Debates of 17 Jun 2010

MADAM SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:50 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:50 a.m.
Madam Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Hon Members, Correction of Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, 16th June, 2010.
Page 1. . . 12 --
Yes, Hon Owusu-Ansah, are you standing ?
Mr Owusu-Ansah 10:50 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I got up inadvertently.
Madam Speaker 10:50 a.m.
All right.

In the absence of any corrections, the Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, 16th June, 2010 is adopted as the true record of proceedings.

Now, we move on to the Official Report of Tuesday, 15th June, 2010.

Any corrections?
Mr Joseph Boahen Aidoo 10:50 a.m.
Madam Speaker, column 724, the first paragraph under my submission, second line. There is a word there, “de-limit” is one word, it is not hyphenated. “Madam Speaker, sometimes it is very difficult to de-limit . . .” That word is one word, it is not hyphenated. And then column 725, the second paragraph, line 5. “We had about four Constituencies . . . ”
It is not “had”, it is “have”. Thank you.
Madam Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Any more correc- tions?
Hon Members, the Official Report of Tuesday, 15th June, 2010 as corrected represents the true record of proceedings.
We move on to item 4. The Laying of Papers.
PAPERS 10:50 a.m.
Mr Cletus A. Avoka 10:50 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I regret to inform the august House that I have been informed by the Committee that items 4 (b) (i) (ii) are not ready.
Madam Speaker 10:50 a.m.
So what do we do? Do we defer them?
Well, item 5 -- Mutual Legal Assistance Bill, 2009 at the Consideration Stage.
The Chair will be taken by the First Deputy Speaker.
11.00 a.m. -- [MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Hon Members, item 5 on the Order Paper -- Mutual Legal Assistance Bill, 2009 at the Consideration Stage.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 10:50 a.m.
STAGE 10:50 a.m.
Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:50 a.m.
Mr
Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1, subclause (1), line (3), after “arrangement” insert “or practice”.
So that the subclause would read:
“Subject to subsection (2), the provisions of this Act apply to mutual legal assistance in respect of criminal matters under an agreement, other arrangements or practice between the Republic and a foreign State or a foreign entity.”
Mr Speaker, the word “or” in line 3 would have to be deleted and then we have a comma after agreement. So it will be
“. . . under an agreement, other arrangements or practice between the Republic and the foreign State or foreign entity”.
Mr Bandua 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have no
objection to the amendment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:50 a.m.
But the title of the Bill itself pre-supposes that there should be a certain agreement between the parties or a certain arrangement between the parties involved. So, if it is by practice, what sort of practice? I need to be educated. I want to be educated on that matter so that we are all sure that we are doing the right thing. If it is a practice, what practice?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, if one considers clause 1, subsection (2), it reads --
“The provisions of this Act shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from an existent or future agreement, arrangement or practice . . .”
Now, with that agreement, the inclusion of practice, then we have to amend subclause (1) to be in sync with subclause
2.
Indeed, when we come to the Long Title, it will also have to be appropriately amended to reflect the sense in subsection (2) of clause 1. So that is the reason for introducing that amendment. Un- fortunately, the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and her Deputy, neither of them is around but we came to some agreement yesterday that that is the correct position.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader, where is the represen- tative of the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice here? This is a very technical Bill.
Mr Avoka 10:50 a.m.
Yes, indeed, Mr Speaker, I agree with you. Yesterday, the learned Attorney-General and Minister for Justice was with us during the winnowing till late in the night and she promised to be either here or her Deputy would be here; so I am confident that one of them is on the way coming. Because it is a technical Bill and one of them ought to be present --. [Interruption.]
Yes, Mr Speaker, with the experience, we had agreed during the winnowing on this amendment, that is why [Interruption.] in the presence of the learned Attorney- General and Minister for Justice.
Mr William O. Boafo 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, you were asking about what sort of practice; it is difficult to exhaust the practice here, but one thing that came out is the fact that there could be informal consultation among some Ministers and other authorities which could not be spelt out in the Bill -- Like the Hon Minister for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration, the Hon Minister for the Interior and National Security on certain issues. So, this is one of the practices which --
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:50 a.m.
No. I think that the Hon Minority Leader is absolutely right because he wants to bring consistency with that clause which is absolutely convincing. But you know
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, as the Hon Member for Akropong articulated, before this Bill, there perhaps, might have been some consultations, what has become some accepted convention. Of course, it should be mutually agreed on and if it is mutually agreed on and it becomes acceptable by the two parties, it becomes part of the practice of dealing with the countries or the entities.
As I said, we raised the matter, the
Attorney-General and Minister for Justice who was with us agreed that that should be the correct rendition. Unfortunately, she indicated to us that she might not be available this morning with us in the Chamber. She promised to send the Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice to the House to be with us.
I understand he is on his way coming. But really, there was not much disagreement -- there was not any disagreement on this amendment which was proposed and there being no disagreement, Mr Speaker, I
would entreat that you put the Question so that we could move ahead.
I notice the concerns that you have
raised but we well advanced the arguments and after the winnowing, we agreed that that should be the correct rendition.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Hon Member for Akropong, you know, this is in the area of criminal law and where people's rights would be involved. It is important that the practice is known to the law so that when the other person's lawyer goes to court, he knows that that practice is known to the law but not behind the scene arrangement that would offend good practice.
I am not trying to take part in the debate but I would have to be sure as to what we are doing because this is -- I am also coming from a certain background.
Mr Kwame Osei-Prempeh 11:10 a.m.
Mr
Speaker, in reality, I side with you. That was what I was telling my Hon Friend. Mutual legal assistance is a very formal agreement. The United Nations Conven- tion, we accede to it, we are part of it. It did not make room to practice. I was telling my Hon Friend that it involves the rights of people. At every particular time there should be certainty.
So you can say that this country and that country, for a particular issue, there is that practice. It becomes difficult challenging and protecting the right of that individual. So I believe, unless if it is mutually agreed on, then it is an arrange- ment, it is an agreement which is existing, not one which is a convention.
We are not even talking of a convention but a practice which is a loose word. I was telling my Hon Friend that I believe that we may be compromising the rights
of people and unless the Hon Attorney- General and Minister for Justice is able to tell us why she believes that it is proper, may I ask that we flag it so that when they are here they convince us.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Hon Members, we would defer clause 1 while we wait for the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice or the Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice so that we move on to the next clause.
Mr Boafo 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, there are other proposed amendments on clause 1 but you are saying that we are deferring them.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
I am sorry.
Chairman of the Committee (Mr Emmanuel K. Bandua) 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1 -- susbclause (2), line 2, delete “existent” and insert “existing”.
I think that word is more reader- friendly in this context.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we are told the word, “existing” is more user-friendly. My own thinking though is that, in the context, “existent” and “existing” mean the same thing because “existent” refers to what exists now, the reality, that is “existent”. But if he wants to use “existing”, as I said, it means the same thing. As far as I am concerned, it is a distinction without difference but if the Hon Chairman proposes that we use “existing”, who am I, a mortal being to challenge him?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
You are the Hon Minority Leader.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1, subclause (3), paragraph (b), delete “Ghana” and insert “the Republic”.
Mr Speaker, we refer to “Ghana” in this context as a legal entity and indeed, the “Republic” has also been defined in the Interpretation section to mean the “Republic of Ghana” and so if we employ the noun, the ‘Republic' in this context, it will be consistent with the other provisions in the legislation.
Mr Boafo 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I rise to support the amendment and in doing so, I would like to refer to page 58 of the Bill where we have the Interpretation column. The word ‘Republic' as a legal entity is defined under the Interpretation column, hence the proposed amendment.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1, subclause (3), add the following new paragraph:
“(c) that which constitutes conduct which is an offence only under military law or a law relating to military obligations”.
The purpose is that we do not intend
that acts that constitute an offence under military be captured under this Act; we have to exclude it, like, offences of a political nature cannot also be included. So we expect that conducts that constitute an offence under military law should not be captured under this law.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
What about if it is both an offence under a military law
Mr Bandua 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, maybe, the drafters will have to look at it and see whether they can satisfy that condition.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, whereas I get the sense in the new amendment being proposed, I believe the way it has been constructed is rather very cumbersome. If you read the subclause to include the proposed amendment, it may read thus:
“The provisions of this Act do not apply to an offence in a foreign State or with respect to a foreign entity where the offence is that which constitutes conduct, which is an offence only under military law or law relating to military obligation”.
Mr Speaker, that construction, in my view, is very cumbersome. So we need a neater way of capturing the sense that the Hon Chairman is proffering, in particular, if you read the second line, “where the offence is that which constitutes conduct”, it is weird. So, we may have to engage the drafters to have a better construction for us. So I would plead with the Chair if we could stand that one down and move on, knowing that we understand the principles underpinning the proposal.
11. 20 a.m.
Mr J. B. Aidoo 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in fact, the offences that this Bill seeks to deal with include war crimes and I cannot phantom how you will deal with war crimes without necessarily looking at
military obligations. For which reason, the proposed amendment, in my view, appears to be fathom here, it should not come at all and if the Chairman will consider withdrawing it, it will be proper.
The Bill itself is going to deal with war crimes, that is, when the Act is passed, it will be dealing with war crimes. So why then do you say that it should not cover military obligations? Can you remove military obligations from war activities? I find it difficult to agree with him. So I would want to say that this provision ought to be withdrawn completely.
Mr Bandua 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not think there is the need for us to withdraw this provision because, in any case, some countries may not like to discuss matters that are purely military with other States because of security reasons. So, I think that I will rather go with the suggestion that we look at the drafts-persons, if they capture it in a better way so that the sense that we are importing here would manifest.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Hon Members, I think we will go with the suggestion of the Hon Minority Leader that we defer it and move forward.
Mr Ebo Barton-Odro 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I just like to draw Hon Members attention to the provision in clause 15 (1), I think (f), it is captured there also. So if we are looking at it, let us look at it holistically.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
In fact, when I raised the red flag at first, it was because clause 15 takes care of what we are trying to do there and it becomes in my view, a bit redundant. But since I was not at the winnowing, I did not know what went into it. But if you look at clause 15 closely, it makes the new amendment
redundant in my view, but that is for the House to decide.
Hon Minority Leader, have you seen the subclause that --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the clause 15 gives amplification to what is being stated by the Chairman. Which is why I said that the principle is understandable. We were only concerned with how it has been captured. But clauses 14 and 15 give amplification to the issue being raised by the Chairman and that is why it should be supported. As I said, we are not too sure about the construction. So we can stand it down and look for a better construction.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Very well, with the presence of the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice, do we go back to the very first clause that we stood down waiting for them or we should proceed so that he gets time to settle down?
Very well, Hon Members, we are still on clause 1.
Mr Boafo 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1, subclause (5), line 2, delete “applies” and insert “and any other relevant enactment apply”.
Clause 1, subclause (5), there is a
provision which gives the right to modify the provisions of the Criminal and Other Offences Procedure Act.
Mr Speaker, at the same time, we have provisions in other enactments, which could be related to mutual legal assistance. Like the provisions in the Bill we considered yesterday -- the Economic and Organised Crime Bill. We have equally other provisions in the Narcotic Drugs Control Board Act and then we have also the Anti-Money Laundering Act and then the Anti- Terrorism Act and also the Exchange Control Act. That is why this
amendment is being proposed so that such procedures in other enactments could also apply with such modifications as would best be suitable for the implementation of this Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice, you know I have a certain attitude, I am sorry, let me declare my interest. I am coming from a criminal law practice background, as a former State-Attorney.
When criminalities involve people's rights, it must be very clear with regard to procedures that must be -- but when modifications are going to be made by people somewhere, giving discretion, it can affect the right of the accused person or the suspects and all those things and I do not think that this House should be encouraging modifications by people using procedures -- by people when it suits them, they use a certain procedure and they say that we are coming by modification.
This House, giving that level of discretion to people when criminal matters are involved, I do not know what your own is in terms of procedure. Because at times, procedure in criminal matters becomes very, very important as the substantive.
Mr Barton-Odro 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am inclined to agree with you. So as much as possible, we should try to avoid giving too much latitude as well as taking care of rights.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Absolutely. Hon Minority Leader, the amendment is proper if you want to retain it, my problem is the modification there.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the original proposal by my Hon Colleague, the Member for Akropong reads --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
In fact, the amendment by the Hon Member for Akropong is right, because by limiting it only to a particular enactment might not be the best. What I am also saying, which the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice responded to is where those modifications, where criminal matters are involved and then you put in a Bill, modifications would be made, under a law, that modification is going to affect the right of the individual in a criminal matter.
Procedure then -- at dawn you come for me because I am modifying the procedure -- so at dawn 5.00 a.m., 2.00, a.m. you come for me because somebody is saying that he is modifying those procedures as to the time they should come for a suspect. 11.30 a.m. John
I think that this House should take a
closer look again at that. The procedure is not my problem but the modifications; and we are giving a certain latitude to somebody and this House must be very cautious in doing that, that is what I am saying. Again, I am a servant of this Honourable House, whatever you decide,
I am at your will.
Mr J. B. Aidoo 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I
completely agree with you. If we leave the word “modification” there, it would leave room for tampering with the law when it comes to giving justice and I think that that will not augur well for this particular law that we are trying to enact. Therefore, that word “modification” ought to be removed. So I agree with you.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Hon
Members, do we defer it and do further consultations? Hon Minority Leader, let us do further consultation on this. Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice, why can you not sit down with your technical people and give us specific procedure in relation to mutual legal assistance so that we do not go looking for another criminal offence with its own modification? Why do you not pay people to sit down and do their work so that they can come out with a specific procedure that would relate to mutual legal assistance?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, my understanding of that construction, that is, the Criminal and Other Offences Procedure Act 1960, Act 30, with its new amendment proposed. So it will read:
“The Criminal and Other Offences Act 1960 and any other relevant enactment apply with modifications that may be necessary in respect of this Act.”
My understanding of “with modifica- tion” is the application of those laws to sit in tandem with the Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA). Of course, sometimes, if you look at its strictness of application, it may be difficult to inject it into the MLA, so you look at how it would be structured to fit into the MLA.
Mr Speaker, that is my understanding.
But if there is any other interpretation that could be given to this phraseology such that giving it a neater structure will obstruct the administration of justice, then perhaps, we need to do further consulta- tion. But I thought that I was clear in my mind the intendment of that construction.
Mr Boafo 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe that the section deals with procedure, that is why the original proposed amendment talked about procedure in other enactments. It is not intended to affect substantive law at all in other enactments. I think we can try to overcome your views that you have expressed on this issue by stating in that provision that the modification should be necessary and consistent with the provisions of this Act. If we give it such a rendition, I think it will take care of “necessary and consistent” in the provision of this Act.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Very well. I think we are making progress. I think that is a suggestion that will take care of everybody's concern.
Mr Barton-Odro 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, actually, the modification there was meant to take care of the mutual legal assistance situation, where you are dealing with different countries. Therefore, if we should qualify the modification, I think it will take care of the concerns that have been raised by Hon Members -- as suggested by Hon Boafo.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Hon Boafo, if you can get a rendition that will take care of the rights or the human rights chapter of the Constitution, I think that will be all right for all of us. I can put the Question on this clause, then we can get a new clause to take care of your suggestion -- You are doing it now. Before I put the Question, is it going to be part of it?
Mr Boafo 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, let us try a new rendition to see whether it will help.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Very well.
Mr Boafo 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition will be as follows:
“The Criminal and Other Offences Procedure Act, 1960, Act 30 and any other relevant enactment apply with modifications that may be necessary and not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.”
Mr Avoka 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree but instead of “…that may be necessary and not inconsistent with this Act”, it should be “…that may be necessary and consistent with this Act.” It is more positive than to say “. . . that may be necessary and not inconsistent…”
Mr Osei-Prempeh 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, unfortunately, I disagree with the whole amendment. Mr Speaker, let me refer you to page (ii) of the memorandum, the first paragraph. It says:
“Mutual legal assistance is generally subject to the existence of a criminal procedure in the requesting State.”
That is paramount in having the law. That is on page (ii) of the memorandum.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Is it page (ii) of the memorandum?
Mr Osei-Prempeh 11:10 a.m.
Yes.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Which paragraph?
Mr Osei-Prempeh 11:10 a.m.
The first paragraph. The paragraph starts from the first page, the second sentence. It reads:
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Hon Member for Nsuta/Kwamang/Beposo, move your amendment, then we take it on board.
Mr Osei-Prempeh 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (5), delete “with modifications”. So that it will read:
“The Criminal and Other Offences Procedure Act, 1960, Act 30 shall apply.”
That is all.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon Member, you know that that Act, the 1960 Act itself has undergone several
amendments. Let us get the rendition right --
Mr Osei-Prempeh 11:40 a.m.
But Mr Speaker, still it is the Act. With all its numerous amendments, it forms Act 30. So if you say that it includes all the amendments -- It has undergone several amendments so it is not necessarily as amended, it is the Act. It remains so.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:40 a.m.
Mr
Speaker, the amendment moved by the Hon Member for Nsuta/Kwamang/Beposo (Mr Osei-Prempeh) appears to place emphasis only on procedures. But Mr Speaker, clause (1) relates to the scope of application of the entire Mutual Legal Assistance Bill (MLA).
I believe the amendment proposed by the Hon Member for Akropong (Mr William O. Boafo), holds good in this regard because there are other enactments, provisions of which could apply in the MLA. So we are talking about the entire scope, not merely the procedures. If we are talking about the procedures, then his amendment would be valid. But we are considering the scope of the Mutual Legal Assistance Bill before us.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon Minority Leader, if you are talking about the scope, that particular subclause which is the subject matter of the amendment now, is only dealing with procedure; the Act that they are referring to only deals with procedure.
I agree that it is talking about scope. But that particular clause is only dealing with procedure to be applied.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the application could be granted if we could have a further amendment to include the amendment proposed by the Hon Member for Akropong. If that is the understanding, then of course, we could limit that subclause to the issue of procedures and in that case, I will agree with the Hon Member for Nsuta/ Kwamang/Beposo, that is, dealing with
procedures. It is only that enactment with its amendments that should hold.
But we should then create space for the amendment proposed by the Hon Member for Akropong which then would not strictly be dealing with procedures, but then be bringing up for consideration, the scope of the Mutual Legal Assistance Act.
rose rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
The Hon Member for Akropong, then the Hon Majority Leader.
Mr Boafo 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Member for Nsuta/Kwamang/Beposo (Mr Osei-Prempeh) referred to portions of the memorandum. But preceding that portion, there have been references to other enactments covering other areas of our criminology. That is on page 1, paragraph 3, there is reference to the Narcotic Drugs Control Enforcement and Sanctions Law; we have the Anti-Money Laundering Act, then we have Transfer of Convicted Persons.
When you go to the last paragraph, they talk about Anti-Terrorism and so on and so forth. Mr Speaker, these are enactments which have provisions in respect of prosecution, that is procedures. So, he cannot say that so far as criminal law practice is concerned in this country, we have only Act 30 to cover prosecution of criminals.
There are other enactments which contain procedure provisions and that is precisely what we are trying to do with this particular subclause. We acknowledge that the Act 30 is the primary one but there are other provisions to supplement the provisions of Act 30, which must be
acknowledged.
Mr Avoka 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I disagree with the amendment proposed by Hon Kwame Osei-Prempeh and I have my sympathy with the position taken by Hon William O. Boafo.
Mr Speaker, the purpose of Hon Osei- Prempeh's amendment will unduly tie -- [Interruption] -- Yes, if we yield to his amendment, it will unduly tie our hands as far as enforcing the provisions of this law is concerned; it will unduly restrict us. So, like Hon William Boafo said, there are other proceedings or other laws that provide proceedings that are not necessarily inconsistent with Act 30 but have some differences.
So the golden interpretation is that, we should make provision that will ensure that we can implement this law that we are putting in place now. So, anything that is inconsistent and that will not yield or will not support or assist the implementation of this law, must be frowned upon. It is against this background that the provision with modifications that is consistent with this law, is well in place. So, I think that we should not yield to that amendment but stick by the original one -- I mean the amendment proposed by him.
Mr Osei-Prempeh 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am surprised my Friend, the Hon Member for Akropong was referring to the other laws. Those are substantive laws. And as you rightly pointed out, the whole of clause 1 is on scope and clause 1 (5) deals with procedure. So if you are talking of procedure and you are referring to all the other Acts, that they all constitute -- it is wrong. I am not saying that the whole of that clause is about the procedure but subclause (5) stands out as being for procedure.
If we as a nation have to convince others who are dealing with us that we have a Criminal Procedure Act existing, then they refer to that. So if you are saying that all those Acts have been referred to, so we are bringing them on board, I disagree

totally. And if you say with modifications, what are the modifications needed?

If you have an existing Act for procedure, it must be known to everybody. This is a law with international dimensions, so it is not to be given to other people to modify it for one case and modify it for another case. That is why I disagree with the modifications.

If you are even saying the Criminal Procedure Act with modifications, fine. But even the modifications, who does the modifications? So, I believe that there need to be certainty so that other people who deal with us will not say that they were not given fair trial or that this did not happen or that did not happen. I believe it may be proper to stick to what is there and the amendment I have made.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon Members, the point referred to by the Hon Member for Nsuta/Kwamang/Beposo, (what he refers to in the Memorandum to the Bill) is that --
“Mutual Legal Assistance is generally subject to the existence of criminal procedure in the requesting State.”
So, they also go back and look at the law in the “requesting State”. If we put “modifications” there, who does the modifications? Who does the modifications if we still keep the “modifications” there? That is the hurdle we have to clear.
Mr Boafo 11:50 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I recall freshly that yesterday when we were considering the Economic and Organised Crimes Bill, we had the occasion to caution the new office about the powers which were being given to them in respect of arrests, searches and so forth. These are equally contained in Act 30 but we find them in the new Bill.
I concede that we have not finished
with it but I do not think that we are going to expunge that from the new Bill. I cannot recollect it readily, the provisions in the other enactments. But I have read it and I am sure there are other provisions relating to procedures.
When you talk about procedures, you are not only referring to procedures in the courtroom. We refer to procedures even prior to arraignment of the accused persons, and that is what I can readily recollect in the Economic and Organised Crimes Bill.
Mr Speaker, I quite agree, we find it difficult to retain the modification and that is why we are going to the extent of introducing consistencies or inconsis-tencies. So, if there is going to be uncertainty or ambiguity in retention of “modification”, we can have it deleted and have a new rendition. But so far as procedures are concerned, I disagree entirely that it is confined only to Criminal and Other Offences Procedure Act.
Mr Firsts Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
I think we have spent enough time on this matter. We should be making progress. But let me hear the Majority Leader, then the Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice.
Mr Avoka 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I just wanted to draw our attention to clause 1, subclause (6), that gives strength to the earlier provision. And it says and with your permission, I quote:
“The provisions of this Act shall effect with the modifications that may be necessary to give effect to a foreign entity that makes and receives requests for mutual legal assistance.”
We should not bind ourselves to Act 30; no. That is why I am saying it would be unduly tying our hands and the rest of
them.
Mr Osei-Prempeh 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, this is the substantive law. If we are going to deal with other countries, we have our laws, they have their laws. We look at them and therefore, to this Act; there may be modifications to suit it. Not an existing law which deals with the procedure; case by case, we are going to do modifications to give effect to it; no.
Mr Barton-Odro 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, actually, as the Hon Majority Leader stated, if you look at subclause (6), it gives somehow the rationale behind all this issue of modification. This is because we are dealing with other countries whose laws might not be in tandem with ours and therefore, there would be the need to be flexible somehow or the other. That is why we think that the modification is necessary.
But because of concerns raised by Hon Members, we could qualify it as the Hon Member for Akropong, Mr Boafo has suggested, so that we ensure that it is consistent with our laiddown Acts and so on. We want to be sure that we are doing the right thing. Otherwise, we could completely delete the “modification” issue and go ahead. That would not affect --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice, the subclause (6) that the Hon Majority Leader referred to, there is no problem. But here, we are doing modifications to the Criminal Procedure Act. You come for me at 2.00 a.m. because some big party wanted to come for me, and because you wanted to get your loan approved and they are looking for me, you do it with some special favour and come for me at 2.00 a.m. or 3.00 a.m. Is that what you are saying?
Who does the modification? This is a law we are passing; it must be very clear
Mr Barton-Odro 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, that is why I am saying that we thought the modifications would take care of the interactions between two different States. But if it is going to create problems, we can forget about it. But if we should maintain it, then we can maintain it with some qualification to ensure that nothing like you are suggesting would crop up, as far as the rights of an accused person or any other person go.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Oh, he has not spoken today; let me hear him.
Mr Yaw Baah 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I tend to side with the proposal, that is the rendition by the Hon Member for Nsuta/ Kwamang/Beposo, Mr Osei-Prempeh. This is because if you look at clause 5, it is speaking exclusively of the scope -- procedure -- one shot. If you look at that of the subsequent one, that is clause 6, it is speaking, that is, re-emphasising. It is different from that of the clause 5. So far as Ghana is concerned, it is the Act 30, the scope and the procedure; that is the whole thing.
With regard to that of clause 6, it is speaking of a different thing. So we need to retain his rendition, that so far as this issue is concerned, it is Act 30 that must be applicable.
Mr J. B. Aidoo 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I want to
add a small thing to what the Hon Member has just said.
In terms of procedure, Act 30 is the parent law and all the other procedures relating to the criminal laws are subject to Act 30, and once Act 30 is the parent law, then it more or less takes precedence over all the other laws, for which reason,
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Hon Minister for Local Government and Rural Development, then I would hear the Hon Deputy Majority Leader.
Mr Joseph Y. Chireh 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in making this, I think that we should even delete the subclause. If we are not deleting it, then we must say that as far as this Bill is concerned, special procedures will be adapted to conform to the international standards. If you want to subject this Bill to Act 30, that is not correct. Indeed, it would be very difficult for both the prosecutors and judges as to how to modify Act 30. How are they going to modify it?
You can except that in the case of this Bill, the procedures would be the ones that conform to international standards and not the local ones. This is because if you say Act 30, Act 30 has a rigorous way through things must be done. If you ask somebody to modify it, who is to sit down and modify it? The judge or the prosecutor?
So in my view, given the nature of this law, certain standards ought to be observed and so long as they are internationally acceptable, they should not be subject to modification of the existing Act. The existing Act is specific for all other criminal activities.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
So what is your final position?
Mr Chireh 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, my position is that we should rather say, in the case of this Act, Act 30 may not apply.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
You started well, but your conclusion is more
confusing than anybody's.
Mr Abdul-Rashid Pelpuo 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I was going to say that the amendment by Hon Osei-Prempeh should be the one we should go with. The reason is this: if you introduce this word “modification”, it is going to cloud the meaning of the clause, because we need to have direct, easy interpretation of the law where you do not have issues which would now require that somebody else has to interpret it in another form before finally you are understood.
So I believe very strongly that we have come of age where the law must be direct to laymen like us who would read it once and understand what it is. If we say “with modifications” and we do not know what the modifications are, we do not know who is going to do the modification, we do not know even what Act 30 represents--
But if you see and know a direct representation of it, making reference to Act 30 which you can read, you do not need to modify anything, it would sound better and directly understood by readers. So I think that amendment he has proposed is the best and that is what we should go with.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
Mr Speaker, having listened to other contributors, I am now more than convinced that we should adopt what is here and further amend this as proposed by the Hon Member for Akropong. This is because Mr Speaker, the proposal by the Hon Minister responsible for Local Government and Rural Development [Laughter --] is really introducing greater confusion.
Mr Speaker, I thought the way he started canvassing the argument was brilliant but he crash-landed. Mr Speaker, this Mutual Legal Assistance is ferrying us to a new terrain. There is the Criminal
and Other Offences Procedure Act, 1960, Act 30, the procedure would apply with modifications that are going to be introduced by this law as well as what exists in other countries which may impact on what is to be done.
Mr Speaker, however, we should still define the path and that is, what is being proposed by the Member for Akropong, that we qualify the modifications, that we say with “modifications that may be necessary but consistent with this Act”. They may be necessary but consistent with this Act, the intendment of this Act.
Mr Speaker, I believe that is a better way to capture it rather than leaving our behind unclosed and allowing any intrusions that may prove very uncomfortable to victims.
Mr Speaker, I believe, initially, when the Hon Member for Nsuta made his proposal, I thought it had to do with the emphasis on procedure as against the remit, the total scope; I thought that was the original idea.
But now, looking at the argument proffered by the Hon Member for Akropong, I believe we can go with the necessary modifications as further proposed by him, that we add “but consistent with this Act”. Mr Speaker, I believe we would be home and dry if we had that construction, and then we move on.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Members, at this point, I will defer it for further consultations to be done. It is not best practice when criminal matters are involved to leave those matters in the hands of some people to modify. It is not best practice and I think that that “modification” that is being put in that subclause there, in my considered opinion, is very dangerous.
I have learned my lesson. I have learned my lesson through the hard way; creating elasticity into criminal practice is not the best. I would want us to defer it and I believe that this House, in its own wisdom, will arrive at a rendition that would be acceptable to all of us before we finally pass this Bill. So I will not put the Question on the entire clause 1; we move to clause 2.
Clause 2 -- Designated foreign States and foreign entities.
Mr Bandua noon
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2, subclause (1), line 1, before “entities” delete “foreign”. So the new rendition will be:
“The States and entities that appear in the Schedule to this Act are designated as foreign States and entities for the purpose of this Act.”
The reason is that since in line 2, we have foreign States and foreign entities, I do not think there is any need for us to bring “foreign” in line 1.
I beg to move.
Mr Chireh noon
Mr Speaker, I go along
with the amendment but I will seek his permission to further amend by removing the “foreign” before the “States”. Once you say “States”, you should not qualify it. “States” include other States, so if he is removing the “foreign” before this, we should as well remove “foreign” before the “States” and leave the other “foreign entities” to be there.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
Mr Speaker, I rather go along with the proposal proffered by the Chairman and I disagree with the further amendment proposed by the Minister responsible for Local Government and Rural Development. Mr Speaker, because the use of the word “foreign” does not apply to “States” as captured in the first line. So the “States and entities”, we are removing the “foreign”
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon


qualifying the “entities” in line 1.

For line 2, the use of the word “foreign” has relevance, that is, applying to “States” and “entities”. So the rendition would be:

“The States and entities that appear in the Schedule to this Act are designated as foreign States and foreign entities for the purpose of this Act.”

Mr Speaker, so I support the motion moved by the Chairman of the Committee.
Mr Chireh noon
Mr Speaker, I think that he is getting me wrong. When you say “States”, impliedly, if you had said “State” in the singular, that is where you could mean the Ghanaian State. But normally, in this internationally fora, once you say “States”, you either say “State parties” which would have been the most appropriate thing or “States”. But once you use the word “States”, it includes other States.
You cannot have more than one State within Ghana and therefore, my suggestion is that if you are removing, the only thing, that you should use to qualify, is the “States and foreign entities”. Because an entity can be in any country or any State. But the “States” as we have indicated, means more than one country or more than one State and therefore, you do not need to qualify it as foreign. It is redundant and it should not be allowed to stay there; it could only qualify the “State and foreign entities”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
Mr Speaker, if the Hon Minister had applied his mind to the Interpretation section, page 56, I believe he would not be advancing the argument that he has advanced. Besides, Mr Speaker, we started from clause 1 and we have dealt with foreign States
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Members, I will put the Question on the amendment moved by the Chairman.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
Absolutely, Mr Speaker, I agree with you.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2, subclause (2), delete.
Mr Speaker, the reason for this amendment is that it is not necessary to legislate that. The Attorney-General and Minister for Justice may have to consult the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration before taking that decision. I think we should give the Minister a free hand. If it becomes necessary for her to do so, she may do so without necessarily -- We do not have to legislate it here.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
But Chairman of the Committee, is there any other provision in the clause that deals with Legislative Instruments -- omnibus clause?
Mr Bandua 12:10 p.m.
Yes.
Mr Chireh 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not see why they are deleting this one. First and foremost, it is the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration who would have signed pact with other countries and know the list. Therefore, in making a change whether a foreign State is in the Schedule or to be removed, it should be from the advice of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration, and in everything, you have to consult. Do
we not want consultation?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
The point that the Chairman is making is that behind the scene there would be but we do not need to put it in the Bill. That is the point being made. Behind the scene, consulta- tion would take place but we do not need to put it in the Bill.
Mr Chireh 12:10 p.m.
No! No! Mr Speaker, I do not agree because -- we have to look at when another institution or body is to consult another person. In fact, the necessity exists, so there should not be -- what about if the person is a Foreign Minister and you want to be a Foreign Minister as well and you are not talking? What “behind the scenes” is this?
We must legislate it and it must be mandatory. There must be a letter from the Foreign Ministry advising the Attorney- General and Minister for Justice to amend the Schedule. This is because she has been doing that work on behalf of the State. I do not see why we should delete it. It should be there. And this one, I urge my Hon Colleagues to support my position.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the amendment moved by the Chairman is correct and must be supported. The Hon Minister for Local Government and Rural Development -- I see he is packing to leave because he knows that argument is going to be defeated.
Mr Speaker, if we get to clause 6, we would see that we would be creating a central authority, which would be dealing with the business with the Mutual Legal Assistance. The vehicle is the Ministry responsible for Justice or however, it is designated in the foreign State. So it is that vehicle that we are applying our minds to.
Yes, it is, indeed, true that being part of the Executive, of the same Cabinet, necessarily, they would be in consultation. The critical matter is, do we have to legislate this? And the thinking is, no.
Otherwise, we may be subjecting the Minister responsible for Justice to undue influence and interference. But he or she would know what it is that must be done. After all, they all operate to the same President or Prime Minister as the case may be.
So Mr Speaker, I believe the amendment proffered by the Chairman is right and must be supported by all of us in the House, except of course, the Hon Minister responsible for Local Government and Rural Development. Mr Speaker, in this matter, we can do without him.
Mr Avoka 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the amendment moved by the Chairman is right and should be sustained. Mr Speaker, I refer you to clause 85 of the Bill, that is at page 53. It says that:
“The Minister may by legislative instrument make regulations for the general implementation of the provisions of this Act.”
.
And if we look at page 57:
“Minister' means the Attorney- General and Minister responsible for Justice.”
That is what the law is providing. If we look at clause 2 (2), it says:
“The Minister after consultation with the Minister responsible for Foreign Affairs.”
That provision alone is problematic. We do not know whether it is permissive or manda tory tha t the Min is te r after consultation with the Minister responsible for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration maybe by Legislative Instrument --
So if they were to say: “The Minister . . .” (we do not know whether it is” shall”) after consultation with the Foreign
Mr Boafo 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the amendment by the Chairman. Mr Speaker, I think, I would have your endorsement and that of the Hon Member for Nsuta/ Kwamang/Beposo (Mr Osei-Prempeh). Both of you have been in the Attorney- General's office and you have experience of that office; that is dangerous to fetter the hands of the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice when it comes to decisions concerning criminality and that is precisely why the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice would prefer that we do not legislate so far as these consultations are concerned.
It is something which would be done. But if it is by legislation, the incumbent officer's hands would be fettered in its implementation and I think it is a very
good rationale.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 -- Publication in Gazette.
Mr Boafo 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, line 1, after “agreement” insert “or other arrangement”.
Mr Speaker, the provision as it stands now confines itself to agreements only but the Act tends to cover both “agreement” and “arrangement”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4 -- Administrative arrange- ments.
Mr Bandua 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4 subclause (1), lines 2 and 3, delete “after consultation with the Minister responsible for Foreign Affairs” and in line 6, delete “an indictable” and insert “a serious”.
The reason for this amendment is that, in the case of the first one, like the Hon Member for Akropong said, it is not very good to unnecessarily fetter the hands of the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice So we want to remove “in consultation with the Minister for Foreign Affairs.” And then, in the second amendment, the “indictable” should be deleted because “serious” has been defined in the Act, so that makes it easier to appreciate.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
What is a serious offence as defined?
Mr Bandua 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think I will refer you to the Interpretation column.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Yes, read it. There is no definition in the Bill as you want the House to believe.
Mr Bandua 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is in the Order Paper.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
You mentioned Bill, I have looked at it and that was why I asked you to read it.
Mr Bandua 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, very well. That was a mistake. It is defined in the Order Paper, page 27. It is a new addition to the Bill that we will get to. So, let me read: clause 86 -- Interpretation, under “offence” delete and substitute the following:
“serious offence” includes:
(a) participation in an organised criminal group, terrorism and terrorist financing, money laundering, human traffic- king, people smuggling, rape, defilement, illicit trafficking in stolen and other goods, corruption and bribery, serious fraud, counterfeiting and piracy of products, smuggling, extor- tion, forgery, insider trading and market manipulation;
(b) murder, grievous bodily harm, armed robbery or theft where there are predicate offences for a ser ious offence; and
(c) any other similar or related,
prohibited activity punish- able with imprisonment for a period of not less than twelve months.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Very well, any contribution on the floor?
Mr Boafo 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the expression “indictable offence” is very limited but the expression “serious offence” is wider by the definition that is being proposed. Because “indictable offence” -- first degree, second degree --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
I think that, once there is a definition of the “serious”, it takes care of anybody's concern.
Mr Boafo 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, precisely so.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
But let us pray that when we get there, that definition is accepted. [Laughter.]
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just to remind that the noun “Ghana” consequentially, would have to be deleted and be substituted with the “Republic” in line 1.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Very good. It is also consequential.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (2), line 3, delete “for Foreign Affairs” and in line 4, delete agreement of the Minister” .
The amendment is consequential
falling upon the real decision that we delete “in consultation with the Minister for Foreign Affairs”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
No,
Chairman of the Committee. Consultation,

we have finished with that amendment. What we have there is “in exceptional circumstances and with the agreement of the Minister”.
Mr Bandua 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I will take the whole thing again.
The first one is consequential -- “for Foreign Affairs” and then “in exceptional circumstances . . .” We feel that, that one is not necessary. The first one is consequential to Foreign Affairs, and the second one --
The new rendition will be:
“Where an agreement expressly states that mutual legal assistance may be provided with respect to an act that does not constitute an offence within the meaning of the agreement, the Minister . . . ”
Then we delete “for Foreign Affairs” which is consequential --
“The Minister may enter into an arrangement with the foreign State or foreign entity concerned for mutual legal assistance with respect to the act specified in the arrangement, if that act when committed in Ghana will be a contravention of an enactment.”
We feel that in exceptional circums- tances, if there is the need to define “exceptional circumstances” so, I think if we take it off, it is the better.
Mr Osei-Prempeh 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have very serious problems with that clause. Mutual legal assistance is about criminal offences. The clause 4 (2) says that when the act does not constitute an offence within the meaning of this Act. Then it goes on to say that they can enter into an arrangement if that act when committed in Ghana will be a contravention of an enactment.
Not every contravention of an enactment is criminal, so that if I con-travene any enactment in this country, there can be an arrangement for me [Interruption.] against me? I believe in that case, what will be the procedure? It is not a criminal offence; I contravene an enactment, I can contravene any enactment and not every contravention of an enactment will bring criminal proceedings. So, I believe that we need to look at clause 4 ( 2) again and I believe there may not be any need for it and we may have to delete it entirely.
Mr Boafo 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe we are on clause 4 (2)? I quite appreciate the position taken by the Hon Member for Nsuta/Kwamang/ Beposo (Mr Osei- Prempeh). But if he goes further, he would realise that we propose the deletion of “a contravention of enactment” and we are proposing the insertion of “serious offence”, on page 4 of the Order Paper. That takes care of his concerns.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
If it is a serious offence, then what is the need again for those further amendments? This is because we have already taken care of cases of serious offence, so what is the essence of all those amendments?
Mr Boafo 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 4 (1) deals with a situation where there is no agreement. Clause 4 (2) deals with a situation where there is express agreement. Therein lies the difference, Mr Speaker.
Mr Osei-Prempeh 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it seems I am more confused about that. We are saying that it does not --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
On this occasion, you are the only person who is confused. [Laughter.]
Mr Osei-Prempeh 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, they
are saying that it does not constitute an offence; we have not reached there but as he responded to my intervention -- he said that “serious offence” is to be put in place of “contravention of an enactment”. Meanwhile, the earlier part of the clause
says that the act does not constitute an offence. It does not constitute an offence but it becomes a serious offence? We need to look at clause 4 (2) critically.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon Member for Akropong, when you are filing an amendment, do you not start with an earlier part of the subclause? Because the concern of the Hon Member for Nsuta/ Kwamang/Beposo is where the act does not constitute an offence within the meaning of the agreement. If it is not an offence, it is not an offence. So, if there is any need for an amendment, that is where the amendment will have to start from.
But if you look at the amendment here, the subclause (2), that particular part of the subclause is still intact; I stand to be corrected. If the thing does not constitute an offence, Hon Member for Akropong --
Mr Boafo 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if the subclause states that ,if it does not constitute an offence within the meaning of the agreement, after they have signed the agreement but something has happened, it does not constitute an offence within the meaning of the agreement, then there is this flexibility for allowing administrative arrangement to be made. The intention is that under the administrative arrangement, if it should constitute an offence, it should be a serious offence, not a mere misdemeanour.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Constitutes an offence, then it means there is no agreement. If it does not constitute an offence, then it means within the meaning of the agreement, there is no agreement to cover that particular act. And then clause 4 (1) might take care of that one.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:30 p.m.
Mr.
Speaker, with respect, the Mutual Legal Assistance Bill before us is not restricted to agreements only. It has to do with arrangements and what we did not conclude, even practice. So the position in clause 4 (2) relates to scenarios where there is an agreement but then something happens and it goes outside the agreement, what is it that must be done?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, if the thing goes outside the agreement, then there is no agreement.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is an agreement --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
There is an agreement but that particular act is outside the scope of that agreement or arrangement --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:30 p.m.
No.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
That arrangement, it is outside the scope of the agreement. So there is no agreement on that particular issue.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:30 p.m.
That is so, Mr Speaker. There is an agreement, an issue crops up that is outside the confines of that particular agreement. The resort to an administrative arrangement is what clause 4 (2) seeks to cover. Because Mr Speaker, let us remind ourselves that the Mutual Legal Assistance Bill -- covers three areas -- agreements, administrative arrangements and practice.
We are not too sure of “practice” which is why we have stood down clause 1. But we are clear in our minds that we are dealing with agreements and other arrangements.
So Mr Speaker, clause 4 (2) seeks to provide for administrative arrangements where the agreement may not be sufficient to deal with the matter that ensues, for which reason Mr Speaker, I support the amendment proposed by the Chairman as further amended by the Hon Member for
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
I think it is getting clearer.
Hon Member for Nsuta/Kwamang/ Beposo, if you read the whole clause, especially the tail end, your fear has been taken care of -- “When committed in Ghana would be a contradiction of an enactment”-- it has been taken care of.
Mr J. B. Aidoo 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, my understanding of this clause is that, whereas in the eye of this agreement, an act may not constitute an offence, when you take the same act under the laws of Ghana, it would constitute an offence. In that case, then the law or the Minister can go into some kind of administrative arrangement with that foreign entity.
So I support the amendment made by the Chairman.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Hon Members, I will put the Question --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe we are taking the two amendments together -- the one by the Chairman and the one proposed by the Hon Member for Akropong.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
We would if you take them separately -- Yes so let me -- then we take his.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Boafo 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (2), line 8, delete “a contravention of an enactment” and insert “a serious offence”.
Mr Speaker, under clause 4 (1), where we dealt with the nature of the offence, we substituted “serious offence” for “indictable offence” The reason was that indictable offence covers a smaller area
but the “serious offence” is a wider area. To be consistent -- and “serious offence” has been defined.
Mr Speaker, I will concede that
contravention of an enactment will be wider. But as rightly pointed out by the Hon Member for Nsuta/Kwamang/ Beposo (Mr Osei-Prempeh), it is not a contravention of any enactment at all that will constitute the criminal offence. Hence, we must be certain and specific. That is why we are deleting it and substituting it with “serious offence” for which we have a definition already.
Mr Speaker, this will also do away with any misgivings about whether when you commit a misdemeanour, a minor assault and so forth, that will attract the attention of this Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Hon Members, this is a straightforward amendment, it is very clear. It protects the rights and liberty of the individual.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (4), line 2, at end add “as specified in the arrangement or for a period not exceeding six months”
So the new rendition would be:
“an administrative arrangement under subsection 1 or 2, shall have effect as specified in the arrangement or for a period not exceeding six months”.
I think this amendment is being proposed because the next amendment that I am going to propose is intended to delete (a) and (b) and this amendment alone would stand to cover (a) and (b) as currently appears in the Bill.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the Hon Chairman wants to tidy the rendition as captured in the Bill but I am not too clear. By this construction, “as specified in the arrangement” or “for a period not exceeding six months,” which one takes precedence by this construction?
I think the intention is for the specification in the arrangement to take precedence, failing which the other leg, “for a period not exceeding six months” would hold. But as per the construction that he is proffering, which one takes precedence?
It does not appear clear by the construction that he is offering us, otherwise, I think the sense in what he is proposing is quite useful. It is understandable but I am not too sure of the construction. The language and tenure give a different meaning.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
If you look at the Bill before us, I agree with you that the arrangement should take precedence. But if you look at the Bill, the arrangement is in (b). He has brought the arrangement before the “six months”; I thought you were going to support it?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the principle but I am only talking about the construction. In fact, I even suggested that that should be the arrangement but upon second thought, I am not too sure whether we cannot maintain what is in the Bill and bring (b) as (a) and (a) as (b), I think that would be neater. But by what he is proffering, I am not too sure which one takes precedence; that is my worry.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
In actual
fact, there is no major difference in the -- Apart from the point that you raised with regard to which takes precedence, and if the arrangement should take place, then, ordinarily, it should be the other way round but that is a drafting matter; it is not an amendment issue.
So, once we have made our point, we retain what is there and then they can do their (a) and (b) and we maintain it as it is, so that the draftsperson takes note. Is that all right?
Mr Boafo 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I wanted to suggest that after “or” we insert “in the absence of such specification:” That is,
“as specified in the arrangement or in the absence of such specification for a period not exceeding six months.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
It goes
without saying, if it is not specified then you cannot have the arrangement for more than six months. But if it is specified then you go by what is specified in the arrangement. Where you do not specify, then it cannot have it more than six months; that is what they are saying. So it goes without saying --
Mr Boafo 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am just trying to give the preference that the arrangement is number one and in the absence of that arrangement, then we come to the statutory period of six months. That is the intendment of my proposal.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
We have not got your rendition. Are you moving an amendment?
Mr Boafo 12:40 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker. So, if I may be allowed to move my rendition --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Very well.
Mr Boafo 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, the rendition will be that,
“An administration arrangement under subsection (1) or (2) shall
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I posed the initial question to the Hon Chairman. I just wanted him to do a small thing. All that was required was for him to have inserted comma (,) after ‘arrangement; before “or” and then it will take care of what the Hon Member for Akropong is saying.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
It will take care of?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, absolutely. This is because without the punctuation -- that is why I asked “Without it, which one takes precedence?” That one is not clear but if you have the punctuation, it takes care of what the Hon Member for Akropong is saying. So I posed the question and I thought he was coming to attend to that.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Then
move it. Then put the comma (,) where it should be so that I put the Question on the amendment filed by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the amendment should read -- I am reading the entire rendition:
‘(4) An administrative arrangement under subsection (1) or (2) shall have effect :
(a) as specified in the arrangement, or
(b) for a period not exceeding six months.'
Mr Speaker, that is how it should read and we save ourselves the --
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (4), paragraphs (a) and (b) delete
Mr Speaker, we are to delete paragraphs (a) and (b) because of the amendment that has been made earlier.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
This is just a consequential amendment. It is replacing and substituting.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 -- Scope of requests.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, line 2, at the end add “to”.
That is the opening phrase. I thought that was going to be for the drafters to have a better arrangement so that if you locate the word “to” up, we may then have to delete the ‘to' in respect of (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), (o), (p) and (q). In respect of (f), (r) and (s), we may have to proffer some neater arrangement.
Mr Speaker, so for (f), it would be deleting “for the” before “transfer” so that it would be “to transfer proceedings for the prosecution of an offence.” But I believe we can leave that to the drafters. This is just dealing with the appropriate symmetry of that construction.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
So we
should leave it to the drafters?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:40 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
I think that will be better.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:40 p.m.
That is so, Mr Speaker.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Very well. Does it apply also to the subsequent amendment in your name?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:40 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker. That is so.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, delete “to” occurring at the beginning of any of the paragraphs.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Very well.
Mr Boafo 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment is in order. I think it makes the clause more elegant.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Hon Boafo, I am calling you to move your amendment.
Mr Boafo 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I will like to withdraw the first amendment. I have been made to understand that the identification is not only in relation to suspects but the central authority or the Attorney- General's Office will be called upon to identify witnesses and even victims. So, Mr Speaker, the expression “persons” is in order so I withdraw my amendment.
Amendment withdrawn by leave of the House.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
What about the next one, still in your name?
Mr Boafo 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, paragraph (d), after “searches”
insert “arrests”.
Mr Speaker, this is because “arresting or “arrests” is very important in the process of “searches” and “seizures”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Very well, Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Avoka 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we agreed at the winnowing that sometimes you may have to effect arrest before you talk about “seizures”. So it will be “execute”, “searches”, “arrests and seizures”. So we support the amendment.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Boafo 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move,
clause 5, paragraph (e), after “examine” insert “documents”.
Mr Speaker, I realized that there is something missing from paragraph (e) at “documents”, we have “object” and “sites”, but I believe the request may also lead to the “examination of documents”, hence the proposal to insert “docu-ments”.
Mr Bandua 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think I support his amendment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, I want to warm you up; this one is not a contentious one? The real contentious ones, I have kept for you.
Mrs Betty Mould-Iddrisu 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I crave your indulgence, we agree with the Hon Member.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, paragraph (f), line 1, before “transfer” delete “for the” and after “transfer” delete “of”.
So the new rendition would be, if we
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
After listening to the Hon Minority Leader, we thought this should be left for the draftspersons to look at. Or is that not what we agreed on?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker, I think it is consequential to the amendment that I proffered. I said that we leave it with the draftspersons so that those -- in fact, in respect of (f,) -- (r), and (s). But we leave them to the drafts- persons for them to have the appropriate formulation; otherwise, it is in line with what I proffered.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, I am being advised by the Table Office that the suggestion you are proffering applies to all the amendments there.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, that is why I said, if we agree on that one, it affects everything but if --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
What about where we have “proceeding” and “proceedings”, “certified” and “true”, in clause 5?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it has consequential effect. Yes, as I said, the difficulty would be at (f), that is the proposal submitted by the Chairman, (r) and (f). We proposed a way of dealing with it and I said we could leave it to the drafters because we all understand what it means.
Mr Bandua 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think I agree with him.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Very well, I will now put the Question on --
Dr Anthony A. Osei 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not understand it. I thought you said the amendment he is making applies to all on this page, but it is not the case.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Some have been moved, and I have put the Question which have been accepted, but they are saying that the remaining --
Dr A. A. Osei 12:50 p.m.
It is not exactly the same context that the Minority Leader is talking about.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Most of them, apart from where we put “s” on “proceedings”, those things are not substantial, apart from that one.
Dr A. A. Osei 12:50 p.m.
I am satisfied, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Chairman, what about “certified” after “true”, that one has to be moved? What do you say? Look at number (xiv) of clause 5, page 5. Have you seen it? Paragraph (p).
Mr Bandua 12:50 p.m.
I think that one should be moved, Mr Speaker.
Mr Boafo 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, paragraph (p), line (1), after “certified” insert “true”.
Mr Speaker, I was advancing the case that I have been very familiar with the expression “certified true copy” and the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice appreciated that expression and she had no objection to it and I believe the Hon Second Deputy Speaker being a trained Solicitor also would confirm this.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Hon Second Deputy Speaker, instead of “certified copy” they want to have “certified true copy”.
Mr Mike A. Oquaye 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think it is more of a term of art but “certified true” may well be taken just for the avoidance of doubt.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the ones that I moved and I said they were consequential -- but the last one to be laid by the Chairman, that deletion of the word “domestic”, I think it is substantial, so if you will allow him to move.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Chairman, paragraph (s), clause 5.
Mr Bandua 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, paragraph (s), delete “domestic”.
The new rendition will be
“any other assistance that is not contrary to the law of the Republic”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, do we go back to the very first clause on practice or we should continue, now that we have the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice in our midst?
Mr Avoka 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, let us continue since we will not end the Bill today. When we go down, we can sort it out and come back here. Otherwise, it will lead to another debate. We can take it downstairs.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
Very well, so that you can go and consult before we come to the floor, so that it becomes a bit easier for all of us?
Mr Avoka 1 p.m.
Yes. I think it is better that way.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
Very well.
Clause 6 Central Authority.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 6, subclause (1), paragraph (d), line 1, delete “take practical measures to”.
So we have the new construction as follows:
“. . . facilitate the orderly and rapid disposition of requests for assistance.”
Mr Bandua 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think we agreed on the amendment.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, item (xxviii)?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think we have dealt with (d). I really do not see the need for (xxviii). I think that is what we have done, is it not? That is what we just did and that is deleting the words before “facilitate”. That is what we have done.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
But the amendment is in your name, so if you think it is repetition, then we will just --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
It is repetition.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
So the amendment is withdrawn?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I never moved that amendment knowing that it --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
But it is in your name. The amendment stands in your name on the Order Paper.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
It is wrongly so. So that one needs not be moved because of what we have done already.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
Very well.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 6, subclause (1), paragraph (f), line 1, delete all the words before “transmit”.
So that we have:
“. . . .to transmit the evidentiary material gathered in response to a request for assistance to the Central Authority of the foreign State, or to authorize any competent authority to do so, and . . .”
Then (g) will follow.
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe we are in agreement.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 6, subclause (2), delete and insert the following:
“(2) a competent authority of the Republic shal l not make or receive a mutual legal assistance request except through the Central Authority.”
The idea behind this is that, we expect that all requests come through the Central Authority, which is the Attorney-General's Office, so that they are able to monitor and see how the requests come and go.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
So, why do we put “competent authority” there?
Mr Bandua 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the whole thing is deleted. We are substituting that whole subclause (2). The whole sub-clause goes. The new one replaces the subclause (2), so it will read as follows:
“a compe t en t au tho r i t y o f the Republic shall not make or receive a mutual legal assistance request except through the Central Authority.”
Instead of what is there - instead of clause 6 (2), we replace it with what I have just read, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
Is the “competent authority” defined in the Bill?
Mr Bandua 1 p.m.
Yes.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
Very well.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7 -- Request by the Republic
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 7, subclause (1), line 5, delete “proceeding” and insert “pro-ceedings”.
Mr Speaker, I think this one was pointed out yesterday and I believe this could be left to the drafters. But just for the avoidance of doubt, that we know what we are doing, we could move that we have “proceedings” in place of “proceeding”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
The next one?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
That is so, Mr Speaker.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 7, subclause (4), line 2, after “provided” insert “that”.
Mr Speaker, so that it will read 1 p.m.
“provided that . . .”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
I will now put the Question on the entire clause 7, [Interruption.]
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, before you do that, I just wanted to draw the attention of the Chairman and indeed, the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice to some observation with respect to subclause (4).
“A request “in writing” includes e-mail, facsimile or other agreed form of electronic transmission . . .”
Yesterday, I raised the matter relating to the use of the words “agreed form” because in other places, we have used “agreeable” as in --I think I saw them in three places, unfortunately, I am not able to refer to them now. But I pointed them out yesterday, I do not know. One is in clause 9 (3) which reads:
“The request may be transmitted by electronic device or other agreeable means.”
I thought for consistency, we should agree to one form, either “agreed form” or “agreeable”. So, I guess we can leave that one to the drafters.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Let the drafters take note.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Yes, thank you very much.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Avoka 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if you would permit us, we would finish clause 8 and then take the adjournment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Very well. I have been advised that clause 8 has not been winnowed, so they want to look at it. But if you want to finish with it, I do not have any problem.
Clause 8 -- Content of Request for Mutual Legal Assistance.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, paragraph (a), sub-paragraph (i), delete and insert the following:
“the identity including contact details of the authority or entity initiating the request.”
Mr Speaker, it is the construction that we are attending to, to let the meaning stand out. Mr Speaker, what obtains here now is,
“the identity of the authority or agency initiating the request including contact details.”
That is not clear at all. And so what we have proposed is a neater way. Indeed, it also takes care of the deletion of the word “agency” and substituting it with “entity” because it is the language that we have been employing thus far.

So to repeat, Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be --

“the identity including the contact details of the authority or entity initiating the request.”
Mr Bandua 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the amendment.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, paragraph (a), sub-paragraph (ii), at end add “and”.
Mr Speaker, this is what we agreed on, a minor matter for the drafters, that is the inclusion of the word “and” at the end of the rendition in (ii), that is (a)(ii).
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
What are we doing to the “and”? It is not clear on the Order Paper.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, what I notice is that the amendment has even been repeated in my name and in the name of the Chairman of the Committee. Well, we agreed at the Committee that it should be moved by the Chairman. It is just to add the word “and” after (ii), after the punctuation.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
All right, it is clearer in the Chairman's rendition. I think there is some omission in the one against your name.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Boafo 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, paragraph (f), line 2, after “including” insert “details of”.
Mr Speaker, this is a proposal which
seeks to make the paragraph neater. Mr Speaker, the expression “details of” is repeated under sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) and in order to make it neater, it is being removed to line (ii) of paragraph (f), so that we delete the subsequent reference to “details of”.
Mr Speaker, noticeably, the Chairman has also proposed the deletion of “where applicable”, so that the new rendition would be --
“(f) contain information relevant to the assistance sought including details of --
( i) property to be traced;
(ii) the current location of exhibits.”
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
So what is the difference between your amendment and that of the Chairman?
Mr Boafo 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Chairman's amendment seeks to remove “where applicable”. My amendment seeks to re- arrange “details of”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Very good. All right.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Oh, sorry.
Mr Avoka 1:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, if you say “insert details of”, it will make the sentence look awkward.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Hon Majori ty Leader, there are some consequential amendments that --
Mr Avoka 1:10 p.m.
It should be “including details”, not “of”. The “of” should not be
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Hon K. T. Hammond, have you crossed carpet? [Laugther] -- Because you wanted to speak from there. Do you know what it means? Do you know what it means?
Hon K. T. Hammond, do you know what it means?
Mr Kobina T. Hammond 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was trying to respond. What does it mean, Mr Speaker, under your “Cons-titution”? What does it mean? It means that I want to communicate something to you, that is why I am here.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
It also means that you have crossed carpet when you are officially speaking from there when the House is in session.
Mr Hammond 1:10 p.m.
You can sit here but you cannot speak from here? All right, I will speak from the other side. It is about quorum, but I will speak from the other side.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, you were on the floor.
Mr Avoka 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was saying that I agree to the amendment, but it should be limited to “details”, not “details of”. If you read:
“. . . contain information relevant to the assistance sought including details where applicable.”
[Laughter.] Which one? Is it the other one? [Laughter.]
Mr J. B. Aidoo 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not
agree with the amendment being proposed by the Hon Majority Leader. He should wait for the Hon W. O. Boafo to finish with
his amendments, and then the line would be clear for him.
Dr A. A. Osei 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with respect, since the Leader of Government Business is lost in the business -- [Laughter] -- I plead that we adjourn -- because if our Hon Leader is lost --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Hon Members, I think there is an earlier agreement that we should finish with clause (8). So let us make progress. But Hon Members, I would put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, paragraph (f), sub- paragraph (i), delete “where applicable”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just so that we may flow and know what we are doing, I think the proposal by Hon W. O. Boafo, the addition of the words “details of” in the opening of (f), really was to delete “where applicable”, first, and then at the end insert “details of”. So we must get that clear because it does not appear it has been captured.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
If that is his intention -- I remember when he was moving, he also said that “where applicable” is standing in the name of the Chairman and that is why I asked whether there are separate amendments to be moved and he said, yes.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the reason I am saying so is that, the Chairman's amendment is in respect of (f) (i), that is line (1). We ought, as per what Hon Boafo said, to have deleted “where applicable” in (f), the opening. So we should be very clear in that.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Then it must be properly moved.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:20 p.m.
Precisely; that is what I mean. Because in the case of Hon Boafo's amendment, the full rendition now should read -- that is in respect of (f):
“contained information relevant to the assistance sought, including details of . . .”
So the words “where applicable” would be deleted and then we insert “details of.” That is the amendment moved by the Hon Member for Akropong, Mr Boafo. When we finish with that, then we come to the amendment proposed by the Chairman.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, I think they have all made a mistake, both Hon Boafo and the Chairman of the Committee. They have not filed a specific amendment for that particular area. So what we want to do is for you now to move the “where applicable” in the clause (f), line (2) and then the amendment moved by Hon Boafo and the Chairman of the Committee makes sense. Otherwise, officially, that has not been moved.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:20 p.m.
That exactly is what I seek to do. Mr Speaker, I thought by the discussion yesterday, that was going to be the order, the sequence of events. Unfortunately, it appears it got lost out. So I am bringing it back, so we delete the words “where applicable” in line (2)
of (f) of clause (8).
Dr A. A. Osei 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with respect, I think we are going back. When Hon Boafo got up, he amended his amendment; that is why we went on and he said that --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
No, no. When Hon Boafo was moving it, he said the Chairman too had moved an amendment on “where applicable”. And that is why I asked again whether his “where applicable” takes care of the Chairman's interest, and he said they would be moved separately. But what the Hon Minority Leader is saying is that that particular --
Mr Boafo 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I remember you asked me to give the new rendition, so I thought when I gave the new rendition and excluded “where applicable”, it formed part of the proposed amendment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
So the concern of the Hon Minority Leader has been taken care of?
Mr Boafo 1:20 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, for the avoidance of doubt, let us do the proper thing.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
But once the records -- that is, what we are doing now have captured it, we now know that “where applicable” in paragraph (f) has been deleted accordingly.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:20 p.m.
Absolutely.
Mr Boafo 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8 paragraph (f), sub-paragraph (i), line (1), delete “details of”.
The subsequent amendments which call for deletion of “details of” under paragraph (f), sub-paragraph (i), line (1)
is consequential.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
So would you move the two together?
Mr Boafo 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to moved, clause 8, paragraph (f), sub- paragraphs (i) and (ii) delete the words “details of”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
They are all consequential?
Mr Boafo 1:20 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Bandua 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, paragraph (g), sub-paragraph (ii), line (1), delete “for” and insert “with”; and in line (2), delete “with”.
So the new rendition would be:
“The offence with which the accused has been charged and a summary of the facts . . .”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Boafo 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, paragraph (g), sub-paragraph (iii), after “proceedings” “including summary of evidence and other process”.
Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment seeks to extend the requirement by asking for a summary of evidence and other processes to enable the Attorney-General to be well informed in taking decisions so that they do not present anything at all relating to the state of proceedings to
the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. If she should be well informed, I believe --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
Hon Boafo, a summary of evidence has a technical meaning. So you rather limit the ambit of the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice by using “summary of evidence” instead of “summary of facts”. I think “summary of facts” is a better rendition.
Mr Boafo 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the “summary of facts” deals with when the accused has been charged, but the “summary of evidence” deals with the state of proceedings.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
Very well.
Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice?
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we believe that the state of proceedings encompasses everything, so therefore, we do not need to include a specific part of the criminal process.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
Hon Boafo, I think the “state of proceedings” is more encompassing; it will give you more information, but if that is the submission --
Mr Boafo 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my proposal is not trying to exhaust what is required; my proposal is inclusive and it is not trying anybody's hands as to what should be sent to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice .
I believe that a summary of evidence will go a long way to assist the Attorney- General and Minister for Justice in assessing and evaluating the matter before her office rather than just leaving it to the other foreign state or entity to send

anything at all to the Attorney-General's Office. It is inclusive; it is not exhaustive. But I have not practised at the Attorney- General's Office and I leave it entirely in your hands.
Mr Avoka 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the “state of proceedings” is more encompassing and comprehensive as compared to the “summary of evidence” which is very limited in scope. So it is neater and more prudent to retain the original rendition.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
Hon Members, I think that the state of proceedings -- Because we will be dealing not only with common law tradition but also with civil law tradition. So where we talk about state of proceedings, then it takes a lot more. Even though the “summary of evidence” you are also saying you are adding, you are not taking away. That is your submission. But if - The state of proceedings, anyway, includes everything. In my view, it includes everything.
Hon K. T. Hammond, I will give you the floor even though you are late and you are calling for quorum.
Mr K. T. Hammond 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the inclusiveness of what he is talking about seems to me to be opposite because we are not just going to give the summary of --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
Where have you been for sometime? You are looking more handsome. [Laughter.]
Mr Hammond 1:30 p.m.
For those of you who do not know the Hon -- we have been extremely good Friends Mr Speaker and Hon K. T. Hammond -- [Laughter.] When I was here, he was my chief defender and so, I look after his back. I travelled a little; yesterday was my birthday; you did not send me a card and I take particular notice of that, so -- [Pause.]
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
Hon Member, address the matter before us.
Mr Hammond 1:30 p.m.
So it seems to me that the issue of the inclusiveness is appropriate in the sense that one cannot simply determine summary of the facts when in reality, a few other matters have been going on, if they are court proceedings or whatever. So the summary of proceedings, basically is, has the matter now reached court or what is the “state of proceedings?” So it gives a complete account of what is happening with a particular --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
What we have there is the “state of proceedings”; we have passed the “summary of facts”.
Mr Hammond 1:30 p.m.
No, that is what he is talking about. He is talking about the “state of proceedings”, adding that as an amendment. He is talking about the “summary of evidence”, and adding that to the summary of facts that he indicated in there. That is what he just explained to me. Wait, wait -- [Pause.] Really?
Well, if I was not elegant in what I said, it seems to me to be the same thing, the “state of proceedings” including everything because what seems to be there is just the “state of proceedings”. All right, he is saying -- and it seems to me to be accurate -- “State of proceedings”, let us for the sake of completeness add whatever there is round it to it. So “state of proceedings” -- Indeed, I guess the now Attorney-General and Minister for Justice rightly said it.
The “state of proceedings” will normally include all that there is. Sure, I understand that. But for the “state of completeness,” if somebody is not very clear in his mind -- So we say that the state of proceedings -- All right, I withdraw this and support the Attorney- General and Minister for Justice on this. “State of proceedings” encompasses all there is to it; you win.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
Hon Members, just for us to be sure about what we are talking about -- What is the difference between “state of proceedings”
and “record of proceedings” for the purpose of this our discussion? Is it the “state of proceedings”? Is it the state where the proceedings have reached? Or we are talking about record of proceedings?
I do not know, I want to be educated.
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would surmise it means the docket that we have prepared.
Prof. Oquaye 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, you have to help us to resolve this issue because if somebody asked for the state of the case another person will say “we have reached hearing”, “we have reached summons for directions”; “we have reached so and so” and he may feel he has answered the question. So the “state” would then mean the stage we have reached and that can be rather ambiguous.
Mr Speaker, if we really want record -- and I believe that is the essence of it like the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice has just stated -- then we are on a safer ground by being all -encompassing and bringing in Hon Boafo's amendment so that we have it all, including “summary of evidence” and other processes. Because that alone gives one a clear indication of what we mean by “state of proceedings”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
Hon Attorney-Generall and Minister for Justice, let me hear you.
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Interpretation clause for “proceedings” means the procedure conducted by under the supervision of a judge or magistrate or judicial officer however described in relation to an alleged or proven offence or property derived from that offence and includes an enquiry investigation preliminary or final determination of fact.
Therefore, I would say that this means
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, is it the Interpretation clause that you just read?
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is correct.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
But the clause we are dealing with has qualified “proceedings”.
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 1:40 p.m.
“As state of proceedings.” So what his amendment seeks to do is to include specifically the “summary of evidence” and when we look under the Interpretation clause, as I just read, which is on page 57 of the Bill, it is all embracing, embracing not including only the docket from our part as the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice but all the procedures including the court processes as supervised by a judge. I am sure that if Hon Boafo looks at the interpretation of proceedings, that is, the state of proceedings, he would be satisfied.
Mr J. B. Aidoo 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, (g) (iii) is dealing with the state of proceedings. If we look at (iv), it says that
“the date scheduled for further stages in the proceedings. . .”
It means that (iii) is not dealing with records; (iii) is dealing with the stage or the state at which we have the proceedings; and then (iv) will take care of further stages in the proceedings. So it is “state” and not “record”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Hon
Mr Hammond 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have just been re-reading this thing. I have just been wondering if the Hon Attorney- General and Minister for Justice would agree with the insertion that is being proposed, that is the amendment. Because it seems to me it does not really distort the context of what is already set out there.
Mr Speaker, if we decide that the “state” is not the right phrase to use and we are saying the “stage” - In the common parlance, the state of something is what it exists as of now. At what stage has it reached? It is about the same thing we are talking about now. The Hon Attorney- General and Minister for Justice has referred us to the definition section.
When we go to page 58, it does not really encompass the point that is being made. So if it would not trouble her, why can we not use the “state” as it is here or the “stage” and then add what Hon Boafo is proposing? What is wrong with “the state of the proceedings” and then where it has reached now? The other side I am not quite sure, where it has reached now --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Hon Members, let me share experience with you. If we put “proceedings” there and we go and look at the definition, when we go for the record of proceedings, it would
include the summary of evidence and everything. It is mandatory. The summary of the facts given by the prosecution and everything will be part of the record before the judge or the magistrate.
The confusion there is where we put that word “state”. That is what in my view, the confusion is and that is what we may have to resolve as a House so that we are all clear in our minds what we are talking about.
Dr A. A. Osei 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with respect, it appears that those of us who are not lawyers -- My reading of this is that the -- Mr Speaker, if we read (g) (iv), it appears that we want to know the stage also and that is why the word “state” in (iii) is important. But we also want the record -- [Interruption.]both. Otherwise, why talk about further stages? So I think, first, we need to be clear that we want the record of proceedings as well as the state. Otherwise, we do not need (g) (4) -- I think we need both so that the law would be clear.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader and then Hon Majority Leader.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe the definition of “proceedings” is about the totality of the issue at stake and that is about the record. It is about the record and not the state, which is why I agree with your own direction that we should look at whether the word “record” is not more suitable than “state”.
Mr Speaker, I am convinced and persuaded by your direction that given the interpretation afforded to the word “proceedings”, it will serve a better purpose if we delete the word “state” in (g) (iii) and insert “record”. I believe when we have done that, we could then do away with the amendment being proposed by the Hon Member for Akropong. Because relating to the stages, (iv) captures
appropriately what it is that would be sought. So Mr Speaker, I believe (g) (iii) should rather read: “The record of proceedings”.
Mr Avoka 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, f rom experience and practice, clause (g) (i
iv) can be described as the summary of evidence. From practice, if we have a chart sheet, when they talk about (i), the identity of the accused person, they will say, “You, Mr so and so, a farmer or a teacher residing at this place . . .” That is the identity of the fellow. Then we come to (ii), the offence for which the accused has been charged; we already know that.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Particulars of offence?
Mr Avoka 1:40 p.m.
Yes. And then (iii), the state of proceedings, that is where it has reached. And then the date scheduled for further stages in the proceedings. The summary of evidence will indicate the last time it was adjourned or called was on this particular day. So (g) (i- iv) will be referred to as the summary of evidence and therefore, it is appropriate at (iii) to maintain the “state of proceedings” rather than put the “summary of evidence” because in my view, (g) (i-iv) constitute the summary of evidence in criminal practice.
Mr Boafo 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am beginning to appreciate your reference to the technical meaning of “summary of evidence”. That appears to be referring to the criminal interpretation of “summary of evidence”. I have a different perception and it appears that my perception is in conformity with what the Hon Minority Leader said. I think the intention is to get the record of proceedings.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Hon Members, on some of the clauses, I am
very slow in putting the Question because as we pass this Legislation, we should also have in mind international best practices. Therefore, we should also do the necessary consultation in those areas to make sure that we are doing the right thing.
This is not only a domestic legislation because it involves other things -- the draftspersons and others -- so that we are sure among ourselves that what we are doing -- Because when we use “summary of evidence” and we had agreed in an earlier clause that the Criminal Procedure Code will apply and there is a definition of “summary of evidence” in the Criminal Procedure Code, it does not lie in your mouth to say that as for that person, the summary of evidence that we are talking about is not in the Criminal Procedure Code. No, one cannot. Because the Criminal Procedure Code will apply when we are talking about summary of evidence based on an earlier clause that we had agreed on.
What I will suggest, with the greatest respect, is that we defer this subclause and go and do further consultation and then we come back. It is better we pass a good law than rush to pass a law that may have problems.
Prof. Oquaye 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
Your last comment on this matter.
Prof. Oquaye 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in fact, from what you are saying, we need some amount of circumspection in this area. We are having under (g) certain details of the matter; (i) -- the identity; (ii) -- the offence itself. In fact, if we want to talk about the details of the offence, then perhaps, it is rather in (ii) that we
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
Yes, I think that when the consultations take place, we will take all these points on board so that we come back and make sure that we are all doing the right thing.
That br ings us to the end of Consideration Stage for today.
Mr Cletus A. Avoka 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with the time reading almost 2 o'clock and then in view of our earlier agreement that we do more winnowing on the rest of the clauses of the Bill, I beg to move, that the House do now adjourn until tomorrow at ten o'clock.
Thank you.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just yesterday, we agreed to have the winnowing - to continue the winnowing today. Unfortunately, the Hon Majority Leader knows that a group has
been tasked to pursue some other serious business and that includes myself. The Hon Minister for Information has just signalled that he is on his way coming for us to have that meeting in about five minutes -- [Interruption.] Yes, we are sitting today --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
Hon Boafo is very good and will take care of your interest at the winnowing.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not have any permanent interest in this except to help fashion a very good Bill for the country. I thought that because he may be needed at that committee, and as I said, the Hon Minister for Information just called that he is on his way for us to transact that business. I do not know whether it will be feasible to do it and tomorrow -- Whether I will be able to even make progress on the Bill tomorrow, is another matter --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
Tomorrow is Friday.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, so, I was going to suggest that perhaps, if it will meet the convenience of the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice that perhaps, we shift this to Monday to pursue it. Otherwise, I, W.O. Boafo and Dr Akoto Osei may not be part of the winnowing and that perhaps will draw us back.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, we will not be Sitting on Monday. Will you be very busy?
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if it is in the morning, we can manage. Otherwise, in the afternoon both myself and my Hon Deputy may have a Legal Service Board meeting, which we chair.
Thank you.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
Very well. Hon Members, motion moved and
seconded. The discussion as to when the Winnowing Committee should meet, that can be discussed after here.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the motion was not seconded.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
So, what were you doing? [Laughter.] Otherwise, you will be totally out of order.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was raising issues for consideration by the Hon Majority Leader.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
All right, then second the motion, after that you can consult among yourselves.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, well, at this juncture then, I beg to second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed.
ADJOURNMENT 1:50 p.m.
Mr Emmanuel K. Banduah (NDC - Biakoye) 1:45 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker for the opportunity. With the lengthy remarks of the learned former Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, I want to be very brief. Indeed, this law is very, very important and it will go a long way to plug some of the loopholes in the previous laws that are in place.
But I would only urge that when the Economic and Organised Crime Bill comes into effect - when the office starts its operation, the Government will make sufficient resources available to the office so that they are able to operate it effectively and efficiently. Also I think the staff of the office should be properly trained they have to be given sufficient training so that they are able to cope up.
I would also urge all Hon Members of that office to be so diligent in their work that they are able to effectively implement the provisions of the law. In fact, I think we all acknowledge that crime has become so sophisticated that there is no need for me to talk about it again.
So with these few words, Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity and urge all
Members to support the motion.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
Thank you for your brevity.
Mr Kwame Osei-Prempeh (NPP - Nsuta-Kwamang/Beposo) 1:45 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to add my voice to the debate on the floor. Mr Speaker, I support the motion entirely and to make some few remarks.
There is no gainsaying that this is a very important piece of legislation to help us fight crime in its entirely. Mr Speaker, I only want to express a caution and the caution is that the office must operate within its mandate.
Mr Speaker, you will recall that when the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) was being established, when the law was brought to this House early 1990s, there was public outcry for the fear that it might be used against political opponents and as a result, it was watered down tremendously and it became somehow ineffective. This law which is being passed is a very powerful law.
Mr Speaker, my prayer is that the operators of the law must operate within their mandate.
Of late, we have noticed some changes in this country where state agencies jumped over the mandate given to them.
We recently had this sad incidence of a lady dying when she had been invited by the Bureau of National Investigation (BNI). Mr Speaker, this year, the SFO arrested a lady in a very private matter. In fact, I had to appeal to the Hon Attorney- General and Minister for Justice for her to be released. It was a matter which SFO should have no mandate at all. Mr Speaker, if we are going to give them these powers,
my prayer is that they should be restrained.
They have wide powers against peoples' properties, against people interest and others but they must exercise the powers given to them responsibly so that the rights of the citizens must be protected at all times.
Thank you for the opportunity.
Minister for Local Government and Rural Development (Mr Joseph Y. Chireh) 1:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, whilst I want to make a few comments on the Bill, some people are signaling me that I should be brief. They do not know what is in my head, how can I be brief? [Laughter.] But before I make a comment, if you look at page 12, line 4 of the Report, on that line, there is a word “pluck” it should be “plug” - [Interruption.]
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
Hon Member, is it a point of order?
Mrs G. E. Kusi 1:45 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
You have the floor.
Mrs G. E. Kusi 1:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the manner in which the Hon Member on the floor has addressed you, that you do not know what is in his head so how can he be brief. Mr Speaker, has the right to order any person in this House, so, please, the Hon Member should withdraw and apologise to Mr Speaker. [Laughter.]
Mr Chireh 1:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I said some Members. I did not address Mr Speaker. But you see, her intention is to play me against Mr Speaker but Mr Speaker will not listen to her advocacy, he would rather listen to what I am saying. Even the Hon Minister was signaling me to be brief, so what is wrong with that? I am saying that -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
I want to assure you that I will monitor the Hon Minister closely and if he is going out of order, I will call him to order.
Mr Chireh 1:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is a correction of the word “pluck”. It is “p-l- u-g” not “pluck.” So we are plugging the hole and not plucking out the hole.
I think this is a very important Bill and of course, it puts us on a high pedestal as a country committed to fighting crime and particularly organized crime. Therefore, I would urge my Hon Colleagues to support the Bill and let us pass it as quickly as possible.
Now, having served as the Chairman of the Confiscated Asset Committee in the 1980's, I agree with my Hon Colleague who talked about recovery of assets and those people who commit crimes, knowing very well that within five years or ten years they will come out and enjoy the loot, then after a period people even forget the kind of crime these people have committed.
It is important that this Bill addresses that issue so that when assets from criminal activities are confiscated and properly managed, it will not be possible for the person to come out and benefit, otherwise it would encourage more to do so.
Now, the prosecutors in this particular case should urge the courts to make sure that the orders they make in respect of the confiscations are properly made and vested in this asset management unit. And for me, more importantly, this Bill will ensure that the fight against crime is not just one looking at only those who steal and those who use narcotics and launder money.
It is one that has to do with the electronic and sophisticated things.
So, one thing that I would urge is that continuous training of people to man this office, to be able to detect, particularly, the computer-related fraud. And we all know - only last year, we were all talking about those people who engage in computer fraud and luring our young people to commit these crimes sometimes to their death.
And I therefore, would like to urge you all that it is important that we pass this piece of legislation so that Ghana will be considered as one of the countries committed to fighting crimes.
On this note, Mr Speaker, I thank you sincerely.
Mr William O. Boafo (NPP - Akropong) 1:45 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Economic and Organised Crime Bill.
Mr Speaker, one thing I have noticed about this Bill is that it is equally good, but when you look at the composition of the Board of the Office, it is not gender sensitive at all. There is no mention of any female appointee at all and also Mr Speaker, I am wondering why on the Board the representative of the Ghana Bar Association should be nominated by the Attorney-General instead of the Bar Association itself.
This is because we have a nomination for the Accountant and he is not nominated by the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning.
Mr Speaker, another principle
underlying the Bill which I would like to draw the House's attention to, is the excessive power which is being given to the Office of the Economic and Organised Crime. Mr Speaker, they are being given the power of search, arrest and prosecution, and as it was rightly pointed
by the Hon Member for Nsuta-Kwamang/ Beposo (Mr Kwame Osei-Prempeh), Mr Speaker, it is very necessary that the body of the law and any other subsidiary legislation made under the law should seek to spell out in a comprehensive manner -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
Hon Members, I refer you to Standing Order 40(3) and direct that having regard to the state of business, Sitting be held outside the prescribed period. Hon Member, kindly continue.
Mr Boafo 1:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as I was saying, if you look at the provisions relating to the power of search, the power of arrest and the power of prosecution, the officers involved are being given immunity under the Criminal Offences Procedure Act as well as the other related Acts like the Police Service Act.
Mr Speaker, it is important that we have a clear definition of the role of these officers so that they will not exceed the mandate being given to them. We have instances where the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) has obviously exceeded some of their roles in the society in combating crime and we do want to see the same thing being repeated or being done by the Office of Economic and Organized Crime.
The way the legislation is couched, it appears to be establishing a rival agency to the Ghana Police Service and this we must make sure that it does not happen that way at all. Mr Speaker, with this caution I support the passage of the Bill.
Majority Leader(Mr Cletus Avoka) 1:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to make some few observations. The first one is that, experience has shown that in this country we become excited in establishing new institutions or making new laws and then
we become reluctant in ensuring that those institutions perform efficiently. The case of the pathetic situation of the Serious Fraud Office is one in place for us to learn from, that we were gleefully establishing an office to take care of serious fraud et cetera but at the end of the day, it became more or less a desolate office.
I think we should have this at the back of our minds and if we are creating a new office today, to take care of sophisticated criminal activities, et cetera, then we must be up to the task.
Mr Speaker, I would want particularly to draw our attention to three areas that we should address to ensure that officers in this institution perform efficiently. One, is political neutrality. It is very important for us to insulate this office from political patronage, otherwise it will be stillborn before it starts work.
If we are going to recruit people, it should not be on political patronage, it should be people who are professionally competent, experienced, knowledgeable and have a degree of integrity to be able to function in this office. So political neutrality is very important -- Political commitment and political will to ensure that this office functions efficiently is also very important for the survival of this office to save this country.
Secondly, we must look at the capacity of this office. When I talk about capacity, I talk about institutional capacity. We must have the state of the art equipment for us to be able to function efficiently. And then we talk about human resource capacity as I mentioned earlier, the type of quality of people that we would have to put in this place.
Otherwise, if you put some people there without the resources, the logistics
for them to work and then you expect too much from them when nothing is given to them, I think that it is going to be unfair and then this office may not deliver the services that we expect it to do.
And then finally, conditions of service. Mr Speaker, this is an office that is going to deal with people who have huge sums of money. So if you want people to operate in that office sufficiently, efficiently and without being prone to corruption and corrupt practices, then we must take good care of them.
We must take good care of them - their conditions of service, their emoluments, their retirement package and the rest of them so that they do not become paupers, so that they do not become attracted or induced by people who want to give them peanuts at the end of the day. So it is against this background that I think that, well, it is a very good office.
We have learnt a lot from the mishap of the Serious Fraud Office and other institutions that we have put in place but for it to work efficiently, and to give us the results, then we must ensure that we are all committed as a country. This august House has the responsibility of ensuring that they have an efficient budget line for them to work. The Attorney-General must ensure that the caliber of people they are going to recruit are those who are men and women of integrity et cetera. It is for these reasons that I want to make these few observations and to pray that this office would live up to expectation.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
Hon. Attorney-General, wind up.
Mrs Betty M. Iddrisu 1:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker and Hon Members, I wish to thank you all for these very salient remarks and to say that the Serious Fraud Office has for the last few months, been readying itself for its transformation into the Economic and
Organized Crime Office.
To this end, I would wish to inform the Honourable House that we have been doing restructuring, we have had consultants to see how they migration to the Economic and Organized Crime Office can be done in a manner which would transform and enable the Serious Fraud Office to meet the challenges of organized crime in Ghana today. And this particular Bill, as the Hon Joe Ghartey mentioned, has already received scrutiny.
When I came into office, I ensured that one of the United Kingdom's leading counsel looked at this Bill, redrafted it and tightened it up, re-edited and also synchronized it with the Anti- Money Laundering, the financing of the Counter Terrorism Bill and other salient Bills in order to enable Ghana to meet its obligations not only in respect of mutual legal assistance, international co-operation, but also in respect of our obligations under the United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution, 1373 and under the UN Convention Against Corruption.
So with these few remarks, I am most grateful to the august House and we would endeavour - my Colleagues from the Serious Fraud Office are here and I am sure have taken all that have been said on board and we would respectfully thank the House for all these comments.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
Hon Members, that brings us to the end of the debate. I will now put the Question.
Question put and motion agreed to.
The Economic and Organised Crime
Bill, 2009 was accordingly read a Second time.
MOTION 1:55 p.m.
Majority Leader and Leader of the House (Mr Cletus A. Avoka) 2:05 p.m.
MrSpeaker, I beg to move, that this Honourable House adopts the Report of Leadership on the membership of the Special Committee on Constitution Review composed as follows:
i. Mr Cletus Apul Avoka
ii. Mr Edward K. D. Adjaho
iii. Mr Alfred Kwame Agbesi
iv. Mr Emmanuel Kwasi Bandua
v. Mr Ebo Barton-Odro
vi. Alhaji Abukari Sumani
vii. Mr Joseph Yieleh Chireh
viii. Mr Alban S. K. Bagbin
ix. Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
x. Mr Ambrose P. Dery
xi. Prof. Aaron Michael Oquaye
xii. Papa Owusu-Ankomah
xiii. Mr Joe Ghartey
xiv. Mr William Ofori Boafo
xv. Mr Kwame Osei-Prempeh
xvi. Ms Esther Obeng Dappah
xvi i . Haj ia Halu t ie Rafa tu Alhassan Dubie
x v i i i . M s S a m i a Ya b a Christina Nkrumah
xix. Mr Haruna H. Bayirga
xx. Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu
xxi. Mrs Irene Naa Torshie Addo
xxii. Mr Kwasi Ameyaw-Cheremeh
xxiii. Mr Ahmed Ibrahim
x x i v. A l h a j i M o h a m m e d - Mubarak Muntaka
x x v . M r T i m o t h y Ataboadey Awontiirim
Mr Speaker, the genesis of this motion is that, on or about the 18th of January, 2010, the Office of the Speaker received a request from the Constitution Review Secretariat, to the effect that they expected some information, or some contribution on the amendment of the Constitution from this august House.
Madam Speaker subsequently referred the said request to the Leadership of the House to compose Members to be able to deliberate and then present proposals to the Constitution Review Committee. It is against this background that Leadership after wide consultations, Mr Speaker, have proposed a membership of 25 Hon Members to represent this House with regard to the Constitutional Review Committee's work.

Mr Speaker, the Members who are listed include my goodself as well as the following Hon Members:

Mr Edward K. D. Adjaho,

Mr Alfred Kwame Agbesi,

Mr Emmanuel Kwasi Bandua,

Mr Ebo Barton-Odro,

Alhaji Abukari Sumani,

Mr Joseph Yieleh Chireh,

Mr Alban S. K. Bagbin,

Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu,

Mr Ambrose P. Dery,

Prof. Aaron Michael Oquaye,

Papa Owusu-Ankomah,

Mr Joe Ghartey,

Mr William Ofori Boafo,

Mr Kwame Osei-Prempeh,

Ms Esther Obeng Dappah,

Hajia Halutie Rafatu Alhassan Dubie,

Ms Samia Yaba Christina Nkrumah,

Mr Haruna H. Bayirga,

Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu,

Mrs Irene Naa Torshie Addo,

Mr Kwasi Ameyaw-Cheremeh,

Mr Ahmed Ibrahim,

Alhaj i Mohammed-Mubarak Muntaka; and last but not the least,

Mr Timothy Ataboadey Awontiirim.

This is made up of 25 Hon Members of this august House. Mr Speaker, we have proposed for the consideration of Hon Colleagues the following terms of reference:

This body, Hon Members, does not

have final say as far as the parliamentary proposals to be submitted are concerned. What we would do, first and foremost, is to

collect and collate the views of Members of Parliament with regard to relevant provisions of the Constitution which require a review. So we would contact Hon Members, collect their views and ideas on the subject.

Certainly, this Committee would also receive memoranda from Hon Members. Hon Members would wish to appear in person before the Committee or submit memoranda and even appear at the same time, if they wish, and articulate their views on the various aspects of the Constitution they wish to consider for amendments.

The Committee body on itself can identify and review provisions of the Constitution having regard to Parliament's application and practice of the Constitution since 1993. So Members of the Committee on their own motion would have to look at the various provisions of the Constitution and propose amendments to the Constitution and put same before this august House.

Mr Speaker, after that the Committee Members would undertake any other related activity that may be necessary to facilitate and enhance their formation task. After we have collated the views, memoranda, et cetera we would present these proposals together with recommen- dations on the review exercise for consideration and approval by this august House. So after we have taken all the information we would bring a report to this august House saying that these are the proposals we want to submit to the Committee. So that at the end of the day whatever we would present to the Committee will be a product of this august House and not just Members of the Committee. Mr Speaker, we would then transmit the endorsed proposals to the House and engage the Constitution Review Commission for discussion.

Mr Speaker, I have to state that we have taken note of the concerns that were earlier expressed by various Members of this august House and we have tried to bring into focus divergent shades of opinion on this matter.

We propose that since time is not on our side the Committee would start work as soon as practicable, first and foremost, by meeting the Constitution Review Commission members to discuss ways and means of going about their work and then we propose that on or by 29th of October, 2010, before the end of this year, when we come back for the final Meeting of this Session, we would be able to present our report to this august House and before the year ends we would have been able to present the report to the Constitution Review Commission.

I pray that the report, as stated here, would be adopted by this august House.
Minority Leader (Mr Osei Kyei- Mensah-Bonsu) 2:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to support the motion moved by the Hon Majority Leader. Mr Speaker, we all do recollect that earlier last week we attempted to have the composition of the Special Committee approved of by this House at the Committee of the Whole meeting at which we had to discuss the composition.
Some critical issues were raised. Leadership took them on board and we have come with a new list which tries as much as possible to take on board critical issues raised by Members of Parliament. Mr Speaker, in particular, Hon Members were concerned that the membership did not reflect all shades of opinion in the House as per Order 154 or our own Standing Orders which provides that the composition of Committees shall as much as possible reflect the different shades of opinion in Parliament.
Mr Speaker, we have endeavoured, as I said, to accommodate as many shades of opinion as possible in this House. One realises that we have strived to have regional representation, to have all regions represented; we have strived to have gender balance; we have strived to have representation from the back benches, from the middle benches and from the front benches; we have strived to have a healthy mix of serving Ministers, former Ministers and other Members of the august House. We have even strived to have religious balance on this Committee.
Mr Speaker, po l i t i ca l pa r t i es represented in the Chamber are all represented on the Committee. So we have the People National Convention (PNC), the Convention People's Party (CPP), the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and the New Patriotic Party (NPP).
Indeed, even Independent Members are represented on the Committee. Mr Speaker, we also have strived to have professionals or occupational represen- tation on the Committee. As well, we endeavoured to have gender representation as I have already indicated.
So Mr Speaker, we have strived to be
very, very accommodating. We do know, however, that in composing a Committee made up of 25 Members, it is almost impossible to accommodate all shades of opinion. Mr Speaker, we have travelled a great length to be very accommodating and very responsive to the issues raised by Hon Colleagues, for which reason I believe Hon Members would approve of the list presented before us.
As the Hon Majority Leader has indicated, this Committee is not going to be an “alpha and omega Committee”; they are only to collect and collate opinion, and of course, to distil opinions so collected, synchronise them, harmonise them and present same to plenary and the plenary
may add to or subtract from that so that we have a representation of the views of this House to be transmitted to the Constitution Review Commission.
The Hon Majority Leader has indicated
that it is indeed important that we should not be caught unprepared. The Commission has indicated that they want to engage Parliament and it is our business as a House to be dealing with the Constitution on daily basis. So to all intents and purposes this House should be perhaps the first port of call, and if they do come and we are not prepared it would not speak well of us, which is why it is important for the Committee, if we agree to its composition and approve of them, to start in earnest, business relating to what they ought to do.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the next Meeting for this year proposed for October is going to be the Budget Meeting and when we come for the Budget Meeting we have scant time to deal with this, which is why, as proposed by the Hon Majority Leader, the Committee will have the time beginning from today up to the first of maximum, or latest, second week of the last Meeting for this Session for us to deliberate on the recommendations of the Committee, approve of it and transmit same to the Commission.
So the membership themselves, Mr Speaker, do not have the luxury of time and it is important for them to begin in earnest their work for and on behalf of this august House. Mr Speaker, without much ado then I will urge and entreat distinguished Colleagues to help us adopt the composition and move on and allow them to work, knowing that the body is composed of very diligent persons and persons who are very scrutinous dealing with the Constitution.
Mr Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
Hon Members, this is a Committee of the Leadership. I know after carefully listening to the Hon Minority Leader trying to explain to us how they have taken onboard the various views that have been expressed on the floor of the House I do not think it will be necessary for us to take this -- I think that if there is any problem let us consult our Leaders. Hon Members, that is my suggestion but if you still insist --
This is a report of the Leaders but if you still insist to contribute I will take one or two quick interventions and then I will put the Question.
Mr David Oppon-Kusi (NPP - Ayirebi/Ofoase) 2:15 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, this is a small point. I do not intend to let us go back. I know the work that has been done in bringing this thing up but I feel that there is something I must point out so that it will guide us in future. I know what it has gone through but in trying to fix this thing we have, probably not intended, behaved like somebody trying to fix a leaking ship.
It is rusty; you fix this hole and the pressure goes to create another leak somewhere. I have noted the comments of my Leader; all the things that need to be done have been done. They have been done except to point out one thing - The Constitution urges us to have regional balance. This is a Parliamentary Committee, I am aware but it is for a certain purpose. We are doing a Constitutional Review and that presupposes that we are looking at representations from the people.
Whilst I am not asking that we change these things I want to draw attention. In fact, I did a little analysis. What I came up with is that Greater Accra Region has three; Central Region has one; Volta Region -- two; Eastern Region -- two; Western Region - three; Ashanti Region - four; Brong Ahafo - two; Northern Region - one; Upper East Region - two; and strangely enough the smallest of the regions with the least number of constituencies, Upper West - five representatives. I am only bringing it to your attention so that in future we will be guided by this broader need to balance -- so that it will inform us in working out the other balances.
I thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
Last comment,Hon Member for Asawase?
Alhaj i Mohammed-Mubarak Muntaka (NDC - Asawase): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I just want to thank Leadership for adhering to some of the concerns that came on board. Yes, they did the best that they could in trying to bring everybody on board, but as the Minority Leader rightly said, obviously to set up a twenty-five- member com-mittee having 230 Members coming from ten regions is a daunting one. But we thank them for at least heeding to the advice and making some amendments.
Mr Speaker, my other concern is that this morning all of us received individually letters from the Constitutional Review Commission urging us to write directly to them. With this in-house committee, I would be very grateful if Leadership gets in touch with the Constitutional Review Commission to notify them of this in --house committee so that the work that we would be doing, at the end of the day, would be very effective rather than maybe expecting individual members to write back to them.
With these few words I urge my Hon Colleagues to support the motion.
Mr Avoka 2:15 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank my Hon Colleagues for the support they have shown to this. Let me say that all the ten regions in the country have been catered for. That is the fact of the matter; no region has been left out, so that is the matter.
Secondly, I think that Hon Alhaji Muntaka has raised a very valid point. Yes, we have gotten correspondence from the Commission members that we should relate to them. I think I gave the background of what we have concluded today; we will write to them to say that we are going to present the proposals as a body. But nothing prevents an individual of this august House if at the end of the day there is an issue that one feels strongly about which had not been captured to deal directly with the Constitution Review Commission.
I think it would be difficult for us to say that nobody should deal with them at all but we want to assure everybody that we want a product of this august House so that people will know that this document is from the Members of this august House rather than from a splinter or minor amendments proposed by individuals which at the end of the day will not have weight.
But if it is coming from a group who has been practising this Constitution for years they may respect the views that we would have expressed therein.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the Hon Majority Leader has responded to the issues raised. Let me just also add that I agree that the Upper West Region appears to be over represented. On the face of it, it is true but the truth of the matter also is that we were
minded to include the former leaders of the House. That is how come we included the Hon Papa Owusu-Ankomah. For the other side they had to include Hon Bagbin.
The Hon Joseph Yieleh Chireh, a good Friend of mine, sometimes we have been taking him on but nobody can fault Hon Yieleh Chireh for diligence and scrutiny. And whenever we have dealt with Bills he is one person even when he was a first timer -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
What about humour?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with respect -- I was just making a point that some of them had to be included for their own merit and we felt that they ought to be included. The other one, Hon Bayirga, one will realize that he was not part of the list but when we came to deal with Party representations then we had to include him like we had to include the Hon Samia Nkrumah from the Western Region.
So that is how come with this engineering some regions appear to be over represented. But let me assure Hon Colleagues, as the Majority Leader has indicated that the door of the committee is not closed to anybody.
Like any Committee of this House anybody can walk to the Committee and make representations and make presentations as well. So let it not be conceived that it is a close shop. Indeed, at the very outset we were minded to set up a very small unit. We started off by saying that we needed a small group of seven people - later expanded to nine, later expanded to eleven and eventually we came to stop at fifteen.
Mr Speaker, the reason was that, as we were told, it may be necessary to set up sub-committees within this committee
and that is why we expanded it and we felt that at twenty-five -- Let us rest at twenty-five and if anybody has any representation he could come through the regional persons or Hon Members on the Committee or through maybe professional consultations and so on, or perhaps through Party affiliation.

So Mr Speaker, let us come to this and accept it as a body representing the entirety of Parliament. There is, I believe, not going to be any party positions on the Committee. It is going to be from Parliament. It should be construed as such and I believe these people are capable and they have the competence to do effective work on behalf of Parliament.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
Hon Members, that brings us to the end of the debate.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, it is past two o‘ clock. Do you have anything to say before I adjourn the House?
Mr Avoka 2:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I want to thank you, the staff and Hon Colleagues who have been here up to this point of time. We are grateful to your endurance and your commitment.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move that we now adjourn till tomorrow at ten o‘clock. Do you have anything to say before I adjourn the House?
Mr Avoka 2:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I want to thank you, the staff and Hon Colleagues who have been here up to this point of time. We are grateful to you for your edurance and your commitment.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move that we now
adjourn till tomorrow at ten o‘clock.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
Hon Members, on that note, I accordingly adjourn the House to tomorrow at ten o‘clock in the forenoon. Thank you very much for your support and co-operation.
ADJOURNMENT 2:25 p.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 2.27 p.m. till Thursday, 17th June, 2010 at 10.00 a.m.