he wishes that I ask that Question.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
All right,
permission granted.
MINISTRY OF LANDS, FORESTRY 10:55 a.m.
AND MINES 10:55 a.m.
Alhaji Collins Dauda 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Answer provided by the Minister clearly does not answer the Question by hon. Bradford D. K. Adu. Mr. Speaker, timber rights can only be granted in this country under one of these laws - the Timber Resources Management under Regu-lations 1998, L.I.1649 and Timber Resources Management Regulation 2002 which is an amendment to the previous one, L.I. 1721.
Mr. Speaker, in the last one that was done in 2002, the only procedure that must be followed in the grant of timber rights is competitive bidding. I find the Answer provided this morning to this House ridiculous. I want to find out from the hon. Minister, upon what legal basis is he telling this House about the procedure he has outlined?
Mr. Adjei-Yeboah 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
it is on the basis of the very laws he is quoting, because all these conditions need to be satisfied before what he referred to actually comes into being.
Alhaji Dauda 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line of my submission is that timber rights must be granted by competitive bidding, and in his Answer he does not indicate at what stage competitive bidding takes place; it is completely absent there.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:55 a.m.
So what is your question, hon. Member?
Alhaji Dauda 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, my
question is, does he not think that this procedure he has outlined is unlawful?
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Does he not think that what?
Alhaji Dauda 10:55 a.m.
The procedure he has outlined, the answer is against the laws of the land.
Mr. Adjei-Yeboah 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand what my hon. Friend wants to achieve by the drama that he is creating. What he asked is the final output that we want out of the law. We have tried to make sure to indicate to the questioner the basis and the procedure for awarding timber rights to individuals there; and we are telling him that by virtue of what he asked if the person who is working there has not passed through all these things and he thinks he has not done all these things, then it is illegal and he needs to report it to the police so that we investigate and what you have mentioned will come to the fore. Thank you Mr. Speaker.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Hon. Members, that will bring us to the end of Question time. Thank you very much hon. Deputy Minister for making yourself available to answer Questions on behalf of
your sector Minister.
At the Commencement of Public Business - Laying of Papers
PAPERS 10:55 a.m.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Hon. Members, then we go to the Continuation of the Chieftaincy Bill - Chairman of the Committee if you are ready you move the amendment to the clause.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 11:05 a.m.
STAGE 11:05 a.m.
  • [Resumption of Consideration from 19/3/08]
    • Mr. E. K. D. Adjaho 11:05 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this amendment.
    In the first place, the Constitution defines a chief to include a queen mother and therefore to say that “installation of a chief or queen mother”, there is a problem there. The definition of a chief in the Constitution includes a queen mother and therefore to say, “installation of a chief or a queen mother”, as if they have different definitions.
    Two, the issue of installation is a matter of custom; it is a purely customary issue. So what is the significance? They are talking about notice being given according to the custom of the area and then 14 days again is being given. What sort of confusion is this amendment trying to create? They are saying that we should give notice in accordance with the custom. If the custom of the area does not allow notice to be given - It is purely subject to custom and there is variation from place to place.
    Indeed, the hon. Chairman of the Committee attempted yesterday to give me a write-up on this particular amend- ment but my view on this matter is that customs vary from place to place and I believe that the author of the document that he gave to me yesterday might not
    have specialised in the area that I come from. He has specialised in a particular area and I know as a matter of fact that he has specialised in that area and he has told me that he was coming to consult me on my area. You cannot use that as a basis to make law for the whole country.
    I think that this type of statutory inroads into customary areas, especially in relation to chieftaincy, must be carefully guided. We must be very careful with statutory invasion in the area of matters affecting chieftaincy in this area and I do not see the purpose of this amendment. There are procedures for installation and I am completely opposed to the amend-ment.
    Minister for Chieftaincy and Culture (Mr. S. K. Boafo) 11:05 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. Colleague is right as far as the king, chief or queen mother is concerned. We have to concede that the chief takes care of the queen mother -- [Interruption.] No, I am an hon. Minister so I am happy. We concede that fact but the fact remains that what takes place at the hon. Member's area should be used as a yardstick is not right.
    Mr. E.T. Mensah 11:05 a.m.
    On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister is misleading this House.
    We were just here and we heard him. He did not say that what pertains in his place should apply everywhere; he did not say that. What he said was that what happens in his place is different from what happens elsewhere and that he cannot bring what happens over there to cover this; that is what he said.
    Mr. S. K. Boafo 11:05 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think this is not a point of order at all because that is exactly what I am saying.
    Mr. E.T. Mensah 11:05 a.m.
    That is a point of misinformation.
    Mr. S. K. Boafo 11:05 a.m.
    It is exactly what - [Interruption.]
    Mr. E.T. Mensah 11:05 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member is sitting right here and he is misquoting him.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:05 a.m.
    Hon. Members, please do not allow the debate to degenerate into give and take conversational level. I think you have made your point. Hon. Minister, please continue.
    What the hon. Member is saying is that the Deputy Minority Leader was not asking you to use as a basis what pertains in his area. It is different from area to area. That is his point.
    Mr. S. K. Boafo 11:05 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, that is the same argument, and that is what I am saying, that we cannot use a particular place as a yardstick. So his argument is the same and the value is the same as well.
    What I am trying to say now is this: What actually takes place is that at the last day of installation, after all people and a number of things have been done, somebody comes straight on that same day with an injunction and it embarrasses the whole process. Therefore it is only fair that we protect the process by giving enough time for whoever wants to take any step to do it.
    Mr. Speaker, there must be an end to litigation and that is precisely what we are trying to do.
    Alhaji Collins Dauda 11:05 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    I understood the amendment proposed by the hon. Chairman but in view of the intervention made by the hon. Minister, I would change my mind. He said that the 14 days is to allow for petitions. In other words, the 14 days is to allow people to put in a lot of petitions; and it is going to create room for litigation in the installation of chiefs and queens. Therefore, it is on that basis that I cannot go along with this amendment.
    Indeed, if it is to protect it so that we reduce the number of litigations, then we say so, but to the extent that this one is going to promote litigations, I oppose it. That is the answer he gave to this House.
    Mr. J. Y. Chireh 11:05 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, what the hon. Deputy Majority Leader is saying, and if you look at the provision as it stands, you may have problems with it. Either you give the 14 days' notice as the condition, or else if you say “or with the appropriate custom”. If the custom does not include or permit the notice to be given, then there is a problem.
    This whole argument about what he is saying is slightly different, in the sense that what we need is to protect the installation from being interfered with at the last minute; that is the purpose. That means that if you do not do anything within the 14 days you would be free to install. The issue is, which of them do we want?
    The 14 days which would apply to everybody, in which case we are removing completely the custom of the people or according to the customary practice in which case if we leave it as it is, those who do not have the custom conflicting with it can go along with the second part which permits them to do what the custom
    says. Where it is possible for notice to be given then of course the 14 days would be appropriate. Is that what the amendment seeks to do? If it is so, let us all clearly understand it that way.
    Mr. W. O. Boafo 11:15 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, in the first place, they have introduced this expression: an “ installation”. Looking through the Bill, one can find “enstoolment” or “enskinment” but now they have introduced this expression, “installation of chief or queen mother” and on the interpretation column there is nothing on “installation”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
    Hon.
    Deputy Minister, for Defence, we are introducing a new element. We are debating the issue as to whether the 14 days should apply or not. You have just brought in installation, enstoolment and enskinment. It is a second leg of the argument. You can come in later on.
    Mr. W. O. Boafo 11:15 a.m.
    Touching on the first
    leg of the argument, Mr. Speaker, I think I am opposed to the amendment as it stands now, because it purports to interfere with the customary practices in this country.
    There may be a community where the period of notification is less or even more than 14 days and I believe that our job is to try and preserve our customary rights rather than to interfere and destroy it.
    I would prefer a situation where the amendment is couched in such a way that in communities where there is no period of notification, then a legislation can interfere to prescribe a period of notifi- cation. But my position is that we should try and preserve Customary Law rather than interfering with it.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
    So you are
    opposed to it?
    Mr. W. O. Boafo 11:15 a.m.
    I am opposed to it.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
    Hon.
    Members, so far, so many opinions have been expressed so I would put the Question simply. Before then I would ask the Chairman of the Committee to give his last comment.
    Mr. Asiamah 11:15 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the other
    time when we met, we discussed this issue but we did not conclude. I have done my research in almost every traditional area on this issue. Mr. Speaker, it does not in any way interfere in any traditional area's installation process.
    Mr. Speaker, the other time the hon. Member for Avenor/Ave (hon. Doe Adjaho) raised the issue of arrest in Volta Region for example, the arrest does not end it, the arrest is part of the process, it does not end the installation and he knows it. The arrest is part of the process of communicating to the people that there is going to be an installation of a certain man as a chief.
    So the arrest is part of the process, it does not end the process. All that we are saying is that before the final day which ends the installation, there must be a communication of that sort. The arrest is part of the communication, it is the way they communicate to the people over there that there is going to be a chief, so it does not end the process. Mr. Speaker, I have done my research, I have gone to other places.
    Mr. Speaker, I have this write-up on what pertains in other areas and the process that they go through and I would give it to him. Mr. Speaker, the process of making chiefs in this country
    Mr. Adjaho 11:15 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, on a point
    of order. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Chairman of the Committee is completely misleading this honourable House. We know that the hon. Deputy Minister for Defence raised a very valid point. He asked the question, what constitutes installation? At what exactly are we talking about when we talk about installation? At what stage is the notice going to be given?
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
    Hon.
    Mr. Adjaho 11:15 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, he used the
    word ‘arrest' and I do not know what he means by that word.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
    I would
    give you an opportunity to contribute if you want to, but let him land. Chairman of the Committee, have you finished?
    Mr. Asiamah 11:15 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I just want
    to make reference to the constitutional provision. Mr. Speaker, the processes for making a chief in this country as enshrined in the Constitution of this country, article 277 comprise nomination, selection or
    rose
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
    I want
    a brief comment on that one and then I would put the Question.
    Mr. Adjaho 11:15 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, there are
    different stages leading to the making of a chief or queen mother, and at all the

    stages as he has rightly quoted from the Constitution. Why is it that it is only one of those processes that they said there should be notice. We are complicating the whole matter by this amendment. We should not forget that the issue of chieftaincy as much as possible we should be very careful the way we legislate when we are legislating area of chieftaincy.

    It is an institution which the Constitution is very, very clear on and that is why there is a certain stage of consultation with the National House of Chiefs which has to be done and all those things.
    Mr. Asiamah 11:15 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, on a
    point of order. Mr. Speaker, we have done a stakeholder's forum and this particular provision has been understood by all stakeholders. Mr. Speaker, if this Parliament betrays the National House of Chiefs, it is going to be bad. They have agreed in principle that this is good for them, and this is what they have brought. It is not coming from this House alone, the consultation involved National House of Chiefs. We met at Koforidua and they were all there and they have all agreed that this is going to protect the sanctity of the chieftaincy institution.
    If there are consultations with stakeholders, Parliament should be mindful of whatever the Constitution says that any Bill affecting chieftaincy must first be referred to the National House of Chiefs, which has all been done. So clearly this House should be sensitive to the chieftaincy institution, and that is why as a Chairman, I am saying this on authority that we have done enough consultation and they have all agreed that this is going to help and maintain the sanctity of the chieftaincy institution. We are clear and we have done our homework well, so this House should rather assist the
    Mr. Asiamah 11:15 a.m.


    Committee in this whole issue.
    Mr. Adjaho 11:25 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I believe the
    hon. Chairman is not suggesting that this House is not assisting the Committee; we have done a lot. There are few clauses in the Bill - This amendment for example, has not been seen by the chiefs, with the greatest respect to the hon. Chairman of the Committee. This amendment is not known, it was brought to the House. We have made a lot of progress. I do not want to raise certain issues, so please let us make progress.

    But Mr. Speaker, on a very serious note, I think that there is need to take a second look at this. If it is a question of installation we have the Public Order Act for example, which deals with the issue of installation that you must give public notice; that takes care of that. If you read carefully the Public Order Act the kind of mischief you are trying to cure in this amendment has been taken care of. So if you say that somebody would be aggrieved and therefore they would disturb the peace or do something, the people, have the right to go to court. The 14 days, the 7 days, et cetera we must be very careful in those areas. I am opposed to the amendment and I want to put that on record.

    Question put and amendment agreed to, viz:

    Clause 62, add new subclauses as follows:

    “(2) An installation of a chief or queen mother is not valid unless, at least fourteen days before the date of the installation, public notice of it, in accordance with the custom of the area, has been given.

    (3) For the purpose of this section,

    (a) an interim injunction shall not be granted on application within the last seven days of the fourteen days; and

    (b) an appeal does not operate as stay of execution if it is filed within the last seven days of the fourteen days.”
    Mr. Asiamah 11:25 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 62, subclause (1), line 1, delete “enstoolment and insert “installation”.
    This is captured in article 277 of the Constitution to conform to the constitutional provision.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 62 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 63-76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 77 - Temporary prohibition of
    a person.
    Mr. Asiamah 11:25 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, after extensive deliberations and consultations though the intention of the Committee is clear as we did say the other time, it is to make sure there is peace and order at all times for development, but because of the misgivings some people have about this whole thing we do not want to continue creating all this anxiety. So after my Committee members sitting we humbly withdraw this clause and then we move forward.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Very well. So does that mean that clause 77 is therefore deleted? Then it will render negative what you want to do, that is your own amendment; so we should forget
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.


    about it?
    Mr. Adjaho 11:25 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, once it has been withdrawn it is all right. Mr. Speaker, I think that the clause 77 must be moved, he once announced it in the Bill. So he has withdrawn the other one.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Yes, his is withdrawn, your amendment is carried.
    Mr. Adjaho 11:25 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, procedurally it must be moved then it is deleted from the Bill otherwise there will not be any record showing that that clause has been deleted from the Bill.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Very well, you want to formally move it on the floor?
    Mr. Adjaho 11:25 a.m.
    Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think that that has been done already formally at the previous Sitting, so you just put the Question
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    That is why I put the Question that it means clause 77 is deleted, period.
    Mr. Adjaho 11:25 a.m.
    Absolutely.
    Clause 78 - Interpretation.
    Mr. Isaac Asiamah 11:25 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 78, delete “appointment” wherever it appears in the clause and insert “selection”.
    Mr. Speaker, this also complies with the constitutional provision in article 277; there is no mention of the word “appointment”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Asiamah 11:25 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 78, insert the following definition appropriately “deposition” means destoolment or deskinment”.
    So that it captures what happens in other traditional areas.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:25 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, sir, if my memory serves me right, I think the last time we came to consider this we agreed that “installation” should also mean “enstoolment” and “enkinment”. I thought that was the general agreement that we came to. And so I am a bit lost when we have come to repeating “installation” “distoolment” or “abdication”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    You thought we had taken care of that?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:25 a.m.
    Yes, Mr. Speaker, I thought so.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    And if we have not, or if we have, fair enough, it is an addition; it does not spoil anything.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:25 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, my concern is, if we have then we do not have to go on talking about “installation” “enstoolment” “distoolment” and so on. But if we have not, then we should go the whole hog because article 277 - [Inter-ruption.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    What is your own position? Have we done it or we have not done it?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I said I thought we had done that. But if we had not done that then we should go the whole hog because the Constitution talks about election, enstoolment and enskinment, but we are limiting ourselves in this Bill to installation and enstoolment and we are leaving out enskinment. That is what I am saying that if we did not do that then we should look at it.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    That is why you are saying that it should be an addition, is that not it?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:35 a.m.
    Yes.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    That is why we are talking about the “installation” and the “deposition”. I think they are all the same. They are being used inter- changeably.
    Mr. Chireh 11:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the under- standing was that “deposition” is a generic term and it covers both “deskinment” and “destoolment”. And that is why it is better to use “deposition”. And it means either a “deskinment” or “destoolment”. So deposition is appro-priate in this sense.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    But what
    the hon. Minister of State is referring to is that he thought we had taken care of that. But if we have not, then we might as well let it apply to even the previous clauses that we have considered. Am I right?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:35 a.m.
    That is so, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Chireh 11:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, this particular amendment is in relation to only clause 78, that is why. It does not permeate the others.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    Hon. Minister of State, when we come to the Third Reading, if you are still not satisfied, you can raise it up again. But now, let me put the Question - [Interruptions.]
    Mr. Adjaho 11:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, there is an amendment standing in my name. I am withdrawing that amendment but we still have to do an amendment there.
    The Bill defines a chief to include queen mother. That should be deleted. That particular definition should be
    deleted from clause 78 because there is a clause that has defined chieftaincy which is consistent with the provision in the Constitution.
    Initially, after scrutinising the Bill, I
    realised that clause 53 or so has lifted the constitutional provision of what constitutes a chief from the Constitution into the Bill, and that is the standard definition. Therefore, to try to give a different definition in the Interpretation column to mean chief includes queen mother runs counter to the Constitution and unnecessary.
    So I am withdrawing my amendment,
    and the new rendition of my amendment is that delete “chief includes queen mother.”
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    It should be deleted from the Interpretation?
    Mr. Adjaho 11:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, are you with me?
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    I am trying to be with you.
    Mr. Adjaho 11:35 a.m.
    Yes, because the definition of chief includes a queen mother. But the Bill is saying at the Interpretation column to the effect that chief includes queen mother which is unnecessary. So I am withdrawing this amendment and what is being deleted is that a chief includes queenmother. That definition is being deleted.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    Do you agree?
    Mr. S. K. Boafo 11:35 a.m.
    Yes.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    In that case, what you are saying is that you are withdrawing your amendment but the new amendment that you are suggesting is the definition of the chief in the Interpretation column.
    Mr. Adjaho 11:35 a.m.
    Yes, because there is a full scale definition of a chief which includes a queen mother already in the Bill, which is lifted from the Constitution but it is put in the Interpretation column. I think it is clause 53 or thereabouts.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    So what
    you are saying is that paragraph ‘e' in line 2 be deleted.
    Mr. Adjaho 11:35 a.m.
    Yes, because it is already in clause 57. My definition has already been captured in clause 57 of the Bill. That is why I am withdrawing it.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    I understand. It is withdrawn. However, we should go ahead to say that in clause 78, that definition is deleted.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 78 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill
    Clause 79 - Repeals, saving and transitional provisions
    Mr. Chireh 11:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 79, add a new subclause as follows:
    “The National House of Chiefs in existence immediately before the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to be the National House of Chiefs for the purposes of this Act.”
    Mr. Speaker, I am moving this amendment because I want continuity in this whole exercise.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    Hon. Chairman, are you opposed to it?
    Mr. Chireh 11:35 a.m.
    It was agreed upon at the winnowing session.
    Mr. Adjaho 11:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I need
    clarification from the hon. Member who is moving this amendment. He said that for purposes of this Act, the National House of Chiefs before the commencement of this Act, shall be the National House of Chiefs. I do not know why it does not apply to the Regional House of Chiefs, it does not apply to Traditional Councils, and it does not apply to Divisional Councils.
    Mr. Speaker, the reality on the ground now, as we speak is that most of the Houses have been elected for three terms, and their terms - they have been elected for a specific number of years to be in the National or Regional House of Chiefs and those terms have lapsed. If we are not careful, we will use this Act to mean that we are continuing them in office even without an election.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    I do not believe that is the understanding.
    Mr. Adjaho 11:35 a.m.
    Yes, because what exactly
    does this amendment want to achieve?
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    So allow him to explain.
    Mr. Chireh 11:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the expla- nation is like this, that we want the continuity of the National House of Chiefs. And the National House of Chiefs as existing is not just the persons who are there but how it has been constituted. For instance, it is agreed that each region should bring a certain number of chiefs to be members of the House. That is the composition of the present National House of Chiefs.
    Now, if we do not continue it in existence, and somebody says now, there is a new House of Chiefs, and he is also a member, there will be a problem. That was already done, and as I said, those who proposed the Bill are not opposed to it. That was done for the Regional House of

    Chiefs. That is why logically it continues.

    This other issue he is raising, is a matter of what was guiding the election of those people at the time. It would not be interpreted in any other way to benefit anybody. In fact, it is the composition and in some cases, it is the Legislative Instruments (L.I.s) that we are now virtually saying that before - in fact if one reads the previous Act, it saved that portion, and it is the saving clause that I am talking about, that it saves the creation. If one says for instance, in the Northern Region there are so many groups that come together to form the Regional House of Chiefs, those are already defined. So we must define it in terms of the existing situation. And it is not to benefit anybody to stay in office beyond the possible time.
    Mr. S. K. Boafo 11:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think the amendment should be allowed to stand.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    The amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Wa West?
    Mr. S. K. Boafo 11:35 a.m.
    Yes. This is because as far as even the duration is concerned, we have already passed it, and it was extended from three years to four years. What is important is that it does not mean that those who are now members should automatically continue. This is more or less, for the avoidance of doubt to say that the National House of Chiefs that used to exist is still the same.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    Hon. Minister, you are not supposed to take part in the debate. I wanted to find out something. The Constitution recognises the National House of Chiefs and the law cannot change it.
    Mr. S. K. Boafo 11:35 a.m.
    No, we cannot change it, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    So
    why are you saying that it should be in existence after this Act.
    Mr. S. K. Boafo 11:35 a.m.
    We have already stated that there was an amendment to the fact that the membership of the National House of Chiefs - [Interruption.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    You are talking about the membership but that is the problem that the hon. Member is also raising.
    Mr. S. K. Boafo 11:35 a.m.
    It is the membership of the tenure of office.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    But that is exactly his point.
    Mr. S. K. Boafo 11:35 a.m.
    That is what I am trying to say, that according to clause (1) of the Bill, it was extended to four years in conformity with the situation which apply.
    Mr. Adjaho 11:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think there is no mention of membership of composition in that amendment. To begin with, there is no membership of compo- sition in this amendment before us. Mr. Speaker, if one has been elected for a three-year term and a new law is being passed that it is a four- year term, is it the new election that would make one have the four-year term, or you will continue from - Because Parliament has come to pass a new law extending the term that would make you have four years?
    People have been elected under the old law to have three years. The three years have virtually elapsed or have elapsed in certain places. Now, we are using the back door; instead of the people going back to the constituents to test their popularity, we are using this piece of legislation virtually
    Mr. Adjaho 11:45 a.m.


    to extend their term.

    I am raising this point because if we are not very careful to know exactly what we want to achieve, it can lead to litigation, people challenging people's term.
    Mr. Chireh 11:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, my hon.
    Leader is misleading the House because I explained that as he himself knows, there are cases before the National House of Chiefs now. It has tribunals sitting and adjudicating. Now, we are passing a law and we are continuing it in existence to be able to carry out some of the functions.
    In any case, you also know that under this Constitution, we cannot pass retroactive or retrospective laws and therefore, whatever took place at that point remains valid. So retrospectivity does not come in. But it continues the existence of the House as it is now but it does not give the benefit to somebody retros-pectively or retroactively. That is the argument I am making and this Constitution would not allow that and nobody can benefit from that in terms of what he is saying.
    Mr. S. K. Boafo 11:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, as we
    speak now, I know as a fact that, there is a writ pending at the Supreme Court on this interpretation as to the extension of four years or three years. So if we may rest the matter so that after we have passed our Bill, they can go, whether it was right or not. It is not for us to determine but the law is clear as we have passed it now.
    Mr. Adjaho 11:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, if we want
    to take what the hon. Minister is saying, then we better suspend the Consideration Stage and wait for the ruling of the Supreme Court to enable us know the thinking of the Supreme Court. We would then know the kind of legislation to make here. So that submission is neither here nor there.
    Mr. Speaker, the real situation is that Houses of Chiefs which constitute the National House of Chiefs, some of them, their terms have elapsed. They have ended up doing their three years. They have done their three years.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon. Deputy Minority Leader, that is a point we have discussed at length. I remember very well we have discussed it earlier on.
    Mr. Adjaho 11:45 a.m.
    Well, as for me, the
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    The
    debate was canvassed on the floor. This point was canvassed on the floor.
    Mr. Adjaho 11:45 a.m.
    But we have not considered clause 79. This is the first time clause 79 is being considered.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    But the
    argument you are making has been made on the floor before.
    Mr. Adjaho 11:45 a.m.
    So what I am saying is
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Are you for it or against it?
    Mr. Adjaho 11:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am against
    it. I am not clear. I need clarification because one is talking about continuity. One person gets up and says continuity,
    Mr. Adjaho 11:45 a.m.


    another person says composition, another person says membership and - I do not know.

    In fact, the Deputy Majority Leader says he wants to come in, the hon. Deputy Minority Leader wants to come in. They should let us know what we are passing. Let us know exactly what we are debating. Let us know. It is not clear at all. And we should not pass this when we ourselves are not certain of what we are passing. We should be very clear as to exactly what we are doing. Are we saying that people whose term has expired some months ago should continue in office?
    Mr. Chireh 11:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I have
    explained times without number that we cannot pass a law here that give benefit to people retroactively. That is not done.
    Number two, I am saying that, that is not what we are doing here and that cannot be the reason. But as Mr. Speaker himself has already indicated, when we came to the Regional House of Chiefs that was the same argument we canvassed and it was agreed. I referred him to the Act that we are now amending.
    In that Act and in the previous Act, what they are saying is that, once one says this, then Legislative Instruments should now be passed to now constitute National House of Chiefs and all that. And I am saying, the saviour clause is important. It does not go to benefit anybody. If that is his concern, he is against it and we must take a vote on it.
    Mr. E. T. Mensah 11:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the
    purpose for this proposal defies all logic. We are just about to end our term. This Parliament is about to end its term in December. If we pass a law and amend the Constitution and say that the next Parliament will be five years, because
    we are passing it, we are saying that we should continue or we should go back to the people for a new mandate?
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    You are
    comparing apples and oranges.
    Mr. E. T. Mensah 11:45 a.m.
    No, no. I am
    talking about rule of logic. It is logical. Nobody is saying that the House of Chiefs is not in existence. They are there and people have worked under the old law, elected under the old law for three years. Some have ended their term and we are saying that for the purpose of this Act when the Act comes into being, they should continue.
    That is implied.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    You have
    made your point hon. Member. I have heard you. In spite of that I am putting the Question.
    Question put and the amendment
    negatived.
    Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the
    Bill.
    Mr. Asiamah 11:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that new clause, add a new clause as follows:
    “Capacity building for Chieftaincy
    Members of the Judic ia l Committees shall attend training courses determined by the Minister in consultation with the National House of Chiefs.”

    Mr. Speaker, the reason is simple. We want to deepen the knowledge of the Judicial Committee on issues of chieftaincy. It is just to enhance their understanding and appreciation of chieftaincy issues at all times.
    Mr. E. T. Mensah 11:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, you are talking of capacity building which is an administrative function in all institutions. So you do not have to legislate for capacity building. So I oppose this and ask that it be deleted.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am in total agreement with the hon. Deputy Minority Whip (Mr. E. T. Mensah) because clearly, we cannot legislate for capacity building. Mr. Speaker, in any event, we can have capacity building for chiefs and not for chieftaincy. So this amendment should not see the light of day.
    Mr. W. O. Boafo 11:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I was also going to oppose the amendment - [Interruption.]
    Mr. Asiamah 11:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think
    the arguments sound quite reasonable, and I therefore, withdraw this particular new clause.
    Amendment by leave withdrawn.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hajia
    Alimah Mahama has an amendment in her name.
    Hajia Alima Mahama: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, new clause, add a new clause as follows:
    (1) Without limiting the generality of section 5 (4), there shall be a Committee of queen mothers which shall be a committee of the National House of Chiefs.
    (2) The Committee shall consist of ten members with each Regional Committee of queen mothers electing one of their number to serve on the Committee.
    (3) The Committee shall advise the
    National House of Chiefs on matters related to:
    (a) women, and
    (b) Succession. (4) The Committee shall perform
    other functions determined by the National House of Chiefs.
    (5) Members of the Committee shall be paid an allowance to be determined by the National House of Chiefs in consultation with the Minister and Minister responsible for Finance and Economic Planning.
    Mr. Speaker, I am proposing this new clause to give visibility to our Queen mothers. And I am proposing that there shall be a Committee of queen mothers, which shall be a Committee of the National House of Chiefs, and I am putting this and running it through to the regional and the traditional levels.
    This is because the queen mothers have always complained that they are not incorporated into the deliberations, and much as I agree that we should not be directing that they should be at National House Chiefs, the law recognizes them as Chiefs and as such, they should be given some visibility, some function within this law.
    Just saying that queen mothers are chiefs, and then throughout the rest of the law, we do not have anything said about them -- I think we should recognize the fact that the queen mothers say they are usually not invited to the National House of Chiefs and they want to play a role especially, in relation to matters affecting women and children, and succession since that is their traditional role.

    So, I am just proposing that we should have a committee of queen mothers which shall be a committee of the National House of Chiefs.
    Mrs. Gifty E. Kusi 11:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    What did
    you say? Women are custodians of what?
    Mrs. Kusi 11:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the succes- sions, and the lineages. Mr. Speaker, we have the history -- Normally, when there is any problem, we say that, go to the old woman. We are going to ask abrewa. Mr. Speaker, so if this amendment comes through, I think we are going to be given our natural right, and matters relating to women should as much as possible be addressed by women.
    So I support this amendment and my hon. Colleagues should all support us to carry it through.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, what is your position on the matter?
    Mr. Asiamah 11:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, article
    277 of the Constitution defines a chief to include queen mothers. Mr. Speaker, it follows logically that they are automatic members of the National House of Chiefs. So all that they need to do is to apply to become members. The Constitution is clear; it is not discriminatory; the provision has been made for queen mothers to be part of the National House of Chiefs, so the gender issue has been addressed clearly.
    Mr. Speaker, I believe that should solve the whole problem. We do not want to debate this whole thing because there is no gender discrimination in this whole thing. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, when it is added in that way, it becomes unconstitutional. The Constitution defines who is a chief to include queen mothers. Mr. Speaker, so I will urge my hon. Colleague to withdraw the proposed amendment.
    Mr. Adjaho 11:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I want to
    share the sentiments expressed by the Chairman of the Committee. The definition of a chief is very clear; it includes queen mothers, and therefore, a queen mother can be a member of the National House of Chiefs. She is arguing that she wants to give visibility to queen mothers but she has rather ended up undermining the visibility of queen mothers by limiting them to advising them on limited issues.
    Mr. Speaker, I know sometime ago, there was a paramount chief who was a female from the Western Region. If you look at the functions given to the queen mother here, it has limited the role of the queen mother so much only to women and matters of succession.
    The queen mother, for example, cannot sit on the Judiciary Committee even if she is a paramount chief in her area. This is the effect of her amendment. And then any other function determined by the National House of Chiefs. So this amendment makes queen mothers second fiddle to some other people in the National House of Chiefs who are going to determine what function to assign to them.
    I know there is some mischief she wants to cure, but I think she has not come out clearly -- [Interruption.] Yes, she wants to solve a certain problem but I think that the way it should be is not the way it has been. I think that even if she wants to do it, she has to take a second look at it.
    Mr. S. K. Boafo 11:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think the sentiments that are being expressed by the women are clear. But I think there is a limitation, and as my hon. Friends have already declared, the Constitution takes care of it. I can assure them that at the last meeting, the National House of Chiefs' President made a pronouncement that the women will be considered. So we cannot also legislate for the Committee of the National House of Chiefs; they themselves should determine their committee. If we do that it will infringe on the constitutional rights too.
    So I will suggest that the pronounce- ments, some of them have been going to the National House of Chiefs, as a fact. I know it but it is not as frequent as they want it to be. Probably I would advise them to invite them more often and then find a way out of this predicament.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, just on the lines of the reasons adduced by the hon. Minister, the Chairman of the Committee and also the hon. Deputy Minority Leader, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we should be very cautious in introducing something which is completely new and spring this as a surprise on the institution. Mr. Speaker, article 106 (3) of the Constitution is very clear in my view and Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I beg to quote:
    “A Bill affecting the institution of chieftaincy shall not be introduced in Parliament without prior reference to the National House of Chiefs.”

    Mr. Speaker, the purpose of referring and discussing the Bill with the National House of Chiefs really is to harmonise ideas and inform this House of the direction. Mr. Speaker, this is really a very major amendment and I am not sure that the Committee had occasion to deliberate on this matter with the National House

    of Chiefs . I believe that if we should proceed; it may run contrary to the spirit and intendment of article 106 (3) of the Constitution.

    Hajia Alima Mahama -- rose.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon.
    Hajia Mahama, are you rising on a point of order?
    Hajia Mahama: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr.
    Speaker, this amendment has been carried on the Order Paper for the last two to three months, even before we went on recess. So I do not agree with the hon. Deputy Majority Leader that the Committee had not had the opportunity to discuss with the stakeholders. They had ample time to discuss with the stakeholders; if they did not do that, it is not an issue to be raised here.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    You have a point there. This is the House where we make laws, so you have a point there.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, I have the floor - she interrupted on a point of order.
    rose
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon.
    Member, somebody else wants to interrupt you once again. I will give him the opportunity to do so.
    Mr. Asiamah 12:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I very much
    appreciate the constitutional provision that the hon. Deputy Leader quoted. But Mr. Speaker, when we met at Koforidua that issue came up and we also made reference to the same constitutional provision of article 277. So clearly, the chiefs

    themselves appreciate the fact that queen mothers are part of them. At any point in time they can be members of the National House of Chiefs -- [Interruptions] - It has been catered for at the stakeholders forum and that is what I wanted to assure the hon. Member.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    The hon.
    Member is insisting that in spite of what everybody is saying, she is here to make laws and she is proposing an amendment to the law. I think in her own right, she is entitled to do so. As to whether it will be carried along or not is another matter.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.
    That is so,
    Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this is the House where legislation is made except that in respect of chieftaincy, we are limited to some trajectory and that was what I was referring my hon. Colleague to.
    As to whether notice on the Order Paper constitutes consultations with the chiefs, Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ. Mr. Speaker, I really beg to differ because it is not for the Committee; it is with reference to the National House of Chiefs, but I will proceed.
    Mr. Speaker, I believe that as the Chairman of the Committee has alluded to article 277 gives ample expression of the position of queen mothers and Mr. Speaker, let me assure my hon. Colleagues that the queen mothers in the Constitution come as one word. They are not mothers of queens as she wants us to believe. Mr. Speaker, the queen mother is one word and not “queen” as one word and then “mothers” as one word which will mean that they are mothers of queens. But Mr. Speaker, I agree that article 277 caters for the position of women and we should not consign them and confine them to the narrow path. Mr. Speaker, I believe this amendment is unnecessary and we must move forward.
    Prof. M. Oquaye 12:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    rose
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon. Member, do you disagree with him or you are raising a point of order?
    Mr. Asiamah 12:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, on a point
    of order. Mr. Speaker, is our learned Professor telling us that we should now change the Constitution? The Consti- tution has already made provision for gender. It clearly defines what the position of the queen mother is. That she is a chief and they are all members of the National House of Chiefs. Mr. Speaker, I do not think he is advocating a change in the Constitution now and if that is the case, fine, that is a different matter.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    According
    to him, that is not what he is saying. Let him continue.
    Prof. Oquaye 12:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, nobody is
    talking about any Constitution at all and nobody can even talk about that - that will be preposterous.
    Mr. Speaker, we are saying that mindful of that, and mindful of current trends, we must show this in clear terms by approving the amendment. Mr. Speaker, particularly, I am looking at this matter carefully.
    If we are looking at subsection (3) and we are talking about the limitation, in terms of women succession affairs, we
    Prof. Oquaye 12:05 p.m.


    could easily say that the Committee shall advise the National House of Chiefs on all matters they deem appropriate including women and succession. That will allow the queen mothers to advise on all social issues and allied matters.

    But Mr. Speaker, I think it is very, very important and if anybody is worried about the limitation in terms of women and succession we should simply say on all matters deem appropriate including making it an inclusive clause.
    Mr. Asiamah 12:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I wanted to
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    That your
    question is completely out of order.
    Mr. A. O. Aidooh 12:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    oppose the amendment for reasons that have been adduced. And Mr. Speaker, for the records I do not agree as is being propounded by my hon. Colleague to my right that amendments to a Bill on Chieftaincy must be referred to the House of Chiefs. Mr. Speaker, no. The law does not say a Bill or amendment thereto. So once the Bill is here we can amend it without reference to the House of Chiefs but I oppose his amendment for the same reason that they have given.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    What you
    are saying is for the records - I think it has been amply explained already that he is right to bring in any amendment here to a Bill that we are considering in spite of all the consultations, be it whatever it is with whichever situation.
    rose
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Yes, hon. Deputy Majority Leader, you want to oppose what your Leader has said or what?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, not to oppose but to dissent. [Laughter.] Mr. Speaker, the purpose in my view of article 106, the clear intendment of the spirit behind it is just so that whatever comes out may not be at variance in a major way from the discussion that Parliament has with the National House of Chiefs.
    Mr. Speaker, if there is a major amendment which has the purpose to change the character and face of a Bill, with respect to the hon. Majority Leader, I believe we ought to have dialogue with the National House of Chiefs otherwise if a Bill is introduced relating to the House and there is consultation, we cannot come to this House and mutilate the Bill to the disadvantage of the National House of Chiefs. Mr. Speaker, in my view that will be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon. Member, you have made your point. I think I should draw the curtain on this debate and put the Question.
    Mr. A. O. Aidooh 12:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I want to refer my hon. Friend to article 108. In article 108, it is written and with your permission I quote:
    “Parliament shall not, unless the Bill is introduced or the motion is introduced by, or on behalf of, the President --
    (a) proceed upon a Bill including an amendment to a Bill . . .”
    Mr. A. O. Aidooh 12:05 p.m.


    An hon. Member: Go on.
    Mr. A. O. Aidooh 12:05 p.m.
    I will not go on
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    I think I will put the Question, hon. Members.
    Mr. Adjaho 12:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, before you put the Question, it is important to place on record that the two hundred hon. Members of this House who support this amendment are those who were in Cabinet when this Bill was brought and were not able to influence their Colleagues in Cabinet to put this type of amendment into the Bill before it came here.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    I think you are out of order, hon. Member.
    Ques t ion pu t and amendment negatived.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Hon. Hajia Alima Mahama, would you therefore consider the other proposed amendment? Will you, hon. Hajia Mahama?
    Hajia Mahama: By the pleasure of the House.
    Mr. Adjaho 12:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, once the first amendment is lost, consequentially, the rest are lost because the composition of the National Committee of queen mothers are from the regions. So now that the “National” is there -- [Interruption.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Other clauses are therefore, I believe, abandoned.
    Long Title, hon. Haruna Iddrisu? Is
    anybody moving it on his behalf? Hon. Yieleh Chireh is not around?
    Mr. Adjaho (on behalf of Mr. Haruna Iddrisu) 12:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, Long Title, line 1, after “(Act 370)” add “and consolidate”. The amendment is a harmless one. It is just to seek to consolidate the law on chieftaincy. He is only adding the phrase. In line 1, after “(Act 370)” add “and consolidate”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, are you opposed to that?
    Mr. Asiamah 12:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am entirely opposed to that; I want us to maintain the existing one.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    You oppose it?
    Mr. Asiamah 12:15 p.m.
    Yes, I oppose it.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Then hon. Doe Adjaho, do you want to come up with a point strongly or you yourself, you are -- [Interruption.]
    Mr. Adjaho 12:15 p.m.
    With the pleasure of the House.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    All right, I think you might as well abandon it.
    Mr. A. O. Aidooh 12:15 p.m.
    The draftsperson
    can help us. The Long Title - “An Act to revise the Chieftaincy Act (Act 370) in conformity with the Constitution” -- Is it the revision that is in conformity or is it to provide a law and bring it in conformity with the institution? This is clearly wrong because this exercise of legislation is in conformity with the Constitution. That is true but that is not the purpose of the Bill. I think the purpose is to bring the law to conform with the Constitution. So there must be some redrafting here.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    We will suggest it to the draftsperson that they make relevant -- [Interruption.]
    Mr. A. O. Aidooh 12:15 p.m.
    “An Act to revise the Chieftaincy Act (Act 370) to bring it in conformity” but if they have a better word they can use it.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Fair enough. Is that agreed upon? Then the draftsperson will insert the relevant words to make it fine-tuned.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the other one standing in the name of hon. Mahama Ayariga is slightly different from the one proposed by hon. Haruna Iddrisu. If we can take that one alongside.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    You mean it is different from that of hon. Haruna Iddrisu?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu (on behalf
    of Mr. Mahama Ayariga): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, Long Title, line 1, after “revise” insert “and consolidate” and delete “conformity”.
    Mr. Speaker, his own is proposing an
    insertion of the word “consolidate” after “revise”. “An Act to revise and consolidate the Chieftaincy Act.”
    Mr. Speaker, I believe that is better
    except that in his case we may not agree with the deletion of “conformity”. We will capture that as opposed. So Mr. Speaker, it will read:
    “An Act to revise and consolidate the Chieftaincy Act, 1971, (Act 370) to conform with the Constitution and to provide for related matters.”
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    I believe we should leave that one to the draftsperson. In that case, you will not go through the others; let us look at it - the draftsperson to treat it. But let us reconsider it.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Long Title as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Hon. Members, that brings us to the end of the Consideration Stage of the Chieftaincy Bill.
    Now the time is about 12.20 p.m. I want to be advised by the Leadership.
    Mr. A. O. Aidooh 12:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn proceedings and convene tomorrow morning at ten o'clock.
    Mr. E. K. D. Adjaho 12:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
    Question put and motion agreed to.
    ADJOURNMENT 12:15 p.m.