The Member for Sekondi. The Member for Sekondi makes a better case, and the drafters are better in this argument than the “substantial”. Maybe, he is thinking about his days that he was doing court cases, and then the courts had determined that some value can be put to the word “substantial”. The last person whose argument was to support the amendment even defeated his own case, because if it is by wholly or partial, then the value “substantial” does not come in.
So, if he is saying that because he wants the person who suffered the destruction to get it -- It is “partial” destruction; the value is different. “Substantial” talks about value, so if I partially destroy it, and somebody says that it is not substantial, then it means I will not get anything. If I partially destroy it, the “partial” entitles me to a fraction, even if it is a fraction. If I want the fraction or I do not want it, but that is not it. So, he was not even supporting it, he was defeating his own friend by this argument.
The argument is that, if the thing is “wholly or partially”-- But if we are talking about “substantially”, unless, we are saying that the courts have determined what is “substantial”, and you can refer to court cases as opposed to “partially”, that is different. But the “partially” rather entitles the person more to the value, - [Interruption] -- He is not reading the clause. I think that in that case, we should take the “partially”, not the “substan- tially”.