Debates of 11 Mar 2010

MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Members, we would continue now with item 8.
Hon Minister for Lands and Natural Resources?
Mr Frederick Opare-Ansah -- rose
-- noon
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Yes, Hon Minority Chief Whip?
Mr Frederick Opare-Ansah noon
Mr Speaker, regarding my earlier application, I would like to draw attention to Order 44(3) in terms of how the proceedings in this particular Sitting will be captured to also help the House in the way the record will be handled.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
I agree entirely with you, Hon Minority Chief Whip, on this matter. The Clerk to take note and liaise with Madam Speaker on this matter.
Mr Opare-Ansah noon
Mr Speaker, I was hoping that you will actually issue definite directions to the Clerk as to how to handle this particular recording.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Yes,
normally, what will be done is that, it will be recorded but the final document -- the edited version has to be properly cleared.
Very well, Hon Minister for Lands and
Natural Resources, item 8.
BILLS - SECOND READING noon
Minister for Lands and Natural Resources (Alhaji Collins Dauda) noon
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that the Ghana Boundary Commission Bill, 2010 be now read a Second time.
Mr Speaker, the object of this Bill is to establish Ghana's Boundary Commission to undertake negotiations to determine and demarcate Ghana's land boundary and delimit Ghana's maritime boundaries.
Mr Speaker, under the Border Demarcation Commission Act, 168 (NLCD 235), several ad hoc boundary commissions have been set up to negotiate our land boundaries with our neighbours. However, not all the ad hoc commissions have completed their work with regard to our land boundaries.
Mr Speaker, this law, that I referred
to, also does not take into account our maritime boundaries and there has never been any commission set up to negotiate our maritime boundaries. Therefore, there is the need now for us to determine both our land and maritime boundaries.
Mr Speaker, there is the need for us to determine our boundaries to ensure that --
1. the exact course of our boundary is known to us as a sovereign country;
2. to create certainty for purposes
of security; and
3. finally, to protect our natural resources.
Mr Speaker, this Bill is very critical, urgent and important because as I indicated early on, there is the need for us as a sovereign State to demarcate and delimit our boundaries on the land and sea.
Mr Speaker, in April , 2009, Ghana made submissions to the United Nations Commission on the limits of the continental
Mr Opare-Ansah noon
Mr Speaker, the
Hon Minister for Lands and Natural Resources is unfortunately forgetting that we have a very significant natural resource and that is the sea. Ghana is not an inland country. We are not land-locked in any way. We have a vast shore that stretches from Aflao on the eastern border to Half- Assini and beyond. So, he should properly address his mind to this boundary and not to say that Ghana is an inland country.
Alhaji Dauda noon
Mr Speaker, I take into account the intervention made.
Mr Speaker, what I am referring to is that Africa as a continent has got islands and one of the islands, Mauritius, is the first country to make a submission. So, on the continent, it happens to be the first country that made the submission. It is in that regard that I put it this way so that it will be very clear that if we are taking Africa as a whole, Ghana may not be the first. But in the countries inside the continent, without the islands, Ghana is the first country to make a submission.
Mr Speaker, this was followed by our friends in Nigeria and also, la Cote d'Ivoire which have also made submissions to the United Nations for the extension of their continental shelves.
Mr Speaker, as requirement, under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, we are to negotiate our maritime boundaries for this process to go on. It is, therefore, critical for us to put in place a Commission that would negotiate for the delimitation of our maritime boundaries
and therefore, the urgency required in passing this Bill.
Mr Speaker, the establishment of this Commission to begin the negotiations will create a stable environment for investors in the oil exploration and to create certainty in the minds of all of us and also the investors.
Mr Speaker, in view of these points I have advanced, I would urge my Hon Colleagues to support this Bill and get it passed under a certificate of urgency.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
Question proposed.
Chairman of the Committee (Mr Gershon K. B. Gbediame) noon
Mr Speaker, I beg to support the motion and in doing so, present the Report of the Committee.
1.0 Introduction
1.1 The Ghana Boundary Commission Bill, 2010 was presented to Parliament and read the First time on Wednesday, 3rd March, 2010. In accordance with article 106(4) and (5) of the Constitution and Order 177 of the Standing Orders of the House, Madam Speaker referred the Bill to the Committee on Lands and Forestry for deliberation and report.
1.2 The Committee is grateful to Alhaji Collins Dauda, Minister for Lands and Natural Resources and his technical team and Mrs Betty Mould- Iddrisu, Minister for Justice and Attorney- General and her officials for assisting the Committee in its deliberations.
Mr J. B. Aidoo (NPP -- Amenfi East) noon
Mr Speaker, this Bill before us came to this Honourable House on a certificate of urgency. Mr Speaker, the question is, why that urgency? The issue is that, Ghana, as has been indicated by the Hon Minister, has made a submission to the United Nations on the limits of the continental shelf -- to extend the continental shelf beyond the 200 nautical miles. Actually, we are asking for 350 nautical miles. Mr Speaker, the time of the submission is not 2009, as has been indicated by the Hon Minister for Lands and Natural Resources.
Mr Speaker, Ghana made its claim in 2008 and this was informed by two reasons.
The first one is that, our continental shelf has changed because of sedimentation by major rivers in Ghana; the Tano River, the Pra River, the Ankobra and then the Volta River. Mr Speaker, as these rivers deposit into the continental shelf, the shelf changes. And that is why we are making this claim for us to extend the limits of the shelf.
Then number two -- most significantly, is because of the oil find. Mr Speaker, because of that when Ghana made the submission -- and as a requirement for you to be cleared of the delimitation of the maritime boundary, you need to have --
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Member, is it a point of order?
Mr Albert Abongo noon
Mr Speaker, indeed, I am rising on a point of order. The Hon Member is trying to create the impression that we are applying for the extension of the continental shelf because of the deposition from the rivers of this country that flow into the sea. I think that that is wrong.
We are applying for the extension of the continental shelf because we have identified resources beyond our 200 nautical miles and you can apply for an extension when you identify that there are resources within your continental shelf and not because of deposition.
He would realise that within the 200 nautical miles, you will not have deposition of rivers beyond the 200 nautical miles. So that impression should be eliminated in his presentation.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr J. B. Aidoo noon
Mr Speaker, what he said is not different from what I have said. The most critical point is that
Ministerial Committee. So, we set up structures -- a technical team, which was working under me as the chairman. And before we left office, the technical team had contacted Togo, la Cote d'Ivoire and Nigeria.
Nigeria seemed to be doing its
application well ahead. But then, they had not completed and you need the consent of the member neighbouring countries to really submit your application. And then some technical work had to be done. So, we contacted the consultant and a special ship, which was equipped with the special equipment -- they spent three weeks on the high seas to conduct the data and this discussion with Togo, Nigeria and la Cote d'Ivoire brought the attention of these countries into the scene.
So, in the case of la Cote d'Ivoire, where we are having a problem now, there is a pillar and this was agreed -- when they went to la Cote d'Ivoire.
But then because of the resurgence of new interest in oil and so on, they are refusing to accept this pillar. Because of the consent they gave, that is why Ghana was able to submit an application to the UN based on this. So, when you study the map, you will find that inward to the extension, la Cote d'Ivoire has agreed to the boundary line, but inland, that is within the 200 nautical miles, that is where they are challenging now. So, there is some inconsistency in the argument they are raising here.
So, Ghana decided to submit the application not solely because the United Nations was asking member countries which had coastal lines to submit applications but because of the very interest in oil that we had discovered and the information that we had in the literature -- the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) literature, that if we took advantage of it and beat the deadline by last year, we would actually have the extension. So, I am just clarifying the point.
once your continental shelf changes in terms of depth, then you have the opportunity to extend it. And how will the continental shelf change? I am speaking as a geographer, so please, I know what I am talking about.
Alhaji Dauda noon
Mr Speaker, my Hon Friend is misleading this House by saying that when your continental shelf changes, you can apply for extension. That is not the case.
The case, Mr Speaker, is that under the United Nations Law of the Sea, under article 76, it is mandatory that any coastal country that wishes to extend its continental shelf beyond the 200 nautical miles can do so.
Again, one of the conditions that is always looked for is not the sedimentations into the sea. It is taken from the coast, inland; the materials there reflect what is in the sea. And therefore, that is the basis for justifying that you qualify to go that far. So, my Hon Colleague is misleading this House by saying that it is a pre-condition. I am sorry, it is not.
Prof. Dominic K. Fobih noon
Mr Speaker, I think the point being made by the Hon Minister is not totally right because the extension of the continental shelf was there even in 1999. But then the United Nations extended the time to May 9, 2009. And then, I came by some literature from the Survey Department which indicated that if Ghana extended its continental shelf to the limit that was allowed, we will have about 1.8 billion barrels of oil. And this was the time we had discovered oil.
So, I took it to a Cabinet meeting and I was appointed the Chairman of that
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Member, so the submission you are making, in essence, is because of the resources? Otherwise, there will not be any urgency attached to this matter.
Prof. Fobih noon
Exactly.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
That is the submission. I called you because you are a former Hon Minister for that Ministry, so that you can provide information to enrich the debate of the House.
Mr J. B. Aidoo noon
Mr Speaker, as a requirement for the delineation of the maritime boundary at the UN, there is the need for the country submitting to clear that delineation with its neighbouring countries.
Mr Speaker, in 2008, Ghana applied and then in July, 2008, Ghana approached la Cote d'Ivoire -- Mr Speaker, we found oil -- it was in June, 2008 that it was announced on this floor of the House. If I quite remember, I think it was on 18th June, 2008 -- then on 18th July, Ghana sent a delegation to la Cote d'Ivoire for bilateral talks on the delineation of our maritime boundary and we went with a proposal regarding how the boundary should be delineated.
Mr Speaker, when we went to Abidjan, the Ivorians indicated that they were not ready so they had to study the Ghanaian proposal and that Ghana should give them time. Mr Speaker, then they waited until February, 2009, they came to Ghana with their proposal that they had rejected Ghana's proposal. Ghana's proposal was based on the equidistance approach. Mr Speaker, there are so many approaches of delineating or delimiting maritime boundaries.
We have what we call the equidistance approach, we have the perpendicularity approach, and we have the meridian and
parallel approach -- a number of them. And Mr Speaker, Ghana's proposal was based on the equidistance method with reference to what we call Pillar 55 -- in fact, it is important -- if we do not get this background, it will be difficult for us to treat this Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Member, address the Chair.
Mr J. B. Aidoo noon
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, then in February, 2009, when the Ivoirians brought their proposals, they said they were going to reject Ghana's proposal. Mr Speaker, with Ghana's proposal, the meridian that will be used is the three degrees, 32 minutes, that is west of the Greenwich Meridian.

Hon Members: What? A lady?
Mr J. B. Aidoo noon
A lady, a human being. It is a small foot -- [Laughter] -- And with the Ivoirian land, that is the eastern part of la Cote d'Ivoire sitting on that foot. Now, when you take the extreme south-west point, which is Pillar 55, that will push us to three degrees west of the Greenwich Meridian. Now, what la Cote d'Ivoire is saying is that, no, we should use the meridian coming from -- that is inland, and they want to use two degrees; the extreme two degrees of la Cote d'Ivoire and then the extreme two degrees of Ghana.
Now, when you do the midpoint of that, that comes to about two degrees, I think, 56 minutes. And that will draw a
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
You are in touch with them? That is good.
Mr J. B. Aidoo noon
The other side, they have a town called Big Assini -- you know, on our side we have Half-Assini and they have Big Assini. When you go there, they have a strong military presence. We do not have. It means we are not serious.
Mr Speaker, this Bill is important. It is urgent, but then, certain things ought to be addressed. When you look at the principles, I would take maybe, one or two --
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
I would
give you some few minutes -- even though we are enjoying your submission, time -- others too will contribute. Unless the House agrees that we take very few contributions. But if more people are going to speak --
Mr J. B. Aidoo noon
Mr Speaker, Hon Colleagues are saying that it should flow --[Laughter] -- Mr Speaker, what we are saying is that, you know, we have set up commissions in this country and now we are setting up a boundary commission -- somebody may ask why do we have Ministers? Because if you look at the Bill, we are now asking Ministers to be on the commission, that is the governing board. It is important because when the Ghana delegation went to la Cote d'Ivoire and the Hon Minister will bear me out, they had the Minister for the Interior representing that country and he chaired that meeting that was held in Abidjan in November, last year. And he was insisting that they were ready, and that Ghana should come forward. We did not have that courage to meet them. [Interruption.] Oh, I was not there, but I know.
We lacked the courage all because -- Mr Speaker, we cannot just say that we are going to meet la Cote d'Ivoire with the technical people, certainly, we have to
line which will cut a chunk of our oil find to la Cote d'Ivoire. Mr Speaker, when la Cote d'Ivoire made its presentation -- that is February, 2009, another date was scheduled for a meeting and it came on in November, 2009.
Mr Speaker, when they met in la Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana was not ready. la Cote d'Ivoire there and then indicated they were ready with their technical people, but Ghana said that we did not have a boundary commission to deal with the matter and therefore, they needed time to come back to Ghana to constitute a boundary commission and that is why this Bill is coming under a certificate of urgency. Mr Speaker, that is the genesis of what we are doing.
Mr Speaker, if you look at the whole matter, why is la Cote d'Ivoire now pressing Ghana for us to sit on this issue and then determine the boundary between the two countries? It is all because of the oil. And as we speak now, when you go to New Town, because it is the farthest town in south-western Ghana, the military presence there --
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Is it New Town simpliciter or it is something New Town?
Mr J. B. Aidoo noon
The name is New Town in the Jomoro District of the Western Region.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Very well.
Mr J. B. Aidoo noon
Mr Speaker, when you go there, the military presence there, is a pale shadow of itself. They are a very skeletal naval persons. They do not have any communication, no vehicle, no accommodation, nothing. And they are still using canoes. I called this morning, they are still using canoes. Meanwhile, on the other side --
Alhaji Sumani Abukari (NDC -- Tamale North) noon
Mr Speaker, I thank the last contributor very much for showing his technical expertise in these matters and his concern for the area within his
district. Because like he said, that area that is most interesting and most controversial is our “lady's foot” -- if I am to quote his description.
Mr Speaker, this Bill, in fact, in my opinion, should have come a long time ago. We have been very negligent about demarcating our maritime borders with our neighbours and this is what is causing the problem that we have in our hands today.
Mr Speaker, I think that this country has known all along that along the western boundary of our maritime territory, there were huge deposits of oil. We have always known. We have not taken these steps to see how we can protect that find. And in fact, it was also known that the moment we strike oil in that area -- because from my information, the land there, when you get deeper, it shifts towards Ghana more than to la Cote d'Ivoire and the deposits therefore, will flow towards Ghana's deposits as soon as we strike ours.
In fact, they were making so much oil because we had not started. So they could take as much oil from that area as possible. But my finding is that, as soon as we go deeper and deeper, and dig more wells, we are going to deprive them a lot of oil from la Cote d'Ivoire.
Mr Speaker, I also think that we have been negligent because having known all this, our naval presence in that area should have been strengthened a long time ago. Mr Speaker, we need a very strong Naval and Air Force presence to protect our oil find in that area. Mr Speaker, right now, we do not have a well-equipped enough Navy at Takoradi to protect our oil find or the tankers that will come to that area. In fact, it is even worse when it comes to Air Force because we need very strong helicopters.
It is unfortunate that some of the companies that are working in that area
is la Cote d'Ivoire's territory. And you go a bit above that la Cote d'Ivoire territory and there is this bulge -- our pregnant lady sitting on them. So, it bulges like this, comes down and turns like this and then it goes into a very small strip. And all that is la Cote d'Ivoire and then Ghana bulges into la Cote d'Ivoire again. I do not know who drew that diagram.
But Mr Speaker, I agree that we should take this seriously and negotiate, no matter how stubborn -- and that is the more reason I am emphasising on provision of security in that area -- provision of a very strong Navy and Air Force in that area. The only way la Cote d'Ivoire may negotiate with us and agree at least, partially to some of our terms is, if they see that we are serious with our security there. Right now, they see that there is nobody there and they could easily bully us in that area. The only thing that we will do is to strengthen our security there, send a lot more --
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Member, what do you think will be the feeling of the region if all of a sudden we mass up our security there? What signal would it send to the other people? The Hon Member for Amenfi-East also made the same point. All of a sudden -- we have not shown a strong military presence there, then all of a sudden we show a strong military presence there. What signal do you think it will send to the people there? I want you also to look at that side of it.
Alhaji Abukari noon
Yes, Mr Speaker, I know it will send a feeling of aggression on our part. Certainly, la Cote d'Ivoire will feel that we are building up armed forces because of them. But I do not think that -- it is better to start now than to wait until things get out of hand. That is what I am saying. la Cote d'Ivoire will not feel too well about it but then we will send them signals that we are ready to negotiate. Let us be as diplomatic as possible with them.
have to rent helicopters from la Cote d'Ivoire for some of their functions deeper in the sea. So, if we are serious and we want to protect our interest and protect our boundaries, we need a very strong Navy, we need a very strong Air Force, we need a very strong security in that area to protect our oil find.
It is even worse when you come to think of the deep sea port that H.E. the President was talking about. The deep sea port may cause some confusion for us because it is very close to la Cote d'Ivoire's definition of our maritime limits. It is so very close that they are going to raise a lot of --I was going to say hell but it is not appropriate -- they are going to make a lot of noise about that deep sea port when we start it.
So, Mr Speaker, my point is that we have to strengthen -- land demarcation is important. In fact, we have not done it for a long time. It will affect our maritime demarcation but let us please be more serious with our maritime demarcation so that we can safeguard our oil find and our oil area.
Mr Speaker, I think that one of the observations that was made at a recent gas and oil seminar in Accra here was that Ghana was taking no security measures to protect our oil find. And our own security experts agreed. Therefore, Mr Speaker, like I said, we should have had this long time ago but they say it is better late than never. We should all whole-heartedly support this Bill and move it through today. Let us move through the Bill today -- to its conclusion, even if we have to Sit till 6 p.m. because it is more than urgent and it is very, very necessary.
I think that our “lady's foot” that my Hon Colleague talked about is most important because above that “lady's foot”
Alhaji Dauda noon
Mr Speaker, I think
this issue of beefing up security there is a very sensitive one and I would crave the indulgence --
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Minister, that is why we are in Closed Sitting. Hon Minister, that is why an application was made that we Sit in Closed Sitting. We will decide what will be put in the public domain.
Alhaji Sumani Abukari noon
Mr Speaker, you have answered him, so I would not say anything about that again.
But I would conclude by insisting that we should beef up our security in that area, we should protect the people who are prospecting for the oil in that area. We must be seen to be protecting them. It is very important. In fact, some of them are scared and they go to la Cote d'Ivoire to hire helicopters and all those things. We need a strong Navy and Armed Forces in that area.
Prof. Domini K. Fobih (NPP -- Assin South) noon
Mr Speaker, I am just making a contribution. I am happy that this Bill is being introduced at this time, because it is very critical where we have reached with our maritime demarcation and interest that we have in the area now.
However, I would like to suggest that any commission that is formed to demarcate both the land and sea must take into account the interest of other political parties because this is a national asset which must transcend party lines.
Secondly, we are mentioning more
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Members, I would take two more then we move to the next stage. So, I need two more.
I would take the Hon Deputy Minister for Energy then the former Hon Minister for Energy.
Deputy Minister for Energy (Mr Emmanuel Armah-Kofi Buah): Mr Speaker, I am an Hon Member of Parliament representing the good people of Ellembele.
Mr Speaker, I rise to urge the Honourable House to support the motion. And in doing so, I want to stress the importance of this issue that we are discussing. And it comes out because of the oil find and the exploration. I think that it is important that as we talk about the demarcation of our borders, to also look at the issues that are emerging because of this oil find.
One of the critical issues that I think has come up has to do with the issue of national identity. If you are from the border areas, especially in the Nzema area that I come from, it is an issue that I think we as a House must seriously start looking at, especially now that the other countries are seriously looking at border issues.
If you go to my area, there is no clear difference when you go to the hospital, between who is coming from la Cote d'Ivoire for treatment and who is from the area. I have had issues with records of HIV cases in the high numbers. The statistics show they are from la Cote d'Ivoire going to hospitals in the area. In fact, we have recorded incidence of people from la Cote d'Ivoire who have come, posed as Ghanaians, using the national insurance. And these are serious matters that as we discuss this issue, we as a House need to seriously look at.
It is so critical that we look at our security issue not only in terms of border but in terms of health. Issues that are coming up because of, for example, prostitutes flooding in from la Cote d'Ivoire to our area; the border areas of Elubo, Half-Assini and Takoradi are issues that will impact us as a country. So, as we discuss this issue of border security, I want us to look at it in terms of health security, in terms of involving the communities as well.
And I am very happy when the Hon Member for Sekondi talked about infrastructure. We must also look at
on la Cote d'Ivoire.
I would want to suggest what Hon Prof. Fobih said about the issue of the eastern corridor: Togo, Benin and Nigeria. We cannot under-estimate that because what is going to happen with la Cote d'Ivoire could even wake Togo, Benin and Nigeria up to say even they too have a stake. And they will also bring issues, and I believe that it may be too much for our country. So, we need to be mindful of this thing.
Last, Mr Speaker, before I take my seat, in a sentence, the issue of security is very, very important. We cannot beef up the “lady's foot” because it may just show aggression. But I believe when we talk of security, you can be in Accra, and if you are seriously interested in what is happening there, could still be playing surveillance, having all the issues, knowing when to move, making it gradual so that at the end of the day, we are not taken by surprise. Because countries such as, excuse me to say, la Cote d'Ivoire, that is in the state of coming out of war could be aggressive and we should not rule out the possibility of aggression by our sister la Cote d'Ivoire.
I thank you very much for the opportunity.
Papa Owusu-Ankomah (NPP -- Sekondi) noon
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
I believe that having regard to the principles underlining the Bill, we all agree that the issue of security has been raised by almost every Hon Member who has contributed to this debate. But I believe that in terms of security, yes, we can be convinced that as far as the western boundary of our country is concerned, it should not be too difficult for us to improve upon security. After all, it is the only region that has all the three armed
Mr Joseph K. Adda (NPP -- Navrongo Central) noon
Mr Speaker, I would like to support the adoption of the Report and also the passage of the Bill.
But in doing so, I would like to refer to page 2 of the Committee's Report and draw our attention to the fact that we really do not have a standing commission to deal with this matter. We all do agree and think that we should immediately set this in place. Therefore, we should not be wasting any more time going into history and talking about things that are irrelevant to getting to work on the Bill and passing it immediately.
Mr Speaker, I would like, in the process, to also commend the Hon Minister for bringing up the Bill to the attention of the House. But I would like to also add that a lot of work has gone into bringing this Bill up to this level.
Mr Speaker, when I was the Minister for Energy, my attention was drawn to the fact that the UN had actually opened its doors for us to extend our continental shelf. And at the time, it was not a matter of the hydro carbon deposits that we had; it was an opportunity from the UN for us to extend -- even though from my intelligence network, we did know that we had deposits significant enough for us to be able to extend and taken advantage of that, it was simply an opportunity that the UN wanted us to come in and then extend the continental shelf as it was doing to many other countries.
Mr Speaker, a technical team was set
up from the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, as well as the Attorney-General and also including the Ministry of Energy. The Commonwealth Secretariat was able to support financially to get a secretariat set up at the GNPC. A lot of work has gone into this, that has brought us up to the level where we have now submitted this Bill to Parliament and working on its passage.
Mr Speaker, the reason I am putting this point across is that we are moving towards a common interest -- towards a national interest. Meaning that, what the Lands and Natural Resources Minister is brining up and what work had gone on up to this point in time, it is making it clear that we have to unite as a nation and pass this Bill as quickly as possible for us to get the Commission to work continuously to resolve the problems that we are raising now.
Mr Speaker, I think it is also important for us to call to mind what should have been done to prevent what it is that we seem to be getting from our neighbouring countries in terms of the possibility of conflict. At the time that we noticed the commercial discoveries, the Government of the day immediately set up a team to look at the gas and oil policy. And they worked around four thematic areas.
These areas included the resource management i t se l f , the revenue management, the environmental concerns and indeed, at that time, we added the security matter into the initial four thematic areas. Meaning that if the gas and oil policy had been worked on and brought to the attention of this House much earlier, the security concerns that are being raised now by Hon Members of this House would have been worked on to a level where we would be prepared enough to be able to deal with the concerns that are coming from the la Cote d'Ivoire's side.
Mr Speaker, if we had done that, not only would we have been in a position
to deal with la Cote d'Ivoire but indeed, a similar problem wiould be coming up from the Togolese side. Now, that we are talking on the western coast with others who are asking for the renewal of the oil block, similar concerns may come up from Togo. Therefore, we would have ourselves getting into a situation of fighting la Cote d'Ivoire, possibly on the western side and also Togo on the eastern side.
So, I think it should be our concern as
a House here to agree on the matters that we need to deal with immediately, to get to work on the Bill and pass it quickly and get the Commission to start working seriously to make sure we do not have any conflicts.
Mr Speaker, it is important for us also to take note that what is going on in la Coter d'Ivoire in terms of the internal conflicts politically, the leadership there may decide to divert the attention of their nation from the internal conflict to an external conflict involving Ghana and therefore, uniting them against us. So, I think it is important for us to really get down to work seriously and pass this Bill.
But I think within our borders, what we need to do is to be able to -- and here, I am calling on all the relevant parties -- to call our political activists to order so that they do not go on air and say things that they do not have any knowledge of. Or even we ourselves here in Parliament, if we are not sufficiently informed about some of the issues, we should not go on air and say things that may be inflammatory that may jeopardise our national interest.
Therefore, the two leading parties in particular, the NDC and the NPP should recognise that this is a national matter and therefore, we should stop the activists from calling into the radio stations and saying things that will not bring any value to us or are provocative.
Mr Speaker, with these, I would like to conclude by simply urging us to get down to the Bill and get it passed quickly.
Thank you.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Deputy Minority Leader, you may make the last contribution on the Second Reading of the Bill.
Mr Ambrose P. Dery (NPP -- Lawra/ Nandom) noon
Mr Speaker, I support the motion and the urgency with which we should deal with this Bill.
Mr Speaker, I, however, want to start by acknowledging the quality of the technical brains that we have in Ghana which has helped to do all the preparatory work for this application that we are now talking about. And in doing so, I would rather want us to do more of negotiation, more of diplomacy. And how do we do that? We can only do that, first of all, by ensuring that there is total team work on our side. Team work, first of all, our technical group must be listened to and the political component of our team must also work with one purpose.
Although we mention these things lightly, there are a number of Ministries which are involved in this whole exercise. You have the lead Ministry being Lands and Natural Resources. You have the Attorney-General coming in with the legal part and you would have the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration coming in for the diplomatic part. We should not under-estimate the silent turf war that goes on among Ministers as to who is in charge. And when one is in charge, what is the role that the others play? Is it the matter that when we have the Hon Minister for Lands and Natural Resources being in charge, the Attorney- General is going to say “all right, if you are the main guy then go ahead and do it”? Then it ceases to be a priority for
Mr Ambrose P. Dery (NPP -- Lawra/ Nandom) noon


that Ministry.

Is it a case that when the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources are working together, how does the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration see it? Does the Ministry of Foreign Affairs see it as a priority or it puts it down there because the Hon Minister for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration is not the lead Minister in these matters?

Let us not kid ourselves. These are things that we should deal with. We have to deal with them. And that is why if you look at the approach, first of all the technical team which went to Abidjan, la Cote d'Ivoire on 17th and 18th July, they do present a very brilliant and convincing technical people. But if you look at the response of la Cote d'Ivoire, you will find more of diplomacy in the la Cote d'Ivoire's team than we have in the Ghanaian team. And that tells you that what we have was a good technical team that was leading it but as others want to put it, Ministers should be involved. It is not just that they must be involved not only in person but we must commit ourselves and work together to ensure that we get it.

So, you will see that at the end of the statement from la Cote d'Ivoire, which was 23rd February, 2009, you have a whole paragraph which reads -- Mr Speaker, it talks about the fraternal historical ties that fortunately unite la Cote d'Ivoire and Ghana, that constitute a guarantee of success of these negotiations within a reasonable time frame.

In addition, the Ivorian side hopes that negotiations would be carried out in a spirit of friendship, peace and equity, leading to an ideal agreement on the maritime border demarcation in the West African coastal states in terms of the time

frame and content. You will see more of political content in this. It might well be an indication of the greater involvement on the la Cote d'Ivoire side of the political team than on our side.

Mr Speaker, I think we have an advantage. Ghana, over the years, from 1993 to date, has played a leading role in promoting peace and friendship in this sub-region. The other country is not as stable as we are. And we can use our diplomacy and if we have His Excellency the President who is the first citizen of this country giving it the required priority, I am sure we can bring subtle pressure to bear and get this agreement out now. And depending on how we play our cards, because they need us -- The present Government needs us in its transition now. They fixed an election which is not coming on schedule. They have changed members of their Electoral Commission and therefore, they will need a neighbour who will be supportive. So, while we are not antagonistic, we should use the opportunity to put subtle pressure on them and I am sure we will achieve some results.

Mr Speaker, I have heard people talk

about moving force, locating security -- I think that is the last thing that we would want to do. We should prepare for the worse. But we should not bare our teeth. We should not be the ones to move. Once, we move that way, then it is easier for them to say, “well, this is a threat to our national security and peace”.

Mr Speaker, let us not forget one thing. On our side, we must also ensure that beyond the technical group and the political leadership as in the case of Ministers, that Ghana stands together, that all the parties come together. This is a national interest. It should be above partisan interest. How do we guarantee

that? Go into the history of the advanced countries; United States and the rest of them, anytime there was a crisis, they came together. So, we should begin to speak with one voice.

We should not try to score political points in making discordant statements which will give the other country the opportunity of thinking that, well, this is a divided group and we can deal with it. But how do we guarantee that? We will have to guarantee that by creating a platform on which all the partisan groups participate. It could be Parliament. When it comes to Parliament, although we disagree, but fundamentally, we do the right things. We should work together and ensure that we are a united front. And let us not kid ourselves, the power of oil, the trade of oil and gas is great and even fisheries. Now the companies that are going to come in on the various sides have their interests. They are going to try to influence political leadership. The history of oil can tell you, right from the days of Rockefeller and the Standard Oil and all these big companies: Exxon, Mobil, Chevron and the rest of them, they do a lot of control of their own countries and leadership. And we should not make a mistake. Although Ghana and la Cote d'Ivoire have these ties, these could be corrupted by the intervention of oil and the faster we did it, the better it will be for all of us.

Mr Speaker, I think that time has already been spent; after all, we ratified this Convention on 13th May, 1983 and we have lost time. Now is the time to move forward and move forward fast and do it in a manner that will ensure that the interest of our people is secured and that we justify our positions as the true representatives of our people.

So, Mr Speaker, this is my contribution

and we are looking forward to when we come to the Bill to look at all those things that would ensure that this thing works properly to ensure that we have one clear lead Ministry, which in my view, is the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources and not try to give too many political heads prominent positions and that we will spend valuable time trying to sort it out.

We invite the Government to involve Parliament. Mr Speaker, you know that at the parliamentary levels, you make better friends. Although we are disagreeing, the people on both sides of the border, of la Cote d'Ivoire and Ghana are our friends. It is only when we go higher that, when we are more delinked -- as we go higher the political pedestal -- the top that we will begin to have these disagreements. So, let Parliament be given a role and let us defend that unity by the way we are together to pass this Bill urgently.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Members, thank you very much.
That brings us to the end of the debate on the Second Reading. I would now put the Question.
Question put and motion agreed to.
The Ghana Boundary Commission Bill, 2010 was accordingly read a second time.
Suspension of Standing Order 128(1)
Minister for Lands and Natural Resources (Alhaji Collins Dauda) noon
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 128(1) which require that when a Bill has been read a Second time, it shall pass through the Consideration Stage in the House which shall not be taken until at least forty-eight hours have elapsed, the Consideration Stage of the Ghana Boundary Commission Bill, 2010 may
Chairman of the Committee (Mr Gershon K. B. Gbediame) noon
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2, paragraph (a), line 3, delete “customary and”. The new rendition will be:
“determine and demarcate Ghana's land boundaries and delimit Ghana's maritime boundaries in accordance with international law.”
Mr Speaker, during the discussions, we were told that international law encompasses the customary. We have customary internat ional law and international convention. Therefore, when you talk about international law, it encompasses the two. Therefore, the word “customary” is not necessary. That is the reason we thought that it must be removed.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon
Member for Akropong, I think your amendment is almost on the same line, so we have to take the two together?
Mr W. O. Boafo noon
Mr Speaker, in view of the fact that the Committee has decided to drop the “customary”, that portion of my proposed amendment is abandoned.
But Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment purports to introduce the wording of article 73 of the Constitution, in respect of how the Government conducts its international relations. And the wording is that of “accepted principles of international law”. That is article 73, with your permission, I would read:
“The Government of Ghana shall conduct its international affairs in consonance with the accepted principles of public international law …”
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
So, you are
of the Constitution. It is the same thing but if we use the wording “… accepted principles of public international law …”, if we use the wording of our Constitution, it is even better. But I want to hear from you, you are in charge of the Bill.
Alhaji Dauda noon
Mr Speaker, when it comes to matters of law, it becomes very difficult for us to properly understand. Because we have (a) as:
“determine and demarcate Ghana's land boundaries and delimit Ghana's maritime boundaries in accordance with international law.”
That is our preference. So, if this and that are the same, then we will keep what has been proposed in the Bill.
Mr Boafo noon
Mr Speaker, I am only
advocating for us to adopt the rendition in the Constitution and for the House to accept the proposed amendment that “accepted principles of international law” so as to encompass conflicts of laws, that is, private international laws.
Alhaji Dauda noon
Mr Speaker, I have listened to my Hon Colleague quite clearly and I think it will not change anything. If that is the feeling of the House, I accept it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Very well, this one is very difficult, we have to be looking at about three documents at the same time. It is not an easy task. I must admit.
Hon Members, we go to --
Prof. Gyan-Baffour noon
Mr Speaker, I think in this particular context, we should include all the rendition in the Constitution and include “diplomacy” because in this particular instance, we are even on the verge of somewhere that international law may not even resolve the issue that
be taken today.
Mr Gershon K. B. Gbediame noon
Mr Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
BILLS - CONSIDERATION STAGE noon
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Members, the Hon Member for Akropong has also filed some amendments. I have ordered that they should be printed for, as many Hon Members as possible, so that we can be part of his submissions. I hope you have all got copies of his amendments?
Clerk-at-the-Table, make sure that his
Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu noon
Mr Speaker, we have copies of the amendments but looking round, it appears many of us do not have copies of the Bill itself. In order to have a meaningful discussion or debate, may I suggest, if it is possible, to have some of the Bill circulated to Hon Members who do not have it, so we can follow the discussion.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Clerk- at-the-Table, make sure that if you have extra copies of the Bill, they are duly distributed to Hon Members so that we can have meaningful discussions of the amend-ments at the Consideration Stage. Very well.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
trying to adopt the wording of article 73 of the Constitution?
Mr Boafo noon
Mr Speaker, and with your permission, in view of the contribution on the floor, if we can also add “and diplomacy” to read “… accepted principles of public international law and diplomacy…” as per the constitutional provisions.
Mr Gbediame noon
Mr Speaker, I think from the briefing that we had with the technical people, we are convinced that “international law” is well understood on the international scene and it encompasses everything that he is talking about. We do not need to put it in black and white as it is stated in the Constitution.
Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
Mr Speaker, I believe that this does not, in any way, breach the kernel of the provision. Really, he wants to situate it in the context of the Constitution, and I think it does not do any harm. We will be on a safer track if we did that. It does not derogate from it in any way.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Member for Akropong, is your amendment still standing in the form as it is printed in what has just been distributed? I want to be sure of your new rendition.
Mr Boafo noon
Mr Speaker, the new rendition is --
“determine and demarcate Ghana's land boundaries and delimit Ghana's maritime boundaries in accordance with accepted principles of public international law and diplomacy.”
Mr Speaker, I will drop the “diplomacy”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Minister, let us agree to use the wording
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Members, from a purely legal perspective, that one will be very difficult but if we come to the Long Title, we can put those nice words of diplomacy in there. But I think that for now, putting “diplomacy” there, it hurts against the sanctity of the law. I now have a difficulty there.
Mr Dery noon
Mr Speaker, I agree that we should leave it as “accepted principles of international law”. The reason you have in the Constitution, the “diplomacy” is because they specify public international law; then we also have private international law. So, once we have it as international law, it covers all those because you can have a conflict of law situations where you have an agreement that is contrary to public international law. So, the present rendition should be allowed without “diplomacy” and without “public”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Let me hear you again.
Mr Dery noon
Mr Speaker, I think we should retain “in accordance with accepted principles of international law” simpliciter.
Now, the public international law, when you introduce it, that is when you do not need diplomacy to come in. But if you leave it at “international law”, it is both public and private international law.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Member, I do not want to go to my days of conflict of laws. But I think that this is government to government, so it is purely public international law. This demarcation purpose, if you get the purpose of the Bill, it is government to government. So
it is public international law, and I do not see how private international law comes into being.
We are not going to negotiate with private entities like the multinational corporations and all those things. So, I find it very difficult to see how private international law comes in. I just want us to get these things -- [Interruptions] -- No, no. This is a very technical issue.
Mr K. T. Hammond noon
Mr Speaker, I am also wondering. I think the rendition will be just the “international law” because if there is any reason for a private thing to come in, and I cannot foresee a situation where we would have a private law in this context. So, “international law” should be used and it will cover whatever situation that arises. [Interruptions.]
I think that Mr Speaker is wondering if you add the “public”, does it add anything to it? -- [An Hon Member: I am against adding “public”.] You are against adding “public” ? So, I am adding to yours that we should simply use the “international law”. As Mr Speaker indicates, we will have a very difficult situation where “private” will find its way in there. So, adding “public” really is otiose.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Members, you know that we were all swayed because of the submission made by the Hon Member for Akropong referring us to article 73 of the Constitution and we saw “public international law” there.
Now, the Hon Deputy Minority Leader has made a very powerful submission that on the safer side, why do we not keep “international law” so that when the “private” comes in, then we will not have a difficulty at all, which is a point.
But I want to foresee the kind of a Bill that we are passing, how private international law will crop up.
Mr Hammond noon
Mr Speaker, that was
Committee proposed. But if -- Ourselves to international law. I believe that that takes care of everything.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Members, at this stage, I will put the Question -- [Interruption.] Hon Boafo, are you still insisting? Look at the arguments that we just used, just “international law” simpliciter ,so that we do not qualify it, even though your submissions are quite convincing. What do you say, do you insist?
Mr Boafo noon
“Accepted principles of International Law”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Members, so the compromise rendition is that we delete paragraph (a), line 3 and insert the following: “Accepted principles of international law”. That is the amendment proposed.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Gbediame noon
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2, paragraph (d), line 1, delete “executive” and keep it as --
“promote a more e ffec t ive management of the boundary demarcation and delimitation process”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
What is the difference, Chairman of the Committee?
Mr Gbediame noon
Mr Speaker, we tried to get the explanation from the technical team who matter to explain why the word “executive”, what it really means, and we were not convinced about anything. Management is management and therefore, we think that the word
why I said we were on a safer ground. You and I think the whole House are not sure how the private one will ever permeate this. So, by not using the word “public” we do not lose much. If some ingenious lawyer finds a way of bringing out the private one, it is still covered under the international law.
Mr Boafo noon
Mr Speaker, this issue of conflict of laws is more procedural than substantive and we are talking about substantive international law, as you rightly pointed out, State to State. When you come to conflict laws, private international law is a matter of determining which law is applicable, whether the law of the location or law of some other places. But what we are talking about now is the relationship between State and State. So, I do not see how this conflict of laws -- procedural matters should come in.
Mr Dery noon
Mr Speaker, I think that we should not make a simple matter complex. You would see that in our documentation, Ghana has proposed a certain boundary which is a boundary that derives from a certain agreement between some institutions between the countries. We are better off leaving it as “international law” now. That is all I would ask.
Mr Gbediame noon
Mr Speaker, I think I want to go with the earlier recommendation of the Committee because if we put “public international law”, it presupposes that there is another international law which may not be covered. Therefore, we want to leave it, as we have recommended.
Mr Ebo Barton-Odro noon
Mr Speaker, I have chosen to keep quite because I think that to all intents and purposes, I would have preferred that we stick to what the
Mr Gbediame noon
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, paragraph (b), line 1, after the word “demarcation” insert “and survey”.
We were made to understand from the technical team that survey and demarcation constitute the process by which you locate a boundary. So the word “survey” there is very necessary.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Should it be “survey and demarcation” or “demarcation and survey”?
Mr Gbediame noon
Mr Speaker, the people from the Survey Division of the Lands Commission made us to understand that “demarcation” takes precedence over “survey”. That was what we were told.
Mr J. B. Aidoo noon
Mr Speaker, in delineation, you first demarcate then you go and do the surveying, that is the actual physical measurement of the land. So it should be “demarcation and survey” of whatever --
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Anyway, it does not make sense to the lay people --
Mr. J. B. Aidoo noon
That is the technical procedure. You go and take the co- ordinates --
have solved that one. The point is whether delimitation also goes with survey. We want to find out whether delimitation also goes with survey --
Alhaji Dauda noon
I need to consult the technical team --[Laughter.]
Mr Hammond noon
Mr Speaker, could you kindly allow the Minister to come back and have consultation or intercourse --
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
I thought you have got the information which you want to provide?
Mr Hammond noon
Mr Speaker, I have got something but I thought he himself should be allowed to come back here to consult -- [Laughter.]
Mr J. B. Aidoo noon
Mr Speaker, marine survey can be done but given our technology, what they are going to do, basically, will be just the delimitation, and everything will be based on technical calculation; just a matter of projections and then -- so we should just leave it as it is.
Alhaji Dauda noon
Mr Speaker, for the purpose of consulting the technical team, I have with your permission relocated to the back bench -- [Laughter.] Mr Speaker, for maritime delimitation, my understanding is that it encompasses survey; delimitation encompasses survey.
Thank you.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Very well, so it is two in one. For delimitation, it is two in one but demarcation is not two in one.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
Mr Speaker, just so that we will be assured -- [Interruption] -- Mr Speaker, just so that we will be rest assured, we are talking about land boundaries, and we are talking about maritime boundaries as well. But
there are areas where they may cross water bodies like lakes, rivers and so on and in that case, will you refer to delimitation or demarcation? And if it is delimitation, will you say that it does not come with the angle of surveying? Let us be very sure so that we will know that we are treading on the right course.
Alhaji Dauda noon
Mr Speaker, as I explained, if it affects a water body, you use the term “delimitation” and we have also explained that delimitation involves survey or encompasses survey. So I do not think there is any problem.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
So you are being told that the delimitation takes care of everything because we just want to be sure and I agree with the Hon Minority Leader on this matter, that we are doing the right thing?
Prof. Christopher Ameyaw- Akumfi noon
Mr Speaker, how about if it is just a shallow lagoon --? [Interruption.]
Alhaji Dauda noon
Mr Speaker, I do not know the number of times I have to say this. We have been told that in terms of water bodies, you use the term “delimitation” and that encompasses survey. Whether shallow or deep, it is a water body.
Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi noon
Mr Speaker, please, let us get the definitions right. If it is maritime boundaries, you may most probably be dealing with the sea. However, when you come on land, you may be dealing with streams, rivers, lagoons and lakes. So let us get that right. What are the technical people telling him?
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
They are saying that if it is maritime -- We are not on maritime and land boundaries. So if it is maritime, we are being told that the technical term they use is “delimitation”
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Very well, this is a technical thing you are telling us; so Hon Members, I will now put the Question on the amendment --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
Mr Speaker, I am just looking at the language. “. . . shall undertake the physical demarcation and survey of land boundaries”. In that case, it should be “delimitation of maritime boundaries”.
Mr Gbediame noon
Mr Speaker, I think
it is just in line. I just forgot to mention that one also. We took note of it later. So it is in line, “delimitation of maritime boundaries”. So we replace the word “delimit” by “delimitation of”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Members, clause 3, paragraph (b), line 1, after “demarcation” insert “and survey” and at the end delete, “delimit” and insert “delimitation of”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
Mr Speaker, may we have the assurance from the geographers that delimitation also comes with surveying? If it does, then we may have to include that as well.
Mr Dery noon
Does survey relate to only land?
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Minister, you are a senior Member of this House. You should know that if you want to fall on your technical people, they do not speak from where they sit, they should drop you a piece of paper or a note, yet the Hon gentleman is speaking from there. They should give you a note instead.
Alhaji Dauda noon
Mr Speaker, I have not seen or heard the gentleman speak from behind on the issue of -- [Interruption] -- we met with the technical team and the position they gave us was that you demarcate before you survey.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
No, we
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Yes, Minority Leader, I know your difficulty. So get up. [Laughter.] But some of the difficulty can be cleared by the draftsperson. Once you agree on what you are doing, let me hear you before I call the next amendment.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
Mr Speaker, I am comfortable with the amendment that has been effected, but the issue I am raising is that the response from the Minister does appear to clear the doubt.
With respect to maritime, I think we all do know that “marine” refers to the sea, it cannot refer to rivers -- fresh water bodies -- it cannot, unless we are being told that we should construe it to mean that it refers in this particular case to rivers, streams, ponds, lakes and so on, if they fall on the boundaries of our country.
With respect to the Minister, it is not true that some rivers do not constitute the boundaries of this country. So if it is true that “maritime” for purposes of this Act should be construed to mean rivers, lakes and other fresh water bodies, I am all right with that and we can go on. But if it is not true, then Mr Speaker, we would then have to provide for it, maybe as “other fresh water bodies” and have a similar provision for it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
I think you are absolutely right. That is why I ruled that we are dealing with land and maritime, and as you rightly pointed out,

Hon Members, I refer to Standing Order 40 (3) and I read that having regard to the state of business of the House, Sitting be held outside the prescribed period.

Chairman of the Committee, you have another amendment there on clause 3.
Mr Gbediame noon
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3(c) line 1, delete “determined” and insert “deemed”.
Mr Speaker, it is consequential. It follows from the previous amendment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Before we move to the (h), there is an amendment (f) there.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
Mr Speaker, if I may, with 3 (c), we are talking about the determination of the boundaries of this country. We want to determine it by the demarcation and delimiting exercise. If you look at the construction of 3 (c), the use of the word “determined” seems to give some different meaning. I do not know whether we cannot delete it and insert another word that would about mean the same. If I may suggest, I may proffer “deemed”, “whenever deemed by the Board”. It has the same import. It is a bit confusing if you use the word “determined”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
I think they are using “determined” when there is a determination, when they have made a determination which has a certain technical connotation. So they want to control a certain level of arbitrariness. So there should be a determination, so that it does not allow for arbitrariness. I am not too sure.
Yes, Hon Minority Leader, you are a member of the Committee?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
Mr Speaker, I am a member of the Committee
but I could not attend the meeting. So I am speaking from my own dearth but Mr Speaker, when I proffered the new coinage, the Chairman of the Committee, who is the Chief Whip appeared to agree with me, and when you came with your own intervention, he changed course -- [Laughter.] So I am not too sure. If it is to be construed in that technicality, then I guess I may agree with you; otherwise, we confuse the two words by using “determined” in this matter. If the Minister could be of assistance in this matter -- [Interruption.]
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Second Deputy Speaker, do you want to make any submission on the issue of the “determination”?
Prof. Oquaye noon
No, Mr Speaker.
Mr J. B. Aidoo noon
Mr Speaker, this has nothing to do with technicality. So the deletion of “determined” and the insertion of “deemed” will be more appropriate.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Very well. Hon Minister, do you have anything to say?
Alhaji Dauda noon
Mr Speaker, I do not have any serious problem with the change but I think that the determination there reflects the intention of the drafters to mean “deemed”. Therefore, whichever term is used, I am comfortable with it.
Mr Gbediame noon
Mr Speaker, just to mention that there is a coma after “demarcation”, that is --
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Chairman of the Committee, you know we are considering this Bill under a certificate of urgency and therefore, you the members of the Committee must help the Chair and the whole House so that we can
and if it is land boundaries, we are talking about demarcation and survey. I get your point, that what about shallow water? It is not water bodies, you are dealing with maritime -- Yes, it is not shallow or the kind of situation -- So we are clear that we are dealing with maritime boundaries.
Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi noon
Then we have to be clear about that because he keeps talking about that water bodies.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
In fact, when the Minority Leader challenged him, he changed it and brought it back to maritime bodies.
Mr Dauda noon
Mr Speaker, I do not think we need to split hairs over this matter because we are talking about two basic things -- land boundaries and maritime boundaries, and in terms of the land boundaries, we are lucky, there is no part of this country where we will demarcate the land boundary which will affect a water body. So that concern would not arise at all --
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Minister, why are you complicating the matters?
Maritime bodies are water bodies? Water bodies encompass more --
Mr Dauda noon
Mr Speaker, agreed.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Here we are talking about maritime boundaries.
Mr Dauda noon
Mr Speaker, that is what is before us. I am only adding that luckily, in terms of the land boundaries, we may not encounter this challenge, that is why I am saying it is an additional information.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Members, the Chair also has his own
Mr Hammond noon
With respect, Mr Speaker --
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
I thought
you should be at the Appointments Committee meeting.
Mr Hammond noon
I beg your pardon?
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
You are not supposed to be on the floor at this time --
Mr Hammond noon
But you are the Chairman of the Committee -- [Laughter.]
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
In fact, I have delegated my functions to the Vice Chairman and the Minority Leader has delegated his functions to the Deputy Ranking Member.
Mr Hammond noon
All of us are here. This is the more reason you should give us today so that tomorrow -- That does not obviate from the point of the --
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
The Second Deputy Speaker is here and at the appropriate time, I will give him the Chair so that we can make progress. So this is a very important Bill and we all agreed at the Second Reading that we have to take this Bill through. So some of us will have to leave and give the Chair -- Hon Members --
Alhaji Dauda noon
Mr Speaker, the substitution of the word “determined” with “deemed” will not change the substance of that particular paragraph and therefore, I take it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Members, clause 3 (c), line 1, we delete
Mr Boafo noon
Mr Speaker, the amendment in respect of paragraph (f), line (3) where we have the word ‘treaties' starting with small letter ‘t'.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Member for Akropong, I did not get the point.
Mr Boafo noon
Mr Speaker, the earlier Question you put to the House was in respect of paragraph (f), line (1) where we added “and treaties” after “convention”, but with regard to paragraph (f), line (3), we have not put the Question.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Member, I did make a ruling that that is a drafting problem. It is a drafting problem, from small ‘t' and capital ‘T', it is a drafting problem. They will take note of it. That is why I called you to move the other (‘f'), the last amendment there in clause 3.
Mr Boafo noon
Mr Speaker, the error is not a drafting problem. The word “Treaties” starts with capital ‘T' under clause 10, that is what appears there.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Member for Akropong, the amendment you filed there is that we should delete “treaties” and insert “Treaties” and the difference there is the capital ‘T' and the small ‘t'.
Mr Boafo noon
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
And I am saying that --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
Mr Speaker, I think, the first proposal, that is (f), the line (l), I think we almost lost that. But line (1), he says that after “conventions” we should insert “treaties”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Yes, that one we have moved, I put the Question which was carried. He has moved that
make progress. We are talking about 3 (c ) and you know the rules under Consideration Stage, and Members can move an amendment even if it is not there.
Mr J. B. Aidoo noon
Mr Speaker, we do not have to be spending so much time on this because it is a very harmless amendment that he has made. It appears that the other side is not serious. Look at their numbers, this is an urgent matter.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Members, I never addressed my mind to it, but when the Minority Leader made the point, that was trying to put a technical connotation on it which means a totally different thing, that they must sit down and make a specific determination of the matter before they proceed. So those of you who are members of the Committee think that it is not a technical term -- because they have not made that determination, you cannot proceed to do whatever you are going to do -- then we can go ahead and make the necessary amendment.
Mr Hammond noon
Mr Speaker, this is a very important document everybody is interested in. I did not quite realize that we were doing it today. It seems to me that there is some conflation and confusion all over the place.
Mr Speaker, why not give us this afternoon for the Minister to catch up on what he has really come abreast with? The Chairman who is fairly confused and confusing all of us and those of us here who are also tired but we want to make serious input into it, why not give us -- In fact, the technical staff at the back there are so helpful. They have given me some very important documents. Give us this afternoon and tomorrow morning, we will come back refreshed and then we will --
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Member, you are out of order. [Laughter.] Once we have made a determination as
“determined” and insert “deemed”. That is the amendment.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Clause 3, Hon Member for Akropong, it is a drafting problem. Let us take note of it and treat it as a drafting problem.
Mr Boafo noon
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, paragraph (f), line 3, the word “treaties”, should start with capital ‘T'.
Mr Speaker, if we go forward to clause 10 (3) (a) you will realize that there we have the word ‘treaties' in capitals. So for consistency of expression --
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Members, the import of the amendment has more to do with consistency. So the amendment in paragraph (f), line (1) is after “conventions”, we insert “treaties”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Gbediame noon
Mr Speaker, clause 3, paragraph (h), line 1, after “demarcation” insert “survey”.
Mr Speaker, it follows from the previous amendment that we proposed. However, there should be a coma before the survey.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Boafo noon
Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment to clause 3, paragraph (f), line (3) is also consequential.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Minister, they are calling you for negotiation. [Laughter.]
Hon Member for Akropong, you have an amendment there.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Member, but does it not all relate to -- they used the word “ancillary” there, does it not relate to -- Even if you use the word “negotiation”, whatever you do will have to do with the demarcation and delimitation of boundaries.
Hon Member for Akropong, all the things that we are doing, whether “negotiation”, or otherwise, everything has to do with the demarcation and delimitation. Initially, I was carried away but when you look closely at it, all have to do with demarcation. Even if it is “negotiation”, it has something to do with demarcation. All the other things have to do with demarcation and delimitation.
Very well, you are entitled to move your amendment. But let me take one or two on this matter.
Mr Hammond noon
Mr Speaker, by virtue of the (g), the (h) has difficulties so we should look at what he is talking about. You cannot ask the Commission to address issues relating to natural resources and maritime and then go to (h) and then talk about other functions ancillary to the demarcation and delimitation. That cannot be proper. So I think --
Mr First Depty Speaker noon
Hon K.T. Hammond, the (d) also does not flow from the demarcation. Does the (g) that you are referring to not flow automatically?
Mr Hammond noon
No, it is very specific. Address issues not the demarcation, address issues in relation to natural resource.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Why are you now looking at land and maritime boundaries?
and it has to do with boundaries. So we are talking of those ancillary to the demar- cation because if it goes beyond that there will be conflicts between this law and other laws which will give other institutions the function to manage our natural resources. So, it is extremely important that we limit it to matters ancillary to that and limit the functions of this Commission.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Member for Akropong, a re you withdrawing your amendment taking into consideration the sense of the House?
Mr Boafo noon
Well, Mr Speaker, if that is the sense of the House; I am prepared --
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
No, I am only asking you. You have the right to move your amendment and you have moved it but I am only asking you what your position is on the matter since the amendment stands in your name.
Mr Boafo noon
Mr Speaker, my position remains unchanged but if it is the emerging consensus of the House, I have no objection.
Question put --
Mr Hammond noon
Mr Speaker, the consensus is that you put the Question again.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Very well. I will put the Question again.
Question put and amendment negatived.
Clause 3 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4 - Powers of the Commission.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
Mr Speaker, I have a problem with clause 4 (1). 4 (1) says --
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Minority Leader, you know there is an
amendment. The third one on his paper, the amendment (iii) on the White Paper is the one that I am saying that it is a drafting problem. It is capital ‘T' and small ‘t'. That is what I am saying it is a drafting problem. So the drafting section should take note of it. So I am asking you about (iv).
.
Mr Boafo noon
Mr Speaker, I beg to move,
Mr Gbediame noon
Mr Speaker, is he talking of (f) or (h)? We want to be clear in our minds. He advertised (f) and he is talking about (h). We want to be clear in our minds what he is talking about.
Mr Boafo noon
Mr Speaker, I am referring to (3) (h), line 2, at the end add “or conducive to any of the foregoing functions”.
Mr Speaker, the reason for the proposal is as follows. Mr Speaker will realize that paragraph (h) reads as follows:
“ performs other functions ancillary to the demarcation and delimitation of boundaries”.
Mr. Speaker if you look at the preceding paragraphs, it is clear that there are other functions to be performed by the Commission which are not necessarily in relation to demarcation and delimitation of boundaries.
If you read paragraph (f), the Committee is supposed to advise the Government on international conventions in relation to the country's borders and signing and ratification of treaties related to land and maritime boundaries, and also address issues related to the use of natural resources that straddle land and maritime boundaries.
The effect of paragraph (h) is to empower the Commission to take up consequential issues but if they are to
Mr Hammond noon
But it is the natural resource within those boundaries, that is, specifically in this context, to use their word, being “delineated”. So if it then goes on to (h) and now talks about just the delimitation and then demarcation, Mr Speaker, there is the risk that a very good lawyer like your goodself, when you have left the Chair and challenging them, if they decide to take on other matters --
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
But why should they take on other matters when the enabling Act is so clear?
Mr Hammond noon
So why can we not make it clear?
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
When they are supposed to go and demarcate boundaries and then they decide to go and do something else, they will be outside the scope of the enabling legislation.
Mr Hammond noon
Mr Speaker, let us act on the side of caution and put it beyond doubt.
Alhaji Abukari noon
Mr Speaker, I completely disagree with both learned Friends on this issue. Mr Speaker, (h) is saying, “perform other functions ancillary to the demarcation, survey and delimitation of boundaries” -- [Inter-ruptions] -- It has been amended to include survey. So it is completely unnecessary for us to expand the horizon by bringing other things which are already part of these functions. So I do not think that the amendment is necessary in any way. I will suggest that my good Friend withdraws it and let it stand as it is. I think it is quite comprehensive.
Mr Dery noon
Mr Speaker, we are dealing with the Ghana Boundary Commission and therefore, we should be careful that we do not give any functions that do not fall within the ambit of that Commission,
Mr Dery noon
Mr Speaker, I think that we are all emphasizing the urgency of this Bill and if we are going to come for a second Consideration Stage, then, in my opinion, I think that we might not be doing justice to the situation. If it is an urgent matter, we must have one Consideration Stage and move on. But if we are beginning to encounter these, is there no way we can quickly resolve them so that we can have one Consideration Stage rather than moving forward only to come backwards?
I do not know whether we can have a small meeting -- I can see the Hon Minister in some discussion with the technical group, so that we clear this matter. But if we are going to go with the potential of coming for a Second Consideration Stage, then I think we are not being fast enough.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Very well, I am amenable to the feeling of the House on this matter. I agree clearly that because you were told that “delimitation” refers to maritime boundaries, if they are now talking about delimitation in relation to maritime boundaries, then there is a problem.
But the reason I did not make the point is that when the Hon Minority Leader did raise the point; I did move a specific amendment. So when the process of amendment goes on, then we will see how to reconcile those positions. But I agree that there is a problem, based on the explanation given to this House that there is something there we have to take care of.
So Hon Minister, have you and your technical people misled the House?
Mr Dery noon
Mr Speaker, I think I will propose that we see one of the two options open to us because as we Sit here, you know we have an Appointments Committee sitting to attend? Will it be faster if we took the technical group to sit with all those who have the amendments, go through them and see how they deal with the issues? Then, we can go and do
Alhaji Dauda noon
Mr Speaker, I thank you very much. I appreciate the concerns raised by the Hon Minority Leader and wish to indicate that in claluse 3 (c) --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Minister for Lands and Natural Resources, I think the position is that we should continue and then when we finish, we come back to it. It is allowed to defer that under the Standing Orders. So we will proceed as usual and then we come and then look at those areas again, not necessarily under second Consideration Stage. So let us continue.
Alhaji Sumani Abukari noon
Mr Speaker, if we take this position, we will come and meet several of these problems along the line because the person who made the amendments has several other amendments similar to this one. He is even trying to insert completely new clauses to the Bill, which we will have to debate exhaustively.
So I think that the first option that was suggested by the Deputy Minority Leader, which is almost like winnowing -- I think that will make our work even faster but if we are to go through all these amendments and come back to them later on, there will be many that we will defer and then come back to.
Mr Abdul-Rashid Pelpuo noon
I think I go in for a situation where a small technical committee will sit down with --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker noon
Who are the technical committee people? Is the Chairman of the Committee a technical person?
Mr Pelpuo noon
A smaller group will sit down with the technical people, so they can sieve away all the difficult areas and then we come in very briefly. We can suspend Sitting for just an hour or so or
amendment standing in the name of Hon Boafo?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
Mr Speaker, before we come there.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Very well.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
Because this goes to the grain of that provision. Mr Speaker, with your permission, I quote:
“The Commission may, for the purposes of physical demarcation of a land boundary, appoint official or licensed surveyors or any other officer with their agents, servants and workmen to enter land to demarcate or survey the land.”
So it is in respect of land boundaries that surveyors are appointed.
Mr Speaker, if you situate that with what we did under clause 3 (d) -- We spoke about whether or not “delimitation” encapsulates surveying and we were told that “delimitation” encapsulates sur- veying. So we did not need to put another word “survey” after “delimi-tation”.
Mr Speaker, now, if you go to clause 4 (3) (c ), we come to the realization that that is not the position because clause 4 (3), reads: “surveyor or officer may”; (c ) reads: “for the physical demarcation of a maritime boundary or fresh water boundary”. It means that we have surveyors to do the delimitation. In that case, we have to look at clause 4 (1) again, and if we have to look at clause 4 (1) again, we better go back to clause 3 (b) because that will mean that what we did there is incorrect.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Minority Leader I entirely agree with you based on the explanations given to the House earlier, and if you go back to those clauses that you have mentioned, there is a problem there. But I want us to proceed, then at the appropriate time -- If it means taking it to a second Consideration Stage, we will do so to harmonise the various provisions. But I entirely agree with your
the Appointments Committee work and come back tomorrow and expeditiously finish that.
Or we continue this way and then it is a knee-jerk reaction -- we go forward and come back and then we also sacrifice -- We told the whole country we were going to vet the nominees at two o' clock.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
I agree with you. What we want to do is, I have called the Vice Chairman of the Committee who was in Cabinet to come and start. I am going to leave the Chair soon for the Second Deputy Speaker to take over until I go and finish with the Appointments Committee meeting.
What I want us to do, Hon Deputy Minority Leader, is to suggest that we proceed and I will give the Chair to the Hon Second Deputy Speaker to come and continue with the Consideration Stage while we go for the Appointments Committee meeting.
Well, I am being advised that we proceed with the idea that they suspend sitting for one hour so that when they are ready, the Second Deputy Speaker takes the Chair while we go and sort out the Appointments Committee issue
Prof. Oquaye noon
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think that there are a few things that perhaps, we could flag and then while the technical people are working on those, maybe, difficult areas, we proceed with the others. It will save us a lot of time so that we handle this urgent matter by all means.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
I agree with you. The rules will allow us to defer clauses and come back to them. Under our Standing Orders, it is allowed - to defer certain clauses and then come back to them as the Hon Second Deputy Speaker is suggesting. So we will proceed with the amendment in clause 4 while we come back to those difficulties.
MR SECOND DEPUTY SPEAKER
Mr Boafo noon
Mr Speaker, this is to bring the amendment in line with clause 3, subclause (b) which we had earlier considered, that if the issue is marine, that is maritime issues, then it should be “delimitation” and where it is land, then it is “demarcation”. So we just want to be consistent with that technical definition.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 -- Governing body of the Commission
Mr Gbediame noon
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, subclause (1), paragraph (a), line 1, after the word “Minister” insert “responsible for” and delete “or a representative of the Minister”.
So it will read, “The Minister responsible for Lands and Natural Resources”. We will still have the Minister as the Chairperson there. Therefore, the whole subclause would read
“The Minister responsible for Lands and Natural Resources as the chairperson.”
Question put and amendment agreed
for two hours.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker noon
Have you taken care of Hon Members for today that we are having an extended Sitting, have you taken care of them? Because I do not want a situation where we deceive ourselves that we are coming back by two hours and we do not see anybody here. So let us be very clear in our minds.
Mr Pelpuo noon
I imagine that the Ministry
will take steps to meet those who will Sit down.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
On this occasion, the Special Advisor to the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources is the Second Deputy Speaker -- [Laughter] -- so they will take steps. So let us suspend -- for how many hours? We come back at 4.30 p.m. We hope by that time the technical team would have cleared all the loose ends and we would have resolved most of the problems.
Hon Members, the House is accordingly suspended up to 4.30 p.m.
Sitting was Suspended.

Sitting resumed.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Members, clause 4, there is an amendment, Chairman of the Committee --
Mr Gbediame 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause 3, paragraph (c) line 1, delete “physical demarcation” and insert “delimitation” and after “boundary or” insert “demarcation of”.
Mr Speaker, we are talking of subclause (3), paragraph (c), line 1. The
to.
Mr Gbediame 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, subclause (1), paragraph (b)(i), delete and insert the following: “the National Security Council”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Gbediame 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, subclause (1), paragraph (c), delete.
Mr Speaker, why we are deleting it is that in (c) the original rendition is that --
“one representative of the Attorney- General and Minister for Justice not below the level of Principal State Attorney.”
Now, the Committee decided that the substantive Minister must be a member of the governing Board because this Commission is dealing with international law and therefore, we need Ministers for that matter, highly respected personnel to undertake this exercise. Therefore, we do not want to leave that to the -- We are deleting that whole (c). We will have a new rendition for that as we go along.
Mr Speaker, there is going to be re- numbering, so we wanted to delete those portions and have a new clause to state the new composition of the membership consisting of the three Ministers of State. That is why we are deleting this subclause so that there will be a clause that is going to indicate the new composition which is made up of the Ministers.
Mr Osei-Prempeh 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was going to say that I would have gone with the original rendition. The Attorney- General is a lawyer all right but if you go to the Attorney-General's Office, we have lawyers who have specialisations.
In fact, when I was there, there were some lawyers who went on courses on boundary demarcations and this and that, so that if we tie the Attorney-General that he should go, a time may come that he
may or might have to be represented by an expert there. So I believe if the Attorney- General or his representative is to be there, if there is need for the Attorney-General to go, he goes.
We are not setting up a ministerial committee. We are setting up a committee of people who can do the work for us and therefore, tying our hands that it should be the Minister, is a misplaced priority. We need to look at what we want and to get a committee which can do the work for us, not just a ministerial committee, no.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
So that you will want us to have “the Attorney- General or his representative”?
Mr Osei-Prempeh 4:30 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker. So I oppose the amendment.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
And you will want to make a rendition of the “Attorney-General or his representative”? Is that what was originally there?
Mr Osei-Prempeh 4:30 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker, that is what was originally there and they are seeking to amend it and I am saying that the amendment is not necessary.
Mr Boafo 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the amendment being proposed by the Chairman happens to be in order. We were told at the winnowing that when the Ghana side met their counterpart from la Cote d'Ivoire, you could see from the composition of the Ivorian Commissioners that they were of ministerial status and it gave some enhancement to the status of the Commission from la Cote d'Ivoire. So it was thought fit that we should also raise the level of the composition to that of these Ministers whose portfolios are all relevant to the issues at stake.
With regard to what the Hon Member said, Mr Speaker, we have a further provision under clause 7(5) where the Board is authorised to co-opt persons to
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
So the rationale that Hon Members should address their minds to essentially is that, it is your intention that it must be very, very high-powered and that should be something that Hon Members should address their minds to; it should be, very, very high-powered.
Alhaji Dauda 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the concern raised by Hon Osei-Prempeh has been addressed in clause 9 because clause 9 empowers the Board to establish committees including technical committee and once that technical committee has been established, it could comprise the staff of the Atorney-General's Office as well as other technical officers, like the surveyors, the geodetic engineers and all those that will constitute a technical body. They will do the technical job to advise the governing body, that is the Commission.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
So the essence is that it should be a very high- powered committee?
Mr Osei-Prempeh 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would rather want to propose an amendment to what is there, to read that the Minister for Justice and Attorney- General or his representative not below the level of Principal State Attorney”, or I will even raise it to “Chief State Attorney” because you will get people at that level.
As for what my Hon Friend said, we are talking of the governing body. We are not talking of committees which may be composed of technical officers and others. I believe that we need to - Anybody can be Minister for Energy, anybody can be Minister for Food and Agriculture, anybody can be Minister for Transport but Attorney-General would be a lawyer. But if he has a lawyer who has expertise
in that, she should be free to appoint that lawyer to be there provided she is at a higher level like a Chief State Attorney.
I rest my case.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Members, the essence of this is that we intend that this should be a very high- powered body.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Gbediame 4:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, delete subclause (1), paragraph (d).
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Which is a follow-up actually, of what we have just approved of. Hon Members, it is effectually consequential.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Gbediame 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, add the following new paragraph:
“Minister responsible for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice.”
This takes care of those deletions that we did earlier.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
In fact, it is effectually consequential.
Mr Gbediame 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is some omission on the amendment as advertised, so I want to make sure that that position has been captured. That is, clause 5(1)(a), that is, “The Minister responsible for Lands and Natural Resources”, delete “or a representative of the Minister” but we are going to retain “. . . as the chairperson”. So it will read,
“The Minister responsible for Lands and Natural Resources as
(b) there is a provision for a quorum for decision-taking by statutory bodies and Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will read:
“24(1) Where an enactment contains words establishing, or providing for the establishment of a body corporate the words operate (1) (b) to vest in a majority of the members of that body corporate the power, subject to a quorum fixed by the enactment under which it is established or by the relevant regulation or rules to bind the other members of that body corporate, but in an important matter or question which has financial implications the quorum shall not be less than two-thirds of the members of the governing body of that body corporate.”
Mr Speaker, the amendment proposed here is to provide a quorum for transacting business. The total number is 13 and I concede that eight is too much.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Member, the Interpretation Act states, just for our guidance once more.
Mr Boafo 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Interpre- tation Act states that the majority can bind the other members in taking an ordinary decision but where it relates to financial implications and important matters, then it requires two-thirds. So this particular provision deals with what is required as a quorum when a decision is being taken by the body but not a quorum when business is being transacted.
Mr Dery 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that Hon W. O. Boafo has got it right as far as the Interpretation Act is concerned but they are talking of numbers to take decisions and then the content of the decisions. But we need to have here a minimum number of people who would be there to make the decisions taken by the Commission or Board binding and for that, eight is too high for a number of 13 members; that is too high. This is because
the chairperson.”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Members, in fact, that is in line with our principle of high-poweredness; is that not so? That is in line with the same thing. Now we want “high-powered”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7 -- Meetings of the Board.
Mr Gbediame 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 7, subclause (3), lines 2 and 3, delete “a member of the Board elected by members present from among their number” and insert “the Minister responsible for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration or the Attorney- General and Minister for Justice.”
Mr Boafo 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the rationale behind this amendment is to the effect that we do not want a situation where in the absence of the Minister responsible for Lands and Natural Resources, a subordinate may be appointed as a chairperson. That is why the provision is specific on persons who should be appointed as a chairperson of the Commission in the absence of the substantive chairperson.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Boafo 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 7, substitute “one-third of the number of members”.
Mr Speaker, there is no provision in the Bill for a quorum which will enable the committee to transact business hence this proposal.
Mr Speaker, we are aware that in the Interpretation Act which was recently passed by this House, under section 24 (1)
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Thank you very much. But Hon Members, we want to know from the mood of the House and see what would be very, very protective, so far as this particular law is concerned. How do we ensure or guarantee that with the minimum quorum, decisions will not be taken that will be overringly binding?
Mr E. A. Owusu-Ansah 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if we go by what the Hon Member for Akropong just said, then we would be left with one other provision for decisions which will require more than the simple one-third quorum. We will need another quorum just as he said. In this House, when we are to assemble, we require ordinary one-third or so to be able to assemble but when we are taking important decisions, we require more than two-thirds. So if we go by his formulation, then it means that after we have assembled, if there is an important matter relating to finance and policy, then we will require two-thirds. In that case, then we need another subclause.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
But I think we have to be a bit careful with regard to the analogy with Parliament. In Parliament, with one-third, it allows us for general business to take place, for example, Statements and so on and so forth; there will be no inhibition. But then, for certain other decisions, we know the
enactment by which it is established and all we are doing is fixing the quorum at one-third of this.
Mr Speaker, we should realise that this interpretation is of general provision and this will be in co-operation with corporate bodies, including those who deal in financial matters. This is a Ghana Boundary Commission, so it does make provisions that where you are dealing with corporate bodies, which are dealing with financial matters -- this is a generic provision -- then there, the various levels for various decisions are increased.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Members, shall we have order because I think we are discussing a rather very important matter?
Mr J. B. Aidoo 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I will need a clarification from my Hon Deputy Majority Leader. If the one-third meets and then decides on a matter, then after its deliberations, there is a call for it to take a decision, will the one-third then have to wait to get majority before that decision will be taken? This is because the Interpretations Act is saying that where a decision is to be taken, you require a majority to be there and here we are talking about one-third. So when the one-third meets and then it comes to a point where it has to take a decision, does it have to suspend the meeting and then wait? [Interruption.]
Mr Dery 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, when the one- third meets, a decision is taken by the majority of the one-third, it does not say “the majority”, it is “a majority”. Let us get the interpretation right.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
So
if you put it at eight, it might make it impossible for people to take decisions, so he has agreed to reduce it to one-third and I think we should just take it as amended and not the eight.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Boafo, you would want to amend your amendment accordingly by stating one- third so that it is captured, then we can take it?
Mr Boafo 4:30 p.m.
Precisely so, Mr Speaker. So the rendition is that “the quorum at a meeting of the Board shall be one-third of the members”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
That is the new version of your proposed amendment -- one third?
Mr W. O. Boafo 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is the law.
Mr J. B. Aidoo 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, at the meeting, we were made to understand that from the Interpretations Act, when it comes to financial decisions, the quorum should be two-thirds but for ordinary business, it should be majority. A majority here means more than half, which is seven. So, of course, we agreed with Hon W. O. Boafo that his amendment is not harmful. It is just to reinforce what is in the Interpretations Act except that, maybe, the number should be seven instead of eight, to be in line with the Interpretations Act. The Interpretations Act says “majority of members”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon
Boafo, is it possible for you to reconsider the matter in this way, that seven out of 13; seven is a majority, and if you can bring your eight to seven, then you will be in tandem and we can proceed?
Mr Boafo 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, he is talking
numbers that we need.
But with this body, what will they be assembling to do, if not to take decisions so that it may be very tricky to have quorum within a quorum over there? Let us address our minds to that and then we will proceed. I hope you are with me? So the Board will meet, they will have a quorum -- one-third -- to do what? Would it be just a quorum in futility?
If you bring the analogy of Parliament, yes, we have other businesses to do and for that matter, it is not a useless meeting as a quorum with one-third. It is a useful exercise still. But we must address our minds to that body and then we can make progress.
Mr Dery 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my attention has been drawn to the Interpretations Act, Act 792, section 24(1)(b) which was read and Mr Speaker, with your permission, I beg to read: “To vest in a majority --” [Interruption.]
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Order! Hon Member, hold on so that there is order then we can continue. Please wait a moment. Order!
Yes, Hon Member, please continue.
Mr Dery 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it says:
“To vest in a majority of the members of that body corporate the power, subject to a quorum fixed by the enactment under which it is established or by the relevant regulations or rules to bind the other members of the body corporate.”
So whatever provision is in this section, is subject to the quorum fixed by the enactment. This is the enactment and we are fixing the quorum at one-third. It does not offend the Interpretations Act. It is made subject to the quorum fixed by the
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Order! Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity.
Mr Speaker, we have been passing laws of this nature in this House and when it comes to the quoret number -- similar Bills that we have passed, the number that we have used to be consistent, we go on that path. Otherwise, we will be moving forwards and backwards and so, I believe the better approach will be to stand this down, look at other similar legislations and we fashion it that way.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
So some researches can be done within the next few minutes?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:30 p.m.
Within the next few minutes and then we can go on that path.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
In the next few minutes, put your heads together.
An Hon Member 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my contribution was to support the Hon Minister on this issue because commissions need to take decisions. There is no other reason to meet. So, therefore, I believe that not only should the quorum be more than a half of the 13 membership.
I also wish we could add, because of the gravity of the matters, that one of the members present should be of Cabinet ministerial level, that is, one of the Ministers. I believe that if it is a question of technical people, before meeting to prepare the grounds to give advice, that can be a sub-committee or whatever.
But when we talk about the actual Commission meeting, I believe that to give it the weight that it deserves, it should be more than half and also there should be ministerial level presence at the meeting.
Mr Owusu-Ansah 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, one- third of 13 is 4.33, so it is four.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Which becomes five.
Mr Owusu-Ansah 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, one-third is 4.33, so there is no 0.33 in the human being, so it should be four. Whether four or five, still, it is not even half the number 13. And so, instead of standing down this matter and coming back to it today, I would propose that we fix the figure at seven and if we have seven at a meeting, they can convene the meeting and take important decisions as well. So seven is the figure that I propose.
Mr Dery 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think I do not have a problem with seven but the issue is, if you read through the Bill, we have a governing body of the Commission. Do we have the Commission?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, have the appropriate consultations taken place, otherwise, we will put the Question.
Alhaji Dauda 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the proposal made by Hon Owusu-Ansah that we put the quorum at seven is all right and I support that.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Boafo, would you want to proceed in that direction, that we make progress?
Mr Boafo 4:30 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Very well. Hon Boafo, therefore, the quorum at a meeting of the Board shall be seven out of the thirteeen members. Is that not so?
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 7 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8 -- Disclosure of interest.
Mr Boafo 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, delete “cease to be a member”.
Mr Speaker, where a person has an interest and he discloses the interest, he is disqualified from further participation in the meeting and another penalty is that he ceases to be a member of the Commission.
The proposed amendment seeks to
delete “cease to be a member.” A case in point may be where --[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister says he is agreeable.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
But I think Hon Members must also be satisfied as to the rationale of your argument. If you may make a submission. If you may summarise it for us.
Mr Boafo 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, a case in point is where a member of the Commission may have an interest in a survey firm which is being appointed to do some work for the Commission, that does not affect the entire work of the Commission. It is a small part of the Commission's work and it is more reasonable for him to disclose and withdraw from participation so that after they have finished with this matter, he can continue to be a member of the Com-mission and assist the Commission in other areas.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
In other words, the usual declaration of interest at board meetings.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was not here when we were considering section 6 but I suspect that, indeed, I have even encircled that portion in my own Bill but then we should relate it to section 6(7)(a): “(7) Where there is

Hon Members, order!
Alhaji Muntaka 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the one-third is to enable the meeting to start. For example, you have a meeting to hold, then the quorum is two-thirds and say, in this wise, where it is thirteen, the two-thirds is going to give you around eight and you say, “Oh, we have seven people; we do not have a quorum, so we cannot even start a meeting”. But the one-third enables you to start the meeting. When there is a financial matter to take a decision on and as at the time you are taking that decision, you still do not have eight people, you suspend the meeting. But this one, the one-third enables you to start the meeting while others come in. But without the one-third, it means that the meeting cannot even start, let alone to get to a point where you will have to take a decision that will require two-thirds or majority -- Yes, like we do in this House.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Members, is a quorum to enable a meeting to start or a quorum can lead to decisions being taken by the number that constitutes the quorum, just like Hon Dery has said, so that we can be very clear because we are making a law?
Alhaji Dauda 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if we should go by the proposal to set the quorum at one-third, we will still have a difficulty because clause 7(4) says that matters before the Board shall be decided by majority of the members present and voting. So if we take one-third which is
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, is the point you are raising taking us forward or it only deals with what we have already dealt with, that is in clause 6? This is because that, which we have already dealt with, we can actually make an amendment on that, only we would not go forward.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, to save ourselves from coming to consider it and a Third Reading, we can, once we are doing the Consideration, go back. We relax the rules in such instances and then handle them concurrently and I think that Hon Members and in particular, the Hon Minister is agreeable to that proposal. We can deal with this one first, that is, clause 8 and go back to the other one and offer the amendment.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
That becomes neater. Very well.
Dr Mathew O. Prempeh 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
even though we have finished with amendments in clauses 7 and 8, the whole Bill is about Ghana Boundary Commission and I think that there is a salient difference between a Commission, a Board and an Authority. They are not the same. A Commission is more or less a day-to-day manager of a situation; a Board is not, it is a policy director. I have found out that they did not interpret a “Board” in this Bill at all. Is the Commission synonymous with the Board?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Member, does that go to the essence of clause 8 as at now?
Dr Prempeh 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is why I said we have passed clause 7 and I think
commissioners.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
I think we can go on with our clause by clause analysis and these generalities can then be taken care of in drafting terms.
Mr J. B. Aidoo 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was on
the amendment made by the Hon Minority Leader. When you take the amendment that has been made by Hon Boafo, that is to delete “and ceases to be a member”. Once that portion is deleted, it means that that aspect in clause 6 (7)(1) will no more hold.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Yes, that is true. But for the sake of neatness, there should be a formal removal and so, when we finish this one, we would come to the Hon Minority Leader for that formality. For that matter, Hon Members, I will now put the Question --
Line 4, after “matter,” delete “and ceases to be a member”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, shall we handle matters arising regarding clause 6 then?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
I think we have the general understanding that clause 6 (7)(a) “or section 8” should consequentially fall or be dropped. However, it is captured; I do not mind but I think that the general understanding is that in view of this development, that one will have to be deleted.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
I think you have put it right.
Hon Members, it is consequential to what we have just done.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:30 p.m.
Mr
a vacancy (a) under sub-section (3) or (4) or (5) or section 8 . . .” So we must consider the two in tandem because there is a provision under section 6(7)(a) and it mentions section 8.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Boafo, does that essentially affect your amendment?
Mr Boafo 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, you may want us to go back to that later, if you do not think it negates anything about this particular amendment.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the point I am making is, we could have a person disqualifying himself from further participating in it eternally, then that person ceases to be a member. I think that is what has been captured in clause 8, the last segment which is what has been captured under clause 6 (7) (a). So I am just saying that we should consider the two. If we have to delete “and ceases to be a member” which finds favour with me, then we may have to look at the one relating to clause (6) (7) (a).
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Can that be taken care of in the drafting? That can be taken care of as a drafting issue. Very well.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is a major thing. If we delete it, then consequentially, we have to go up and delete “or section 8”. That is the point I am making.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
We would need to delete section “or section 8.” All right.
Then Hon Boafo, you can add that to it and as a follow-up “or section 8” as in clause 3 be deleted accordingly. I hope you are with me?
Mr Boafo 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in view of the
that we were talking about “Commission”. All of a sudden -- and the Hon Deputy Minority Leader even raised this issue but he did not catch your eye and it is going on and I think the Hon Minister should think about. When we get somewhere, he should come back and change the word “Board”. Wherever there is a “Board”, we should substitute it with “Commission” because they are different.
Alhaji Dauda 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 5(1) is clear, what we want. The governing body is the governing body of the Commission. Clearly, maybe, the draftspersons would help us get round this problem. What we want is to put in place a body that will help us negotiate our boundaries.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Yes, it is a drafting issue.
Mr Opare-Ansah 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I just wanted to help the Hon Minister that any commission that we know is made up of commissioners with the Chairman and other members. If you take article 43 of the Constitution and with your permission, I beg to quote: It says:
“There shall be an Electoral Commission which shall consist of --
(a) a Chairman,
(b) two Deputy Chairmen; and
(c) four other members.”
We call them Electoral Commissioners. Even Lands Commission -- we have a similar thing. In fact, any kind of commission that is established, you will find that it is made up of commissioners. So I do not know where this idea of -- I know we have had Authorities, where sometimes you have a governing body of the Authority. But when it comes to commissions, then the practice is to have
Alhaji Dauda 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the designation of Ministries are normally done by the Presidency and I do not have any intention going there. I have listened to the Hon Minority Leader and I have taken his concerns into consideration but when we decide to name that Ministry or create a Ministry for oil, we will come back to this House for the necessary amendments to be made. [Interruption.] We cannot take it today.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
But could we not simply -- If we should add “or the Ministry responsible for petroleum” -- will that spoil anything?
An Hon Member 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we have listened to what the Hon Minority Leader said but then if you take what he said, changing and making it to mean the Ministry responsible for petroleum and carbon, we are not talking about the water. We are talking about the land under the sea. One day, we shall be even mining gold or diamond and would we at that time say that the Ministry in charge of petro- chemical industries should be responsible for gold and other minerals?
No, Mr Speaker, that is not so. It should be the Ministry responsible for Lands and Natural Resources. It is not only even this energy issue, it is not only about the oil under the sea but we are also talking about a boundary commission which will also be responsible for land demarcation. How does the Ministry in charge of energy be responsible for land demarcation in Ghana?
Mr Speaker, I rest my case.
Mr Dery 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that what we have now, we have done so well as to say the “Minister responsible for . . .” We
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Members, just to be the devil's advocate and tickle your minds; if in two years' time there is a Minister for Petroleum and there is still a Minister for Energy, the law makers, what is it that you are anticipating? In Nigeria, there is a Minister for Petroleum and there is a Minister for Energy. We may well have in this country. Maybe, you may want to just address your minds on that as we continue.
Clause 9 -- Establ ishment of committees.
Mr Gbediame 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 9, subclause (1), delete and insert the following:
“The Boa rd may e s t ab l i sh committees which include the Land and Maritime Boundary Committees.”
Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, because of ignorance, I have been quiet but I want to ask a question. Who are the commissioners? In this whole thing, who are the commissioners? We have been talking about the governing body. I have just looked at clause 5, which sets out the governing body of the Commission. So, who are the commissioners?
Mr Osei-Prempeh 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my Hon Brother, the Hon Member of Parliament for Manhyia raised a point, which has been reiterated by the Hon Member of Parliament for Techiman North about what we are doing.
We are establishing a commission. In fact, I was conferring with the Hon Minister that it seems there is something basically wrong with this drafting. We seem to be establishing a commission; we are establishing a Board for the Commission and giving it powers commission of enquiries and all other things. I was suggesting to the Hon Minister that it may be better for us to stop now, let the
Speaker, I am sorry to take us back, if we just save a bit of time by going back to clause 5. I am just flagging some issues; we may ponder over them. As we travel along, perhaps, we may come back.
It is in respect of the Ministries to be represented. This Bill really is urging us to look at issues pertaining to petroleum products, gas, the oil itself, maybe, fisheries. For the time being, they would come under the Ministry of Energy. But are they going to be under the Ministry of Energy eternally? We do not know. [An Hon Member: It has been amended.] It has been amended? Lands and Natural Resources.
Mr Speaker, my worry still is, even Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, are we going to leave it there like that? This is because in all the countries in the sub-region, wherever oil has been discovered and is being exploited, they have created a separate Ministry of Petroleum Affairs. And so they still have natural resources and they have, that is what they qualify as “extractive mineral resources and liquid mineral resources”. And as I said, they have Ministry of Petroleum Affairs.
I think the issue then, I do not know whether if we come there we may have to amend it but I thought that we would rather write the Ministry responsible for petroleum in which case, it would then be subsumed under natural resources as we have now. But as we travel along, if it gets decoupled, then wherever it finds itself, we may not then have to come back to this law and amend it. So, Mr Speaker, that is the issue that I want to flag.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Very well.
Hon Minister, you may want to make a response to this. Some day; we may have a Minister for Petroleum Affairs. Is there a possibility that we can leave it as
have not said “the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources” and you will realise that it is by Executive Instrument that the President designates the Ministers and their areas of responsibility. Therefore, any time the President does that, then the Minister responsible for Lands and Natural Resources would fit in as the chairperson. So I do not think we should begin to speculate as to what would transpire as we get along and try to legislate on that.
I think, for now, it is all right as we have it, especially as we have, “responsible for”. Then it is left to the President at any particular point in time to designate whichever Minister he wants to be responsible and once it falls within that, then we should go on. So I think that we might not even need an amendment of the law. We just need an Executive Instrument to designate the Minister. That is it.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, does that exhaust your fears and concerns?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the reason I brought this up is, I derive my strength from the Report of the Committee itself and the conclusion; it tells us about the urgent need for us to establish this boundary commission, in particular, to protect our oil resources. That is the conclusion of the Committee's Report and that is why I have brought this thing up and I said we should flag it.
I am not saying that for any reason, we should take off the position of the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, I have not said so. I was only saying that given the fact that the kernel of the matter under consideration is the protection of our oil and, perhaps, gas resources, would we not advert our minds to this? That is all. I am not saying that we should take off that Ministry; I have not said so at all.

drafts people look at this thing again and bring it back.

Mr Speaker, we are rushing under a certificate of urgency but there are serious and germane matters we have to look at. If we are establishing a commission, do we need a governing board of the commission? We need the commis- sioners. Meetings of the Commission -- if you go through -- powers in respect of evidence, especially of the Commission and other things, which are not in tandem with a Commission of this sort.

So I believe that it is better to hasten cautiously; we need it. But I believe between today and tomorrow, if they would take their time and look at these things so that we put them in before we proceed.
Mrs Frema A. Osei-Opare 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I seem to recall that this rendition was used for the Fair Wages and Salaries Commission where we had the governing body of the Commission consisting of a board with its members. This was debated upon. I recall the Hon Attorney- General and even consultants being invited to comment and in the end, this was accepted, that the governing body of the Commission would be a board consisting of --
So there is a precedence in this House, that is, the Fair Wages and Salaries Commission. So, I believe that we are in the right direction and I do not think we should be going backwards.
Dr Prempeh 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was wondering why Hon Frema Osei-Opare conveniently did not talk about the National Labour Commission under her own Ministry when she was there. A commission is an active day-to-day participant. This whole Bill is about putting together a high-powered team
to go and negotiate and it is not like a Board that serves as a policy director for a management team or an Authority somewhere.
So all that I am saying is that the Hon Minister should look at it and where there is a “Board”, it should be replaced with the word “Commission”, so that, at least, the Attorney-General and others would become the commissioners and they can set up committees. That is all.
Or else, we would have to stand the whole thing down because we cannot set up a Board without knowing the commissioners. Where are the commis- sioners in this Bill? [Interruption.] Then why do you call it a commission?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Members, incidentally, the law on the Electoral Commission talks only about Chairman of the Commission and members of the Commission. It is some parlance that we keep on talking about “Electoral Commissioner.” In actual fact, in our law, there is no “Electoral Commissioner” as such. We have Chairman of the Electoral Commission and we have members of the Electoral Commission. As for this “Commissioner” business, let us -- But that is just to --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think this is an argument that, I believe, if we have to litigate, would go on forever in this House.
The truth of the matter is, as has been espoused by Hon Frema Osei-Opare, I do recall that in 2007/2008, we were confronted with this same problem of constituting a commission which would not have its membership established but then would go on to create a governing body. We raised this matter and as far as I am concerned, I remained unconvinced and unpersuaded by the argument that we were inundated with even though I was forced to toe the line.
Mr Speaker, if you go to look at the Memorandum, page ( i i ) , the
third paragraph, if you read it, clause 1 establishes the National Boundary Commission as an administrative body under the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources. The legitimate question to ask then is, where is the Commission? This is because the Commission is not given any character in this apart from the mere statement as captured in clause (1) that:
“There is established by this Act a body known as the Ghana Boundary Commission.”
Where is it? Where is the character of it? So that indeed, is the dilemma but I recollect that we were told that for purposes of establishing those commissions as the Hon Frema Osei-Opare has alluded to and there were several of them, we will subsume the Commission in the governing body so the two are one and the same, which to some of us, was a bit really beyond compre-hension. But as I said, for purposes of practicalising the Bill, we went along but I remained unpersuaded and unconvinced. So that is where we are. But if we are to follow what we have done earlier, then I believe we can go on this line.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Very well. So there are precedents which we can follow and proceed?
Mr Dery 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I just wanted to add that if you look at the same page (ii), paragraph 4, it says that:
“The governing body of the Commission is a board consisting of thirteen persons, seven of whom are from Ministries relevant to the demarcation of land and maritime boundaries. The Board is to perform the functions of the Commission.”
That is what the memorandum has said; so it has been said here.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
So the Board is in effect coterminous with the Commission?
Hon Members , wi th the c lear unders tanding that the Board is coterminous with the Commission, shall we make progress?
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Gbediame 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg
to move, clause 9 add a new subclause to read:
“A committee of the Board may consist of members of the Board or non-members or both to perform a function.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10 -- Land Boundary Com- mittee.
Mr Gbediame 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, delete.
Mr Speaker, the explanation is that it has been taken care of by the earlier amendment we did in clause 9 -- the establishment of the Land Boundary Committee and the Maritime Boundary Committee.
Question put and amendment negatived.
Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11 -- Maritime Boundary Committee.
Mr Gbediame 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 11, delete.
Mr Speaker, it is a consequential one flowing from the earlier one made.
Question put and amendment negatived.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Members, the explanation is clear.
Yes, Hon Member, you want to make
-- 4:30 p.m.
Alhaji Abukari 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is not my understanding. The amendment we have here reads as follows and with your permission I read:
“Amendment proposed, delete.”
Which means we should delete the amendment proposed. It is not to delete the entire clause. [Interruptions.] It is not the same.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Very well. I think Hon Members have got the explanation of the Chairman of the Committee.
Alhaji Abukari 4:30 p.m.
No, no, I did not get it that way --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
I think the Chairman -- The clause should be deleted; is that not what --
Alhaji Abukari 4:30 p.m.
The entire clause? -- [Interruptions.]
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Order! Order! The proposal of the Chairman of
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12 -- Allowances
Mr Gbediame 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 12 lines 2 and 3, delete “Minister in consultation with the” so that it will read: “Members of the Board and members of a committee of the Board shall be paid the allowances approved by the Minister responsible for Finance,” and we delete “the Minister in consultation with.”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Very well. So there is no “consultation”.
Dr Prempeh 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe
we are talking about a committee but my copy of the Bill, clause 12, does not have that “Minister in consultation with.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13 - Ministerial directives.
Mr Gbediame 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 13, delete.
Mr Speaker, it is further recommended that clause 13 be deleted completely.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Please, would you explain further for the benefit of Hon Members why the clause should be deleted?
Mr Gbediame 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with your permission, I read:
“The Minister may give directives
the Committee is that that portion should be deleted.
Question put and amendment negatived.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15 - Secretariat of the Commission.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
There is no proposed amendment; it is for consideration of Hon Members.
Dr K. Appiah-Kubi 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have a bit of a problem with clause 15; it reads as follows:
“The Secretariat shall be located at the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources.”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Order! Order!
Dr Appiah-Kubi 4:30 p.m.
. . . to create a Secretariat which is separate from the Ministry, like the National Development Planning Commission, the Ghana AIDS Commission, the Road Safety Com- mission? I think that making it a unit under the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources will give the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources too much power to dictate -- [Interruptions.] It is true; to dictate -- [Interruptions.] Yes, but then he is the Chairman, but still there are other Commissioners -- [Interruptions.]
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Order! Order! In fact, the earlier you allowed
the Hon Member to make his point, the better for all of us to have the opportunity to state our minds.
Yes, Hon Member, please, continue.
Dr Appiah-Kubi 4:30 p.m.
I believe that it would be better not to locate it under the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, but rather to give it a separate identity which would ensure its independence. If we really mean to give it that inde- pendence that it deserves, similar to other commissions, like those I have mentioned, I still believe that it would be appropriate not to make it responsible to the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, but rather make it responsible either to the Presidency or to Parliament, if we really mean to give it its identity.
Alhaji Muntaka 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is completely no need for what my Hon Colleague is saying. The simple reason is that, after a while, when all these demarcations have been set, we would have a whole agency, like he is proposing, under the Ministry, which would be drawing budget and a whole lot of maintenance when in actual sense, after the demarcation, you may not need that office to do any major thing.
That is why it is important that it is within the Ministry, so that as and when it becomes very relevant, you draw from the agencies as stipulated by the law. So it is not necessary to create a whole bureaucracy that would be drawing from our Consolidated Fund for nothing. So the way it is, is the best.
Mr Wiafe-Peprah 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think there is a lot of confusion, that is probably why I got confused early on.
Coming back to the Memorandum, I am presuming that the Memorandum is what guides us in all our deliberations. Now, in the Memorandum, it says quite clearly:
Mr Dery 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think, clearly, if you look at the Memorandum, the third paragraph on (ii), it says that it shall be an administrative body and therefore, the secretariat should be in the Ministry. It is as simple as that.
The high-powered body we talk about is vis-à-vis our engagement with our neighbours that we do not allow just technocrats and senior civil servants to go there but we go with political leaders of the highest class -- [Inaudible] -- the Ministers as la Cote d'Ivoire did. It is in that vein that we are talking of high-poweredness. But it is not to create another organ.
Mrs Osei-Opare 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think we are making things difficult for ourselves. I think the secretariat of the Commission rather should be under the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources; not necessarily within the premise.
The whole point is that it operates
under the Ministry and if they so desire and they have an adjoining or whatever space that is suitable, they should be free to do so, not necessarily to locate them in a tight corner where perhaps, there is no space.
So I think the important thing is, it should be under the Ministry and therefore, the location as appropriately decided by the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16 - Staff of the Secretariat.
Mr Gbediame 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 16, add a new subclause as follows:
“The Chief Director of the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources is the Secretary to the Commission.”
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, since we are talking about staff of the secretariat, this new amendment would not have any place there. Rather, it should find its proper location at clause (5). So we have clause (5) (i) and that one becomes clause (5)(ii). It would not become “the Secretary to the Commission”, but “Secretary to the Board”; we place it there.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Shall we talk about the essence before we go to even placement? Do we want Secretary to the Board or Secretary to the Commission?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think we have come to the agreement as per the fourth paragraph on page (2) of the Memorandum that -- [Interruptions.]
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:30 p.m.
. . . that the Board is to perform the functions of
the Commission. When we have finished with this, we would really have to look at the relevant clause, that is, clause (5) and come with a more precise position relating to the Bboard. We may have to proffer some amendment to the effect that the Board shall perform the functions of the Commission. And if we come to that then the Chief Director shall be the Secretary to the Board and then it makes a very neat arrangement. So let us consider that the amendment being proffered reads delete “Commission” and insert “Board” and bring it forward to clause (5) and that would be neat.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Yes, Chairman of the Committee?
Mr Gbediame 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we do not have any objection to the suggestion and for that matter ,the word “Commission” is replaced with “Board” and subsequently, as suggested, it goes to clause (5), sub- clause (ii).
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Very well.
Mr K. Agyeman-Manu 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am sorry -- [Interruptions.]
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Order!
Order!
Mr Agyeman-Manu 4:30 p.m.
This particular amendment looks like something that may take me back a bit to the last clause that we were talking about for the - [Interruptions.]
Mr Agyeman-Manu 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Chief Director of the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources is the Secretary to the Commission, or to the Board, whatever it is.
Now, what we discussed earlier, clause
(15),
“the Secretariat of the Commission shall be located at the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources”.
rose
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Deputy Minority Whip?
Mrs Kusi 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that we should all read the memorandum to this Bill before we make any submissions. The last but three paragraphs on (iii) -- [Interruptions.]
Mrs Kusi 4:30 p.m.
(iii), it says that the Secretariat -- [Interruptions.]
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Order! Order!
Mrs Kusi 4:30 p.m.
. . . the Secretariat or the Commission would be an agency under the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources. So that if it is an agency, why do you have to bring another person to be the Secretary when the Chief Director is there? Mr Speaker, we have to read the memorandum so that we understand the Bill, then we move forward.
Alhaji Dauda 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I want to
Alhaji Dauda 4:30 p.m.
I want to assure my Hon Friend, the Hon Member for Dormaa West, Mr Agyeman-Manu, that this Board certainly would not be in the Chief Director's office. It is going to be a Board that is going to be under the Ministry and would not be in the office of the Chief Director.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
rose
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Members, shall we make progress?
Clause 16 -- Staff of the Sectetariat.
Mr Osei-Prempeh 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause (16), I want to draw attention. Clause (16) which reads as follows:
“The Minister shall provide the staff and resources necessary for the performance and the functions of the Commission.”
Mr Speaker, my first problem with it is that -- in article 195 of the Constitution, it is only the President who appoints people to work in the public service; [Interruptions] -- Mr Speaker, whether “provides” or whatever you use, they are appointed by the President.
Secondly, we are saying the Minister shall provide resources. If you go to clause (18) of the Bill, it says that the expenses incurred by the Commission established under this Act shall be a charge on the Consolidated Fund. We are saying that the Minister is going to provide the resources. [Interruptions.] Why do we not state what is clear, that we are making
provisions that the expenses are charged on the Consolidated Fund? Why are we saying the Minister is going to provide the resources -- from his pocket or from where? It goes against the Constitution. [Interruptions.] Oh, the budget of the Ministry is not from your resources. So why did we put clause18 (ii) there? Clause 18(ii) says that the expenses incurred shall be - [Interruption.]
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Order! Order!
Mr Osei-Prempeh 4:30 p.m.
… a charge on the Consolidated Fund. Then clause 16 is saying that the Minister is going to provide the resources. I am saying that let us use what is in clause 18(ii); that is neater and in consonance with the Constitution.
Mr Speaker, I am saying that the Minister cannot employ people to work in the Ministry under the Constitution, article 195, it is the President. So why give that power to the Minister? So that if the Minister writes to dismiss somebody, who does the person sue? The Minister or the State, or the Attorney-General?
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17.
Mr Osei-Prempeh 4:30 p.m.
No, Mr Speaker, I am proposing an amendment.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Member, you are proposing an amendment to what?
Mr Osei-Prempeh 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, to clause 16; you put the Question on the
new clause, was proposed under 16; that was where the amendment proposed, that is where you put the Question, and I rose to say that I had another amendment.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Are you proposing a further amendment?
Mr Osei-Prempeh 4:30 p.m.
My amendment is to clause 16 as it is, not a further amendment to clause 16(ii) which we have agreed to, that it goes to clause 5. But I am saying that you should capture it that -- [Pause.]
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
So formulate your amendment then, Hon Member.
Mr Osei-Prempeh 4:30 p.m.
My amendment would be - [Interruptions] -- Not the Ministry; I do not want “through the Ministry”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Member, proceed.
Mr Osei-Prempeh 4:30 p.m.
That,
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
That is your amendment?
Mr Osei-Prempeh 4:30 p.m.
That is what it should be, and then we -- My amendment would be that - [Interruptions.]
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Go on, Hon Member.
Mr Osei-Prempeh 4:30 p.m.
Oh, allow me. Mr Speaker, I am saying that the Minister should not -- [Interruption.]
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon
Member, please, proceed; you have your amendment.
Mr Osei-Prempeh 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am moving for the deletion of clause 16 as it stands.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Deletion of clause 16 as it stands?
The proposed amendment is for consideration of the House.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe the principal concern of my Hon Colleague is the provision of resources. Now, the Secretariat is going to form part of the Commission and we are saying that expenses incurred by the Commission established under this Act shall be a charge on the Consolidated Fund.
So if the concern is that, then we can cure that mischief by just stating that “the Minister shall provide the staff necessary for the performance of the functions of the Commission”; in which case, the expenditure aspect of it would then be covered under clause 18(ii) and I think that that should be the concern of my Hon Colleague.
If that is the case, then we have that simple construction:
“The Minister shall provide the staff necessary for the performance of the functions of the Commission.”
Simpliciter, and if we adopt that, the expenditure aspect then would come under clause 18(ii).
Mr David Oppon-Kusi 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my question would be, is the Secretariat going to have a budget separate from that of the Ministry? If not, then it cannot be charged against the Consolidated Fund, but rather be part of that of the Ministry. It can only be part of that of the Ministry - [Interruptions.]
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Order! Order! Let the Hon Member conclude.
Mr Oppon-Kusi 4:30 p.m.
If you state it
Mr Pelpuo 4:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, given the differences coming up in the inter- pretation of clause 16, I think it should stay as it is. The reason being that, I was tempted to go with the Minority Leader, but now, I think that it is not about resources or staff; it is about responsibility. Who must provide these things? The clause 16 is telling you that it is the Hon Minister who should provide them. And clause 18 is talking about where to find the resources.
So the two are different. One is about responsibility which is to be located in the Minister, and the other is to find where the resources are to be taken from. In budgeting, resources and allocation must be taken from the budget and when you are budgeting, you should ensure that you take care of the expenses and the allocation of staff which are to be charged to the Consolidated Fund.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
One is responsibility, the other is a source of the money and I think it is a useful direction for us to take into mind.
Yes, Hon Member.
Mr Owusu-Ansah 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am worried about the clause 16; the Hon Minister providing staff for the Commission. The Hon Minister himself has no power to appoint anybody, and the Commission, as I understand it, is going to be part of the Ministry. If it is part of the
Ministry, it is going to be a civil service office and therefore, the staff would be civil servants. The Hon Minister will have no authority to appoint any civil servant. [Interruptions.] How does he provide?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon
Member, the question is well taken. I can see the Hon Minister -- Hon Minister, you want to assist us, how does he provide? That is the query of the Hon Member.
Alhaji Dauda 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we have already indicated that this Board or Commission will operate under the Ministry. In clause 16, all we are seeking to do is that, we will provide staff that will facilitate the services of this Board. We do not intend appointing or recruiting more people. We have the staff there. For instance -- [Interruptions.]
Alhaji Dauda 4:30 p.m.
We have a project in place that started with this project up to this stage. The membership of that project is still there and I suppose they are the same experts who will be used in these things and therefore, if this provision says that I will provide staff, what is being proposed is that the Minister will provide the required staff to enable the Commission operate.
The second aspect -- So the question of recruitment does not arise. So the basis for which the Hon Member is even canvassing his argument is baseless.
Mr Speaker, the second issue of resources necessary for the performance of the functions of the Commission -- Mr Speaker, I have no problem at all if that has to be taken care of under clause 18(ii), I have no difficulty at all; it is a charge on the Consolidated Fund. So we delete part of clause 16; clause 16 is in two parts; “the Minister shall provide the staff necessary for the performance of the functions of
Dr Appiah-Kubi 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the assertion of the Hon Minister that he will not recruit new employees - [Interruptions] -- be allowed to stand. This presupposes the existence of staff with the right qualifications to be already in the Ministry. [Interruptions.] How do you know? This is a secretariat which has been assigned with certain functions. It may be necessary to recruit new people with the right qualifications and I would suggest that the Ministry should not think there are already in existence the required staff in the Ministry.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
So you think the Ministry should be able to recruit as necessary?
Dr Appiah-Kubi 4:30 p.m.
As necessary.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
But definitely, if it becomes necessary, I think that is presupposed. Ministries continue to recruit according to their requirements, including experts and consultants and that is happening everyday.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with the secretariat of the Commission, as far as - [Interruptions.]
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:30 p.m.
As far as the secretariat of the Commission is concerned, the Minister responsible for Lands and Natural Resources has the responsibility to ensure the proper and effective performance of the secretariat.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Order! Order!
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:30 p.m.
Then Mr Speaker, we may just say for clause 16, that
“the Hon Minister shall ensure the proper and effective performance of the secretariat”.
That also takes care of it. So whichever way we want to go.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
And for the sake of clarity, a legislation will want to talk about the ways and means in terms of personnel and in terms of financial back-up and I think that is the essence of the exercise.
Alhaji Abukari 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think, as usual, the Minority Leader has crafted a very agreeable compromise, because I was going to say that it should still be deleted; clause 16 should be deleted completely and my reason is very simple,
Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, with your permission, I want to read article 195(1) of the Constitution, this is very clear. It says:
“Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the power to appoint persons to hold or to act in an office in the public services shall vest in the President, acting in accordance with the advice of the governing council of the service concerned given in consultation with the Public Services Commission.”
Alhaji Dauda 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Member quoted the provisions of article 195 (1) of the Constitution, which clearly talks about appointment. In this particular case, we are not talking about appoint- ment; we are talking about provision of staff, to ensure the effective running of the Board -- [Interruptions.]
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Order! Order!
Alhaji Dauda 4:30 p.m.
Therefore, we are not talking about appointments here. It has no basis and therefore, this proposal must be disregarded, Mr Speaker.
Mrs Osei-Opare 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to differ from the Minority Leader. The clause says “the Minister shall provide”. “Provision” simply means to ensure that there are staff there. It could be internal; and if they are new recruitments, there are procedures for the recruitment of people into the public service and that would be followed.
So all they are saying is, and for the avoidance of doubt, I tend to agree that the resource base should be shifted to clause 18(ii), but the staff should be provided for. And I think the word “provision” is quite important, because it does not exclude
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Order! Order! Hon Members, order!
We shall hear the Hon Deputy Majority Leader.
Mr Pelpuo 4:30 p.m.
I want to revert to the point made out by the Deputy Majority Chief Whip, at clause (1) in the memorandum which says that clause (1) --
“establishes the National Boundary Commission as an administrative body under the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources”.
In fact , the t ruth is that , this Commission or this job could have easily been performed by the Ministry. But in accordance with international standards, we want to have a Commission. So the Commission and the Ministry in any case, cannot be differentiated. Providing resources and providing personnel should be the responsibility of the Ministry. And if it is stated there, I do not see anything wrong with it.
In my opinion, I think it should stand because it will not corrupt the Ministry; it will do nothing to corrupt the Ministry in the allocation of resources. We know that Ministries, when they are supposed to allocate resources, do so from the budget and when they want to employ, they do so through a certain process. So no other resources can be allocated anywhere without the due process, which we already know. So no fears at all.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
And it means therefore, that what would be done would be presumed to be done by all relevant and due processes.
Very well, in that connection, shall we make further progress?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
I believe, until this latter day intervention by the Hon Deputy Majority Leader, we had made some progress. Mr Speaker, the point at issue which most of us seem to agree on is that the provision of the staff should be left in the hands of the Ministry or the Hon Minister and then the resources bit should go under clause 18(ii). Let the Hon Deputy Leader not bring us back; we will be moving forwards and backwards and it will be unproductive.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, would you please, want to therefore - [Interruptions.] Simply move the amendment as you are saying.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, may I sound my profuse objection to the threat being offered by my Deputy -- [Laughter.]
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Is there confusion in the camp? [Laughter.]
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:30 p.m.
No.
Mr Speaker, my proposal is, clause 15 above says -- the secretariat of the Commission shall be located at the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources. Then clause 16 says -- if it should be Ministry or Minister, I do not worry. But I think that the Hon Minister has the responsibility to initiate action and so --
“the Minister shall provide the staff necessary for the performance of the functions of the Commission”
And the other one relating to resources, will relocate to clause 18(ii). Mr Speaker, I would beg of you to quickly put the Question on this and we move forward.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Members, shall we make progress? I think the question is quite clear as put by the Hon Minority Leader and I hope it is
captured.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17 - Powers in respect of taking evidence.
Mr Osei-Prempeh 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Member, you want to make an amendment to clause 17?
Mr Osei-Prempeh 4:30 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 17, delete.
Mr Speaker, clause 17 gives the Commission powers of a commission of inquiry established under Chapter 23 of the Constitution.
Mr Speaker, a commission of inquiry established by a C.I. by the President under article 279 has very wide powers. In fact, they have powers of a High Court Judge and you look at people who can be commissioners, mostly senior judges of the land.
Mr Speaker, I do not know what functions this Commission is supposed to perform that they have to get those powers which are reserved for commissions of inquiry. If you look at their functions under clause (3) of the Bill, I do not think that it is necessary to give them those powers, which can be abused. So I beg to move, that clause 17 be deleted from the Bill. I so move.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Members, the amendment is for the consideration of the House. It should not be given the powers of a commission of inquiry.
Dr Prempeh 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it goes to emphasise the point in your talking - [Interruptions.]
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Order!
Dr Prempeh 4:30 p.m.
It goes to emphasise the point you raised earlier. Where is the Commission? Why do they need powers of a High Court? I am afraid that the calibre of people on this Board and given this permission, they would start arresting political party operatives at the borders. [Interruptions.] They do not need that power for anything. Why do they need the powers of a High Court? Somebody should give me one reason they need such a power and we can support them. One good reason they need -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Members, any further consideration, and the essence of this amendment is that the Commission does not need the powers of the High Court and so on, like a commission of inquiry as under the Constitution.
I think it is a serious matter for consideration. Do we want, as legislators, that powers?
Mrs Osei-Opare 4:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, a commission with the functions as outlined may have to call people to come and give vital information. And for the purposes of knowing our borders where it goes and what not -- [Interruptions.] I am not a lawyer, but I can - [Interruption.]
Mrs Osei-Opare 4:30 p.m.
But when you have such a situation, you need the authority to bring people to the Commission and be compelled to give vital information of national interest and therefore, I believe that this is something that should be seriously thought of. You cannot do this kind of work where you are using half information or you do not have any authority to compel somebody with vital
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Order!
Order!
Mrs Osei-Opare 4:30 p.m.
I believe that this is a serious matter; they should be able to subpoena people.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Members, we may want to address our minds also to the fact that where certain overriding powers akin to a High Court are given to any person, body or authority, that enactment also looks at the personnel who would administer these powers. So we have to look -- Please, just to address our minds, we may have to look at those persons that we have listed as the personnel of the body while we determine this matter.
Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have one simple question. The Forestry Commission has the powers of a High Court --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
The Forestry Commission, to the best of my knowledge, it does not.
Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi 4:30 p.m.
They also are in a position to ask people to appear before them in respect of natural resources. And if they do not have, why these people have? And in any case, who composed the Commission? We are back to that question. To give them this power, where is the Commission?
Mr Oppon-Kusi 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we can put this matter to rest. Any commission which requires people to come before them, can go to the court to get the order. That is why the courts are there.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
The
Hon Member has drawn our attention to one basic application of law. Any public body, person or authority performing a public function can always apply for support from the High Court in these matters without any specific - Hon Muntaka.
Alhaji Muntaka 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I really support that. Let us look at who and who are most likely to be invited in carrying out this duty. Who and who are most likely to be invited - [Interruptions.]
Alhaji Muntaka 4:30 p.m.
Either land dispute or land boundary or maritime, who are the most likely persons to be invited by this Commission? Is it the foreign country people that you are negotiating with that you want to subpoena, or your own citizens who are going to really help you to make sure that the demarcation goes right?
I think we do not have to give com-mittees some powers that are not necessary. Like my Hon Colleague rightly mentioned, if they really need to invite someone, they can go to court and the court will get the person for them.
Mr Pelpuo 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, th is Commission or Board is composed of about - [Interruptions.]
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Order! Order!
Mr Pelpuo 4:30 p.m.
This Commission or Board is composed of about six Ministers, plus the National Security Co-ordinator and others; these are people of high responsibility and besides, we are setting up a commission with a very high-powered representation that should represent the interest of Ghana in demarcating the
borders. And so that Commission should have all the clouts that will enable it to move and to act.
So I believe that with all the things we want to think about them, like having the necessary representation, that is high- powers - [Interruptions] -- et cetera, they should also have the same kind of powers of a High Court as we are talking about.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Minister, I should be in a position to want to have certain logical sequence in the argument.
Alhaji Dauda 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I want to propose that we retain the provision as contained in clause 17. Mr Speaker, I do so on account of the powers of the Commission at page (3), clause (4)(i), which with your permission, I would read:
“The Commission may, for the purposes of physical demarcation of a land boundary, appoint official or licensed surveyors or any other officer with their agents, servants and workmen to enter land to demarcate or survey the land.”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Order! Order! Please, would you allow the Hon Minister to land?
Yes, Hon Minister.
Alhaji Dauda 4:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, it follows with (2) and therefore, with these, I want to -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Minister, if you will kindly read (2) as a sequence.
Alhaji Dauda 4:30 p.m.
(2) says: “A surveyor or officer demarcating or surveying boundaries may cause

a notice to be served --

(a) on the person owning, occupying, or otherwise interested in the abutting land or the land to be surveyed, and

(b) on any person employed on or connected with the management or cultivation of the land.”
Alhaji Dauda 4:30 p.m.
The Commission has the powers, rights and privileges that are vested in a commission of inquiry established under Chapter 23 of the Constitution. So even in 1968, it was relevant to give these powers to the Commission and therefore, as I said, it follows from the powers this House has vested in this Commission under clause 4 and I suggest that we retain the provisions of clause 17. It does not do any harm; it rather enhances -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Minister, in practical terms, the Lands Commission is regularly and constantly inviting Ghanaians with regard to those in clause (4)(i) without those over-reaching powers and you may want to consider that.
Mr Dery 4:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, at page 4 of the Bill, if you look at powers of the Commission -- on page 4, subsection (iv), it provides and with your permission, I read:
“(a) A person who wilfully or unlawfully destroys, removes or alters a boundary post;
(b) fails to comply with an order in a notice served . . .
(c) wilfully obstructs, hinders or resists . . .
commits an offence and is liable on a summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five hundred penalty units or a term of imprisonment . . .”
That means when it gets to that stage, due process would be engaged.
Now, Mr Speaker, what are the functions of this Commission? The functions of this Commission are in section (3):
“Functions of the Commission --
(a) Negotiate with a neighbouring country concerning a land or maritime boundary between Ghana and that country;
You need High Court powers? --
(b ) unde r t ake the phys i ca l demarcation of land boundaries and delimit maritime boudaries”;
You need powers of a High Court?
“(c) whenever determined necessary by the Board, place buoys or other markers along some or all of the course . . .
(d) advise Government on the most appropriate strategy for the …”
Mr Speaker, the functions do not
deserve the powers of a High Court. The law that he referred to, is a 1968 law and if under this Constitution, we are going
to be guided by the precedents of coup makers and their legislation, God must have mercy on us. [Interruptions.] In this Constitution, judicial power -- [Inter- ruptions.]
Mr Dery 4:30 p.m.
. . . is vested in the Judiciary and Mr Speaker, it should be given sparingly. We shall not allow any commission -- and you have rightly said it, Lands Commission -- I have served on the Lands Commission at the regional and national levels and we successfully served without those powers and we went to the High Court to have matters of varied nature determined.
Please, these powers are not necessary and we should not give people more powers than is necessary.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
It is quite obvious that we must jealously guard the dispensing of adjudicatory functions to administrative and other such bodies.
Mr Isaac Osei 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think
all of us should be very careful about the intrusion of the Executive into a space where they do not belong, to the space reserved for the Judiciary. This is a very high-powered Commission comprising Ministers with executive powers. They have no business intruding into judicial space. So please, with due respect, after the Minority Leader has made it, let us vote on the -- This country needs to be aware of this, please.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Members, under our Constitution, it is possible for someone to take a matter like this to the Supreme Court whereby it may be said that the law that we passed is unconstitutional to the extent that it usurps the adjudicatory functions of the Judiciary
as under the Constitution. And so we need to be mindful and advise ourselves in these connections --
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I take a cue from what you have said. But Mr Speaker, I think we should be mindful of the focus of what is before us. Why are we having to consider this Bill under a certificate of urgency?
Mr Speaker, there is a pending matter which is of serious consideration to this country and Mr Speaker, the powers being sought in respect of clause 17 is in respect of enforcing attendance of witnesses, given the exigencies of the times.
Mr Speaker, it is on compelling the production of documents relating to parcels which perhaps, might now be encumbered. Mr Speaker, it is about the issue of a request to examine witnesses even abroad. So we should consider the special circumstances of this case, which is compelling us to consider this Bill under a certificate of urgency.
Mr Speaker, I would not proceed further. I know some heat has been generated in the House - [Interruptions.] But Mr Speaker -- [Interruption.]
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Order! Order!
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:30 p.m.
I know ultimately a vote would be taken on this matter. I just want us to be mindful of the special nature of the matter before us.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Can

Order! Order! Please, this is a House
Mr Pelpuo 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are here first and foremost, to think about our national interest and national interest - [Some Hon Members: No! no!] -- Mr Speaker, national interest predominates ourself interest and this Commission must be empowered in such a way that we do not dis-empower it by a legislation. And I think that, what the Hon Minority Leader has said gives a correct definition of the kind of -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Thank

Question put and clause deleted.

Clause 18 - Expenses of the Commission.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Members, there is no amendment proposed.
Mr Dery 4:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we have deleted clause 17. So clause 18(i), “A witness summoned by the Commission is entitled to allowances that are payable to a witness summoned by the High Court in a criminal trial” --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Clause 18 is consequential, in effect. I just wanted to see if any Hon Member would say anything. Clause 18(i) is consequentially deleted by virtue of the amendment to clause 17. Then clause 18(ii) should stand part of the Bill while clause 18(i) is
consequentially removed.
Clause 18 (1) deleted.
Alhaji Dauda 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I want to crave your indulgence to read clause 18(i). Clause 18(i) says :
“A witness summoned by the Commission is entitled to the allowances that are payable to a witness summoned by the High Court in a criminal trial.”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Members, order! Order! There are several occasions where the Lands Commission or other commissions of this nature invite certain expert witnesses to assist them in the performance of their functions. It is not only when you are actually sort of trying somebody that you may need to do that.
So I think it is worthy of revisiting by the powers we have at the Consideration Stage. There could be so many professional witnesses that you may need to pay allowances to. It is not only to try somebody that you need witnesses and I think we may as well want to address our minds to that.
Alhaji Dauda 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I appreciate the point you have canvassed. But Mr. Speaker, the emphasis here is: “… payable to a witness summoned by the High Court --” [Interruptions.] Just to give an indication that if you invite a witness, you pay him that which a witness in a High Court would take. What is wrong with it?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
But should it be in a criminal trial, because witnesses are also summoned in civil cases by statutory bodies and they are also paid allowance? And let us be honest to ourselves; this criminal trial here presupposes those punitive matters that could be envisaged. So we could simply say: “summoned by the High Court is not necessarily in criminal matters.” Why do we presuppose crime? Because in civil matters too, witnesses may be paid.
Alhaji Dauda 4:30 p.m.
All right, we can take the criminal out; “High Court”. Mr Speaker, “by the High Court”, so that we have a level known - [Interruptions.]
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Members --
Mr Osei-Prempeh 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, even that, it is not right.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Members, it is for consideration.
Yes, Hon Minority Chief Whip.
Mr Frederick Opare-Ansah 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, first of all, we have taken a decision already and we could only amend it at the second Consideration Stage.
Furthermore, this idea of legislating this kind of allowances, I think it is not in its proper place. I think the Hon Minister should even be happy because he would not have the opportunity to use administrative mechanisms to determine what kind of allowances he would pay to these witnesses; I do not think we necessarily need to legislate this in this law.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon

Order! Order!
Alhaji Dauda 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, I appreciate the point of the Minister using his discretion to determine allowances for witnesses. But I think it would also be better and neater when the Minister is guided by the provision as provided under 18(i) -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Thank you, Hon Minister. It is a useful guidance.
But Minority Leader, I want some guidance with regard to this. At the Consideration Stage, when we go through one step, are we estopped from going backwards unless mandatorily? Just for our guidance, can you refer to the appropriate Order? The beauty of parliamentary thing is flexibility of the Consideration Stage. We want to know.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the normal thing to do is to move clause by clause. But given the circumstances that we are operating under, we could relax the rules and this is not the first time we are doing this. So Mr Speaker, in this particular case, we are in your hands and we want to be guided by your own discretions.
But Mr Speaker, I believe that in this particular case, that is relating to the clause 18(i), I do not have any hard position on that because that one would be a reasonable expenditure incurred by the Commission, that is, in summoning witnesses. And in that case, it could be covered by what is the current clause 18(ii). So we may not have to have a different provision for that one, because if it is a reasonable expenditure, it is covered by clause 18(ii). So if you delete clause 18 (i), in my opinion, it would not inflict any injury on clause 18(ii) as a provision.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Members, we should also be guided by certain practical situations. Is the Hon Minister around? The Hon Minister may well be also advised that the levels of witnesses' allowances in the High Court are abysmally low, and sometimes, if you want to deal with certain experts to come and assist at another level, if you tie your hands with those ones, you may not be doing your Commission any good service.
So I think, as the Hon Minority Leader has said, if we leave it at the expenses charged on the Consolidated Fund and use your discretion, it may facilitate your work more than tying your own hands with some of the antiquated levels fixed in the High Court. I can assure you that. So in the circumstances, I think we can stand by what we have and then make progress.
We concluded with clause 17; we are on clause 18 and we have finished with clause 18.
Clause 18 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20 - Interpretation.
Mr Gbediame 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 20, in the “Interpretation” add “Global approach means International best practices”, and “relevant bodies” to read: “The Lands Commission, Forestry Commission, Minerals Commission and Tertiary Educational Institutions.”
Mr Oppon-Kusi 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, “Global approach”; here, it means, “international best practices”. [Interruption.] I think
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Order! Order! Please go on.
Mr Oppon-Kusi 4:30 p.m.
My problem is, that global approach is used only once in this Bill. Why do we put it there and then come and define it? If it is “international best practices”, if you put that clause in there, then you do not even need to define it. I am only trying to find out; if you put that clause in there, why do you call it -- “global practice” and come and define it as “international best practices”?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Member, is it that “global” is now “global practice”?
Alhaji Dauda 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we wanted to provide a clearer meaning of that word “global” and the drafters advised that we could take it under the Interpretation. This is what was agreed upon. Mr Speaker, clause 2(c) says that --
“the objects of the Commission are to, develop a global approach on the demarcation and the delimi-tation of boundaries”,
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Order! Order! Let the Hon Minister -- And within the context, the Hon Minister is saying that it is not that simple to replace “international best practices” with “global approach” in that sentence and it was
just felt it would be desirable to further explain it.
Mr Oppon-Kusi 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, then
my suggestion is, instead of saying “needs international best practices”, why do we not say “global approach includes the use of international best practice”? Because from what he is saying, it is broader than the finishing here; here, you come to define it to mean exactly “international best practices”.
Alhaji Dauda 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in this
particular case, that is what we want. So it is put there, under “Interpretation.”
Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
for relevant bodies, I think there is an institution which has been left out -- Ghana Maritime Authority.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon
Member, we are not going global for the time being. So when we finish globalising, we would come to the second part of the amendment.
Hon Minority Leader, you wanted to comment on the “global approach”?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:30 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker. When we mentioned it, I was scouring through the Bill to see if it has captured in any other place apart from clause (2)(c) and if, indeed, it is the only place, do we then need any interpretation? Then of course, what we intend it to mean, we cannot adopt that at that place.
When I first read it, I thought that “developing a global approach” really meant “developing a more holistic approach” or if you like, “a very comprehensive approach”. If you are talking about international best practices and because it is the only place that it has been used, why go to the “Interpretations”
to define it? Then of course, you can adopt that construction here and then we move on.
Alhaji Dauda 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as I indicated, that was what we proposed at the Committee level, but the drafters advised that we take it there. If this House decides that we take it --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Very
well. This House is entitled to -- Hon Minority Leader, would you want to give us a rendition that captures the original and then we make progress? And that is why at the Consideration Stage sometimes, you would need to go backwards, whether you like it or not.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:30 p.m.
Mr
Speaker, we could say:
“The objects of the Commission are to, in this case, adopt international best practices on the demarcation and delimitation of boundaries”--
because it is the only place that it appears.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
And that is clause -- Hon Minority Leader, can you advise us where that appears?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in clause 2(c).
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Members, I hope you are following this clearly? So that we delete “global approach” and amend clause 2(c), placing there “adopt international best practices”, and then the rest continues. Is that clear? I will put the Question.
Alhaji Dauda 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, before you take the vote, we are advised by the experts that rather than using “practices”, we should say “best practice”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Very well; “adopt international best practice,” where “practice” is singular collective.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
We are still on clause 20.
Hon Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi, now “Relevant Bodies”.
Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 20, add “Ghana Maritime Authority”.
Mr Speaker, this was the point I made earlier, the inclusion of Ghana Maritime Authority as one of the most important relevant bodies.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
That we should add “Ghana Maritime Authority”.
Chairman of the Committee?
Mr Gbediame 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the “Ghana Maritime Authority” does not spoil anything. We only wanted to emphasise on some, but it may include it. So we can add it.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Very well. The idea is that even though the word is inclusive, it would be useful to add “Ghana Maritime Authority” and the Chairman of the Committee has no objection.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the “tertiary institutions”, I think the Ghana Maritime Authority is also part of the tertiary institutions. [Interruptions.]
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
No. The Ghana Maritime Authority is not an educational institution.
Mr Agyeman-Manu 4:30 p.m.
How relevant are tertiary educational institutions to this Commission? [Pause.]
Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, first, reacting to the point made by -- [Interruptions.] Mr Speaker, we have the Regional Maritime University; that is a tertiary institution. Ghana Maritime Authority is an Authority in the Ministry of Transport.
\
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Order! Order! The Hon Professor, please, go on -- You have finished?
So Hon Minister. [Pause.] The Hon Minister too has decided to take his seat. I think that should lay this to rest. We are to add “Ghana Maritime Authority” to Lands Commission, Forestry -- It appears you have a lot of lobbyists to attract the Speaker's attention.
Hon Member, you may make your contribution, as a result of the persistence of your lobbyists.
An Hon Member 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, under clause 20 - “Relevant Bodies”. I think there is an important body which has been left out, the Ghana Navy. [Interruptions.] Yes, we are talking of “Relevant bodies” -- Interpretation. Mr Speaker, “inter- pretation” and we are adding ”Relevant bodies”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Members, the Question is, “Relevant Bodies” include “Lands Commission, Fores t ry Commiss ion , Minera l s Commission, Tertiary Institutions and Ghana Maritime Authority”.
Alhaji Abukari 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker -- [Interruptions.]
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Members, I will put the Question on the entire clause -
Alhaji Abukari 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we
cannot talk on this thing without the
Ministry of Defence. Where is the security basis? What security are we talking about? If the Ministry of Defence is not there -- [Interruptions] -- What? National Security Council? The National Security Council is not under the Ministry of Defence, do not make a mistake.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Member, you could have lobbied the Chairman earlier on this if you seriously meant it.
Alhaji Abukari 4:30 p.m.
In fact, it just came to my notice that we have not even mentioned Ministry of Defence at all -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Members, one thing is certain; the list is not exhaustive, it includes and -
Alhaji Abukari 4:30 p.m.
So let us add Ministry of Defence -- [Interruptions.] Let us put it there -- [Interruption] not Interior, we do not want policemen there. The Navy is under the Ministry of Defence - [Interruptions.] No, no. You cannot go and single out Navy out of the Ministry of Defence. Navy is under the Ministry of Defence; what are you talking about?
Question put and amendment negatived.
Clause 20 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21 - Repeal and Savings.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Dr. Prempeh, do you have an amendment on clause 21?
Dr Prempeh 4:30 p.m.
No, Mr Speaker, I wanted to bring to your notice - you said at the Consideration Stage, you are a bit flexible. So if we could kindly listen to what our Hon Friend from Tamale North (Alhaji Sumani Abukari) is insisting on.
Under the membership of the
Commission, I realized that we have Minister for Energy, Minister for Food and Agriculture, and whatnots - [Interruption] - We have deleted them and we have brought two.
But the Minister for Defence is very very important. The Minister for Defence is not National Security Council -- [Interruptions] - Foreign Affairs is there. Defence is an oversight. The Ministry of Defence, Attorney-General -- [Interruption.]
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon. Member, it is not like the Hon Member was not listened to. Your statement suggests that he was not listened to. Indeed - But well, we said it is better to listen to him, because he was listened to and the Hon Minister, in fact, responded and then it was truncated. The essence of that provision is that it is inclusive, and that was what was captured as the mood of the House.
rose
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Member, you may speak. You want to speak on clause 21 or something else?
Alhaji Abukari 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, before I come to clause 21, I want to insist that the Ministry of Defence be included in this list. Talking of Ghana Navy is wrong. You remember that when I made my contribution, I said we needed to have strong security and I said we should well equip the Navy and we should properly equip the Air Force. I made those comments, and those institutions are under the Ministry of Defence.
The National Security Co-ordinator has nothing to do with the Ministry of Defence. If we are talking of security, it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence, which is supposed to -- [Inter- ruption] The Ministry of Defence is supposed to - [Interruption.]
Mr Dery 4:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that what my Hon Brother on the other side is saying is important but we have already amended clause 5 to include “The National Security Council,” not “Co-ordinator”, and the National Security Council includes Defence. National Security Council is included and therefore, I do not see why we should now begin to include them separately. The National Security Council, which is headed by the President or the Vice President is the one that should be represented.
Alhaji Abukari 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is the Armed Forces Council that includes the Ministry of Defence, not National Security Council.
Mr Opare-Ansah 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my Hon Colleague is very wrong. Article 83(1) of the Constitution specifies that:
“There shall be a National Security Council which shall consist of -
(c) the Ministers for the time
being holding the portfolios of foreign affairs, defence, interior and finance and such other Ministers as the President may determine.”
So there is a superior body, the National Security Council having representation there. Why do we want to force a lower body that is the Ministry of Defence there?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Thank you very much. It is quite clear that the Ministry of Defence is well provided for.
Mr Albert Kan-Dapaah 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
I think it will be very useful to have the Ministry of Defence here. Mr Speaker, this whole thing about maritime boundary is about the Ministry of Defence and the Navy. It will be very very odd to leave them out. You just cannot leave them out.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon
Members, in line with our flexibility policy at Consideration Stage, shall we say that we further amend the list to include Ministry of Defence?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just to tidy up, I think early on, we had said that the Board was to assume the functions of the Commission. So the last bit, what is captured here as clause 5(3), which now may become clause 5(4) would have to be deleted and in its place, we shall have “The Board shall perform the functions of the Commission”. And so then, it puts it beyond doubt that the Board now is the Commission.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Minister, for the avoidance of doubt - thank you. Since the Hon. Minister is agreeable -
Dr Prempeh 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, conse-
quentially, since we have increased - [Interruptions] - Oh! It has been agreed, the number by one, it should go to eight, not seven -- [Interruption] - The quorum -- [Interruption.]
Alhaji Dauda 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, you would recall that first, we voted on that one. [Interruption.] We have not voted on it? [Interruption.]All right, then let us take that vote and after that I will raise the issue.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Members, in view of the amendment we have just had by including the Ministry of Defence, we now have, for the governing body, number 14 -
Mr Pelpuo 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it was on
definition of relevant bodies where -- [Interruption] -- Clause 5? [Some Hon Members - Yes.] But how can you have 14 members?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
I just wanted to draw our attention to whether clause 5(1) in terms of membership would now number 14.
Mrs Gifty E. Kusi 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we have to include Members of Parliament, at least, two Members of Parliament on the governing body because we have Ministers there. We have to get Members of Parliament there because every governing board that we did in this Parliament, we put Members of Parliament there. There are Ministers there, why are we not there?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Members, the attention was mainly to the numbers, so let us address ourselves to that.
Mr Gbediame 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the issue of the representation of Ministry of Defence came up when we were considering the interpretation of “include”. Therefore, that is “relevant bodies”, where Hon Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi indicated that we should add “Maritime Authority”. The Hon Member for Tamale Central (Mr I. A. B. Fuseini) also then said we could ignore the Ministry of Defence as an institution.
Therefore, the membership still stands at 13 but the relevant bodies as being interpreted is where the “Defence” came in. Let us get the things clearly.
Dr Prempeh 4:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, when the Hon Member for Tamale North (Alhaji Sumani Abukari) was speaking about the essence of the Ministry of Defence, he was
looking for the relevant clause and it was clause 5. So he talked about clause 5. And the former Hon Minister for Defence is here, you can ask him -- [Interruptions] - He is sitting here.
Alhaji Abukari 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, when I said it was important, I meant it was important, not to add it to “other relevant bodies”, not what I meant. It was to come under clause 5, that was what I said, not under “other relevant bodies”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
In
actual fact, the Question was put that way and that is why I am now coming back to the numbers so that we do not have an even number. I just wanted to draw Members' attention to the even number of 14 now. So we just want to make sure that we want to keep the even number or we want to add to make it odd as is usually so.
Yes, Deputy Majority Leader, then Hon Minister.
Mr Pelpuo 4:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that there is a mistake here. You cannot have a representation from the National Security Council which includes the Ministry of Defence; you have Navy which includes Ministry of Defence and you have Ministry of Defence. So I think that we should clean it up and have a representation that reflects the Ministry of Defence we are talking about.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Very well, so that the Ministry of Defence should be exclusive with clause 20 and it should not be applicable to clause 5. Let that be very clear. And that one is a matter of just clarity.
Alhaji Abukari 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is not the point. Mr Speaker, if you look at clause 5(1)(e), it talks of “one representative of the Ghana Navy”, which is part of the Ministry of Defence. Why
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Please, once more.
Alhaji Abukari 4:30 p.m.
Pardon, Sir?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Please, read that again.
Alhaji Abukari 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 5(1)(e) says, “one representative of the Ghana Navy not below the rank of Captain”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
And you suggest that?
Alhaji Abukari 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I suggest that we put “the Minister for Defence or his representative not below the rank of Colonel”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Order! What the Hon Member is suggesting is that we could cure the difficulty by replacing what we have under clause 5(1) (e) by way of “the Minister for Defence or a representative not below the rank of Colonel”.
Alhaji Abukari 4:30 p.m.
Or a service commander, if you want.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
“ M i n i s t e r f o r D e f e n c e o r h i s representative.” Definitely, he will bring an appropriate person. If it is the Minister himself, he is likely to bring the Chief of Defence Staff or an appropriate person or his representative. In other words, we want to ensure that the Minister is there as well.
Yes, Hon Kan-Dapaah? I want Hon Kan-Dapaah to speak, then I will call the Minority Chief Whip.
Mr Kan-Dapaah 4:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
as I said earlier, this whole thing about maritime boundary is very much to do with the Armed Forces, the Ministry of Defence. I think we should have under clause 5(b), and probably (b)(i), somebody from the Ministry of Defence.
Mr Speaker, it is important to explain that we have the Ministry of Defence and then the Armed Forces. What they refer to here under (e) as “one representative of the Ghana Navy”, in my view will come from the Navy, the Armed Forces, so he should still be there.
But we want somebody to come from the Ministry of Defence. Either the Minister or somebody from the Ministry of Defence. There is a whole lot of difference between the Minister for Defence and the Armed Forces. This is very much in their area and I think having somebody from the Ministry is important, and having somebody from the Navy is equally important.
Mr Opare-Ansah 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in line with what the former Minister for Defence and the Chairman for the Select Committee on Defence and Interior are saying, if you look at the composition of the Commission currently, and the fact that we are giving some preferential place to the Navy, we seem to be biased towards water boundaries. But we should not forget that this is a Commission for boundaries and tomorrow, it may be on land and you will need somebody from ground troops to be on the Commission.
Tomorrow, it may be some inland water boundary where it is not the Navy but probably, patrol from the air. So I think we should be a bit more generic there and leave it - If it is for two places for the Ministry of Defence; one, a civil officer and one, an armed officer, then we leave it for the Ministry of Defence to determine at any time whether it is to be a Naval Officer, an Air Force Officer or -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
So you are standing by the formulation “the Minister for Defence or his repre- sentative”? [Interruptions.]
Yes, so instead of the earlier proposition, clause 5(1) -
Alhaji Dauda 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is important to include the security on this Board and that is why we have the National Security Council represented. We also have the Ghana Navy. But if my Colleague feels strongly that the Ministry of Defence must be on the Board, we will delete “Ghana Navy” and replace it with the Ministry of Defence.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Minister, that is exactly what we are talking about now. That is exactly the amendment now on the floor of the House, that we replace -
Alhaji Dauda 4:30 p.m.
So the number will not change?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
The number will not change.
Alhaji Dauda 4:30 p.m.
Thank you, Sir.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
So that we replace “one representative of the Ghana Navy not below the rank of Captain” with “the Minister for Defence or his representative”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Alhaji Collins Dauda 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would want to take you back to clause 3(c ).
Mr Speaker, you would recall that the Hon Minority Leader suggested or proposed the deletion of “determined”,
and its replacement with “deemed”, which was acceptable -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Clause
3?
Alhaji Dauda 4:30 p.m.
Clause 3(c )
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Will you kindly read?
Alhaji Dauda 4:30 p.m.
It says --
“whenever determined necessary by the Board, place, bays or other maritime markets along some or all of the course of Ghana Maritime Boundaries.”
And in that subclause, the Minority Leader convinced us to delete “deter-mined” and insert “deemed,” which was acceptable to the House.
Mr Speaker, when we went out for consultation with the experts as you directed, the drafters advised that “determined” is more legal than “deemed”, and therefore the preference must be retaining what is in the Bill.
Mr E. K. D. Adjaho 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that the proper term to use there is “deemed necessary”. The reason, Mr. Speaker, is because if “necessary” were not there, I would have agreed to the “determined”. But because “deter- mination” connotes a technical term, that you must make a determination first. But when you put “necessary” there, you see, then that technical essence, that technical value that we are attaching to “determine” goes away.
Therefore -- [Interruption] -- But that is not what you are saying, and you were the one who led - you were the one sitting here with your technocrats who said that you agreed; you who led the chorus to support it. So, my problem, Mr Speaker, is that if you want to keep the “determine”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
They say wise men quickly change their minds when they find it wise to do so.
Alhaji Dauda 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with the Minority Leader, except to say that I did not get “capricious” from him this time round. Nevertheless, Mr Speaker, I tend to go with the proposal made by the Hon First Deputy Speaker that if we are using “determined”, we may probably delete “necessary”. If that is the feeling of the House, I have no objection.
Mr Adjaho 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the amend- ment is that clause 3(c ), after “determined” delete “necessary”. That is all.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Long Title.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, amend the Long Title to read:
“An Act to establish the Ghana Boundary Commission to undertake negotiations to determine and demarcate Ghana's land boundaries and delimit Ghana's maritime boundaries in consonance with accepted principles of public international law and diplomacy and to provide for related purposes.”
you Hon Minority Leader for changing your mind and it shows everybody can change his mind.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:30 p.m.
Mr
Speaker, I have not changed my mind -- [Laughter.] But Mr Speaker, it is for the consideration of the House. If in the collective wisdom of the House we have to drop it, I do not mind.
Question put and amendment negatived.
The Long Title ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon
Members, that brings us to the end of the Consideration Stage.
Suspension of Standing Order 131 (1)
Minister for Lands and Natural Resources (Alhaji Collins Dauda) 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that not- withstanding the provisions of Standing Order 131(1) which require that when a Bill has passed through the Consideration Stage, the Third Reading thereof shall not be taken until at least twenty-four hours have elapsed, the motion for the Third Reading of the Ghana Boundary Commission Bill, 2010 may be moved today.
Mr G. B. K. Gbediame 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
I beg to second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this certainly is not an attempt to arrest the vote. Ordinarily, I would have wished that given the problems that we have endured, maybe, we saw the amendment as captured in the Votes and Proceedings. But I know that this is
there, then the “necessary” must go. But, on the other hand, I think that “deemed necessary” conveys -- there is a sense of arbitrariness in “deemed” but if you use “determined”, then you must make a determination before you do something.
There is a certain connotation of due process, a certain process that you would have to follow before you make that determination. But when you add “necessary”, it takes away even that determination that we are talking about in clause 3(c). It does not make sense at all. So if you want to keep the technical meaning of the “determined”, then the “necessary” must go and I do not have any objection to that at all.
So, accordingly, if it is the thinking of the Hon Minister who is in charge of this Bill that “determined” must be retained then “necessary” must be deleted.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would ordinarily not have anything against this change of heart and mind by the Minister.
Mr Speaker, when I made the proposal, I requested to know if we were to read any technical meaning into the word “determined”. I said if we could be apprised of any such connotation, then in my view, “determined” relates to some technical appraisal and determination, in which case, I felt we would be better served with “deemed”.
Mr Speaker, the First Deputy Speaker was in the Chair and he agreed with me in my analysis. The Minister jumped unto the bandwagon and agreed. Mr Speaker, when he moved to the defence -- to the backbench, operating from the defence -- he still agreed. Today, operating from the striker's role, he comes with a changed position.

Mr Speaker, that then captures the construction in the Constitution as we agreed. Unless the Minister -- [Interruptions] -- Mr Speaker, I think the Minister has forgotten. When we came to that, we said the construction would have to be part of the Long Title and we just took the substantive matters, that is, “in accordance with accepted principles of international law”. That is what we captured in clause 2 (a). And the one relating to “diplomacy”, we said we should situate it in the Long Title. That is all that I am saying.

So Mr Speaker, just to remind the Minister, that was the earlier agreement. But as he has demonstrated to us, he can change his mind, but I think it is not fatal to that construction.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, do I say you will not pursue your proposition because there will be no fatalities if things stand as they are?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-B onus 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as you said, unless the Minister has changed his mind, and he is entitled to change his mind, soul and body, I just wanted to remind that this was the position that we adopted.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, I take it you are not insisting?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the First Deputy Speaker was presiding and he agrees with me that that was the position that we adopted. But knowing the Minister for the chameleon- like attitude that he has been adopting today, in fact, this evening, Mr Speaker, for his sake, let me withdraw that piece because he remains an eternal friend.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Thank

a Closed Sitting and it will not reflect in the Votes and Proceedings. We may then have to wait to look at the proper form in which it has been captured and that is going to take quite some days. For that reason, I want to believe that the proper thing would be done. We want to see the eventual product.

That being the case and hoping and supposing that the Minister would relate favourably to other considerations -- [Laughter] - I would want to support the motion.
BILLS - THIRD READING 4:30 p.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
Hon
Members, that ends the Closed Sitting.