Debates of 22 Jun 2010

MADAM SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:30 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Hon Members, Correction of Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 18th June, 2010.
Page 1…10 -
Dr Anthony A. Osei 10:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, just for your guidance. On Friday, 18th June, 2010, the Order Paper advertised a meeting of the Finance Committee on a particular subject. But it is being reported that the Committee met on two other subjects.
Madam Speaker 10:30 a.m.
What page?
Dr A.A. Osei 10:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, page
10. The Order Paper was specific; but there is a report that the Committee met when it was not advertised. So I am wondering if it was not a mistake. It is on the Friday, 18th June, 2010 Order Paper. It was to consider the Agreement between -
Madam Speaker 10:30 a.m.
I did not bring the Friday one.
Dr A.A. Osei 10:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I have my copy here.
Madam Speaker 10:30 a.m.
On the Friday one, it said what?
Dr A.A. Osei 10:30 a.m.
It was Friday, 18 -
Madam Speaker 10:30 a.m.
18th June?
Dr A.A. Osei 10:30 a.m.
Yes, Madam Speaker. The Finance Committee was supposed to meet at 10.30 a.m. to consider a BNP Paribas Credit Agreement but it was reported that they considered two other Agreements.
Mr James K. Avedzi 10:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, this was a mistake by the Table Office. We prepared another notice which we gave to all members of the Committee and so the Hon Member should also have his copy in his pigeonhole.
Dr A.A. Osei 10:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, our Orders are very clear. Nobody brought this to the attention of the House and we go by this as the official Order Paper. So, a Chairman or anybody cannot sneak in an agenda without the House agreeing to it.
Madam Speaker 10:30 a.m.
But did you get it at all?
Dr A.A. Osei 10:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, this is why I am saying that -
Madam Speaker 10:30 a.m.
No. Did you get that amendment?
Dr A.A. Osei 10:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, there was a letter in the box. What I am suggesting is that, we are on the floor of the House and it should come to the floor of the House and not somebody sneaking in a letter somewhere.
Madam Speaker 10:30 a.m.
All right. In future,
that is how he wants it, that even if you sneak in a letter, come and say it on the floor of the House.
Mr Avedzi 10:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I am surprised the Ranking Member is complaining. This is because I explained that this was a mistake by the Table Office and we put additional notice in the pigeonholes of all members of the Committee and they had these copies and
they attended. He refused to attend, that is why he is behaving that way.
Madam Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Well, he is entitled to make his point and we are entitled to move on.
Dr A. A. Osei 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, my illustrious Chairman is misleading this House. He is grossly misleading this House. He and I had a discussion much earlier that on this side, Members were going to perform an important function in their communities regarding the registration, so it was not possible for any meeting to be held. We had discussed this earlier. So he going back to write such a letter is not the agreement that we had.
That is the point I am making, that he should not have written the letter because we had discussed that and people like the senior Member of the House here, they all had to go to their communities because of the registration exercise. So calling a meeting was not the best thing to do. This is why I am raising the point. He is aware of it.
rose
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Yes, let us go here
first - yes?
Mr Alfred W. G. Abayateye 10:40 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, circulars were put in all our pigeonholes for the meeting. That day Hon Dr Osei was here, Hon Baffour Awuah, Member for Sunyani West was here, the Second Deputy Minority Whip - we were even at the meeting, he came there and when he realized that none of their people was there, he went back. Enough information was given to all of
us to attend the meeting and we attended. We all knew that the registration was going on. At the weekends some of us went, we were not to use the working hours to do that. We were at the meeting and they refused to come.
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 10:40 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, I must say the statement made by the Hon Vice Chairman of the Committee is most unfortunate. Madam Speaker, I can attest to the fact that the entire Committee has been very assiduous in its consideration of this Agreement. And the Hon Chairman of the Committee would recall that on numerous occasions I have enquired from him the status -- is that not correct?
But I also indicated that having regard to the importance that we all attached to this, it would be better for the entire House that when considering this Agreement, most of us would be present. And I spoke to the Chairman and even indicated that, “look, the week of the registration, many Members would want to go to their constituencies to oversee this”. I indicated to him that I would go. If there had been a meeting and a decision had been taken by the Committee, the Committee is within its own right, after all, a quorum is a third.
But experience of this House shows that when you take such positions, it does not help the House deal with this matter in a manner that would be most helpful to the House. But if that is the position they have taken, I do not have any problem with it at all.
But I just want to appeal to the leadership of this Committee, particularly the Chairman and more particularly the Vice Chairman -- because the statement he has made is most unfortunate. We know that even with attendance of most Members, you may not get about 75 per cent of the membership of this Committee participating in the business of the House.
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 10:40 a.m.


So I would submit humbly that we go strictly according to the Correction of Votes and Proceedings and not allow further debate on this subject matter.
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Have we not taken your concerns - Has the Majority Leader not taken your concerns?
Mr Hackman Owusu-Agyemang 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, if that question is deferred, in my opinion, I believe that --
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Hon Member,
he says we are correcting the Votes and Proceedings. But if these matters have come up and we have aired them, they have taken the concerns. Do we have to belabour the point?
Mr Owusu-Agyemang 10:40 a.m.
Madam
Mr Owusu-Agyemang 10:40 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, I believe that rather than to re- visit the issue, and a lot of ground had been covered by the Chairman, the Ranking Member, the Vice Chairman and a very senior Colleague, I was of the opinion that we could save a lot of time if we concluded this particular aspect of it. But it lies in your bosom, if it is your desire that we take it later, we would take it later. I was going to propose a compromise but we can take it later, no problem. Everything is with you, Madam Speaker, whatever you say.
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Well, I thought the concern had been taken on board and that according to the Majority Leader, he and the Minority Leader had agreed to look at it again and that is realistic, is it not, that we should accept that?
Dr A.A. Osei 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I just want to confirm what the Majority Leader has said and this is why it is unfortunate that the Vice Chairman would use a word like “refused.” Friday, he and I had a discussion, so he is fully aware. But for the Vice Chairman of the Committee to use a statement like “they refused to come” when we have had discussions, it is very unfortunate. Madam Speaker --
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
He may not know
what discussion you had --
Dr A.A. Osei 10:40 a.m.
But Madam Speaker,
this is why he has his leadership, this is why there is leadership. But to get up and make this type of statement -- because at the last committee meeting, a very important decision was taken and we wanted to respect that. It was not for the entire Committee to meet. A decision was taken that leadership of the Committee will meet, that is why it is unfortunate. But I confirm what the Majority Leader is saying and we can go on.
rose
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Well, Hon
Members, your Leader has spoken on this matter and I do not think you should belabour the point. Your Leader, whom you have to defer to has said that it would be looked at again. So please, do not let us drag things. If we accept that it would be looked at again, it solves the problem.
rose
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member,
so no more questions -- I will not call upon you, thank you. Your Leader has spoken, it is all right.
Mr Bayirga 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, all
right, if my Leader has spoken, I will agree with him. But --
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
No, no, your Leader has spoken.
Mr Bayirga 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, but
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Order! Order!
Mr Bayirga 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, he
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Order! What are
leaders for? What are leaders for, if you do not defer to them? He has spoken and I will not call you, I will not call upon you again.
rose
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Yes, Hon Minority
Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:50 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, thank you for the opportunity.
Madam Speaker, I believe this Agreement is something that we are about to conclude business on and we should not inject controversy into business that really should not arouse controversy.
We are governed by rules of procedure. And Madam Speaker, let me quote Order
196:
“A Committee to which a Bill or other business has been referred shall meet to consider such business on the day and the hour named by the Chairman of the Committee in respect of that business”
Order 197 says:
He also knows that in such matters, some of us are very, very particular. So if he says that, “well, it is a meeting of the Committee, a decision had been taken, people refused to participate”, giving the impression that some of us do not attach much seriousness to the Business of the House, well, we will take note of that.
I just want to caution the leadership that, please, taking this position, is most unhelpful. After all, we are all interested in the business of this House. But we also know that, in doing the business of this House, we need to take certain positions, which will enable us get everybody along.
This is a note of caution I am sounding.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
Mr Cletus A. Avoka 10:50 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, it is unfortunate this is not the time for the type of proceedings we should be going through now. We are merely at the stage of Correction of Votes and Proceedings. We are not talking on substantive matters, the merits and demerits of people attending meetings or taking decisions and the rest of them.
So I would appeal to you that under the circumstances, let us stick to the order of proceedings and correct the Votes and Proceedings. I appreciate the issues they are raising, and my Colleague the Minority Leader and myself have been discussing, even this morning, and I have told the Chairman that even though they met on Friday, they should put that aside and organize a fresh meeting where everybody would take part and then this House will be going as a body.
So we take note of the concerns expressed. But I want to pray that we are at the stage of Correction of Votes and Proceedings and we must be seen to be doing that rather than debating matters, which will not progress us in this House.

“The deliberations of a Committee shall be confined to the matter referred to it by the House . . . ”

Madam Speaker, the combined effect of these two Orders should mean that if the Committee determines to consider an item, it cannot be by any other arrangement other than what is advertised on the Order Paper. You go to consider it then on the stroke of the hour, somebody goes to prepare a document and says that this should be considered alongside it. It is not right. We should streamline affairs in this House.

Otherwise, Madam Speaker, we can have a very capricious Chairman who would go and prepare a list and says that this should be part of the consideration and then use the quorate number to determine that. He says that, “well, we have the quorate number to discuss business”. That should not be allowed.

However, the Hon Majority Leader and I had a meeting this morning on this same matter and we decided that what happened the other day was not the best. We should not allow some controversy to be injected into this.

So we are appealing to the Committee to discard that Report and have another round of meeting. And before then we are even encouraging a situation where the Committee on Works and Housing, which is also well positioned to make some pronouncements on this matter, meet with the leadership of the Committee and have a joint meeting with the Committee on Finance as well as Leadership in order for us to streamline the consideration of this matter, such that when it comes before us, any differences would have been ironed out. It would have a smooth passage in this House, which is why we are saying that we should not inject

But I think the fact that it has been taken on board, that people will listen when they are told, we should be satisfied with it. We do not rule on any little matter because I do know that committee members meet even without it appearing on the Order Paper.

So, I thank you Hon Owusu-Agyemang, for your concerns and I think they have been addressed but I would not rule on this matter.

If not, shall I take it that in the absence of any corrections, the Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 18th June, 2010 is adopted as the true record of proceedings.

Now, let us move to the Official Report of Wednesday, 16th June, 2010.

Hon Members, in the absence of any correction, the Official Report of 16th June, 2010 is hereby adopted as the true record of proceedings.

Shall we now move on to Questions -- Urgent Question?

Is the Hon Attorney-General and

Minister for Justice here to answer the Question?

Hon Majority Leader, the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice is to answer the Urgent Question from Hon David Oppon-Kusi.

Hon David Oppon-Kusi?
Mr Yaw Ntow-Ababio 10:50 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I rise to ask your permission for Hon Oppon-Kusi who is caught up in traffic because of an accident on the Graphic Road. That is why --
Madam Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Thank you, very much. That is the end of the matter then. -[Interruptions.]
Order! Order!
So, we would look at it again as
suggested. It is better we all agree before the Report comes.
I thank you.
Shall we now finish with the Correction
of the Votes and Proceedings?
Page 11 -

Hon Members, shall I take it that there were no corrections then? There were no corrections to the Votes and Proceedings because it has been agreed that what is reflected is what happened but that it would be looked at. That is why I was going to say that in the absence of any corrections -
Dr A. A. Osei 10:50 a.m.
Madam Speaker,
I thought by your ruling, and since Leadership has agreed that it has been advertised, that we expunge this as not having occurred.
Madam Speaker 10:50 a.m.
In which case, what
would you put as correction? That it will meet again?
rose
Madam Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Yes, Hon Hackman,
quickly.
Mr Owusu-Agyemang 10:50 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, I believe, sincerely, that if we do
not adhere to our rules of procedure, we may be leading ourselves into a blind alley. This august House has rules of procedure and what the Hon Member for Old Tafo (Dr Osei) is saying is that, although it was not advertised, it was supposed to have been discussed. Inasmuch as it did take place, we cannot expunge that from the records.
But one thing that is important, that the Chair should rule absolutely, that it cannot be the case, that clandestinely, surreptitiously, somebody can bring an issue, especially when the Hon Ranking Member on the other side had not agreed to it -- that is the advice I want to give. By so doing, you try to polarise the issue and the issue should not be polarised; it must be done in the interest of this nation.
The polarisation should not come. So, if the Hon Ranking Member and the senior Colleague say that this should not have taken place -- it has taken place, we all make mistakes, let us accept it. But then, Madam Speaker should rule and then we should go forward. Otherwise, the next time round, we should have Hon Chairmen and Hon Vice-Chairmen also doing precisely that.
Sometimes even reports are not seen and they are laid. Drafts are not seen by the committee -- and I believe we are setting the precedent for generations yet to come, for generations yet unborn. So we must do the right thing.
Madam Speaker 10:50 a.m.
I would not rule on this matter.
Mr Owusu-Agyemang 10:50 a.m.
Whatever it is, the Hon Chairman should go and sin no more. [Uproar.]
Madam Speaker 10:50 a.m.
I do not think this is a matter to rule on. There have been \ committee meetings where there has been no notice on the Order Paper. It happens.
Mr Ntow Ababio 10:50 a.m.
Madam Speaker, Hon Oppon-Kusi has just arrived. So, I thank you very much.
Madam Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Hon Oppon-Kusi, it is your turn to ask your Question.
URGENT QUESTIONS 11 a.m.
MINISTRY OF JUSTICE 11 a.m.
Mr Oppon-Kusi 11 a.m.
Madam Speaker, with due respect, this Question, as you are well aware, was listed until I asked that it be brought back. The reason I was given then was that [Interruption] Let me give the background. [Interruptions.] Madam Speaker, the reason I was given -- [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker 11 a.m.
Order! Order!
Mr Oppon-Kusi 11 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the reason I was given then was that the case was before court. I brought this to the floor of this House that the case was before court and that was why the Attorney- General and Minister for Justice could not answer the Question. So I find it strange that at this point I am being referred back to the Ministry of the Interior. If I had known this all along --
My question is, so how come then that the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice had no knowledge of the situation but I was given the impression that the case was before court and that was why she could not come to answer the Question?
Madam Speaker 11 a.m.
The question you ask is that she gave the impression. Has she given the impression in this House before?
Mr Oppon-Kusi 11 a.m.
Madam Speaker, on the very floor of this House, I raised the issue that my own investigation pointed to the fact that the matter -- I used the legal word, sub judice. The matter was before court and that was why the Attorney- General and Minister for Justice could not come in.
Nobody in the Leadership told me anything to the contrary. As a matter of fact, there was a debate as to the propriety of asking the Question or not. So, if at this point I am now being told that the Attorney-General has no -- Madam Speaker, I deserve to ask why I was taken
rose
Madam Speaker 11 a.m.
Oh! Wait, Hon Minister, I think more questions are coming. Can I take more questions?
Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, the Constitution as per article 88 (3) provides and with your indulgence, I read:
“The Attorney-General shall be responsible for the initiation and conduct of all prosecutions of criminal offences.”
Madam Speaker, is this House to believe that this matter is not being prosecuted as of now?
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 11 a.m.
Madam Speaker, as far as the records from the Attorney-General's Office, the department responsible for prosecution, as he rightly pointed out, of all criminal cases in the Western Region, as far as those records and our records at the head office show, the Attorney-General has not prosecuted such a case, neither has the case come to the Attorney-General for advice.
The reason for which we asked him to contact the police is that, it may possibly be still in the investigation stage. After the police has finished with the investigation, they may or may not ask us for our advice. Sometimes they prosecute direct, albeit in my name, in the name of the Attorney- General. Sometimes, they have the fiat of the Attorney-General to prosecute directly. Therefore, Madam Speaker, it is possible that the police are investigating the matter and thereafter I would be seized of it.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11 a.m.
Madam Speaker, since we are in the arena of possibilities, it is also possible that the police may not be doing anything about it. [Interruption.] On face value, does the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice consider this matter grave enough for the
Madam Speaker 11 a.m.
Order! Order! Well, I wonder whether the fault comes from the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice because it is as she had thought that that was the position. Was it not?
Mr Oppon-Kusi 11 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I am not saying it is the fault of the Attorney- General and Minister for Justice. I am saying that because of what I have heard, that -- [Interruptions.] Madam Speaker, this is very important.
Madam Speaker 11 a.m.
Order! Order.
Mr Oppon-Kusi 11 a.m.
Madam Speaker, between the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior, I do know that they collaborate or work together, and like the Hon Minister said, they investigate the matter and bring it to the Attorney- General's Office for prosecution.
Now, this issue happened a very long time ago, with the knowledge of the Regional Minister and the District Chief Executive. Now, the impression is being created that somebody is covering this problem. If I come here to be told that nobody has any knowledge, it reinforces the belief that it is being covered up.
So Madam Speaker, I will take her Answer and I would direct my Question to the Minister for the Interior. But let it be put on record that when I raised this issue on the floor of Parliament, nobody said anything about it but it was agreed that -- [Interruption.] Yes, we debated it before; it is very strange and these things should not happen; we should not allow these things to be happening.
Madam Speaker 11 a.m.
I think we would re-direct your Question, as the Attorney- General and Minister for Justice said, to the proper Minister.
Thank you, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice --
Madam Speaker 11 a.m.


initiation and conduct of prosecution?
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 11 a.m.
Madam Speaker, if this matter were to be brought before the Attorney-General after having been investigated by the police -- this is a matter, that indeed, would prove a serious offence enough to be put before the law courts for prosecution. So yes, the Attorney-General would and does consider such allegations necessary to be investigated and of a very serious nature.
Mr Albert Kan-Dapaah 11 a.m.
Madam Speaker, this case, when it did occur, was a matter of national concern. Can the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice personally aware of this case and has it occurred to her as the Attorney- General Minister for Justice to find out about the progress of this case?
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 11 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I am not personally aware of this case. [Uproar!]
Mr Hackman Owusu-Agyemang 11 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I think the issue is, the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice being responsible for all our prosecutions, when she heard of this case, before coming to this House, did she check? I think, to say to this august House that “I am not aware”, is not enough. Did she check with the police whether any investigations are going on? That is the point that we are asking. This is because Madam Speaker, I believe that no matter how much noise is made, the point still remains that the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice is the custodian of our rights and privileges.
Did she check with the police whether investigation of this nature is taking place or not? That is the question. Did she check with the police? Because she should have checked if it is grave enough; did she check with the police? That is the point
we are asking.
Madam Speaker 11 a.m.
Yes, he asked, have you checked with the police?
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 11:10 a.m.
Madam Speaker, no, I have not checked because this is a matter for the Minister for the Interior.
Mrs Akosua Frema Osei-Opare 11:10 a.m.
Madam Speaker, my question is for education purposes. The Attorney- General and Minister for Justice did indicate in her Answer that sometimes the police will prosecute directly without reference to them. When in her name, in the name of the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, such a situation occurs, what are we lay persons supposed to understand?
When it is done directly, does it then fall outside her jurisdiction and still stays with the Minister for the Interior or the Ministry of the Interior or when this thing happens, does the police still prosecute directly in her name? Is it still her responsibility? I want to understand as a lay person. I am not a lawyer but I really would like to understand and appreciate, so that we will know how to move forward.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Make the question
clear then, because it seems I did not myself get it.
Mrs Osei-Opare 11:10 a.m.
Madam Speaker, let me simplify it. I said I am not a lawyer. I want to understand from the Attorney- General and Minister for Justice, in her Answer, she stated that sometimes the police could prosecute directly in her name without necessarily referring it to her, to get more or less permission to prosecute. That is what I heard her say.
Now, I want to understand that when
Madam Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Yes, Attorney-
General and Minister for Justice, I think the question is clear now.
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 11:10 a.m.
Madam Speaker,
let me first of all start by saying that we should not personalize the issue. The Attorney-General initiates all criminal prosecutions in the name of the Republic of Ghana. Therefore, anyone who initiates, either the police or the State Attorneys who are prosecuting, prosecute in the name of the Republic of Ghana.
The police have a duality of functions. They primarily investigate and it is the investigation aspect I was speaking of. In the Western Region, according to the Attorney-General's Office, there are no records of such a case. In court, there are also no records of such a case, the docket being forwarded by the police after their investigations to the Attorney-General in either the Western Region or at the head office. Therefore, the police, when they prosecute, they prosecute in the name of the Republic of Ghana under article 88 (3). I hope I have made myself clear.
Thank you.
Madam Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Let us have one more for clarification.
Mrs Osei-Opare 11:10 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I
will ask a question of a situation that she described, not necessarily this particular case. Under that article, I have not been able to open it but since she had it opened, perhaps, it would have been helpful if she had explained what that article 88 (3) means, so that it is clear to me that when the police goes ahead and does the prosecution, this is what it means and therefore, it means the Attorney-General's Office has nothing to do with it.
That clarity is what I am seeking so that in any situation such as this, we will all be informed as to what it means. That is all I am seeking.
Mr Owusu-Agyemang 11:10 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, can we ask the distinguished Attorney-General and Minister for Justice to so invite the police to investigate the case since everything is under her purview, otherwise, we might be tempted to say that it has been a dereliction of duty? But now that it has been brought to her attention, would she be in a position, would she give this House the assurance that she would ask the police to investigate the case expeditiously and bring the matter to court?
Madam Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Well, that is a legitimate point. Now that you know, would you investigate? That is what he is putting to you. It may not be a question but it will be --
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 11:10 a.m.
Madam Speaker,
if I understood it correctly, I am being asked to liaise with the Minister for the Interior to check on the status of this case. Gladly, I will do so.
Thank you.
Mr Owusu-Agyemang 11:10 a.m.
I said the police, would she request?
Madam Speaker 11:10 a.m.
It has been answered.
Mr Owusu-Agyemang 11:10 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, I think the configuration -- [Pause.] Madam Speaker, I think the configuration of the question had been changed. The rendition was changed. I said since she is the mother of all these things, what is right in this society and what should be done, now that it has been brought to her attention, would she now take it upon herself to invite the police, which is within their purview as per the Constitution to investigate the case and report to this House?
That was the question, not to liaise with the Minister for the Interior; to ask the police to investigate the case and report to this House. That is the question that I am asking --
Madam Speaker, she said she would liaise with the Minister for the Interior.
Madam Speaker 11:10 a.m.
She cannot go as
an Attorney-General and Minister for Justice; the Minister for the Interior is in charge of the police. Are you expecting her as an Attorney-General and Minister for Justice to walk to the police station to liaise? I think you have got the answer, it is, yes.
Mr Owusu-Agyemang 11:10 a.m.
Madam Speaker says the answer is yes, so it is yes. She did not say that, Madam Speaker said it, we would take it as yes.
Madam Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Let us move on, we
have a lot of Questions.
Hon Attorney-General and Minister
for Justice, come again when we invite you and as you promised, investigate this matter. You have agreed to investigate this matter; we hope you will do.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 11:10 a.m.
MINISTRY OF TRADE AND 11:10 a.m.
INDUSTRY 11:10 a.m.
Minister for Trade and Industry (Ms Hannah Tetteh) 11:20 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the Ministry of Trade and Industry's objective to promote value addition and agro processing is geared towards addressing the problem of post-harvest losses and perennial glut, especially of tomatoes and other vegetables, fruits and food items. This would ensure stable prices and incomes for farmers.
In line with the foregoing objective and particularly to address the perennial glut of tomatoes in the Kassena-Nankana District, the Government through the Ministry of Trade and Industry, has revamped the Pwalugu Tomato Factory, now Northern Star Tomato Factory. This was done by re-tooling, rehabilitating and refurbishing the building, plant and equipment at the factory. This has made the company fully operational and now has the capacity to fully run and process tomatoes throughout the tomato season, at a minimum production capacity of 250 metric tonnes per day.
It is worth noting that earlier this year, the Ministry provided the factory with the necessary working capital which
enabled it to purchase the tomatoes from the farmers for processing. This means the tomato farmers did not go through the unfortunate situation of the tomatoes getting rotten as in the past, a situation which would have deprived them of the full benefits of their labour.
On steps towards salvaging the cultivation of tomatoes and other vegetables in the Upper East Region, I wish to state that the Ministry of Trade and Industry is collaborating with the Ministry of Food and Agriculture to increase the production of tomatoes to feed the tomato factory during the next crop season.
Other vegetables have not been produced at the same quantity and capacity as yet so as to merit the establishment of an industrial process to process them.
Mr Baloroo 11:20 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I would
like to know from the Hon Minister what steps her Ministry is taking to make sure that these problems are solved.
Ms Tetteh 11:20 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I thought
I had just answered the Question?
Madam Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Have you got it,
that the problems are solved?
Ms Tetteh 11:20 a.m.
Madam Speaker, as far
as being able to deal with the production capacity that the farmers produced last year to the extent that we were able to offer an alternative means for the farmers to dispose of their products by purchasing them for the factory, we were able to deal with the issue.
Madam Speaker, I am of the view
that the rehabilitation of the factory, indeed, is the solution to the problem. This is because as a matter of fact, when we started purchasing tomatoes for processing, we were only able to do about six weeks worth of production
from the crop that was available and so the challenge really is to even get more produced so that we can run the factory for a longer period of time.
Subri Industrial Plantation Limited
(Resuscitation)
Q. 485. Mr Anthony Evans Amoah
asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what plans the Ministry had towards the resuscitation of Subri Industrial Plantation Limited (SIPL) at Daboase in the Mpohor Wassa East District having been placed under divestiture for more than five years but had not attracted credible investors.
Ms Hannah Tetteh 11:20 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Hon Member for the interest he has shown in the resuscitation of Subri Industrial Plantation Limited, which is currently on the divestiture list. I wish to state that the divestiture of the company is the responsibility of the Divestiture Implementation Committee
(DIC).
However, as the sector Ministry in charge of the company and project, I wish to, by way of information, give a brief background to the company.
The company was set up in 1985 to produce fibrous raw material, that is, Gmelia arbora to feed a pulp and paper mill.
The project was promoted by the Government of Ghana and five local financial institutions, namely; Social Security and National Insurance Trust, Ghana Commercial Bank, Agricultural Development Bank, SG-SSB and National Investment Bank as shareholders. Government of Ghana has 71.5 per cent share in the company.
It is worth noting that the original objective of installing a pulp plant could not be executed due to lack of funding at the time.
Mr A. E. Amoah 11:20 a.m.
Madam Speaker,
in view of the fact that one would need a huge capital outlay to actually start paper and pulp industry and the fact that we do not have credible investors, would the Ministry consider an alternative view of making Subri Plantation more functional than what we have now?
Ms Tetteh 11:20 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I just
mentioned that since we re-advertised the project for divestiture this year, we have had quite a significant number of companies expressing interest and while the process of considering the various bids is ongoing, I would like to say that those companies, their interest seems to be a serious interest and therefore, we look forward to being able to complete the divestiture process and allow Subri to be able to utilize its assets productively.
Mr A. E. Amoah 11:20 a.m.
Madam Speaker,
this is not the first time that investors have expressed desire to work in a company; there have been others but they could not -- I am asking whether there is any marketing strategy that this time, we would attract these investors to show more interest than what they had done previously?
Ms Tetteh 11:20 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the
Government of Ghana has advertised for divestiture of a 71 per cent interest in Subri Plantation. We have had responses to this invitation of expression of interest.

A re-appraisal of the project shows that the land area earmarked for the cultivation of the raw material would not be able to sustain the project, that is, a paper mill.

The company, therefore, had to focus on sawmilling, using the overgrown Gmelia arbona trees which could not sustain the company financially. The company, therefore, continued to experience financial problems until it was eventually placed on the divestiture list.

The company's present assets include an existing plantation of over 5,000 hectares of an industrial raw material resource (Gmelia arbora) site for nurseries with water dam; industrial estate comprising office blocks, staff bungalows, clinic, schools, 13,000 hectares of forest reserve, sawmill and kiln.

Its liabilities covering indebtedness to various companies, staff terminal benefits, bank overdraft, provident funds and staff severance award totalled

GH¢2,915,010.80.

Currently, sixty-seven (67) workers out of the workforce of 140 have been retained to maintain the company as caretaker staff to keep the factory running and make it attractive to investors.

The company was put on the divestiture list in December, 2002. Though the initiative was to obtain a potential joint ventureship for pulp and paper production, no suitable partners were found, compelling the DIC to re-advertise the company for investors in 2008.

I wish to state that the company has been re-listed for divestiture. Thirty-six companies have expressed interest and this is made up of companies from Ghana, United Kingdom, Denmark, Nigeria, Togo and India, among others. Out of this number, twenty-two have completed registration of interest forms and thirteen

Until such time that we have completed the evaluation, we are not in a position to be able to determine whether or not we would be able to get a credible investor partner and that is the reason I think the most appropriate thing, with respect to the Hon Member, is that, let us see if we can complete this process and if after that we still have not been able to find a credible partner, we would consider other options.
Mr George K. Arthur 11:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I would want to find out how the Ministry is going to make sure that this indebtedness is settled, especially that of the laid off workers. Because I learnt they were laid off on 1st April, 2009 and they are still staying in the bungalows of the company. May I know how fast the Hon Minister can work so that the laid off workers get their severance award and quit the bungalows?
Ms Hannah Tetteh 11:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, the workers were laid off before 2009. Indeed, I quite agree that the severance payments have not yet been paid and that is part of the company's outstanding indebtedness. We are not yet in a position to settle the severance that is owed to the workers but we hope we will be able to do so working with the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, as soon as possible.
It is something that we are working on but I cannot give a definite commitment. This is because I have been at this for a while and I have not yet had a solution. And I think it will be inappropriate to make a specific commitment and not be able to fulfil it within the time frame. But I would like to assure the Hon Member that we appreciate the fact that for those workers who have been laid off and who are at home, their obligations are

outstanding and they should be settled as soon as possible.
Madam Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Thank you, Hon Minister. Shall we move to the next Question which stands in the name of Hon Francis Adu-Blay Koffie.
Abosso Glass Factory (Re-opening)
Q. 486. Mr Francis Adu-Blay Koffie asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what plans the Ministry had for the re- opening of the Abosso Glass Factory.
Ms Hannah Tetteh 11:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, in response to the Hon Member's Question, I wish to state that the Aboso Glass Factory Limited is currently on the divestiture list and the re-opening of the factory would depend on how fast and quickly the DIC can go through the divestiture process. It has been re-advertized for inviation of interest.
As the Ministry with the oversight responsibility of the company, I wish to provide by way of information, a brief background on it. Established in 1963, for the manufacture of sheet and hollow glassware products, Abosso Glass Factory Limited is wholly Government of Ghana owned. The company was inaugurated in 1966 but was closed down in 1968 due to operational difficulties. In 1976, the plant was rehabilitated but the company was again forced by continued low productivity and losses to shut down in 1988. It finally closed down in 2001.
The company was first listed for divestiture in 1990 with Government of Ghana (GoG) still a 100 per cent owner. In May, 1991, GoG approved a lease of the assets of the company to Tropical Metallic Construction Company (TMCC), a company incorporated under the laws
Mr Koffie 11:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, according to the Hon Minister's Answer, the company encounted some operational difficulties. Can she tell us what actually necessitated the closure of the company within these two years of its operations?
Ms Tetteh 11:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I am sorry, I do not have those details. The brief I was given was that the company had operational difficulties and the person to whom the company was leased abandoned the premises and for that reason, government took over the premises again.
Thank you.
Mr Koffie 11:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, can the
Hon Minister tell this House, how soon her Ministry will liaise with the DIC to process and pursue the agenda of attracting investors to re-open the Abosso Glass Factory?
Ms Tetteh 11:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, in my earlier Answer, I indicated that we had invited expressions of interest and the closing dates for the submissions of such expressions of interests was 20th June. Effectively, the closing date has passed. We are now waiting for the Divestiture Implementation Committee Secretariat to inform us, what kind of response we have had to that expression of interest. So, it is something that is ongoing.
Mr Koffie 11:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, my
last question. Can the Hon Minister mention some of the causes that led to the prolongation? Was it due to raw materials or insufficient planning?
Ms Tetteh 11:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I am informed -- and therefore, this information I am about to give is purely on the basis of hearsay. I am informed that the company's production was not competitive and therefore, it was difficult for them to produce products that at the
or he will be forced to pay that money?
Ms Tetteh 11:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I am not in a position to answer that question. I do know that the matter of the lease of the Abosso Glass Factory and the subsequent takeover by the Government again is being contested by the company but I cannot provide any further details.
Dr A.A. Osei 11:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, in her
Answer, the Hon Minister said that in May l991, the Ghana Government approved a lease of the assets of the company. Is she in a position to tell us what yearly amount this lease was for?
Ms Tetteh 11:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I am
sorry, I do not have that information but if I am given notice, I am sure, I can respond to that.
Mr Koffie 11:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, according to the Hon Minister, Government has 100 per cent hold in the company. Would it not be prudent for Government to take over since that will create employment for the youth apart from the profit that Government may make out of the production of the glass factory.
Ms Tetteh 11:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, it is an
option that may be considered but for now, the option that is being actively considered is the divestiture of the company. If that fails, we may look at other opportunities and other options but for now, we are looking to see if we can divest the company's assets.
Bonsa Tyre Factory
(Resuscitation)
Q. 487. Mr Anthony Evans Amoah asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether Government had any plans to resuscitate Bonsa Tyre Factory at Bonsa in the Western Region.
of Ghana.
By 1998, seven years into the lease, the company had shut down because of its failure to settle an electricity bill of GH¢1.4 million. In 2002, TMCC, in the face of liabilities amounting to GH¢2,550 million, completely abandoned its operations at the factory, resulting in security problems for the safety of the assets of the company.
In May 2002, Cabinet instructed DIC to abrogate the lease agreement with TMCC and to re-divest the company. The divestiture of GGCL was advertised from May to August, 2003 and the only reason it is still on the divestiture list is the limited investor interest in the enterprise.
I wish to state that the DIC has advertised the divestiture of the company again. Completed Registration of Interest Forms are expected to be submitted to the DIC by interested companies on or before June 20, 2010.
The Way Forward
The Ministry of Trade and Industry will liaise with DIC to ensure that the divestiture process is pursued earnestly in the hope that the company would be able to attract a private investor who will inject capital into it, to make it operational in the near future.
Madam Speaker, I would also like to add that in advertising these companies for divestiture, we are not only looking at expressions of interests that indicate that they would like to run the factory again as a glass factory. The most important thing is to have an optimal use of the assets so that they can be productive, create employment, generate products and services that are of value and then benefit the economy of Ghana.
end of the day, the market was willing to buy hence the huge debt overuns. But as I have said, that is hearsay, I am not in a position to offer better information than that.
Ms Gifty Klenam 11:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Hon Minister that since the operational cost of that factory is very high and the Government is also interested, if I may say in promoting small scale industries in terms of those who want to go into value addition chain, fruit juice, per se, what intervention is the Government putting on the table if the Divestiture Implementation Committee comes back to indicate to them that they are not getting people to invest in it.
Ms Tetteh 11:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, in my
earlier Answer, I indicated that even though the invitation for expressions of interest was in respect of the Abosso Glass Factory, as far as the Divestiture Implementation Committee is concerned, as far as the Government is concerned, we are not necessarily expecting that any such expression of interest would necessarily be used solely for the purpose of manufacturing glassware.
If there are other uses to which the premises can be productively put, that will generate goods and services that are of value, that are competitive and can generate employment, we are open to that opportunity as well.
Mr G. K. Arthur 11:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, my concern is about the electricity bill which was not paid. The head of the company was popularly known as Olympio in that area. This man left the company, went to contest general elections in Togo with Eyadema and when he lost, he came back to run the company.
May I know from the Hon Minister whether this electricity bill that was left by that man will be declared as a bad debt
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, will the Hon Minister, as the Minister responsible for the promotion of industry in Ghana consider proposing to the Government to find another approach to divesting these industries? From my experience in Government for eight years, the DIC, as presently structured, does not appear to have the capacity to facilitate the divestiture of government interest.
For example, if that structure had been used in the initiation stages, Vodafone, for instance, would not have been interested, the Malaysia company that purchased shares in Telecom would not have been interested. Would the Hon Minister consider proposing to Government that another strategy be adopted?
Ms Tetteh 11:50 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I believe the initial Question was on the Bonsa Tyre Company Limited, but notwithstanding, I will venture to provide the Hon Member with an answer.
I indicated in my response that one of the things that we were looking at with divestiture is not necessarily to divest the company to manufacture exactly the same thing that it was manufacturing before it was closed down. The important thing is the efficient utilization of the assets of the company. If they can be used to manufacture other products that are equally of value, that have a market, that
Ms Hannah Tetteh 11:50 a.m.
Madam Speaker, Bonsa Tyre Company Limited is currently under divestiture and has been advertised. And any plans to resuscitate the factory lie within the purview of the outcome of the process with the Divestiture Implementation Committee (DIC). As the Ministry with oversight responsibility over the company, I wish to give a brief account of the company's operations since its establishment.
Background Information
Bonsa Tyre Company Limited (BTCL) was the only pneumatic tyre manufacturing company in Ghana and one of three in the West Africa sub-region. The other two are in Nigeria producing Dunlop and Michelin tyres respectively.
The factory is situated at Bonsaso in the Western Region, about 16 kilometres from Tarkwa. It was originally designed with the assistance of the Czech Government in 1963. However, Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company Limited. of USA took over the company in 1967 as the majority shareholder with 60 per cent shares and the Government of Ghana holding the other 40 per cent to produce Firestone tyres.
Firestone successfully ran the company until 1992, when they sold their shares to the Government of Ghana. Bonsa Tyre Company Limited was incorporated the same year to run the company on behalf of the Government, then the sole shareholder. The company continued to produce tyres using the Firestone technology after the change of ownership until five years later, when Firestone withdrew its technical partnership and insisted on replacement of its tyre moulds.
The Ghana Government consequently requested for assistance from the African Development Bank (AfDB) in 1986 to rehabilitate the factory. The ADB approved a facility of US$30.70 million
utilized.
Mr A.E. Amoah 11:50 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I would want to know from the Hon Minister whether in the last three years there have been some investors who have expressed desire to come to our aid.
Ms Tetteh 11:50 a.m.
Madam Speaker, as I mentioned earlier in my Answer, the Divestiture Implementation Committee has received some expressions of interest.
Mr A.E. Amoah 11:50 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I would want to know from the Hon Minister whether the Government will consider collaborating with the Ghana Rubber Estates Limited because we know that the Ghana Rubber Estate Limited operates a large plantation of rubber. They continue to ask our people to give them land to plant rubber. Why can we not get into a kind of joint ventureship so that the rubber can become a raw material for the Bonsa Factory? Can we not collaborate in that way?
Ms Tetteh 11:50 a.m.
Madam Speaker, indeed, as the Hon Member said, Ghana Rubber Estates has significantly large rubber plantation within the Western Region and I am aware that Ghana Rubber Estates exports all of its processed rubber to France to Michellin and has a buyer for its products.
My understanding from the facts that were made available to me are that, when it comes to the production of tyres as was the case with the Firestone, as was the case with Dunlop, they have the technology and they have licensed the technology.
Therefore, in order to be able to resuscitate Bonsa Tyre Company Limited, it is not just a matter of the raw material, it is about a technical partner for the manufacture of tyres.

create employment opportunities and that indeed, creates industrial production in Ghana, Madam Speaker, the Ministry of Trade and Industry is more than happy to support such an endeavour.

In the event that this divestiture process that we have currently advertised is not successful, definitely, we must look at other options. When it comes to that, we would be more than willing to consult with other interested stakeholders, such as the Hon Member who had preceded me in this job to see whether it is possible to find other solutions to this problem.
Mr Owusu-Agyemang 11:50 a.m.
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to the Hon Minister for Trade and Industry.
By way of suggestion, are we considering in any of the projects, especially for tyre -- If we see the number of vehicles being imported and the need for tyres -- Can we not as a nation invest in them and cede the management to those who know how to manage tyres?
This is because I remember in 1964, when I was a final year student at the university, I was tapping rubber and I believe that --Madam Speaker, would the Hon Minister like to consider the possibility of ceding the management - For instance, now, if we take the Golden Tulip Hotel, was ours, we could not manage it; but when the Lybians bought it, gave it to Golden Tulip, it is the most profitable hotel in the whole of the Golden Tulip chain.
So can we not consider the possibility of investing as a nation and then ceding the management to those who know how to do it? Would she be prepared to consider that position, for example?
Ms Tetteh 11:50 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I think
it is an option that can be considered. At the end of the day, the investment and the assets, the provision of working capital, the availability of raw materials will not mean much if it does not have proper management to ensure that all of these assets are well utilized and the company can manufacture productively.
So it is an option which can be considered. But in the immediate short- term, we would like to see what comes out of the divestiture process; but it is something we could look at.
Mrs Gifty E. Kusi 11:50 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I want to find out from the Hon Minister if it is her Ministry that has given some of the bungalows for rent to people at Bonsa Tyre Factory and also to a cocoa buying agency to use as its office.
Ms Tetteh 11:50 a.m.
Madam Speaker, once a property is handed over to the Divestiture Implementation Committee, it is no longer managed by what used to be the previous parent Ministry. And no, I am not aware that we have given any property out.
Dr A. A. Osei 11:50 a.m.
Madam Speaker, earlier, an Hon Member made reference to a date in 1964. Can the Hon Minister tell this House if during that time she had been born yet? [Laughter.]
Ms Tetteh 11:50 a.m.
Madam Speaker, may I object - [Laughter] - No, never mind. Madam Speaker, as far as the question was concerned, my understanding was that it was not the date that was the issue; it was whether or not we could consider having the company managed by other professional managers.
As to the date 1964, no, Madam Speaker, I was not born then.
Madam Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Minister, for coming to respond to our Questions; you are discharged.
The next item would be Mutual Legal
Assistance Bill, 2009 and the Chair would be taken by the First Deputy Speaker.
11.55a.m. -- [MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Hon Members, the Mutual Legal Assistance Bill, 2009 at the Consideration Stage -- [Pause.]
Hon Majority Leader, have you and the Hon Minority Leader sorted out clause 1 - the amendment which was in the name of the Hon Minority Leader? If not, then we proceed with the other ones. Very well. [Interruption.] He has signalled me.
Mr Avoka 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we did not do it; we did some winnowing. We can start from where we did the winnowing and see how far we can go.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Very well. Hon Members, we will start with clause 9 - Chairman of the Committee and the Hon Minority Leader. The amendment is standing in the joint names of the Chairman of the Committee and the Hon Minority Leader.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 11:50 a.m.
STAGE 11:50 a.m.
Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:50 a.m.
I beg to move, clause 9, subclause (1), paragraph (b), delete and insert the following:
“A request by the Central Authority of a foreign State or a competent authority of a foreign entity for mutual legal assistance in relation to an investigation commenced
or proceedings instituted in that foreign State or by that foreign entity relating to an offence shall be made to the Central Authority designated under section 6.”
Mr Speaker, the construction in the Bill is a bit cumbersome, for which reason we are proposing this amendment.
Chairman of the Committee 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to support the amendment.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua noon
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 9, subclause (5), delete.
Mr Speaker, the reason is that if you read the subclause, it says that noon
“where request for mutual legal assistance from foreign State or foreign entities does not meet the requirement of section 8 . . .”
So if it does not meet the requirement ‑‑ there is no need for the consultation to take place. That is why it should be deleted.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
Mr Speaker, I support the amendment for the deletion.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
I will now put the Question on clause 9 - [Interruption.]
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
Mr Speaker, before you put the Question on clause 9 as variously amended, may I just indicate that what we did for clause
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon


9 (1) (b), it was supposed to take care of the entire clause 9 (1). I think there was a mistake in the printing; it is in respect of the entire clause 9 (1).

Mr Speaker, may I also indicate that as per the matter that was raised in respect of clause 7 (4), we have a repetition of it in clause 9 (3) and we have agreed to leave the construction, the synchronization of both clauses 7 (4) and 9 (3) to the draftpersons in respect of the use of the words, “agreeable” or “agreed”; we would need to synchronize the constructions in both cases.

Mr Speaker, with that I guess you can now put the Question on clause 9 as variously amended.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
I think the draftsperson would take care of that for consistency. So, the earlier one, we are deleting paragraphs (a) and (b)?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
That is so, Mr Speaker.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Very well.
Clause 9 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10 - Response to requests of foreign States and foreign entities.
Mr Bantua noon
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, subclause (1), line 3, delete “after consultation with the Minister responsible for Foreign Affairs”.
Mr Speaker, this amendment is consequential. Earlier we agreed that there is no need to legislate consultations with the Hon Minister responsible for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration, so this one is just consequential.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Members, this follows an earlier amendment that we had moved, so I
would put the Question.
Mr William O. Boafo noon
Mr Speaker, it is just to maintain consistency.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Very well.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mrs Kusi noon
Mr Speaker, this is a very important Bill but I cannot see any of the Hon Ministers here, either the substantive Minister or her Deputy. So I think that the Hon Majority Leader should try and call them as we go along.
First Deputy Speaker: Hon Majority Leader, what do you have to say?
Mr Avoka noon
Mr Speaker, it is a fair observation but the Hon Attorney-General and Miniter for Justice was here. She has gone to receive the Swiss Ambassador to Ghana and she will be coming back. She would be coming back to join us. She was here earlier to answer Questions and got permission to meet a foreign delegation; so she will be coming back.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Member for Tarkwa/Nsuaem, I have been advised that they have winnowed up to a point. Were they present when you were doing the winnowing? They were not there? They were there?[An Hon Member: Yes.] I see.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
Mr Speaker, even though they were not present, I believe what we did, they understand it and appreciate what we have done. This morning, we agreed that we would go on and get to the point that we got to yesterday. But she has promised to join us anytime she finishes, or failing that, at least, to join us at the next stage of the
winnowing.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Very well.
Mr Avoka noon
Mr Speaker, even at the winnowing stage, a representative of the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice was present.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Very well. So let us proceed and when we get to where we winnowed up to, then we can take a decision.
Hon Members, we are still on clause
10.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10 , subclause (1), paragraph (a), line 2, delete “fit” and insert “appropriate”.
So the rendition would be,
“10 (1) Subject to subsection (9) where a foreign State or foreign enti ty requests mutual legal assistance in a criminal matter, the Minister may --
(a) grant the request in whole or in part, on the terms and conditions that the Minister considers appropriate.”
Mr Speaker, I believe the word “appropriate” is more reader and user friendly than “fit” in the circumstance.
Mr Boafo noon
Mr Speaker, this is the new generation's expression.
Mr Speaker noon
New generation?
Mr Boafo noon
Mr Speaker, we are familiar with “fit” but we are told that this is the new generation's expression - “appropriate”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
I thought you were conservative when it comes to these matters and you will be in love with
‘fit'? Very well.
Hon Memebrs, this is a straightforward amendment. I will put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua noon
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, subclause (1), paragraph (b), at end, add the following:
“or the competent authority of the foreign entity”.
The rendition will be,
“10 (1) Subject to subsection (9) where a foreign State or foreign entity requests mutual legal assistance in a criminal matter, the Minister may
x x x x x
(b) postpone the request in whole or in part after consultation with the Central Authority of the foreign State or the competent authority of the foreign entity.”
This is for the sake of uniformity. It runs through various clauses of the Bill.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
Mr Speaker, before we get there, I think there was a suggestion that I proffered yesterday and I thought the Hon Chairman was going to take it on board. I should think though that maybe, the Clerk who was with us, might have missed the point and that is in respect of the opening of paragraph (b) --
“10 (1) Subject to subsection (9) where a foreign State or foreign entity requests mutual legal assistance in a criminal matter, the Minister may
x x x x x
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon


should really have preceded item 6 (x). I think that is where the problem is.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Where is
(xii)?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
Page 4 (xii), same clause 10 (xii), what we were relating to has been captured there. But that should have preceded (x), it has been captured as part of clause 4. But we should have had it in (b) first before we come to clause 4. So it should have come at (b) and then when we come to clause 4, the same thing would apply.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
So we
should proceed?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
Yes. So Mr
Speaker, the correct rendition there should be “defer the response to the request in whole or in part” and then at the end, we add what the Chairman of the Committee proposed.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Very
well Hon Members, then let us move the appropriate amendment. It has not been properly moved because the Hon Deputy Majority Leader used the word “defer”, the Chairman of the Committee moved and he also raised an issue.
Let one of you move the amendment, then I will put the Question. Chairman of the Committee, you want the Hon Minority Leader to move it or the Deputy Majority Leader to move it?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
Mr
Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, subclause (b) delete the entire paragraph (b) and in its place insert the following --
“defer the response to the request in whole or in part, after consultation with the Central Authority of the
foreign State or the competent
authority of the foreign entity.”
Mr Bandua 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support
the amendment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Hon Members, the new amendment is to delete the whole subclause (b) and insert a new rendition --
“defer the response to the request in whole or in part” after “consultation with the Central Authority of the foreign State or the competent authority of the foreign entity”.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
I beg to move, clause 10 subclause (2), line 3, delete “concerned” and insert “or the competent authority of the foreign entity”.
Mr Bandua 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the amendment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Hon
Minority Leader, you do not want reason to be given?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
it is consequential to what we did earlier. We are talking about the central authority to a foreign State. What we did not add was the matter relating to a foreign entity and the foreign entity is represented in this case by the competent authority of the foreign entity. That appears missing from that construction and that is what this amendment seeks to remedy.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Hon
Minority Leader, the amendment does more than what you have just said. The way it has been captured on the Order Paper, let us be sure as to what we would want to do because it creates the impression as if you are also deleting from “concerned” of the reason for the decision.
Because after “concerned”, we
substitute “or the competent authority of the foreign entity”, and we are deleting “the concern of the reason of the decision”; the way the amendment has been filed.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are talking about responses to request from foreign States or foreign entities, and (2) provides --
“Where the Minister cannot grant the request in whole or in part, the Minister shall promptly inform the central authority of the foreign State or the competent authority of the foreign entity of the reason for the decision.”
We could maintain the “concerned”, it does not derogate from the sense of that construction but what was missing was the place for a “competent authority of the foreign entity”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Hon
Minority Leader, the way the amendment has been captured, that we delete “concerned” and then we insert -- does it make the sentence complete?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
Mr
Speaker, because of the use of the definite article ‘the', I thought the sense is obvious but we could maintain “concerned”, in which case, then we will be inserting what has been captured as (x), and as I said, it will not derogate from the sense.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
I just
want to know whether we are keeping the words “of the reason for the decision”. Is it going? Are we keeping them?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
we are keeping all those words.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Then
the amendment has not been properly captured on the Order Paper.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
we are saying that we should delete the
(b) postpone the request in whole . . .”
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister cannot postpone a request, a request from a sovereign foreign State cannot be postponed by the Hon Minister. I think what we ought to say is, “postpone the response to the request . . .” and I thought the Hon Chairman would have indicated that before the addition, at the end which he proposed. So, “. . . the Minister may postpone the response to the request
. . .” That should be the construction before we get to where he will move.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
How do we postpone a response in part? You use the ‘part' there?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, I have seen it but there are conditions for acceding to a part of the request. We may come to that when we get there. Those are listed below, so we will come there; we will get there, but indeed, you cannot “postpone the request”, we “postpone the response” or “the grant of the request”.
Mr Bandua 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the amendment is in order because it is the grant of the request that can be postponed and not the request itself. So I think it is in order.
Mr Pelpuo 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not know whether we used the word, “defer” rather than the “postpone” or we came back to -- “defer”. “The Minister may defer a response. . .”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Are you moving an amendment? If you are moving an amendment, then do the necessary consultation and move it so that I will -
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my attention has just been drawn to something. I think it has been captured in item 6 (xii) on the Order Paper and that
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, subclause (3), lines 1 and 2, delete and substitute the following:
“The Minister may grant a request subject to the undertaking by the foreign State or the foreign entity that . . . ”
Mr Speaker, the construction there reads 12:10 p.m.
“The Minister may grant a request subject to the foreign State or foreign entity's undertaking that . . .”
Mr Speaker, you know, that is not
a neat construction at all and so, we are proposing a re-engineering of that construction and those others in alphabets may follow.
Mr Speaker, that is the proposal.
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I associate myself but with your indulgence, to further seek an amendment. The word “the” should be substituted for “an” to read:
“The Minister may grant a request subject to an undertaking . . .”
So that the word “the” -- if the Hon Minority Leader does not mind, I should think that the word “the” be substituted for “an” to read “ . . . an undertaking . . . “
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Hon Minister, what is the difference?
Mr H. Iddrisu 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is the construction; “…subject to the undertaking…” It should read “…to an undertaking…” and that is -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
It is a definite article there, so they are referring to a prior agreement or an arrangement and that is why the definite article is there.
Mr H. Iddrisu 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, objection withdrawn.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, subclause (4), line 1, delete postpone and insert “defer the response to”.
Mr Speaker, this is in line with what we did earlier with respect to line 1(b). So that the full complement of it will now read:
“The Minister may defer the response to a request if its immediate execution is likely to interfere with an ongoing investigation or prosecution.”
Mr Abdul Rashid Pelpuo 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it looks like the sense appears to be clear to us when we said that “The Minister may defer response of a request…”, which was what appeared a better rendition, unless we agree to go with the latter proposal.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
The Chair is getting confused.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the sense is the same; but his concern is about the use of the preposition, whether it should be “to” or “of”. And I believe that in this case “to” is the correct preposition. It reads:
“The Minister may defer a response to a request…”
We have not used the word “grant”, if we had used the word “grant”, then of course, we would be talking of “grant of the request”. But we used just the word “response”, in which case, it should be “response to a request”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Chairman
of the Committee? Hon Chairman, when you have an amendment after a Question has been put, I do not need to call you before you stand up on your feet. After I have announced the result of the voice vote, you do not wait for me to be calling you. You must be alert.
Mr Bandua 12:10 p.m.
Very well. I thank you
for the advice.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clauses (9) and (10), delete and substitute the following:
“The Central Authority shall on receipt of a request immediately forward a copy of the request to the relevant competent authority of the Republic for necessary action.
Mr Speaker, this has become necessary because if you go to clause 6 (2), it says that:
“The Minister may designate a competent authority to receive or make a request on behalf of a Central Authority or any other competent authority.”
So it follows that this should be in conformity with it, so once the request is received, the Central Authority shall on receipt of the request, immediately forward a copy of the request to the relevant competent authority of the Republic for necessary action. It follows from that.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:30 p.m.
Mr
Speaker, let me admit that I was present yesterday when we discussed this, but upon reflection, I am not too sure. The reason being that, if you go to clause 6 (2), which says that:
“The Minister may designate a competent authority to receive or make a request on behalf of a Central Authority.”
Which means that the Central Authority itself could receive.
But by this construction, we are obligating the Central Authority to, upon a receipt, forward a copy of the request to the relevant competent authority for necessary action, as if the Central Authority itself is incapacitated. That is my concern.
word “concerned”, that is the only word to be deleted. And then in its place, we insert “or the competent authority of the foreign entity”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
You see, now you have got it right, there is no insertion there. Do you see the point I am talking about?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:30 p.m.
Mr
Speaker, the insertion is a substitute --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
No, it is
different; you are keeping the other words. But if you say substitute, it means that after the “or” you remove everything and then substitute. When you are inserting, it means that even after putting those words there, you are keeping some other words there after that.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, to the extent that the construction was not that we delete all the words beginning from “concerned”, I thought the sense is about the same. But for the avoidance of doubt -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon
Minority Leader, when you are keeping the words after the deletion, then you insert and then it puts the matter beyond doubt that you are inserting because that was my difficulty all along.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
Mr
Speaker, as I said, we are singing from the same page of the hymn book.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Very well. The most important thing now is that, we know what the amendment is about.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.


we stand down this amendment for further consultation.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
We should defer it for further consultation?
Mr Bandua 12:20 p.m.
That is so.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Very well. I will defer putting the Question on the entire clause 10 and we move to clause 11. Is that right?
Mr Bandua 12:20 p.m.
That is so, Mr Speaker.
Clause 11 - Confidentiality of requests.
Mr Boafo 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 11, subclause (1), line 1, delete “Ghana” and substitute “the Republic”
Mr Speaker, the reference to “Ghana” in this context is to the legal entity which is the Republic and which has been defined in the Interpretation section. It is not the geographical area.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon Members, this is a consequential amendment because we have already done a similar thing earlier in the Bill. So I will put the Question.
Mr H. Iddrisu 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is minor but the second line of clause 11, the word “deal”, maybe, we should substitute “handle” for “deal”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon Minister, let me put the Question because what you are proposing does not contradict the amendment there. When we finish, you can still get up and argue the other one.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Yes, Hon Minister for Communications? [Pause.]
“handle”. I do not see the difference anyway but everyday we minute that we are “dealing with the matter”. But it is for the House to decide.
Prof Mike A. Oquaye 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I will respectfully stick with “deal with”, otherwise, we shall be having “competent authorities of Ghana that handle a request, or handle requests …” I mean Mr Speaker, we will be making things even more murky. That “deal with a request”, is clear. I have no difficulty with it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon Members, if I should express my view on this matter, I think that it does not create any ambiguity; we all know what we are talking about . So let us maintain it that way. It does not create any ambiguity or any doubt at all in our minds that if we use it, it means a different thing.
Mr Pelpuo 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I tend to side with the Hon Haruna Iddrisu's proposal because “deal” is technical. Apart from that, it has a connotation in Ghana - and you see, we are doing a Bill for Ghanaians and we have our own language --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon Member, within this context, what other connotation does it have? What other negative connotation has it got? When you are dealing with a matter, you are dealing with the matter.
Mr Pelpuo 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, but when you “handle” a matter, it is neater.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
When it comes to these matters, some of us are conservatives.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe this is a minor matter that we
Can we have a better way of capturing the sense, otherwise, we are obliging them to necessarily forward the request to the competent authority to handle, whereas indeed, they can handle it themselves?
Mr Boafo 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe if
we substitute the permissive expression “may” for “shall”, then that would give the discretion to the Central Authority whether or not to refer the matter to the - [Pause.] Mr Speaker, this is to be consistent with clause 6 (2), the new one, we deleted the original -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
I thought we did an amendment on the clause 6 (2) the other time?
Mr Boafo 12:40 p.m.
Yes, we did it. Mr Speaker, on the Order Paper for Thursday, 17th June, 2010, page 6 (xxx), we have a new subclause (2), which reads 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.”
Mr Speaker, this new proposed amendment is just to reinforce the earlier amendment we made to clause 6 (2), that all requests are to be made to, or channelled to the Central Authority. So on receipt of such requests, the Central Authority “may”, in its own discretion, refer it to the appropriate authority for an advice or for briefing.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Should it be “shall” or “may” in view of the new rendition in clause 6 (2)? Should it be “may” or “shall”?
Mr Boafo 12:40 p.m.
“May”, Sir.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Chairman of the Committee?
Mr Bandua 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I suggest

It is abandoned? Very well.
Mr Bandua 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 11, subclause (1), line 2, delete “use best efforts to”.
So the new rendition would be:
“The Central Authori ty and competent authorities of the Republic that deal with the request under this Act, shall keep confidential that request, its contents and any information and material supplied in compliance with the request.”
Mr H. Iddrisu 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the amendment except to further, with your leave, request that we substitute “deal” in the second line with “handle”. The word “deal” connotes some -- when you say “deal with”, it connotes a different meaning. We are saying that --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Within this context, what is the other meaning, Hon Minister?
Mr H. Iddrisu 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, when you “deal with” -- maybe, I am not persuasive enough. Hon Boafo, are you helping me? [Laughter.]
Mr Boafo 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am persuaded by the Minister's contention that it is more elegant to use “handle” rather than “deal”. The terminology is in the -- we are more friendly with “handle” rather than “deal”. So Mr Speaker, if we are substituting “handle”, then we have to delete “deal with”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Hon Members, clause 11, subclause (1), after line (2), delete “deal with” and insert
Prof. Oquaye 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity.
Mr Speaker, I think it would be useful to keep this. So that, for example, a person gives confidential information away, how do you determine whether he did what should have been expected? Then, we come to the question: “So, is this your best effort in ensuring confidentiality?” And that becomes the standard by which that person will be judged. So, it must be there to secure the intention.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Is it not also better for us to put something there so that we do not give the courts the opportunity for them to determine that standard for us? If we, as a House, at this stage of passing the Bill, can use words that are clear in our minds rather than leaving them to the courts to set the standard which might end up being the standard, different from Parliament's standard --
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we would advise seriously that we should
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, the standard is higher when we delete “best efforts” and I think we should have a higher standard, in keeping confidentiality, when people just do not go and leak things and then say: “we did our best” and the courts then go to decide whether you did your best or not. The standard is higher if we delete the “best efforts”. I do not know but - Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if that is your thinking -- because we just wanted to raise the bar a notch higher and if by deleting “the best efforts to”, we are clear in our minds that indeed, implicitly, we are urging the application of best efforts, so be it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Hon Second Deputy Speaker, if we delete those words, which of the standards is higher, by keeping those words or deleting them?
Prof. Oquaye 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is a requirement for confidentiality. I believe that “best efforts” go to emphasise that which is required of you. It goes to show that the lawmakers are particularly concerned with that requirement so much so that they qualify it with another expression. That is how I would look at it because confidentiality per se may not satisfy everything but it may be subject to other interpretations.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I threw down the gauntlet because as I said, if we have the rendition that the request must be kept confidential, what it means is that, whatever it takes, we must employ whatever method to keep it confidential. Now, if you qualify it to say that you use best efforts to keep it confidential, then of course, you provide the window for anybody to say that: “well, I did my best under the circumstance
can really put behind us if we stick with the words “deal with”. Perusing the Bill, where it has got to thus far,if you come to (6), the “Functions”, we are talking about responsibility to do certain actions. So, even if we are to, maybe, be consistent, then one would say that we use the words “responsible for” and whatever.
But I think in this context, it is understood by all. And I believe the Hon Minister for Communications would spare us this agony of having to go back and applying the fine comb to everything and be consistent. But I think for consistency sake, Mr Speaker, these terminologies are understood.
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I actually do not have a problem associating myself with either you or the Hon Minister. But in this case, since Mr Speaker takes precedence, I would associate with the Speaker's view.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
I am not alone; I am with the Hon Minority Leader on this occasion and the Hon Second Deputy Speaker. [Laughter.]
Very well. Thank you very much.
Hon Chairman, I was going to put the Question when the Hon Minister for Communications got to his feet again. So, let me put the Question.
Mr Boafo 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think this expression “use best efforts to” should stay.
Mr Speaker, I believe yesterday we had an opportunity to discuss it and even the Hon Majority Leader was commenting that the consensus was that it should stay. I do not know what happened.
Mr Speaker, we have seen the use of that expression as setting standard of comportment - use best endeavours.
delete “best efforts” and leave it mandatory. I say this now out of some experience in dealing with mutual legal assistance requests. Indeed, the requests themselves come with their wording, that we are to keep - that the Ministry or the competent authority is to keep confidential all records or all communications regarding the mutual legal assistance request.
It is mandatory, it is highly critical to investigations and to subsequent prosecutions. And if at any time we are called upon, if there is a breach, you can justify that, at least, the Ghanaian authorities did use their best efforts to keep it confidential. So, I would say that the “best efforts” rule is implicit within this. But it is far better for the success of our mutual legal assistance prosecutions and requests to make it mandatory.
Thank you, Sir.
Mr H. Iddrisu 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the motion of the Hon Chairman ably supported by the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice.
Mr Speaker, we a re c rea t ing an obligation, the Head note there is “Confidentiality of requests”. Why would you give an option of “best efforts”? Tomorrow, we will be giving an option for somebody to say that he did his best but he could not keep that confidential information.
So, I think that the words, as the Hon Chairman requested, should go. The use of “best efforts” should be deleted. And
Mr H. Iddrisu 12:40 p.m.
we create an obligation that it is a requirement that they must keep confidential information.

to keep it confidential, except you are judging that it was not enough.”

So, if we just have the construction that we should keep it confidential, Mr Speaker, I believe that takes care of everything. Whatever it takes to keep it confidential, we must employ it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
So when it is leaked, then there is a breach. As to your “best efforts” that one is another matter.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think we left it to the drafters; the position of the word “confidential” in the context. So now we have the construction:
“The Central Authori ty and competent authorities of the Republic that deal with the request under this Act shall keep that request, its contents and any information and materials supplied in compliance with the request, confidential.”
I think it is the position of the word “confidential”, whether it should be at the end to make it explicit or where it is positioned now, and I thought that if we brought it to the end, it would be better.
Mr Bandua 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think we agreed on that amendment.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 11, subclause (2), line 5, before “State” insert” “foreign” This is because we are dealing in this case with foreign States and foreign entities. Mr Speaker, that is the reason for the insertion in line 5.
Mr Pelpuo 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I just beg to go back to the first amendment under clause 11 (1), where we shifted “confidential” from where it is to the end. I think the emphasis is on “confidential”, and so the “shall” shall be closer to “confidential” and would give it the kind of vent we want. If we shift it to the end, it does not give the real impact we want to create. It shall be confidential, but not “it shall -- confidential”. So I think we should look at that before we go on to the next.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Hon Members, I will put the Question and even though we want as much as possible to be flexible. This is because this is a very technical Bill; let us proceed and somewhere along the line, if you still feel strongly about it after further consultation, we can take a second Consideration Stage.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in any event, you keep a matter confidential; you do not keep “confidential” a matter. I think this is everyday English, with respect to the Deputy Majority Leader.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Well, it is good you qualified it, with respect.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 as amended ordered to be part of the Bill.
Clause 12 - Limitation on use of information or evidence.
Mr Boafo 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 12, subclause (2), line 3, insert “or entity” after “State”.
Mr Speaker, the reason is that at the beginning of subclause (2), a reference is made to foreign State or foreign entity and in order to maintain the consistency,
we would like to propose the insertion of “or State, or entity” just to be consistent.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
There is only one amendment there.
Mr Boafo 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have noticed that they have left out another amendment under clause 12, subclause (1). It appeared in the -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Is the amendment standing in your name or the Chairman of the Committee?
Mr Boafo 12:50 p.m.
The Chairman of the Committee.
Mr First Deputy Speaker Chairman, do you have your -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
But you are in charge more or less under amendments, so you should know all the amendments. If there is an omission, you should be able to draw the House's attention to it. If I can get a copy of what the Hon Boafo is talking about. [Pause.]
Mr Bandua 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have the Order Paper but it is not in.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
But you are in charge more or less under amendments, so you should know all the amendments. If there is an omission, you should be able to draw the House's
Mr Bandua 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that we looked at it and decided the draftsperson should re-phrase it. That is why maybe, it was not captured here.
Mr Boafo 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if the Chairman acknowledges that there was an amendment to that particular clause and it is being taken care of by the draftsperson, I am all right with that.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
It is a substantial amendment?
Mr Boafo 12:50 p.m.
Yes, it is a substantial amendment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
If it is a substantial amendment, then it is for the House. But if it is just re-arrangements and minor things, then it is for the draftsperson.
Mr Bandua 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think it is more of a re-arrangement.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Clause
12 (1)?
Mr Bandua 12:50 p.m.
I think it is the foreign State of -
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think for last Thursday the Chairman had proposed an amendment to delete the opening words in the first line:
“A foreign State or foreign entity shall only use information or evidence obtained in response to a request for assistance under this Act for the purpose of a criminal matter specified in the request.”
And the Chairman had proposed that we delete the words: “a foreign State or foreign entity shall only use ...”, so that we would have a new rendition:
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if I may read. Let us assume that we are deleting the entire clause 12 (1) and in its place insert --
“Any information or evidence obtained in response to a request for assistance under this Act shall only be used for the purpose of the criminal matter specified in the request.”
Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr Pelpuo 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, th is construction or rendition might also hurt the central authority because we are talking about a foreign entity which might seek this information and might possibly use it for something else. But for us in Ghana, we can get the information; we can research and find the information and still use it in Ghana. So if it is blanket, it might go to affect central authority which might want to use it here in this country. But in his construction, he did not mention “foreign”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Chairman of the Committee, the amendment is supposed to be in your name?
Mr Bandua 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 12, subclause (1) delete and insert --
“A foreign State or foreign entity shall use information or evidence obtained in response to a request for assistance under this Act only for the purpose of the criminal matter specified in the request”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
So the “only” has now qualified the limitation clearer?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think it takes care of the concern of the Deputy Majority Leader, that we should retain the place of “foreign State or foreign entity” in this matter. So we only take out or delete the word “only” in the first line. For line 3, we insert it before “for” and that
is about the same thing any way.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Very well. Hon Members, the new amendment is to delete “only” from line 1 and then place it in line 3, before “for” after Act at the beginning of line 3.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13 -- Expenses incurred for requests.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 13, subclause (2), paragraph (a), subparagraph (ii), after “official” insert “or legal counsel”.
So that we will have --
“a foreign State or entity shall be responsible for the travel and incidental expenses of an accompanying official or legal counsel of a witness” under paragraph (i).
Mr Speaker, I see the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice shaking her head that she does not want that rendition but we are concerned with who takes care of a legal counsel or witness; it has not been provided for in that provision.
Mr Boafo 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I rise to support the amendment being proposed. Mr Speaker, there is a reference to --
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am somewhat at a loss here because each State or each entity is supposed to pay for its own legal counsel. We can pay for the officials and usually the officials would be a legal counsel. I think it might be rather
unprecedented to put who should bear the cost of legal counsel in legislation.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Hon Boafo, the practice is when you are going to do, for example, arbitration and all those things outside, all the lawyers that go on behalf of Ghana for example, are paid for by the Government of Ghana and vice versa. I do not know what mischief you want to cure by making sure that legal counsel comes there.
Mr Boafo 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are thinking of the fact that the witness may be given an option to take along somebody from the private practice. Maybe, a special -- the foreign State and the foreign entity will pay for the legal counsel's expenses.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice does it take anything away from the Bill? It only adds, what do you say?
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is highly unusual. I do not believe that I have seen this before because the officials would normally include members of the central authority. As I said, you bear the cost of legal counsel yourself. I find this unusual. That is my opinion.
Mr Boafo 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, while I appreciate the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice's position, here we are making new laws. We are not doing any practice, we are making new laws. We can turn a woman into a man or a man into a woman so far as we are concerned. We are making new laws and we have to anticipate what will happen in future, because we are still expanding. And also give the private practitioners the opportunity to enhance such an experience, exposures.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Hon Boafo, what happens if you single out only
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Very well, if it is re-arrangement, then I would put the Question on the clause 12.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thought the proposal by the Chairman was more concise. The proposal by the Chairman which has now been withdrawn was and is more concise and brings out the sense better than what is captured here. I think the reason for the proposal was that if we state that a foreign State or foreign entity shall only use information or evidence obtained in response to a request, it may mean that whatever information outside the request cannot be used.
Whatever information that is obtained outside that request cannot be used. But we are not restricting that foreign entity or foreign State to only the information that you have received; for which reason the main rendition is better. That is to say, any information or evidence obtained in response to a request for assistance under this Act shall only be used for the purpose of the criminal matter specified in the request.
Mr Speaker that is a better construction. So the Chairman should not have abandoned it. I believe the Chairman would want to reinstate it and it would be supported.
Mr Bandua 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, so I will re-instate it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
But I do not have it here; I want to be sure what amendment you are moving. I do not have a copy here, if somebody can help me with a copy; I want to get the rendition.
Mr Bandua 1 p.m.
“A foreign State or foreign -” [Pause.]
Mr Boafo 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the subject matter is Mutual Legal Assistance and I do not think it goes beyond that. Secondly, if there is the need for maybe, an accountant or an actuarist or any other person to accompany, then we can expand it to cover legal counsel or any advisor.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
I do not have any problem but my worry is when you single out legal counsel, these days as we all agree, crime is becoming more complicated, we need experts, lawyers themselves might even need some other people outside to even assist them, to properly evaluate the evidence.
So depending on the crime involved and if we single out a particular profession, then if the rules of interpretations come into interplay, then we may have difficulty that we do not intend to include the other professions. But it is for the House to decide what should be in the Bill.
Mr Pelpuo 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, let us not open the floodgates, and let us go as far as it is possible for us and for what is possible for the Attorney-General's Department or the Ministry of Justice in sending such information and getting officials to go along, we should limit it to the officials who are State officials and not possible legal personnel that would be sought by the -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Hon Deputy Majority Leader, you have taken the debate to a different level. The standard practice is that because the Attorney-General's Department is so much overburdened, normally, when they are doing cases outside the jurisdiction, they get the assistance of lawyers in
private practice.
I think that what the amendment is seeking to do is to make sure that since they are not typical staff, officials in the sense that they are not public officials, the mischief that the amendment wants to cure, if I understand the Hon Minority Leader right, is to take care of those category of lawyers, so that even those who are not public officials per se are taken care of, which is the normal practice because they always go.
I know people who are in private practice have been engaged over the years to assist government do litigation outside the jurisdiction of this country or to assist them. It happens everyday and that is the kind of category of people they want to be covered under this amendment. The Attorney-General and Minister for Jusatice is saying that that is the practice already. This is because you are the Government of Ghana and it is going on the ticket of the Government of Ghana.
So for purposes of Ghana or for example, they are already officials of Ghana and therefore, there is no need, as she is saying, to include them here.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the reason for proposing the amendment was to really cure the particular mischief that we have been talking about. I also do know that in the Interpretations Act, not only to consider the memorandum attached to the Bill also to factor what decisions that Parliament, in fashioning the law came to.
If the understanding as proposed by the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice is that the term “accompanying official” would include legal counsel, Mr Speaker, I believe that then we need not insert that amendment, we can put the Question and move on with that understanding.
In which case, Mr Speaker, I may drop the amendment being proposed so that we move on. If that is the clear understanding that we have from the Attorney-General,
official, then may include all other officials who may accompany the witness; we drop the amendment and move on. I think that is the understanding that I wanted to bring on this.
Mr Bandua 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that, clause 13 subclause (2), paragraph, (f), at end, delete “and”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
What is the import of the amendment?
Mr Bandua 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the two subclauses are expected to stand on their own and not to be linked together.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Chairman will be proposing another amendment and that being the case, the “and” would not have any place there. It would have to come subsequently.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Absolutely, I think that is why I asked the question. It is clearer.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg
to move, clause 13, subclause (2), paragraph (g), at end, add “and”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
So you are now bringing it?
Mr Bandua 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is to follow, that is why I did not make it early on.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
That is what the Minority Leader is saying.
Mr Bandua 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in any case,
it was going to come. I was going to do it. Because another clause was going to come in and that would link it up. So that

then we can move on and drop the amendment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, now it depends on your understanding of what we are saying.
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it would not have been my preference because I find that, as I said, this is not the practice and I find it quite frankly, not necessary here. I would say that if we need to add an interpretation, then the word “may”, that “officials may include legal counsel”. Mandatory would give me a problem.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
What the Hon Minority Leader is saying is that if the understanding is even if we do not put “legal counsel” here, it is consistent with the practice that if you engage a private lawyer to assist, it is part of that official being referred to then there is no need, so that we can then fall on the Interpretation Act to determine what an official is.
I also agree that your response is also one way out as to what you meant by “official” for purposes of clause 13. What does it mean by on official, does it include
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is precisely what I said. I said that in the Interpretations Act, I am not talking about the portion of interpretation as contained in the Bill. We have agreed that in looking at interpreting provisions in an Act, we may now have to consider the memorandum attached, which was not done previously, and how Parliament arrives at decisions.
I think the understanding from the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice is that it is not necessary to particularize on legal counsel. This is because that has been the practice and I am saying that that being the case, and with the understanding that the terminology accompanying
is the reason we have to add the “and” to the end of (g).
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 13, subclause (2), add the following new paragraph:
“(h) other expenses incurred for the grant of a request made by a foreign State or foreign entity.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 13, subclause (3), lines 1 and 2, delete “after consultation with the Minister responsible for Foreign Affairs” and in line 4, delete “or an extraordinary”.
The first one is consequential and that in line 4, delete “or an extraordinary”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:20 p.m.
Mr
Speaker, as it has been articulated, the first one, that is the deletion of the words “after consultation with the Minister responsible for Foreign Affairs” are consequential to what we have done earlier.
The other deletion, that is, the words “or an extraordinary” also, we are calling for their deletion because the expression refers to expenses and we are talking
about expenses that may be substantial. How do you describe expenses as being extraordinary? This is the reason we are calling for the amendment in clause 13, subclause (3).
With that I support the amendment moved by the Chairman of the Committee.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 13 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14 -- Defence request for Mutual Legal Assistance.
Mr Bandua 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with this clause, other issues are coming up, so I request that we stand it down for further consultations, in view of the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice. There are issues that are being raised about its inclusion, so I suggest that we stand it down for further consultations.

Clause 15 - Refusal of request for Mutual Legal Assistance.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
I beg to move, clause 15, subclause (1), paragraph (c), line 1, delete “reasonable” and substitute “substantial” and in line 3, after “race”, insert “colour” and also in line 4, after “religion”, insert “creed.
Mr Speaker, in clause 15, subclause
(1), paragraph (c), we have a construction that in my view is constructed on the lines of article 12 (1). There appears, however, to have been some deletion or
some omission of certain words and I thought it should just be in tandem with that construction as in article 12 (1) of the Constitution. So, those are just the two words that I said we should look at to import into subclause (1), paragraph (c).
Mr Bandua 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am in agreement with his amendment.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:20 p.m.
Mr
Speaker, I think further to that, I am also calling for the deletion of the word “reasonable” in line (1) and substituting the word “substantial”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
What is the difference?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:20 p.m.
Mr
Speaker, earlier, we had deleted “where reasonable”, appeared to read “substantial” and I thought for consistency sake, we should repeat same
Deleting “reasonable” and inserting “substantial”.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Do we normally talk about reasonable grounds or substantial grounds?
Yes, Hon Boafo.
Mr Boafo 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we talk about
reasonable grounds.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Yes. So,
if you have done it somewhere, then it must have been an error. We may have to go and look at it again.
Mr Boafo 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I proposed that
we go back and review that.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
So, we
keep “reasonable”.
Mr Boafo 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I prefer that
we keep “reasonable”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Yes.
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I
would also prefer if the word “reasonable” was kept. After all, that is the generic word in law.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was just consulting the Clerk. Really, that was not what we discussed. I think it is a misprint. [Laughter.] Yes, it is not what we discussed for the deletion of the word “reasonable” at that place. So, I will drop that amendment in my name.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
That part
- the substantial part --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:20 p.m.
Mr
Speaker, for the deletion of - with respect to “reasonable”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
In line with the article 12 (1) of the Constitution.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:20 p.m.
That is so, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
All right. In view of the developments, the amendment is that subclause (1), line (3) after “race”, insert “colour” and also in line 4, after “religion,” insert “creed”. Is that correct?
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Boafo 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move,
clause 15, subclause (1), line 1, after “(3)” insert “of this section”
Mr Speaker, the amendment being proposed is to identify the reference being made to subsections 2 and 3. Just to be

private legal counsel? But I think that the Hon Majority Leader has virtually resolved the matter, in my view.
Mr Bandua 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, subclause (1), paragraph (d), delete.
The reason is that if you come to paragraph (h), there is another provision there. “. . . will contravene the law of Ghana”. Since the Constitution is part of the laws of Ghana, we feel that this should be deleted.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15 - subclause (1), paragraph (e), at the end, delete “in Ghana” and substitute “of competent jurisdiction”.
Mr Boafo 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the rationale behind the proposed amendment is to recognize plea autre fois ac quit as obtained elsewhere, not only in Ghana.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, subclause (1), paragraph (g), at end delete “and” and substitute “or”.
Mr Speaker, this is because (g) and (“h”) are supposed to alternate.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, subclause (1), paragraph
(h), line 1, delete “domestic” and in line 2, delete “in respect of criminal matters.
The first amendment is consequential. We have already handled that one, that is in respect of criminal matters. We do not want to limit it to criminal matters. It should be laws of Ghana. The draftperson will look at it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
Are we not talking about mutual legal assistance in criminal law? So why do you want to de-emphasise criminal in that amendment?
Mr Bandua 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think it will not make much difference. It is better for us to leave it and end it at Ghana. Because the law in criminal matters - but the emphasis here, I do not think it is very necessary.
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if we may read, with your indulgence, (g), the request relates to the transfer of a detained person who has refused to be transferred by a foreign State in the Republic for the purpose of examination as a witness or the execution of the request would contravene the laws of Ghana. If you read it that way, I think you would understand the import of deleting criminal matters.
Mr Boafo 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if we look at article 11 of the Constitution, we have laws of Ghana, not law of Ghana.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, subclause (2) paragraph (a), at end, delete “and” and substitute “or”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move clause 15, subclause (2), add the following new paragraph:
“(c) it constitutes an offence within the scope of an international convention against terrorism to which the Republic is a party.”
Mr Speaker, we want to exclude this from under the purview of the Bill.
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the amendment.
Mr Boafo 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I just want an explanation from the Hon Chairman why in the case of his proposed amendment, parties to the international convention is limited to the Republic of Ghana only, while under paragraph (a), the parties to the international convention involve Ghana and foreign State.
Mr Bandua 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, you may propose another amendment if you think that it should cover the others; so if you want to move a new amendment, you are free to do so.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
Chairman, this amendment is in your name. So explain what you have moved.
Mr Bandua 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, I have moved that this amendment is supposed to be restricted to the Republic of Ghana but if he thinks that it should cover -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
But this is mutual, so -- The (a) -- it is an offence within the scope of international community to which both the Republic and the foreign State are parties. But he is saying that when we come to (c), we are only limiting it to Ghana. That is the point that I am making.
Mr Bandua 1:30 p.m.
I t cons t i tu tes - [Interruptions.]
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, let me help you. The UN SCR 1373 on terrorism makes it mandatory for all States to be party to the Convention on terrorism, for all States to implement the UN SCR 1373. They are about 13 or 14 Conventions and all UN States are supposed to be party to them.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
So do we then qualify it with a party if the thing is mandatory.
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is mandatory and therefore, in the case of terrorism, as you know - When I look at this particular section, it is putting the onus on the Republic of Ghana. So that if the other party is not a member or is not implementing, that party is in breach of the UN and they are not - it is not a scenario that Ghana should oblige or should be obliged to ensure that that party is a member to the same convention. According to International Law, they are supposed to be members of the United Nations Convention against terrorism in particular. I hope I have made myself clear here?
Mr Boafo 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if we go by the Rules of Interpretation so far as this Bill is concerned, if in paragraph (a), the parties to the International Convention covers Ghana and the foreign State and if in paragraph (c), it is only the Republic, then I can insist that if we are parties to the Convention and notwithstanding the fact that the UN Resolution requires State parties also to accede to that Convention, if the other State has not acceded to
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Yes, Hon Members, I think that the way out of the dilemma is one of two - either we couch it in line with the paragraph (a) or since it is mandatory for every party to be signatory to it, we do not make the Republic a party. We just put there “it constitutes an offence within the scope of an international convention against terrorism.” Then we put a full-stop there. So because of its mandatory nature, we do not have to - as for us, we are complying, if somebody does not comply, that is their own cup of tea.
So let the amendment be moved in that direction.
Mr Bandua 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, a new addition be made as follows:
“…it constitutes an offence within the scope of an international convention against terrorism.”
So the others go off; “to which the Republic is a party” goes off.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
So sub-clause (2), add the following new paragraph:
“it constitutes an offence within the scope of an international convention against terrorism.”
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:40 p.m.
Mr
Speaker, how do we distinguish that from the provision in clause 2 (a) - “it is an offence within the scope of international convention against terrorism”? It still falls within the ambit of international convention.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Yes, I think by way of emphasis with regard to terrorism -- I think that -
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am asking this because I thought the construction in the amendment proffered by the Chairman was really to be in sync with clause 4, where, if the two parties are not signatories to an agreement or a convention and one party is, we could resort to administrative arrangement. I thought that was the rational for proposing that. If, indeed, we are to say that it is only for purposes of emphasis, then I am afraid it is captured in clause 2 (a). But if you are saying that for - [Pause.]
It is a mutual assistance agreement and we are saying that clause 4 is providing the opportunity where there are no agreements or conventions acceded to by the two parties. Then it provides us the opportunity of resorting to administrative mechanism. I thought the proposal was in response to the provision in clause 4. If it is for the purpose of emphasis then I thought that clause 2 (a) captures it appropriately. But well -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Yes, Hon Minority Leader, when we started the clause, the Hon Member for Akropong raised a very interesting point that why is it that in the case of paragraph (a), it is both parties but when it comes to paragraph (c) it is only Ghana? And then the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice tried to explain by saying that in the case of the convention on terrorism, it is special because it is mandatory; it is obligatory on all the members of the United Nations to implement it.
So in the case of terrorism, both
parties do not need to be signatories to the convention; they do not need to. But in the case of (a), both parties must; both the requesting State and - which is the other one? [Laughter.]. Both parties must be signatories to the convention, that is

Yes, Hon Member?
Mr Boafo 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my Leader made reference to clause 4. In clause 4, the agreement being referred to is not an international convention. It is just an arrangement or agreement between the central authority and the foreign State. But so far as clause 15 is concerned it talks about international convention.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
So, Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice?
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 4 is looking at the administrative arrangements. Clause 15 (2) is looking at the offence. And why is there the exception for terrorism? I am sure we are all aware that some aspects of terrorism
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
You will still have an opportunity, let me put the Question. Yes, Hon Minority Leader -
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, what is the scope of this Bill? The scope of the Bill is in respect of agreements, or other arrangements. As you have said, practice. What is an agreement? Mr
Speaker, an agreement has been defined for us by the Interpretation section to mean a treaty, convention or other international agreement.
This is why I am saying that it was in that context that I understood the proposal by the Chairman. Because in that case, if one party is not a signatory, the resort could still be to administrative arrangement. And I thought that that provided a cover. But now that we are ending somewhere, I am not too sure.
However, if the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice is comfortable, who am I to challenge her? But I thought that that really the import of the proposal by the Chairman of the Committee.
Mr Pelpuo 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, terrorism is a very unique act that all States have vowed to fight. So wherever it occurs, whether one is a party or not, the fact that it has appeared in our law that we are against it, we do not need to put “as a party”.
So I think the amendment without “the Republic is a party”, is all right. I do not know whether I am deviating from it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
Hon Boafo, let me take the last contribution from you and then I will put the Question.
Mr Boafo 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in the process of enacting these laws, for purposes of the legal principles and the policies in law, most of the time, we rely on the Executive. So if the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice - [Interruption.] I raised the issue --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
I am the one who raised the issue. You started first and it was quite convincing in the
Mr Boafo 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, and I am very comfortable with her explanation that so far as terrorism is concerned, there is no need for us to go beyond that expression.
Mr Speaker, if it comes to Interpretation,
it is clear that paragraph (a) covers both Ghana and the foreign States. But if you come to paragraph (c), with the understanding that there is a United Nations Resolution, which requires all States to accede to the convention on terrorism, I think we will accept the new rendition that the proposed amendment should stop at “terrorism”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, when my Hon Colleague initially disagreed with the position that I adopted, his position was that it refers to agreements. He really had not addressed his mind to the interpretation of “agreement”. And when I raised it, I thought he said he now understood what I meant.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
Hon Members, I want us to do up to clause 16, if the direction that I got from those who did the winnowing is anything to go by -- from the Hon Minority Leader.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yesterday, we managed to get to clause 17, so if we could get to clause 17 and adjourn.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
Hon Members, in view of that, I direct that having regard to the state of business Sitting be held outside the prescribed period.
Hon Members, let us proceed.
Mr Bandua 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 15, subclause (3), line 2 -- We decided that we should retain the “sole”; we do not have to delete it as in the proposed amendment.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, subclause (3), line 2, at the end, add “to provide the required assistance”. So the rendition will be,
“(3) For the purpose of this Act, the secrecy rules of a banking or
financial institution shall not be the sole ground for a refusal to provide the required assistance.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
So we are keeping the “sole”?
Mr Bandua 1:50 p.m.
That is so, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
Very well.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if that is so, we intend to retain the word “sole” but at the end of it, to add, “to provide the required assistance”.
Mr Speaker, clause 15 is on refusal of request for mutual legal assistance, so when we end at “refusal”, it does not bring the meaning out, which is why at the end, we are adding “to provide the required assistance” This is to support what the Hon Chairman of the Committee has done.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, subclause (4), delete and add same to the interpretation clause.
Mr Boafo 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I rise to support the amendment. The rightful place for the subclause is in the Interpretation section since it seeks to define what is meant by “essential public interest” in the Act.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
This is a straightforward amendment.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15 after subclause (3), insert the following new subclause:
“(4) A person aggrieved by the refusal to comply in whole or in part with a
request for mutual legal assistance may apply to the High Court for judicial review.”
This is to provide access to justice for the parties.
Mr Boafo 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the new subclause is quite in order because as he gladly pointed out, it guarantees access to the judicial system where a person is aggrieved by a decision by the Executive.
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would have preferred to have stood this down to enable me have further consultations on this matter.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
Very well. I will defer - That is the last amendment to clause 15, so I will defer it together with the Question on the whole clause.
Hon Minority Leader, we are deferring it for further consultation.
Mr Boafo 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, whether we defer it or we take a decision, as for judicial review, it has been established, so I do not see the worry of the Hon Attorney- General and Minister for Justice. Judicial review, whether it is there or not, the person can go to the appropriate -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
But this is based on a mutual kind of - Who will be aggrieved? Is it the foreign country that would be aggrieved?
Hon Boafo, who would be aggrieved?
Mr Boafo 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, The foreign State or the foreign entity.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
If they are aggrieved then they would come to Ghana to go to court.
Mr Boafo 2 p.m.
Either Ghana or they can go elsewhere.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
I think we

have to consult further on this but I am -
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if I may -- that is why -- unfortunately, I was not present yesterday at the winnowing because I was part of the Angolan President's visit. I find it rather strange and I understand it came from my own office, so I want to consult with the draftpersons. Because this is not an Act for persons; it is an Act between governments and competent State authorities. So I just need a small consultation and then I will get back. That is why I am craving your indulgence to stand it down; let me consult and I will come back.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
Hon Members, that is a fair request.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that indeed, should be a fair request -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
I hope if you are aggrieved, you have to go to the High Court.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2 p.m.
Except, Mr Speaker, the other leg added by the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice that this is not to do with persons. A person has been defined in the Act to include a body corporate, whether corporation aggregates or corporation sole, or an un- incorporated body or persons as well as individuals.
S o c e r t a i n l y i t m a y i n v o l v e even individuals because that is the interpretation given to us by the Act. But as for the request to consult, Insha Allah, let it be granted.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Minority Leader. So we defer putting the Question on the whole clause 15 and then we move on to clause 16.
Clause 16 - Dual criminality.
Mr Bandua 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 16, subclause (1), lines 1 to 5 delete and substitute the following:
“Despite section 1(3), where a request by a foreign State or foreign entity for mutual legal assistance is in respect of a matter which does not constitute a criminal offence in Ghana, the Minister shall.”
What we are deleting -- Let me take it so that we appreciate the import of this amendment.
“Despite section 1 (3), where a request by a foreign State or foreign entity for mutual legal assistance is in respect of a matter which does not constitute a c r i m i n a l offence in Ghana, the Minister shall after consultation with the Minister responsible for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration and the Interior…”
[ I n t e r r u p t i o n s ] - - S o a f t e r “consultation” has been removed from the amendment that we proposed -- That is the reason we proposed the amendment. Because, earlier, we said that there was no need to legislate the consultation aspect. So that is the need there -
Mr Boafo 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is not only
the removal of
“after consultation with the Minister responsible for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration a n d the Interior…”.
There is also engineering work. On line 2, there are the words “criminal matter”, and then on line 3, there is the expression “criminal offence”, and during the discussions, it was thought proper to remove the first “criminal” on line 2.
So if we look at the proposed amendment, we will see that that expression “criminal” has been removed and we now have “in respect of a matter which does not only constitute criminal
offence”. So it is not only the removal of “after consultation with the Minister responsible for Foreign Affairs…”. So the proposed amendment is to substitute the entire subclause (1) of clause 16.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think in the original rendition, it is as if “the request” is a subject matter and “the request” is what could constitute or not constitute the criminal offence if you look at the construction, which is why we have now done the engineering which has been put forth by the Chairman of the Committee.
Because if we read --
“Despite section 1 (3), where a request by a foreign State or a foreign entity for mutual legal assistance is in respect of a matter which does not constitute a criminal offence”
It is not as if “the request” is what constitutes the criminal offence or otherwise, which is why now we have this new construction that --
“Despite section 1(3) where a request by a foreign State or foreign entity for mutual legal assistance is in respect of a matter which does not constitute a criminal offence in Ghana, the Minister shall. . . ”
And we may then come to (a) and (b). So Mr Speaker, I believe the amendment is in order and must be supported.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with respect, I believe if you want your Ayes to be heard, you better import the Hon Fritz Baffour.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
I agree with you but on this occasion you are also interested in the Noes -- [Laughter.]
Mr Bandua 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 16, subclause (1), paragraph
(b), sub-paragraph (i), delete “domestic”.
This amendment is consequential.
Mr Pelpuo 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, not just that, but to make the “law”, “laws”-- “the laws of the Republic of Ghana” the consequence of the initial -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
Very well, Table Office, make sure you add “make the laws”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Is that all the amendments for clause
16?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, except to observe that for clause 16, there is no second clause, so we cannot have 16 (1); it has to be 16.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
Clause 16, there is no (2), so it is just clause 16, is that the point?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2 p.m.
That is so, Mr Speaker.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
Very well. There is no amendment to clause 17 --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, for clause 17, we are talking about refusal of request, and it is clause 15 that deals with refusal of request. So, when we get there, we will ask the draftsperson to look at its proper location whether it could not come just after -- [Interruption] -- So, I guess that one, we will leave it to the draftsperson to see to its proper, most appropriate location --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
When we
come to dual criminality?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:10 p.m.
Yes.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
Very

well. But no amendment has been filed by anybody. So, I will call it and put the Question on it subject to the observation, or you will be filing an observation.
Mr Boafo 2:10 p.m.
Yes.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
Very well. So in view of that, we have to end it.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Clause 16 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
Hon Members, that brings us to the end of the Consideration Stage for today. We will continue tomorrow.
So, Hon Deputy Majority Leader?
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
Hon K.
T. Hammond?
Mr K. T. Hammond 2:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, on the first day, an issue was brought to the floor of the House about the winnowing in respect of this particular Bill. We were made to understand that the Hon Attorney- General and Minister for Justice would be around or at least, somebody representing her be there. There was a representative; she herself, unfortunately, was not able to attend. But I also understood that that representative would be coming with a polished package kind of - I was there yesterday - I remember it was not an official working day but I was there from about ten o'clock to about two -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
Hon K. T. Hammond, leave that matter and see the Hon Deputy Majority Leader after adjournment.
Mr Hammond 2:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the
Attorney-General and Minister for Justice or Deputy -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
I said
you should see the Hon Deputy Majority Leader.
Mr Hammond 2:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
Hon
Deputy Majority Leader, I am going to adjourn the House but I do not know whether you want to make any statement before I adjourn the House formally. This is because it is past two o'clock, so the adjournment of the House is at my discretion. But I am asking you whether you have any announcement to make before I adjourn the House and that is why I am calling you.
Mr Pelpuo 2:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, except to say
that we will continue the winnowing, but we also thank the very, very determined Hon Members who are here to see this Bill up to this extent. So we can continue --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
And that
makes Hon K. T. Hammond's observation very relevant.
Mr Pelpuo 2:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, because the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice herself is here, he might not need to belabour the point.
Mr Boafo 2:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, on clause 17,
there is a very straightforward amendment which Mr Speaker can take -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
Hon Member, no.
Hon Members, let us make sure that we point these things so that we are all ad idem on them. It is better.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I take a cue from what you have said, except just to remind -- Because the Hon Member for Akropong (Mr William Boafo) has raised a matter that I thought -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
The Hon Member for Akropong?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:10 p.m.
Yes, which I thought -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
But Hon Minority Leader, look at the Mace?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, well, I have not really adverted my mind to it. But Mr Speaker, have you already drawn the curtain down in respect of the Consideration Stage?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
Yes, that is why the Mace is standing upright.
Mr Kye i -Mensah-Bonsu 2:10 p.m.
So transaction of business in this House as far as the Consideration Stage is concerned, is truncated?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
Yes.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I bow to the Chair.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
Hon Members, the House is accordingly adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT 2:10 p.m.