Debates of 28 Jun 2010

MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:05 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:05 a.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:05 a.m.
Item 3, Question time.
Mr Abdul-Rashid Pelpuo 10:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister for Defence has informed us that he is not well disposed and he will be happy if we reschedule the Questions to another time. So, I crave your indulgence that we reschedule the Questions for him.
Mr Ambrose P. Dery 10:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, as you have just been informed by the Deputy Majority Leader, the Minister for Defence is indisposed and he is asking that the Questions be rescheduled.
Of course, if he is unavoidably absent, we would accommodate that, except to say that, for an important Ministry such as Defence, we have no Deputy, and such an arrangement does not augur well for the smooth administration of that important Ministry. And we can see it now because in other Ministries, where they have Deputies, in the absence of the Minister, we have a Deputy who can step in.
But as far as I know, we do not have a Deputy Minister for Defence and that we
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:05 a.m.
Very well, the Business Committee should try and reschedule the Minister for Defence to come to the House as early as possible to answer the Question which has been advertised on the Order Paper for today.
Hon Deputy Majority Leader, Question No. 592.
Mr Pelpuo 10:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister is said to be on his way but I will want to crave your indulgence - We do not know what is holding him but if it is possible for us to move to item (4), even though we did not signal you. We may use this period to appreciate what the Black Stars --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:15 a.m.
Hon Deputy Majority Leader, you are out of order. All of us are itching to make Statements but if you want to make a Statement, the rules must be respected. We would look at the contents of the Statement and then we would know exactly what you want to say. So maybe, you can make

that arrangement for tomorrow or later in the day if that would be permissible, but not now.

Deputy Majority Leader, in the absence

of the Majority Leader, you are in charge of Government Business; tell your Ministers when to come and answer Questions. The Minister for Chieftaincy and Culture is an Hon Member of this House. All of us have got engagements for this Monday but when the Business Committee drew the agenda that we are supposed to Sit, we all cancelled them and we are here. I was even going to object to coming to Sit today but the Hon Minority Leader told me that I am a Deputy Speaker, so I should not sabotage their programme; so I kept quiet last Friday.
Mr David T. Assumeng 10:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the issue of the Black Stars is very important to us. And if you see the way Hon Memebers are charged in the room, we would want to make some few comments about the success of the Black Stars, if you would permit us.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:15 a.m.
Hon Member for Shai Osudoku, you want to make any Statement? Let us see the Statement but there are rules. Nobody has given me any Statement this morning. Neither did the Hon Deputy Majority Leader tell me about any Statement he intends to make when we met this morning in the Speaker`s Lobby.
Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:15 a.m.
Mr
Speaker, I do know that ordinarily, the Speakership should see the Statement and approve of the terms of it before it is delivered in the House. So, you are right when you say that you have not seen any Statement.
Mr Speaker, in the lighter vein, my attention has been drawn to the fact
that on the part of the Deputy Majority Leader, maybe, the journalist who has been scripting his Statements for him has not brought it yet. [Laughter.] That is in the lighter vein.
But Mr. Speaker, I would plead that given the exigencies of the time, you may permit the Deputy Majority Leader to lead in some extempore presentation of a Statement to congratulate the Black Stars; I believe that it would be in order. But of course, I know that the proper thing, perhaps, for him to have done was, at least, to have communicated same to you at the pre-Sitting briefing.
I do not know what transpired there because I was not there myself. But in the circumstance, if you may permit him, I believe that he would not veer wayward and that he would be on course once you allow him to lead the discussion.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:15 a.m.
Hon Minority Leader, I have learnt my lesson from the first Statement that was made -- [Laughter] - I will be very strict with the rules because of what happened the last time. I do not want anybody to provoke debate.
This is a victory we should all share, it is one event that has united this country and we are all celebrating. It is a Statement that we would all want to hear, so he should not say anything that would provoke any debate in the House, so that together, we support our young brothers who are in South Africa.
Hon Deputy Majority Leader, what should we do now?
Mr Pelpuo 10:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we want further direction from whether we can go ahead and make the Statement. It is just a
Mr Pelpuo 10:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, taking a cue from what you have just said, I would want to propose that we take a thirty- minute break and then come back and continue. Business in the House. But we have taken note of the concerns expressed by the Hon Member for Manhyia (Dr Prempeh).
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, if that is the pleasure of the Deputy Majority Leader, I have nothing against it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:15 a.m.
Hon Members, the House is suspended for thirty minutes.
10.38 a.m. -- Suspension of Sitting .
11.55 a.m. -- Resumption of Sitting
STATEMENTS 10:15 a.m.
Mr Abdul-Rashid Pelpuo(NDC -- Wa Central) 10:15 a.m.
Thank you Mr Speaker, for the unique opportunity to make a Statement to congratulate the Black Stars of Ghana for hoisting the flag of Ghana and Africa high in this year's FIFA World Cup.
June 26, 2010 was a great landmark in Ghana's FIFA World Cap history. It was a day Ghana, for the first time, progressed from the one-sixteenth stage to the quarter finals after the resounding defeat of the United States of America.
short Statement or else -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:15 a.m.
Hon Members, we have time. When is the next match? It is on Friday. So tomorrow this Statement can be made. But if for some reasons, we want to delay a bit because we have this Bill here and the Hon Attorney- General and Minister for Justice is not yet here, or you think that we should take some thirty minutes' break and within that period you will go and prepare the Statement, we can take thirty minutes of suspension of the Sitting and then when we come back, the Statement is made.
But without seeing the Statement, Hon Members, it would be a precedence that would not be the best for us.
Dr Matthew O. Prempeh 10:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think even with the Statement that you approve, Hon Members are free to contribute, so mischief can never be ruled out in that sense. I thought, as the Leadership agreed, you would also agree.
But Mr Speaker, more importantly, I just want the Business Committee to allow Hon Members to do what is more important if they are not ready for us. It is not right that we would all congregate here and nothing is happening. It does not speak right of us as Membres of Parliament. So please, to those in charge of scheduling Government Business in this House, if there is no Government Business, there is parliamentary business.
Maybe, we should meet as a caucus and discuss more pressing things that are worrying Hon Members of Parliament rather than bringing us here and then an impression is created that nothing is happening in this House. There is so much to be discussed among ourselves that even

Mr Speaker, by this momentous achievement, the Black Stars of Ghana is now the only African team in the competition and has equalled the record of Cameroun and Senegal, who in 1996 and 2002, progressed to the quarter finals.

Mr Speaker, to imagine that the World Cup would be played in Africa without an African country at this stage of the competition, would be a disaster and a deep embarrassment to Africa. This is why it is befitting Parliament, which represents the good people of Ghana, sends a message of congratulations to the Black Stars and to urge them on to win the quarter final match against Uruguay.

Mr Speaker, at this stage, it is not out of place and will not be over optimism for all Ghanaians and indeed, all Africans to pray that the Black Stars will be at the finals and ultimately win the trophy. They have the required talents, skills and with determination and motivation, they can do so.

Thank you Mr Speaker, for this opportunity.
Mrs Gifty E. Kusi(NPP 10:15 a.m.
None

Nsuaem): Thank you Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to the Statement ably made by the Deputy Majority Leader.

Last Saturday, the whole country was thrown into jubilation after the Ghana-US match. I want to say that some of us had our hearts' really missed beat upon beat because of the way the match went. But we thank God that at the end of the day, we had cause to jubilate.

I want to urge the Black Stars to go ahead because we know that they can bring the cup back home; with the performance of the team that we watched, we realized that the Black Stars can really bring the

cup.

We want to congratulate everybody, especially, Asamoah Gyan -- we want to urge him to forge ahead.

Mr Speaker, those of us who prayed, we want to continue to pray so that Ghana, our country, will be proud of the Black Stars.

I thank you Mr Speaker, for the opportunity.

Mr Dominic A. Azumah (NDC -

Garu/ Tempane): Mr Speaker, I rise to associate myself with the Statement and to make a few comments. Indeed, the gallant boys or the Black Stars have performed extremely well, starting from the preliminary rounds to the knockout stages.

Indeed, the team is performing as a unit and that unity of purpose can be established and that is making the team very strong. I only hope that that unity is maintained by the team for them to progress. The team as a unit must be given the credit but special mention must be made of certain key players, who made it to work and it worked effectively.

Mr Speaker, I want to mention Kevin- Prince Boateng. This young man whom we plucked and who joined the team in his role as a midfielder is performing wonders. I also want to mention Dede Ayew. This is a young man who just emerged after the Cup of Nations and we find him there and he is performing his best. Asamoah Gyan -- In 2006, we saw him in Germany, we all thought that it was just a fluke, and this man has come to expose himself again one more time, that he is, indeed, good and that he can be used for the country.

Finally, our goalkeeper, Mr Richard Kingston, I think he stood between Ghana and defeat in the match between Ghana and the United States of America. On five clear situations, it was between him
Mrs Gifty E. Kusi(NPP 10:15 a.m.


and the US players. His courage, ability to face the ball, he did everything you can think of to save Ghana from any defeat and I think we should congratulate the boys.

I think that notice must be taken. I would want to urge that now that we have reached the one-quarter stage, which is more crucial, in the wisdom of this House, I would have pleaded and suggested that this Statement we are making be conveyed to the boys, that even Parliament recognizes the role they are playing.

If I had a way, Mr Speaker should be able to lead a delegation to watch the one- quarter stage as Leadership of this House to show to the boys that ,yes, not only are we here to make laws but we are very interested in the welfare of this nation. [Hear! Hear!] The President has been there, the Vice President has been there, I think it is time for the Speaker to be there. [Hear! Hear!]

Mr Speaker, on that note, we, one more time want to wish the boys the best of luck. Our next match against Uruguay is not going to be an easy task but we understand Latin American football -- And I believe that with confidence and determination like the maker of the Statement said, there is every hope, Isha, Allah, that we shall get to the semi-finals come Friday.

Mr Speaker, I thank you so much.
Papa Owusu-Ankomah(NPP - Sekondi) 12:05 p.m.
Thank you very much Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to this Statement.
As a nation, we should take some lessons from the performance of our players in South Africa. Indeed, the performance emphasizes that team work is always better than individualism. You may be skillful as an individual but if you do not play according to a set plan by a team, the team cannot make progress. So, we also need to emphasize that tactics or strategy is what is important. If you do not have it, you cannot work towards achieving victory.
Therefore, if there is a weak link in the team, it has an adverse effect on the team and as a nation, we should emphasize that. We should emphasize not personalities but people working as a group or as a team.
If you look at the teams that we have played, individually, they are better skilled than we are but our players have played with such commitment and dedication that no national team has exhibited. They do not give space, they do not give opportunity for the opponents to hang on to the ball for too long and when given the chance, they take advantage of their opportunities.
During the last match, if we had not taken our chances, we would not have been victorious, and this is a lesson too we should take as a country, that the world would not be waiting for us. And we should also understand that if we want to be competitive at the global stage, then we must imbue the spirit of hard work and commitment. We should not lay back and we should not think that if we do not get it today, tomorrow, it can happen. I wish the Black Stars well.
Indeed, I had the opportunity of leading the delegation to the last World Cup but having looked at the group in which we were placed, I had no doubt that if we
were able to qualify to the group of 16, we would definitely qualify for the semi- finals. We would be among the last four -- I am not a prophet but having looked at the performance, having studied the way the World Cup has been going, I am confident that come Friday, our players would win and be among the last four.
We should also not forget that in the FIFA rankings, we are the least favoured team in the rankings. We are number 32 yes, Brazil is number 1. Germany, I think is Number 3. Germany, Spain, Portugal, Argentina -- Uruguay is 18. So, even though the odds are against us, our players believe in themselves and believe in Ghana and that is what we should do. So, in whatever task we are assigned in this country, let us believe in ourselves and believe in our nation and God will continue to bless us.

Mr David T. Assumeng (NDC - Shai

Osudoku): Thank you Mr Speaker, for this opportunity. Mr Speaker, I would want to thank the maker of the Statement.

The last time you asked Hon Members to pray for the Black Stars and I believe that the prayers we offered over here yielded fruitful results. I have the hope and the conviction that after this Statement, we shall have an additional prayer for the coming match, which, I believe that the Black Stars would go through.

Mr Speaker, mention must also be

made of this young and brilliant player - Anthony Annan. Mr Speaker, this young man has a structure that you cannot really imagine he can play among these giants in the game. His structure does not limit him at all and I think that he has done yeoman's job and he must be congratulated.

Mr Speaker, I want to advise that the insurance cover of the players must be broadened. I am saying so because in the last African Cup at Angola, it was there Michael Essien got injured. I want to stress that the insurance cover of the players should cover him as well so that the players would know that they have a future.

If they know they have an insurance cover, then they would want to fight a lot more than they are doing. So I would want to advise that they should broaden the insurance cover of the players.

Mr Speaker, I also want to say that this has really brought us together but I want to caution that supporters must be very mindful about the way we jubilate after these games. Mr Speaker, I heard that there were some loss of lives after the last match. This is just unfortunate; it is something that we should not experience. So I want to just advise that even though we are urging that we want to go forward, let supporters be very cautious about the way we celebrate so that we shall live for the future.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity.
Ms Cecilia A. Dapaah (NPP - Bantama) 12:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I want to also associate myself with the Statement on the floor of the House, and I wish to congratulate the entire team of the Ghana Black Stars. We all can say that our boys are indeed, very good. If we are to single out exceptionally good performers on that day, I think the whole lot of them, the eleven of them will qualify. And I thank God that none of them got injured seriously, and they will do us proud again on Friday.
Ms Samia Y. C. Nkrumah (CPP - Jomoro) 12:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice to those of my Colleagues in congratulating the Black Stars for a very inspiring performance in the World Cup being held in South Africa.
As we know Mr Speaker, the name Black Stars was given to rekindle self- pride and dignity in Africa. We have the Black Sticks, the hockey team and the name “Black” was attached to different sports. The idea was to unleash our
Mr. Speaker, I especially want to talk about our jet boy, who is Asamoah Gyan. I remember those days when he was missing his goals, Ghanaians were very, very hard on him, and I hope this time that he has done his work and is doing very well, we will turn round and congratulate him.
Mr Speaker, I also want to make it a point and say that Ghanaians have shown the way and indeed, the current World Cup squad should have an average age of maybe, 23 or 22.
We have seen how individual stars, big stars in some squads have been demolished and their teams almost annihilated at this World Cup. We have seen that the Ghana team has a crop of young players and are doing us very, very proud. I hope the other young ones who are on the bench would be given the chance to also participate in the forthcoming encounters.
Mr Speaker, we all saw what happened to the English team as against the German team and how Ghana performed wonderfully when we met the German team. This is, indeed, an occasion for celebration. I also want to congratulate the technical bench and the other executives for the work they have done on the boys and also the teeming supporters and the “Vuvuzella” blowers, who have indeed also given the right environment to keep our boys on track.
We know Ghana enjoys a worldwide support in the diaspora as well as Africa and our boys have sworn to make us all proud. Indeed, the Coach needs a lot of commendation as well. I hope when we speak through the winds and through the phones and through the radios, he hears what we are proposing and he brings them to bear on his decisions to make the Ghana squad one of the best.

potential, our self-mobilization potential. We would like to take cue from the Black Stars in believing that everything is possible and that the secret in life is to have no fear as Dr Kwame Nkrumah told us. So let us take a cue and unleash our potential, our self-mobilization potential, look inward towards our human and material resources to develop our country.

I got so many calls from all over Africa - from North Africa, East, West and from Southern Africa - so many calls to congratulate us on Saturday. And I believe that in this instance, as in many others, we can demonstrate that the black man and woman can manage his and her affairs very well.
Prof. Michael A. Oquaye (NPP - Dome-Kwabenya) 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the Statement on the floor of this Honourable House.
Mr Speaker, in fact, it is a very
wonderful time we are in now. Ghanaians must always remember that by the Grace of God, we are a blessed people. We have been the first to be independent Africa south of the Sahara. It did not come by chance. We must be proud of this nation in a very special way and act accordingly in every department of human endeavour.
Mr Speaker, a very learned economist,
Escott Reid, carried out a study around the early 1950s. Before we became independent, the whole of Africa, apart from white South Africa, the Gold Coast had the highest per capita income by dint of the hard work of our forebears.
We must be proud of ourselves. It is not

surprising that that spirit of “can do”, that spirit of endeavour, endurance, dedication which when Tetteh Quarshie brought cocoa to Ghana, they worked on for us, at one time, produced half of the world's cocoa, the same spirit has now led us to be the torchbearers for Africa in the present World Cup endeavour -- that same spirit.

Mr Speaker, we must be ever- mindful

of this blessedness and continue with discipline and dedication and Ghana will get there whether in our economy, our society, our politics or every other area of human activity.

Mr Speaker, we are particularly as a

Parliament proud of these young men. They have done Ghana proud; they have done Africa proud. But for them, Africa will not be represented at this stage, and the whole of Africa is congratulating them and wishing them well at this stage to even go on and go on further.

Mr Speaker, one thing is great about

our team. They play for each other and they play for the nation and there is real attempt to harmonise. This did not come easily and that is why in the earlier part of the tournament, they were not doing as well as we would have wished. They came from all parts of the world where they are playing their individual football.

Mr Speaker, as Germany was playing Britain yesterday, as the German game was going on yesterday, five of the German players came from one club only, Bayern Munich, and that should tell you that it is very easy therefore, for them to understand each other . Young Abedi Pele had never played Boateng together anywhere, but as the game went on, we saw how the harmony was developing.

We want them to know that where they are now, we have noticed it, we appreciate it and that they should continue like that, playing with, by and for each other so that
Prof. Michael A. Oquaye (NPP - Dome-Kwabenya) 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, while congratulating them we must also congratulate the technical bench. This is because, indeed, if they had failed to deliver, they would be the first port of call, that they have disappointed us. Thank God for them that they have achieved and for the first time in the history of this country, they have been able to scale us to the level of quarter finals in this tournament.
Mr Speaker, we must also use the occasion to congratulate the Ghana Football Association; we must congratulate the supporters who are there and those of them who are here in this country praying for them.

The point that we made the other time was really the matter relating to his going, why indeed, as events have proved, he did not tell us the reason for going there. Mr Speaker, that is it. It has nothing to do with the goodwill that he was able to translate to the players for them to do battle the way they did.

Mr Speaker, that matter relating to his communication to us, what he went to do is another matter that may be debated at some other time. I would believe that at this time when we are talking about the victory of the Black Stars, we should not mix the two. When, indeed, he visits, I believe the President will be able to respond to the issues that we have raised.

they will bring glory to this great nation of ours.

At one time, they said we were winning by penalties only. This time, a penalty was given against us and we scored two fantastic goals to come out the winners against America, which has become a very strong team. It is one of the strongest teams tipped in this tournament because once more their players know each other very well; they basically play in their own country and they work as a team.

Mr Speaker, we want these young men to continue playing like I had the privilege to say here the other day, that they should have the courage of Joshua, they should have the wisdom of Solomon, so that they are not overtaken by events for somebody to be sent off. They should therefore, be careful and tactical and they must, when things are getting tough, have the patience of Job and above all, to have the nationalism of Father Abraham himself and they will continue to bring more glory to the whole people of Ghana.

Mr Speaker, we are very, very proud of them and we will continue to wear this flag like this until the glory of glories steps on this land.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity.
Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu (NPP -- Suame) 12:15 p.m.
Thank you Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to also add my voice to this Statement to congratulate the Black Stars.
Mr Speaker, indeed, what has been achieved by the Black Stars is a landmark achievement not only for Ghana but for the whole of Africa. It, indeed, proves to be a soothing balm to the many challenges that we have as a nation. South Africa has invested so much and it was painful that the hosts were ousted at the level where they were ousted. The burden of carrying on the African cause has come to fall on
If he is not able to respond to them, then of course, there are consequences that may come. But today is not the time for such a matter to be raised, so I am not raising it, Mr Speaker.
As has already been noted by my Hon Colleague from Sekondi, the display of the Stars last Saturday was the best that they had displayed in the tournament thus far. One would say that as they are progressing, they are also progressing with their ball play. For the first time, we saw that they played as a team, they played as one unit, they played as one band and they played to complement each other; they played for each other. Mr Speaker, they displayed commitment, they displayed diligence, they displayed resilience and that is all that matter in a team playing at that level.
Without doubt, the technical proficiency of the players could be witnessed by everybody and so the technical proficiency is not in doubt at all. What some people have been talking about is the tactical disposition of the team; that has been their concern, and in particular, we have spoken about the weakness of one person whose negativity was adversely affecting the game plan of the collective.
12. 25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we thank God that the concerns raised by many Ghanaians who follow football with keen interest and with passion have been heard by the ears that ought to have heard earlier .

Mr Speaker, I believe that as we progress, we are learning and I believe

if they play the way they played against United States of America, the hurdle being posed by Uruguay would indeed, be surmountable.

Mr Speaker, we must however, be cautious. In any match, if the performance of a goalkeeper turns out to be very superlative, then Mr Speaker, we should know that we are exposing the goalkeeper too much and if we are exposing the goalkeeper too much, it does mean that any slip could result in something undesirable.So we should know that we are in a difficult situation and as we progress, the heat becomes greater.

Mention has already been made about the rankings of the teams in the tournament. All of them rated higher than Ghana. But Mr Speaker, we have traversed that course before. 2006, when we played Czech Republic, at that time, they were the third ranked in the world; we met and we subdued them.

When we met United States of America, Mr Speaker, at that time, they were the country rated 8th in the world, we met them and subdued them. So with courage, dedication, resilient, commitment and playing together as a team, we believe that they could surmount the impediment and the hurdle that would be posed by Uruguay.

Mr Speaker, let us urge the players

on, they have done it, they can do it and I believe we are capable of reaching the semi - final level for the first time in the history of Africa.

The other day when we were playing Serbia, I was a bit cautious because in 1974, when Zaire represented Africa, they lost to Poland by just one goal; the next match, they lost by one-two; the third match that they played was against Brazil and they were trounced six goals to nil.

Mr Speaker, at that time, the coach of Zaire was a Brazilian.
Mr Pelpuo 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, he is now in with the Chairman of the Committee. So we can take it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
The Hon
Minister to respond to Question number 592? As for Question number 488, we got the understanding but we are referring to Question number 592. You gave us the assurance that the Hon Minister was on the way coming, where is he?
Mr Pelpuo 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, at this time,
I can no longer explain his absence. But it looks like he is unable to make it and I would urge that we go on to item number
5.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Hon
Deputy Majority Leader, you are in charge of Government Business, at least, for today. The Hon Majority Leader is not there, so you should know the whereabout of a Minister who is programmed to come and answer Questions from the House today. You should tell the House something, we just do not defer the Question for deferring sake.
Mr Pelpuo 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was informed he was on his way and would be in the House. But I believe very strongly he is held up somewhere by some circumstances I cannot explain. [Interruptions.] So, the Chief Whip is already gone out to try to track him to find out exactly where he is now, and until he comes, I would not be able to give a concrete reason he is not here now. But Mr Speaker, I believe he may have some good reason for not being here now.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
So what do we do to the Question?
Mr Pelpuo 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I suppose
that we can reschedule the Question for another day.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Very well.
The next performance that stood out as a landmark achievement was by Cameroun. Mr Speaker, when they had beaten Argentina, the reigning champions then, and then the next match, they played so well; when they played Russia, they collapsed and they were trounced , I think five-zero or four- zero.
Mr Speaker, at that time, the coach of Cameroun was a Russian, Nipomiachi.
So playing Serbia with a Serbian coach, I was a bit afraid. Immediately we were able to scale over them, then I realized that we could go far. Let us continue to pray for them, our own little prayers that we offered here, I believe, also followed them.
But the next stage, Mr Speaker, as Jesus Christ himself said, perhaps, we may need to fast. Because it is not all ailments that could be cured by mere prayers. It is not all hurdles that could be cured by mere prayers. Perhaps, we may need to inject some fasting into it and I believe when it comes to that, Hon Members like the Second Deputy Speaker and I believe, looking back, Hon Abdul-Rashid Pelpuo, a Muslim, who should not have problems with fasting -- I am not too sure of my Hon Colleague Muntaka, I am not too sure of his prowess in fasting [Laughter.] but I believe I can vouch for Hon Cecilia Dapaah to fast for the team.
Mr Speaker, let us continue to wish
them well and I believe that they could do well on Friday.
God bless the Black Stars, God bless Africa.
Mr Speaker, I thank you.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Hon
Members, if you indulge me, I will take one last contribution from the Hon Member from Tema West -- two minutes.
Mrs Irene Naa Torshie Addo (NPP
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.


congratulating them is the need to set up more soccer academies. Mr Speaker, we cannot do what others do all the time; we must do what suits us. If what we have in Africa, for that matter, Ghana, is the skills and the talent, I believe that the time has come for Parliament as a body to sit down and look at it and set money aside.

We cannot use GETFund money for only vocational schools and all that; we can actually look at setting aside soccer academies and setting up more schools for sports. We can even look at our curricular again, Mr Speaker, and find out whether we can promote more sports in this country. This is because it looks to me that apart from oil, gold, cocoa and all other natural resources that God has endowed on us, has also given us raw skills and talents and we need to work on them.

Obviously, you can see that most of the boys who were doing very well are some of the boys who were in soccer academies. For example, the baby Ayews, the Boatengs and all others are all in the soccer academies and I think the time has come for us to also set up these academies so that we can train our boys and girls and some other people who want to engage in sports.

With these few words, Mr Speaker, I say that we are all proud to be Ghanaians; the feeling is good and we thank God for this opportunity.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Hon Members, on behalf of the House, I convey these statements of congratulations and goodwill to our Black Stars. We shall continue praying for them.
Hon Deputy Majority Leader, what
happens to Question number 592? You
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, at ten minutes after ten, the Hon Deputy Majority Leader indicated to us that the Hon Minister was on his way coming. Two and a half hours after this bold announcement, the Hon Minister is nowhere to be found and he is a Member of this House. He knows that he must take this House seriously.
Mr Speaker, this is the first Monday that we are meeting after declaring that we want to meet on Mondays, and we must give assurance to this House that, indeed, we are in here for serious business. And if a Minister, who is a Member of this House, cannot come to this House to answer just one Question, and for two and a half hours, this House has to tarry and wait for him, Mr Speaker, we should tell the Hon Minister that he cannot put up that behaviour, that behaviour is unacceptable.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister must
come to this House the next time round, whenever he is programmed to explain himself why he kept this House waiting for that long. He is one of the reasons we had to suspend Sitting, giving his own assurance that he was on his way coming.
Mr Speaker, that behaviour, that conduct is unacceptable and through the Hon Deputy Majority Leader, we must communicate to him that he must appear here in appropriate circumstances to explain himself why he was unable to attend to this House at the appointed hour to answer the Question.
Mr Speaker, with that, I hope we can
go to the next level.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Hon
Members , we now come to the Commencement of Public Business.
BILLS - SECOND READING 12:35 p.m.
  • [ R e s u m p t i o n o f d e b a t e f ro m 25/06/2010]
    • Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    The last
    time we deferred the Question to be put on the District Assembly Elections (Amendment) Bill, 2010; I do not know whether that matter has been resolved now.
    Mr Joseph Y. Chireh 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    we did extensive consultations and it has been resolved. So I would like you, to now put the Question.
    I thank my Hon Colleagues for the understanding they have shown and the suggestions that have been incorporated and all the things they said.
    Question put and motion agreed to.
    The District Assembly Elections (Amendment) Bill, 2010 was accordingly read a Second time.
    MOTIONS 12:35 p.m.
    Minister for Local Government and Rural Development (Mr Joseph Y. Chireh) 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 128 (1), which require that when a Bill has been read a Second time, it shall pass through a Consideration Stage which shall not be taken until at least forty-eight hours have elapsed, the Consideration Stage of the District Assembly Elections (Amendment) Bill, 2010 may be taken today.
    Mr Dominic A. Azumah 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
    Question put and motion agreed to.
    have two paragraphs, paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) in clause 1, and he wants to delete only paragraph (b) but he will be skipping paragraph (a) of clause 1.
    Mr Boafo 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it appears that
    it is section 3(1)(b) of the parent Act which is being deleted, and not the Bill which has been presented. The deletion is in respect of the parent Act.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, we are taking the clauses as in the amendment Bill. So for the purposes of this Bill, it is clause 1.
    Mr Boafo 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was looking
    at the parent Act.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 1 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 2 - Section 6 of Act 473 amended.
    Mr Azumah 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 2, delete and insert the following:
    “The District Assembly Elections Act, 1994 (Act 473) is amended by the deletion of section 6 and the substitution of;”
    Mounting of Platform
    (1) A political party or an individual, other than a candidate seeking election to a District Assembly or to a lower government unit, shall not mount a platform or cause a platform to be mounted for the purpose of supporting or not supporting the election of a
    Resolved accordingly.
    BILLS - CONSIDERATION STAGE 12:35 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee (Mr Dominic A. Azumah) 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1 delete paragraph (b).
    Mr Speaker, the reason being that, if you take the current rendition in Act 474 (3), it is requiring that no individual shall use a platform unless it is mounted by the Electoral Commission. We are expanding the scope a little to cover organisations that are non-political. And so, we are deleting that and the subsequent amendments will take care of that.
    So we are requesting the deletion of clause 1.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Hon Member, it is not deletion of clause 1 that has been advertised by the Committee. The amendment standing in your name is the deletion of paragraph (b), so the amendment that you are moving is different from what we have in the Order Paper.
    Mr Azumah 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am referring to clause 1(b), that was why I was taking (a) and (b) together. So we are actually proposing the deletion of (b).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Very well.
    Mr William O. Boafo 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it appears that the Chairman is referring to the deletion of clause 1(b).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    We
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Hon
    Chairman, can I have a copy of the new rendition? Because you would agree that this amendment is a very long amendment
    and I have to be sure the changes that you are making. So if you can give me a copy of the new rendition.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Yes, Hon
    Minority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:45 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, I may want to propose that given what the Chairman is doing, in order that we follow it, if you could put the Question on clause 1, and then we move to clause 2 and when we agree, you put the Question, maybe, we come to clause 3. I believe that would be better so that we all follow what he is doing. In fact, what he has done is just re-arrangement of that piece.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Have you
    seen what he has done?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:45 p.m.
    Yes, I
    have seen what he has done. It is a mere re-arrangement of that provision. So if you can put the Question on clause 1, then thereafter, we come to clause 2, then we do so. I do not know what he intends doing for clause 3, so we follow the course of the debate.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Very

    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee, can you read the new rendition again for all of us to follow you?
    Mr Azumah 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the rendition would read:
    “An organization not associated with a political party may with the prior written approval of the Commission, mount a platform but the platform shall be for the common use of the candidates standing for elections.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Is that
    clause 6 (1) or clause 6 (2)?
    come to the second leg, this amendment becomes a bit difficult, it is doubtful. So whereas, the individual may arrange, facilitate, or cause a platform to be mounted when he is a candidate, he can also speak on that platform.
    But Mr Speaker, what about when he calls an individual to come and bear witness about him to the people -- to tell the people the good things he knows about that man? The person is an individual. And that aspect of mounting a platform, if we do not take care, he is committing an offence. It is not at all provided for. And I think that should be provided for. You mount a platform in two ways; you promote, facilitate or cause a platform to be arranged in order that an event would take place.
    You have mounted a platform. You also mount a platform by actually going to stand on it and then say something. That second one, an individual can go there and say it, and that too, he has mounted a platform but he cannot arrange or facilitate and that one, I agree with.
    So Mr Speaker, we must add something
    to make this distinction very clear, otherwise, we will not be making a right distinction of the meaning of platform in its full parameters. An individual may speak on a platform in support of a candidate. If that is added, Mr Speaker, I would be comfortable because it removes every ambiguity.
    So, the individual cannot, if he is not a candidate, go and arrange, facilitate, like an organisation may -- accepted. But at the same time, that individual can go and speak on the platform and he does not commit an offence. And I believe that should be made very clear --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Hon
    Second Deputy Speaker, have you looked at the definition of “mounting a platform” under the parent Act? I would make a copy
    Mr Azumah 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 6
    (2).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Which is
    clause 2 (2) of the Bill, but clause 1, there is no amendment? We have clause 2 (1), that one is not being touched.
    Mr Azumah 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if I can start
    from clause 2 (1). Now, clause 2 (1) reads:
    “A political party or an individual other than a candidate seeking election to a District Assembly or to a lower government unit shall not mount a platform or cause a platform to be mounted for the purpose of supporting or not supporting election of a candidate to a District Assembly or to a lower government unit.”
    That is clause 2(1).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Very well, let us start, as the Hon Minority Leader has suggested - because this is a very long amendment, let us take them sub- clause by subclause. So let us put the Question on this one, but after have listened to Hon Members on the floor.
    Prof. Michael A. Oquaye 12:55 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, it is quite clear from clause 6 (1) that what this amendment is actually seeking to do is that a political party shall not mount a platform. An individual who is not a candidate shall not mount a platform and for that matter, a candidate may mount a platform. But Mr Speaker, furthermore, there is one aspect of mounting a platform that we must take into account. One is, in my opinion, to promote, to facilitate, or cause a platform to be arranged, you are mounting a platform.
    But Mr Speaker, mount a platform may also mean speaking on the platform in support of a candidate. And when we
    Prof. Michael A. Oquaye 12:55 p.m.


    of the parent Act available to you, to see after that whether it makes a difference.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    even though I support subclause (1) in principle, I believe the rendition is rather confusing or inelegant to say the least.
    Mr Speaker, this amendment is saying
    that a candidate or a candidate seeking election will not commit an offence if he mounts a platform. That is the import. An organisation cannot mount a platform. An individual cannot mount a platform. A candidate, however, can mount a platform. If that is the case, then I believe we should have a separate subclause for it. Something to the effect that, the above provisions shall not apply to a candidate seeking election to the District Assembly a lower government unit. That should be it. But to put it here, it is rather in-elegtant.
    “A political party or an individual. other than a candidate seeking election to a District Assembly or to a lower government unit shall not mount a platform or cause a platform to be mounted for the purpose of supporting or not supporting the election of a candidate. . . “
    You are talking about a candidate but why do you include the candidage as an exception ? So, in terms of drafting, I believe it will be clearer if we add sub- clause (7) --
    “The above provisions shall not apply to a candidate seeking election to a District or to a lower government unit . . .”
    Then, what it means is that, candidate can, however, mount his own platform without reference to Electoral Commission or seeking the permission of Electoral Commission or its approval, which was the objection some of us had to the
    amendment as proposed the last time.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    But I thought you would also address what the Hon Second Deputy Speaker had raised in terms of “to mount a platform”?
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 12:55 p.m.
    Yes. If I look at the -- becasue if an individual can mount a platform for himself or a candidate can mount a platform for himself, why can an individual not also speak on that platform? Because mounting a platform means:
    “to create a forum or an opportunity for a candidate to present himself or herself and his or her programmes to the electorates, to answer questions for the purpose of local government elections.”
    I believe that if a candidate can mount a platform, then individuals can also speak on the platform. Unless of course -- [Interruptions.] The Hon Minister for Local Government and Rural Development should wait. This is your Bill. You have ample time. Listen to us. Let us all finish contributing. Take down notes and then you would comment on it.
    So, in my opinion, that issue relating
    to a candidate must be separate.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Hon Member for Akropong, it is your Bill, so listen to the Hon Members and then you can explain.
    Mr Boafo 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my concern
    is with the individual, not the one seeking the election or the mandate. An organisation not associated with a political party is eligible, under the proposed subclause (2) to mount a platform. What about an individual who is equally not associated with a political party? What is the basis for barring from mounting a
    Second Deputy Speaker (Prof. M. A. Oquaye) is that, can an individual speak on a platform in support of a candidate without committing a crime? And that if it is so, are you willing to make a specific provision in the Bill to put the matter beyond all doubts? That is the point being made.
    The point being made by the Hon Member for Sekondi (Papa Owusu- Ankomah) is that, in order again, the terms of a candidate and those things get a special subclause for them. So again, that doubt again, is also removed. So at the end of the day, those areas of doubt are removed from the Bill because if an organisation can be allowed to mount a platform, why not an individual?
    Mr Chireh 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have explained that in the case where the Second Deputy Speaker is talking about clarifying the issue, my point is, when you have a platform and the candidates are available to address this platform, anybody in that forum can address the forum.
    Now, we do not need to legislate it at all. Why will you now say that if you attend a political rally you can speak at the political -- what is the political rally supposed to be? It is one where a candidate presents his proposals and all that and I am saying, in the real practice, people who know the background of some candidates go and talk either in favour or raise questions or ask the questions for candidates to answer. If they said you stole somebody's banana sometime ago, that is the forum for you to answer it. So we do not need to put anything there in terms of this.
    Now, the issue he raised about specifying, and that is a drafting issue. I agree entirely with him that if you say “a party or an individual other than”, you can make it a subclause. The drafters are taking note; it should be (a) and (b); where we remove “other than” and just say in (b),
    platform if an organisation not associated with a political party can do it? We need the justification for that.
    Mr Chireh 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the concern
    about mounting a platform to speak or the actual process of speaking at a platform that has been created, the practice really is that, at that forum, people at the platform are permitted to question the candidate. They speak either in favour of the candidate and they are allowed to answer. If they mount a platform for candidates and somebody is in the forum, he can pose a question to the candidate. He can also make comments. So, there is no bar as far as that is concerned.
    The second issue he raised, indeed, at the Committee level, it was explained that, for instance, it is difficult to determine who is not associated as an individual with one party or the other. But particularly so, if you are a chairman or an executive member of any political party hierarchy, you will still also say that you are an individual.
    So, to avoid all these, that is why we want to preclude “individual”. Because the definition and the application of so many people to mount platforms will become a problem for the Electoral Commission to consider. Particularly that you cannot determine - and as soon as you say so, all kinds of people who are known to have political views and express them one way or the other, will have a difficulty.
    That is why we think that in terms of this, and in particular, not to polarise these elections at the local level, if we are talking about unit committees. That is why this is being arranged.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Hon Minister, the point being raised by the
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.


    what is in (a) does not apply to a candidate. It makes it clearer and there is no problem about that. But to legislate that individuals can speak at a forum, I do not think that really is the essence.
    Prof. Oquaye 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, apart from what definition any law may give of any words or expression in any Act whatsoever, our interpretation law is replete with the trite application that would give words their natural and ordinary meaning.
    Mr Speaker, we are simply saying that legal consequences, criminal conse- quences have been attached to this matter. We want to encourage our people to participate in politics at the local level as individuals and we are criminalising certain aspects of this matter; so it must be very clear.
    Mr Speaker, when somebody says “I saw ‘A' mounting your platform and speaking for you”, we all understand it. It simply means he went and stood on that platform and spoke in support of the candidate. So that is one aspect of mounting a platform.
    Mr Speaker, all that I am saying is that, we should have some expression to the effect that an individual may speak on a platform in support of a candidate without committing any offence. When that alone is provided, I am comfortable; that is the end of the matter.
    But it must be made very, very clear here, otherwise, people would say,
    “Eh, this thing now has become criminal, you want me to come and mount a platform to speak the truth and support a candidate or tell people what I know ”
    But Mr Speaker, all that politics is also about is for people to go and give witness of people, that “I know the man
    is an honest man or I know the man is a dishonest man”. I should be able to say it on a platform and if people would shy away from saying that because there would be criminal consequences by merely mounting a platform, then we are not doing the right thing.
    So Mr Speaker, I am only asking that those in charge of this should simply put some rider to the effect that an individual may speak on a platform in support or against a candidate, whatsoever, without committing an offence just to be very clear. That is all.
    Mr Joseph B. Aidoo 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this issue about whether an individual may mount a platform or not, was raised at the Committee level and the Electoral Commissioner made it very clear to us that an individual cannot mount a platform.
    Mr Speaker, it is not just a matter of the individual going to, let us say, a political rally and speaking on behalf of a candidate contesting but the individual can also go on a radio and even testify about contestant. So he explained clearly that because this Act seeks not to introduce any political elements the individual should be barred completely from mounting a platform.
    Mr Speaker, if you look at subclause (5), it provides the sanction for the individual if he mounts a platform. Therefore, if we take the explanation that has been given by the Minister, it would then mean that whoever mounts a platform, if the person is not a candidate seeking election to a District Assembly, he certainly would suffer the sanction that has been provided in subclause (5), for which reason, personally, I do not support the explanation given by the Hon Minister.
    If we are to allow the individual to mount a platform or even testify on candidates seeking election, then we would certainly have to remove subclause
    from 1987 platforms are supposed to be mounted by the Electoral Commission --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Hon Member, we are at the Consideration Stage; we have passed through the level of principles, which is the Second Reading. So if you are dealing with a particular clause and you have a problem with it, you contribute to that particular clause. But it is like you are taking the whole --
    Hon Deputy Majority Leader? And then the Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Pelpuo 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do side with the Hon Minister. The definition for mounting of a platform is clear. It does not mean going to the platform to speak. And we do not legislate on the liberties of people to interact with the candidate. That is already provided in the Constitution when the Constitution gave the right to the individual to go and seek the mandate of the people in article 248. And I know the law is sensible.
    The law will not punish somebody who simply asks a question or speaks in favour of a candidate at a platform mounted by the candidate. So I believe that the Hon Minister's amendment is apt and we can go with it --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    There is no amendment in the name of the Minister.
    Mr Pelpuo 1:15 p.m.
    Well, the amendment
    proposed by the Chairman is apt and we can go with it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Hon
    Minority Leader, I will take you and then I will take Hon Agbesi.
    Mr Boafo 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you look at
    (5), that is the sanction as has been indicated by -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Hon Members, to help the discussion, it is important to look at the definition in the parent Act, which is the District Assembly Elections Act, 1994, (Act 473) to find out the definition that is being provided. It is the same as what the Hon Second Deputy Speaker is talking about.
    It is not going there to speak but to create a forum or the opportunity; that is the definition of “mount a platform” in the law, which is different from where one would go and bear witness that a candidate is an honest person or a dishonest person. That is not an offence. But what is an offence is when an individual mounts a platform or creates an opportunity for a candidate, then that is where the offence is and that is why I want Hon Members to draw attention to the definition offered in the parent Act to guide us.
    Hon Member for New Juaben South, you have the floor.
    Ms Beatrice B. Boateng 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, please, I want to be educated here. We started this thing last week and we are continuing today. What is the problem that has arisen that is calling for this? At least, I have been at the local government level for some time and the problem I can say about the District Level Elections is the fact that people do not patronise it. Are we doing this to ensure that there is high level of patronage? If that is the issue, why is it that some illegal or legal issues are being attached? This is one of the things I want to be educated on.
    Again, talking about number (3), on the mounting of a platform, both (2) and (3) say, it should be an organisation not associated with a political party. How are we able to determine that? Three,

    The creation of the platform is for a purpose and the purpose is exclusively for the candidate. So there is the need for us to either expand the definition column or provide an additional provision as being advocated by the Second Deputy Speaker. That is why I wanted to catch your eye.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Yes, it is good but what is wrong with the current definition? Because the current definition is only talking about creating the opportunity, which is the physical platform but not what one says there. But the Second Deputy Speaker's submission is that people should be able to bear witnesses about the candidates. That is not what is being prevented by the definition but creating the opportunity, creating the forum for the parties. So I want you to draw that distinction.
    Mr Boafo 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is the
    purpose which I am mostly concerned with. The initial power is given for the creation of the platform as a forum or opportunity. But when the platform is created, the only person who can speak on the platform to present himself is the candidate. He presents himself and his programmes and then he stands on the platform to answer questions from the electorate. So we are left with a situation where the platform should be created for an individual who wants to testify about the integrity or otherwise of a candidate. So I see that they are complementary but they are not mutually exclusive.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Does the
    current rendition, what we have here, prevent somebody from speaking for a candidate or against a candidate? The
    answer is, no. Yes, look at the definition. To be very honest with you when the Second Deputy Speaker raised the point, I was carried and I thought that it was a very strong point.
    But when I looked at the definition of “mount a platform” then because this is a specific legislation, this is a definition that would be provided and not the interpretation. Because there is a definition here which had been provided -- because when he raised and created the two scenarios where one mounts the platform and speaks and when one actually creates the opportunity.
    Now, the definition is limiting it to creating the opportunity or the forum for the candidate to speak. So the other interpretation which we thought was being criminalized has been taken out by virtue of the Interpretation Act. But whatever the House can do to improve upon the legislation and put all matters beyond doubt, must be done by this House and I think that that is what we are all doing now.
    Mr Alfred K. Agbesi 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that we can overcome this problem where it is very clear that where a platform has been mounted purposely for the candidate to answer questions, which would be different from a situation where a platform has been mounted or a situation has been created for anybody could question the candidate or the candidate to answer questions. -- In this case, as we have here, the things are mixed up.
    And by providing here that a political party or an individual shall not mount a platform, we are excluding individuals from the very Act which we are asking people to partake. So I would think that there should be a distinction where the platform is purposely mounted for the candidate whereby nobody will talk. I will agree with that situation.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Hon
    Deputy Speaker; then the Chairman of the Committee.
    Prof. Oquaye 1:15 p.m.
    The point raised
    by Hon Agbesi, earlier, made also by Hon Boafo, should make us cautious. Mr Speaker, when some magistrate is working on this law somewhere, we will not be there. So Mr Speaker, we must avoid all doubts by covering all aspects of “platform”. It is better to add that and make progress; that is all.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think if we went the way of the Hon Member for Sekondi (Papa Owusu- Ankomah), we can make some progress. Perhaps, the issue that we may have to address our minds to is that portion relating to an individual. Because, Mr Speaker, if you address your mind to the constitutional provision, that is, article 248 (1), it provides:
    “248(1) A candidate seeking election to a District Assembly or any lower local government unit shall present himself to the electorate as an individual, and shall not use any symbol associated with any political party.”
    That candidate shall present himself as an individual. So the individual presents himself as a candidate, if you like. Mr Speaker, so why then do we go round to say that the individual cannot do that? We are saying so because of the association of that individual, maybe, with a political party. Because it is only a political party that is precluded so to do as per article 248 (2). Article 248 (2) provides:
    “248(2). A political party shall not endorse, sponsor, offer a platform to or in anyway campaign for or against a candidate seeking election to a District Assembly or any lower local government unit.”
    Mr Speaker, so the prescription is
    only on “political parties”. I believe we want to add the individual who is openly associated with a political party because we may have a chairman of a political party coming in to say that “I am coming here as an individual to do that. I am not doing that in the name of the political party”. So I believe we should qualify the “individual” and then we will save ourselves.
    So if we had a provision like this:
    “A political party or an individual who is openly associated with a political party shall not mount a platform or cause a platform to be mounted for the purpose of supporting or not supporting the election of a candidate to a District Assembly or to a lower government unit.”
    Mr Speaker, I believe we would be home and dry. Thereafter, we would then lift the provision as proposed by the Hon Member for Sekondi (Papa Owusu- Ankomah) to say that the above provision shall not apply --That is, for the avoidance of doubt, we would say that the above provision shall not apply to a candidate seeking election. Mr Speaker, I believe that we would be covered.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, to be very, very frank with you, this is a very difficult task for the Chair because the amendment which has been filed as a result of the consultation itself is being further amended. You would agree that this is a very long amendment and we must also marry them to make sure that the constitutional litmus test is satisfied. We do not do anything to breach article 248 which came out strongly during the Second Reading.
    Mr Ebo Barton-Odro 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the Chairman of the Committee has a solution to the problem. If he could be given the opportunity, maybe, he would be able to solve this problem.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Yes, I have no doubt at all in the Chairman's competence but my problem is that in putting the Question, I must know the Question that I am putting because he himself is amending his amendment which he has advertised. That is my difficulty and I am in the Chair. I am the one in the Chair, so I must be very sure the type of Question I am putting to the House. If I am not sure of it, I would not risk putting any Question. That is my difficulty. It is not that there are problems.
    Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice, do you see where I am coming from?
    Mr Azumah 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it looks like we are kind of combining too many things. Initially, you made a very wonderful suggestion supported by the Hon Minority

    Leader that we take clause 1 (1) first and look at it, if there are amendments to be factored into that; we agreed on that and made progress. Now, in the course of the amendments being proposed, Hon Papa Owusu-Ankomah came out with a very good rendition and we tried to agree with that because it captures the sense of what we have been discussing. So I thought that we could take Hon Papa Owusu- Ankomah's suggestion on board and then it would simply read, if that would be acceptable --

    “A political party or an individual shall not mount a platform or cause a platform to be mounted for the purpose of supporting or not supporting a candidate at the lower level.”

    Then we go further to suggest as follows to give the room.

    “Subsection 1 shall not apply to a candidate seeking elections to a District Assembly.”

    That would have addressed clause 1 (1) and we move down next to clause 2. This is what I thought, if I got it right.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, I do not have any difficulty at all with that. But what you have just said is not before me. I must be very clear.
    Hon Chairman, the first time you brought me a new rendition which is with me here. What you are saying now is different from what you have brought to me. It is different also from what is advertised on the Order Paper. All that I am saying is that, if you have any amendment, you should bring it to me; let me look at the amendment before I propose the Question. That is what I am saying. If you feel strongly that we should proceed, fine, but let me get what you have.

    Hon Members, I am ready to continue. My duty is to put the Question but I must get the Question that I have to put. Yes, I must get the Question that I have to put. I do not have the Question to put, so if the Chairman, in whose name the amendment is made can assist the Chair, I would readily do that.
    Mr Chireh 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, while the Chairman gives you the draft of his proposal, first of all, let me also take the opportunity to explain to my Hon Colleagues, particularly, seasoned lawyers who have gone to court and the court is invited to look at the law then the offence one would have committed and then look at whether one infringed that law. Going to speak at a forum -- let us, for whatever sake, say a forum. Because in the village situation, there are not actual platforms like the big rallies by political parties.
    It is just a group of people who are sitting down; people ask questions or the candidate sells himself. If somebody has a question, he will question him there. Among the candidates themselves, they can ask each other questions. So why should we, a Parliament of Ghana, say that we should put in the law that when one attends a forum, one can speak there? If we do not legislate against any activity, we cannot charge anybody for it and therefore, if I am to come into this House and I come in -- fine, nobody can say, why did you come in? But we have put in our Standing Orders, visitors, people who are known to the House --
    So if an action is not legislated against, it cannot be an offence and that is why I urge that the rendition that we are capturing, for clarity of the law and certainty as we indicated, is for us to separate and then make it a subclause. If we make it
    Mr Azumah 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if that is your wish, I will put it on paper and let you take a quick look at it and then we can make progress.
    Mr Boafo 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is another aspect of the proposed amendment which the House should consider, that is the reference to an organization not associated with a political party.
    Mr Speaker, here, we do not have any yardstick how to determine which organization is not associated with a political party. Is it because of the membership of that organization or is it because of their programme of activities, or what else? So in order to avoid discriminative and selective choices, there is the need for a clearer definition of what is meant by “an organization not associated with a political party”. The Committee for Joint Action (CJA) may be a clear example but others may not. The 31st December Women's Movement would be a clear example; others may not. Alliance for Accountable Governance (AFAG), for example, would not be a clear example in this case. So they have to come back and tell us the yardstick or the criteria for determining an organization not associated with a political party.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Hon Members, in passing a law, there should be a certain degree of certainty in the law so that we are all clear in our minds. The point raised by the Hon Member for Akropong (Mr Boafo) is very legitimate; how do we determine it? What about the Danquah-Busia Institute? [An Hon Member: There is no Danquah-Busia Institute.]
    Yes, it is good that there is none like
    rose
    Mr Chireh 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in any case, many of them do not mount a platform as we know. When leaders of political parties come and stand and talk, it is a forum like we are sitting down and speaking, so there can be no offence with anybody getting up to speak. But mounting a platform, fortunately, it has also been defined.
    So I want to urge my Colleagues who are very seasoned lawyers -- I know them and they have been going to court very, very diligently until they joined politics. So they should accept that we do not say we can drink water before we drink water. If drinking water has not been legislated against, and one takes the person to court, there is no way one can prove that he did. No. Even the Magistrate knows that and there are appeal systems that can take account of what evidence was produced for the conviction to be done.
    Mr Speaker, I am saying that we agree

    in principle but to go and -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Sekondi?
    Mr Chireh 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I wanted to just land. My landing is this - For the kind of interests that have been generated in the amendments themselves and the procedures that we have adopted in this House to always winnow many, many amendments, I do not have a problem that those who are keen and interested in how this should be done can have a winnowing session to clarify the issues before tomorrow.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker. I was going to ask that we defer this matter but the Hon Minister for Local Government and Rural Development seems to agree with me.
    Mr Speaker, it is not so much that we would want to abandon the policy. We have all agreed as a House in terms of contributions made at various times that that policy itself has outlived its usefulness; that is the problem. The policy itself has outlived its usefulness. It wants to create a situation that in reality is not happening.
    So once we attempt to legislate it and then give the Electoral Commission a certain power to determine whether someone or an organization is a fit-and- proper person to mount a platform, it is in itself a very dangerous position. Because the Electoral Commission is there only to supervise elections; it is not there to determine who is a fit-and-proper person according to law, to mount a platform. That should not be the power given to the Electoral Commission.
    So if we are deferring it, I believe that it is in the right direction and I am inviting
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 1:35 p.m.


    the Chair to defer this matter further for further consideration.

    Thank you very much.
    Mr Chireh 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just to raise
    a point of order. When he says that the Electoral Commission is not endowed with the powers to do what they say -- First of all, the Electoral Commission must even accept that one belongs to a political party and that one will go through a process of being a candidate; otherwise, one cannot do a campaign, they cannot put that one on the ballot box. So in that case, they determine all that.
    But I want to assure him that the matter is a constitutional one and this has already been referred to the Constitutional Review Commission. Whether the reality is what we are practising or not, everybody learns from his past experiences. The other ones are laws -- we do not know to what extent this review will come or not come. To liberalize the system now is why we are isolating it.
    So I am saying that please, let us wait, the review will come and fortunately, Members of the Committee from this House will also assist the Special Committee to make decisions whether we should have a partisan, as he is suggesting or a non-partisan assembly process.
    Prof. Oquaye 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if there
    will be any further considerations, I believe we should take a serious cue from what the Hon Member for Sekondi (Papa Owusu-Ankomah) has just said. The very constitutionality of drawing the Electoral Commission into the first stage of politicking before voting, the canvassing for votes - drawing them into that arena for them to be what - referees, moderators, determiners, adjudicators of that stage. Who can mount platform? Who should be there? Start at 2 o'clock and close at 6, or what?
    Mr Speaker, the constitutionality
    of the Electoral Commission's role is a serious matter to be considered because next time, I am going to raise it as part of this discussion.
    Mr Pelpuo 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it does appear that the matter is becoming even more complicated and it also shows that we need to Sit beyond this place. We need to go out of this place and have a more informal discussion about the Bill before it comes back here. So I do support the proposal that we defer it and move on to the next item, item number 10.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon Members, the District Assembly Elections Bill, 2010 is accordingly deferred.
    Hon Members, we are left with a few minutes. Can we make any real progress by going to the next substantive Bill?
    Hon Deputy Majority Leader?
    Mr Pelpuo 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have made provisions for extended Sittings and --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    You have made provision for extended Sittings?
    Mr Pelpuo 1:35 p.m.
    So we can have it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Very well. Hon Members, item 10 on the Order Paper.
    BILLS - CONSIDERATION 1:35 p.m.
    STAGE 1:35 p.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon Members, clause 14 -- [Pause.]
    Hon Members, there is an amendment in the name of the Chairman of the Committee, so when the clause is called --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 14(3) was not considered. It was a new amendment that was proposed.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Very well. That explains the matter.

    Hon Members, we have dealt with clause 15 already and we have dealt with clause 16 last week, so we move to clause 17.

    Clause 17 -- I m p o s i t i o n o f conditions.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:35 p.m.
    Mr
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon
    Minority Leader, in the absence of any notice here, let us continue; we can always come back because there is no amendment to clause 16 here on the Order Paper.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there were some amendments. Maybe, we have dealt with them, I am not too sure. To bring us back to it, the rendition here goes like this, and Mr Speaker, with your permission, I beg to quote:
    “16(1) Despite section 1(3), where a request by a foreign State or foreign entity for mutual legal assistance in respect of a criminal matter does not constitute a criminal offence . . .”
    I remember saying that a request cannot constitute a criminal offence or otherwise. I think we have dealt with that, if my memory serves me right. So, it does appear that we dealt with clause 16, for which reason, we may go to clause 17.
    Mr Speaker, again, for clause 17, I think
    we just got there. We finished with clause 17; we got to clause 17, we concluded on
    Mr Bandua 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think it is clause 1 before you mention clause 14--
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    I mentioned clause 14. We will come back to all those areas that we have deferred at the appropriate time.
    Mr Bandua 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, then I will go to clause 14.
    Clause 14 -- Defence requests for mutual legal assistance.
    Mr Emmanuel K. Bandua 1:45 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, I beg to move, clause 14 add a new subclause as follows:
    “(3) The costs related to request made under subsection (1) shall be borne by the accused person”
    Mr Speaker, the reason for this is that if it is on the request from the accused person that this cost has been incurred, it is only proper that he be made to pick the bills.
    Mr Boafo 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the amendment.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 14 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Clause 15, clause 16 --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do remember that we dealt with clause 15. There were various amendments but I think we dealt with them.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Yes, I think so. Then how come that clause 14 is there? Hon Minority Leader, that is what

    clause 17. And I remember saying that because clause 17 deals with refusal of a request, we should look at relocating it to follow after clause 15. But, if we have to revisit the matter, we may, perhaps, do so.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    If you
    moved the amendment there, the last time - Hon Boafo, clause 17?
    Mr Boafo 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment
    on clause 17 on the Order Paper was discussed at the winnowing and I think it was rather clause 17(4) which should be deleted. The proposed amendment here, we do not find those expressions under subclause (4) of clause 17; there is nothing like ‘State'. It is rather in clause 19. So the original proposal is to delete clause 17(4) because it was realised that under clause 8, paragraph (d), opportunity had been given for reasons to be stated by the foreign State or foreign entity. So it appears clause 17(4) is a sub usage.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, the amendment there is to delete subclause (4), simpliciter, nothing less, nothing more. That is right?
    Mr Boafo 1:45 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker. Mr
    Speaker, I beg to move, clause 17 - subcluase (4), delete.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 17 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon Members, I direct that having regard to the state of business, we Sit outside the prescribed period in line with Standing Order 40(3).
    Clause 18 -- Request for identification and location of persons.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:45 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, clause 18 (1) (a) and (b) refer
    to the same thing or they mean the same thing. Clause 19 (1) says,
    “A request for assistance to identify and locate a person believed to be within Ghana -”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon
    Minority Leader, we have two amendments there in your name. Which one are you moving?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:45 p.m.
    That is so.
    Mr Speaker, I am moving (vii), that is the deletion and insertion for the Head notes and the justification is what I am providing before we get there.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    All right.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    so I was saying that the location of the person comes before the identification and that is why I said it should be the other way round.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 18, Head notes, delete and insert “Request for location and identification of persons”
    So that is in respect of the Head notes.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah Bonsu 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 18 - subclause (1), paragraph (b), delete “detect” and insert “establish the identity and”.
    Mr Speaker, because we cannot detect the location of a person, we would establish the identity and location of the person.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, this is a straightforward amendment to clause 18, subclause (1)
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.


    (b),
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:55 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, I think the amendment was not well captured. What I meant by that was that we would combine both (a) and (b) because (a) and (b) are about the same thing. (a) says “. . . contains information “as to where the person sought may be located” and (b) says “to detect the location of the person in Ghana”. That is why I am saying that if we combine the two, then we are talking about establishing the identity and location of that person. So in other words,we will combine (a) and (b).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Hon Member, then move your new rendition because if the amendment there is wrong, let us get the new rendition which you want to move and which will put (a) and (b) together.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:55 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, the amendment then would be -
    “a request for assistance to locate and identify a person believed to be within Ghana shall so far as practicable, contain information on the identity and location of that person in Ghana.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, the amendment really is to delete paragraphs (a) and (b) and then after information, we add --
    “on the location and identity of that person in Ghana”.
    Hon Members, did you get the amendment? It is to delete paragraphs (a) and (b) and then after information, in line 2 of subclause 1, you add “on the location and identity of that person in Ghana”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 18 as amended ordered to stamd part of the Bill.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with respect, because of what we have done with the Head notes, clause 18 (2) then will also have a similar re- arrangement.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    It is consequential, so the draftpersons should take note.
    Clause 19 - Request for service of documents.
    Mr Bandua 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19, subclause (2), paragraph (a), line 2, after “State” insert “or”. So the new rendition will be --
    “ the r eques t r e l a t e s t o an investigation being conducted in that State or by that entity or a proceeding before a competent court of that State, and . . .”
    2.00p.m.-- [MR SECOND DEPUTY
    Mr Boafo 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to support the amendment but to observe that there should be a consequential amendment in line 3. Mr Speaker, in line 2, there is a reference to “that State or by that entity” or “a proceeding before a competent court of that State”, and we should add “or that entity”. There is earlier reference to “State” and “entity”, so in order to complement the reference, in line 3, we have to insert “or entity” after - [Pause.]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Hon Boafo, you are making observations on clause 19.
    Mr Boafo 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you look at the proceedings, there is a reference to a proceeding before a competent court of that State, and I am saying that we have
    specified in the Schedule or designated under section 2(1)(b);”
    I am making this submission for the avoidance of doubt where foreign entity can also have within it a tribunal to hear cases.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Hon
    Minority Leader, does that explanation help to satisfy your concern?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:55 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, to the extent that a foreign entity would not mean any organisation beyond what my Hon Colleague is talking about, I will be satisfied with that explanation.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, can you help us to put the amendment very clear, so that I can put the Question?
    Mr Bandua 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think it
    is Hon Boafo who moved the amendment, but I have got the idea behind it. Since he moved the amendment, if he can just give us the rendition.
    Mr Boafo 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the rendition will be as follows, taking into account the earlier one made by the Chairman of the Committee:
    “the reques t re la tes to an investigation being conducted in that State or by that entity or proceeding before a competent court of that State or that entity.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, are you satisfied with the rendition?
    Mr Bandua 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, upon
    further considerations, I think we should rather defer it so that we have further
    to add “or entity”. Simply because if you look at the definition of the “entity” as provided under the Schedule, we have the International Court of Justice (ICJ), so proceedings before the ICJ--
    Mr Bandua 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the amendment.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the principle in what my Hon Colleague is espousing is well understood but I am not too sure that we will be talking about a competent court of an entity. Because the entity does not merely refer to the ICJ as he has said. But it refers also to any organisation, and are we saying that we should have a competent court in an organisation? That is where I am not too sure of.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Hon Boafo, will you help us to clarify this?
    Mr Boafo 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, under Schedule Part A, foreign States have been stated and then foreign entities, and under foreign entities, we have only the International Criminal Court (ICC) established by the Rome Statute on 17th July, 1998.
    Mr Speaker, if you look at subclause 2(a), there are two different scenarios provided under that clause; we have investigations being conducted as one of the scenarios and then we have proceedings, before a competent court, and there could be a proceeding before the ICJ.
    Mr Speaker, to cap it up, under the
    definition column, where we have foreign entity, it said:
    “fore ign ent i ty inc ludes an international criminal tribunal and an international organisation
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    You
    wish that it is deferred so that -- Thank you very much. That will stand deferred then
    Mr Bandua 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 19, subclause (3), paragraph (a), delete “uncertain or unknown” and insert “certain or known”
    Mr Speaker, in the end, if we take it, it will read as follows 2:05 p.m.
    “Subject to subsection (4), the Central Authority of a foreign State or the competent authority of a foreign entity may send a copy of the procedural document to a person concerned with a criminal matter if
    (a)the address of that person is certain or known.”
    This is because the document cannot be sent to an address which is uncertained or unknown. So I think we replace “uncertain or unknown” with “certain or known”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 19 (3), third line, I thought that we had agreed to substitute another word for the word “concerned”?
    It reads:
    “Subject to subsection (4) the Central Authority of a foreign State or the competent authority of a foreign entity may send a copy of a procedural document to the person concerned with a criminal matter if the address of that person is certain
    or known.”
    I thought we had agreed to substitute another word for “concerned”?
    Mr Bandua 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, is for
    “certain or known”? I do not get the message properly.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    Hon
    Minority Leader, is the difficulty killed?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    the difficulty is the import of that provision:
    “Subject to subsection (4), the Central Authority of a foreign State or the competent authority of a foreign entity may send a copy of a procedural document to the person concerned with a criminal matter --
    (a) if the address of that person is known.”
    Mr Speaker, who is that person that we are talking about here?
    Mr Bandua 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the person who is handling the criminal matter.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, I do not know whether you may want to continue with your amendment?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe we can continue. I think in this case, my clearest understanding then is, we are talking about the body locally, that is connected with the resolution of the criminal matter, that is the domestic or local competent authority.
    This is because a request that has been made to an authority outside the jurisdiction and the jurisdiction is serving a document on the body making the request, that is the local body and that is the person concerned. I thought that it was referring to the alleged criminal, the
    let the draftsperson ascertain that and then - because I must tell you, I am not sure myself whether “to dispatch,” and “to treat with dispatch” are spelt in the same way. If you can bring the Oxford Advanced Learners' Dictionary, we can ascertain and then proceed. But it is important to just be certain, just for the sake of accuracy.
    Mr Bandua 2:05 p.m.
    So shall we stand it down briefly as the dictionary comes so that we are very certain of what we are doing?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    Yes.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, you may please, move the amendment (xii) while we try to get the correct spelling “with dispatch”.
    Mr Bandua 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think
    we are now agreed that “dis” should be replaced with “des” - “dispatch”. If the Minority Leader has not got any further objections, I think we will then do the amendment. But if you insist on bringing the dictionary to the floor, well, that is another matter.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:05 p.m.
    Mr
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    In this day of American spellings, we have got to be very careful about some of these things because these days, the new spelling is intruding - but Chairman of the Committee, have you checked and made sure?
    Mr Bandua 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think it
    will take some time, let us defer it so that we will get back to it later on.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    Very

    suspect or the victim. I think I am now clear.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr Bandua 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19, subclause (3), pargraph (d), line 1, delete “dispatch” and insert “despatch”.
    Mr Speaker, so it will read --
    “there is reasonable cause to believe that the despatch of the postwill be effective or inappropriate.”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the two words mean the same thing. “Despatch” and “dispatch, they mean the same thing. It is one and the same word.
    Mr Bandua 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my problem
    is that when we dispatch something by posting it and when we do something, it should be done with despatch. So the same spelling goes for both meanings?
    Well, I thought that there was a distinction between “dispatch” and “despatch”. You dispatch something and you do something with despatch, these are two different words.
    That is my understanding of it and do you want us to believe that the two words have the same spelling? [Interruption.] The two have the same spelling - very well.
    Mr Speaker, if that is the position of the House, I do not have any objection, so we can retain the word if that is so. So we may retain it if we all agree that the same spelling can go for both words, I do not think I have any objection.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Can we
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.


    well, deferred.
    Mr Bandua 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 19, subclause (4), paragraph (c), delete “1960 (C.A. 4)” and insert “2009 Act 792)”
    I think that is the current Act.
    Mr Boafo 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to support the amendment. Mr Speaker, with regard to clause 19 (4), I believe the procedure to be followed in the service of the procedural document is not exhaustive.
    There is the need to add some omnibus provision to cater for procedures provided in other enactments like the Companies Code. Here, they have specified “procedure specified in the request if not prohibited by the domestic law of the Republic”.
    Mr Speaker, even in that particular paragraph, we have to delete “domestic” so that we now have “the procedure specified in the request if not prohibited by the laws of the Republic”. Then (b) “the procedure specified in the Criminal and Other Offences Procedure Act, 1960”, and (c ) the Interpretation Act of 2010. And then we add (d) to cater for procedures in other enactments - “with the procedure specified in any other relevant enactments”.
    So that we cater for procedures contained in laws like the Companies Code and maybe, the new Economic and Organised Crime Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Or
    even other laws that may be passed in the future. In other words, a saving clause -- omnibus, Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Bandua 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not
    have any objection.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    The idea is that what is sought to be an omnibus provision to cater for any other enactment or whatever is elsewhere provided for and so -- [Pause] -- but will that preclude the insertion that Hon Boafo is speaking about?
    Mr Boafo 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the omnibus
    provision is not covered in any other place. I do not know which other place they are referring to; I do not know whether they are referring to (b) -- the Criminal and Other Offences Procedure Act.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, can you assist?
    Mr Bandua 2:25 p.m.
    Madam Speaker, we are referring to clause (a) --
    “the procedure specified in the request . . .”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    You have started reading, can you tell us what you are reading?
    Mr Boafo 2:25 p.m.
    Is clause 19 (4) (a), which reads:
    “the procedure specified in the request if not prohibited by the law of the Republic”,
    I think that suffice it.
    Mr Boafo 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the import of
    paragraph (a) is that you comply with the procedure as specified in the request from the foreign authority. So, if the procedure they request is not ominibus, then there is the need for us to make a good provision to cover ominibus situations.
    So Mr Speaker, I do not appreciate the Hon Chairman's position. It is what is contained in the request from him to me. So, if the request from him to me is
    not that we should follow any procedure suitable in our jurisdiction, then it means I am being limited. That precisely is why we need an ominibus provision to cater for ominibus situations.
    Mr Bandua 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do think I share the sentiments of the Hon Member for Akropong.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, will too much meat spoil the soup? And in any case, we always want to proceed on the side of caution in making laws.
    Mr Bandua 2:25 p.m.
    Very well, Mr Speaker. If that is the reasoning, then too much meat will not spoil the soup. I do not think it will spoil anything anyway. Except of course, I was inclined to believe that subclause (a) takes care of the situation that he was referring to. But since too much meat will not spoil the soup, we can still capture it in there. It will not create any problem.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    In that case, I would put the Question to clause 19 (3) and clause 19 (4). Subclauses (2) and (3) as otherwise advertised are deferred. Shall we proceed with the other part of clause 19 now or we will still have it stand deferred and if that is so, then we will move to clause 20.
    Mr Boafo 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19 (5) (b), line 2, from the words “to the Central Authority …” the expression following those words to the end should be shifted to the next line and to the corner to be in line with subclause (b) so that it takes care of both subclauses (a) and (b).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Hon Boafo, if you could kindly come again.
    Mr Boafo 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 19 (5) (b) line 2, from the word “to” which reads
    as follows:
    “… to the Central Authority through the Minister responsible for the Interior.”
    Mr Speaker, these expressions refer to both paragraphs (a) and (b) but as it stands now, it appears that it is only in reference to paragraph (5) (b). So, it is being proposed that that expression should be shifted to the next line and start in line with (b).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    “The competent authority shall send:
    (a) a notification that service was effected after service of the document, or
    (b) a statement of the matter that prevented service, where service was not effected to …”
    Mr Boafo 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, after that you shift the word “to” to the next line.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    What Hon Boafo is saying is that, the words “to the Central Authority through the Minister responsible for the Interior” cover scenarios that pertain to both subclauses (a) and (b). Is that so?
    Mr Boafo 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is so.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Bandua 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if I may understand him clearly, where do we move “to the Central Authority through the Minister responsible for the Interior”? Where do we shift it to? That is the question.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Hon
    Boafo, by way of making a suggestion to you --
    “The competent authority shall send to the Central Authority through the Minister responsible for the Interior” -
    And then you have both subclauses (a) and (b). Would that help if you intend that the competent authority shall send in either case something to the Central Authority through the Minister responsible for the Interior?
    Mr Boafo 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that will be more elegant. That will satisfy -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    So that it will read:
    “The competent authority shall send to the Central Authority through the Minister responsible for the Interior: (a) a notification that service was
    effected after service of the document, or
    (b) a statement of the matter that prevented service, where service was not effected.”
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, does that help you?
    Mr Bandua 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that is all right.
    Mr Boafo 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is another issue. At the winnowing, we were impressively made to understand by the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice that one would like to receive possibly, all the communications from the foreign State or foreign entity. So,
    Mr Speaker, if you read that sentence, there is a comma after “service” and I believe it is not for nothing that we have that comma. So “a statement of the matter that prevented service” stands on its own and then “where service was not effected” also stands on its own. So, I think that, that should be (c), “where service was not effected”.
    Mr Speaker, I say so because in the Bill, we have gone through areas where service could be deferred. In that case, reason could be proffered for why a service has been deferred. We also have gone through areas where service could be effected in parts and not in whole, and so I believe that is what is meant by “where service was not effected”, and I guess we would say “where service was deferred or where service was not effected in whole.” There are provisions in the Bill, “where service is deferred.”
    Where you deferred service, are you saying that it was not served? Where you implement the service, not in whole but in parts, where would that be captured?
    Mr Ebo Barton-Odro 2:35 p.m.
    If there should be anything like that it would be partial service and not complete service. So for the reason that the portion that would deal with non-service would give the reasons, the portion that there was service would deal with (a). But if it was deferred, then it was not served and therefore, you would have to give reasons for non-service.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe the Hon Deputy Attorney- General and Deputy Minister for Justice is not getting the point I am making.
    There are two scenarios; a notification that service was effected. The other one talks about a statement that service was prevented.
    There are instances where you are not able to serve, not because it was prevented,
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    As it stands now, “to the Central Authority ….” only refers to subclause (b) but in actual fact what he is saying is that that statement qualifies both subclauses (a) and (b) situations. And if so, we must not put that part of the provision under subclause (b) alone. So, we have to rephrase so that it will cover both subclauses (a) and (b)
    Mr Bandua 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree. So, he should read the whole rendition so that we will see how it goes.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Hon Boafo, he agrees with you in principle, he would want you to help with a formulation.
    Mr Boafo 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the formulation will be as follows, paragraph (5) (b):
    “a statement of the matter that prevented service, where service was not effected …”
    Then, you will continue with line 2, but the next line, the line commencing “Minister” and you shift it a bit towards the left, so that when it appears, it will cover both paragraphs (a) and (b).
    Mr Bandua 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, kindly read paragraphs (a) and (b) together so that, we will see how the rendition will be like.
    Mr Boafo 2:35 p.m.
    Subclause (5),
    “The competent authority shall send:
    (a) a notification that service was effected after service of the document, or
    (b) a statement of the matter that prevented service, where service was not effected.”
    Then, you shift “to” -

    in this particular case, the report about the inability to effect the personal service of the procedural document should be sent to the central authority, so that the central authority would decide which other competent authority should be used in that regard. So, we are proposing the deletion of “through the Minister responsible for the Interior.” So the new rendition would be as follows:

    “ (5) The competent authority shall send to the Central Authority

    (a) the notification that service was effected after service of the document, or

    (b) a statement of the matter that

    prevented service, where service was not effected.”

    To be in conformity with the sentiments expressed by the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    So, in that case, it would not be through the Minister responsible for the Interior? It is enough to say, to the central authority.
    Mr Bandua 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that is so.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    “The competent authority shall send to the Central Authority:
    (a) a notification that service was effected after service of the document, or
    (b) a statement of the matter that prevented service, where service was not effected . . .”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, not to seek to arrest the vote but (b) talks about “a statement of the matter that prevented service, where service was not effected”.

    but because perhaps, you cannot even locate the person or you do not even know the identity of the person. You are not being prevented.

    So that is one scenario; the other one as I have said is that, there are instances in the Bill where you talk about deferment. He is saying that that one can be appropriately captured in (a) because it is either service or non-service.

    Even if we defer, then you could say non-service. But there are areas that you could also serve, not in whole, as you said, partial service; where would you put that? That is why I am saying that let us be sure to capture all scenarios in the (a) and (b). I should think that we may have to provide for (c) to capture for this other leg which is apparently not captured.
    Mr Barton-Odro 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the point that I am making is this, that you have two situations or maybe, three, as he has rightly pointed out, where service has been effected; that is taken care of by (a). Where service has not been effected, even if it has been deferred, it has not been effected. So you would indicate that there has been no service, but you would go on to say that it has been deferred. But where it has been partially served, then (a) and (b) come in. The partial service will have to be dealt with by (a), the partial non-service will be dealt with under (b).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    I think we can make progress.
    Yes, Hon Boafo.
    Mr Boafo 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not know whether you are putting the Question on subclause (5) --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    That is exactly what we are doing.
    “The competent authority shall send to the Central Authority -
    (a) a notification that service was effected after service of the document, or
    (b) a statement of the matter that prevented service where service was not effected.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Boafo 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 19
    (6), (a) which deals with the certificate of service. I believe the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice would agree with me that the normal language that we hear from the judges is: “Clerk, is there any proof of service on the docket?” We do not hear: “Is there any proof of the service?” So my proposal is that we delete the word “the.” Proof of service; that is the language we normally hear from the bench.
    Mr Barton-Odro 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think he is right because if you come to (b) it resds -- “a report containing any reason for the inability to effect service”, not to “effect the service”. So I think he is right.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Any
    further amendments?
    Mr Boafo 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, on subclause
    7 which deals with the impunity, the last line, we have the expressions “shall not be subject to a penalty or to punishment”. Mr Speaker, I believe the penalty may be referring to a fine and the punishment maybe, referring to imprisonment. If that is the intendment, then Mr Speaker, why do we not say “a penalty or imprisonment”?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Can we possibly anticipate any other form of penalty?
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, can we possibly not think of some form of penalty that will not necessarily imply fine or imprisonment, and if so, then why do we want to leave the larger and adopt the smaller? I hope you are with me.
    Mr Boafo 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, to save our
    breath, I think it may equally be the death penalty. The reference to punishment may include the death penalty which is not imprisonment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Exactly,
    which is not imprisonment or some other form of punishment.
    Mr Boafo 2:45 p.m.
    Or summary execution.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Yes,
    so penalty or punishment, more holistic, more global and will capture the situation.
    So Hon Boafo, you are in agreement, are you not?
    Mr Boafo 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am
    abandoning the proposal.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    I agree
    with you.
    Any other amendment with regard to clause 19? We have clause 19 (ix) and (xi) deferred.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:45 p.m.
    Clause
    19 (7). Mr Speaker, are we giving a foreclosure when we say --
    “Despite a contrary statement and a summons, a person who is served with summons in accordance with a request under this session to appear as a witness in a foreign State or before a competent authority of a
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Hon
    Minority Leader, you have moved on to clause 20?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:45 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, the issue I am raising is on the use of the word “shall”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    But you
    have moved on to clause 20?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:45 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, at the Consideration Stage, to save the time of this House, if a Question has been put -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    I have
    no difficulty with that but in fact, we are now getting there. This is why I am saying so.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:45 p.m.
    You have
    moved to clause 20?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Yes,
    please, proceed.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:45 p.m.
    I am still
    on clause 19 (7).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Oh, you
    did not tell us. Clause 19 (7).
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    the question that I proposed to the Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justce was whether he is comfortable with the use of the word “shall” which is a complete fore closure and does not give any discretion.
    We are saying that you may be served with a summons and if you decide not to go, nothing happens. But you shall not be subject to a penalty or whatever. Is it “may” that is preferable or “shall”? I thought that in the circumstances, “may” will be better.
    Mr Barton-Odro 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think I agree with him. “May” will be a better word because it will give a leeway. If for example, the flouting was with impunity, there will be a leeway for some form of punishment. But if you say “shall”, then it bars everything.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    So Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice, you can contemplate a scenario where it would be desirable to punish and then the discretion will lie with the court.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Thank
    you, Hon Minority Leader for that timely intervention.
    Clause 20 - Research for search and seizure.
    Mr Bandua 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 20, subclause (2), delete and insert the following:
    “Where the Minister approves the request, the Minister shall in writing authorize a police officer or any other person to apply without notice to the judge for the relevant warrant”
    We are replacing “judge” with “court”. And then another amendment that we are also dealing with here is that the court in which area of jurisdiction, the Central Authority believes that, evidence may be found for the warrant. It is the normal procedure that request for the warrant should go to the court where it is believed that evidence may be found.
    So I do not think there is a need for us to legislate that because it is normal procedure; that is what normally applies. So the new rendition will be
    “Where the Minister approves the request, the Minister shall in writing authorise a police officer or
    any other person to apply without notice to the court for the relevant warrant”.
    I so move, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    So you
    think the application should necessarily go to the same court where the matter is?
    Mr Bandua 2:45 p.m.
    That is so but we do not
    need to legislate it in here; that was why we removed it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    But do
    you want to necessarily say “the court” or “a court”?
    Mr Bandua 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker -- “Where
    the Minister approves the request, the Minister shall in writing authorise a police officer or any other person to apply without notice to the court where it is believed that the evidence shall be found”. So I think that “the” would be in order.
    Mr Barton-Odro 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    am wondering if it would not be better to use the expression “ex parte” because as it stands now, it will appear as if you are saying that we should not even notify the court. It depends on how you want to interpret it but it says --
    “without notice to the court in writing, authorising a police officer or any other person to apply without notice to the court”.
    I know that it is without notice to any other person to the court but why cannot we make it “to apply ex parte to the court”?
    Mr Boafo 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the Deputy Attorney-General is right that if the intendment is that we can go straight to the court, then it should be ex parte, not “without notice”. If we retain “without notice”, then it would appear that he can do it even without reference to the court but when we insert ex parte, then it means
    Mr Boafo 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, maybe, it would be a world of difference if we add “detailed description of the property” so that if a detailed description is made of the property seized, if the property is still in custody and good care is not taken of the property, the custodian would be held responsible for deterioration of the property. It may be an immovable property or it may be a movable property and it requires that once you are a custodian, you should use the same reasonable care and attention which if it were to be your property, you would be expected to undertake.
    So, if we put that in, it would be a caution to the custodian to be more concerned, careful about the property in his custody. If we leave it just like that they will also be careless and reckless with their custodian obligations.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, for avoidance of doubt --
    Mr Bandua 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my problem is that detailed description of the property would not necessarily capture the state of the property, that is my problem. When we declare the property in detail, it may not necessarily capture the state of the property as at that point in time.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    So,
    how can we capture all for the sake of certainty?
    Mr Bandua 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, then we
    may come up with a new rendition to capture all.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    Yes,
    because what your Hon Friend is simply raising are areas of doubt and I agree with you also. We would need to come out with a formulation.
    Mr Barton-Odro 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we
    need both proposals because apart from describing the property itself, we need to know the state in which it was at the
    1467Mutual Legal Assistance Bill -- 28 June, 2010 Consideration Stage
    without notice to any other party. I believe the rationale is to ensure expedition.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    So, we
    use the Latin expression.
    Mr Bandua 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think so.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr Bandua 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg
    to move that clause 20, subclause (3), paragraph (h), before “seizure” insert “the”.
    Mr Boafo 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the proposed amendment only to add that under the same subclause 3, line 2, there is a reference to “foreign State” but we have to complement it with “or foreign entity.”. After “foreign State” we insert or “foreign entity”.
    Mr Bandua 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that
    is consequential. We have done it in the earlier clauses, so I think it is in order.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    Very
    well, we shall put the two together.
    Mr Boafo 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the same subclause 3 ( c), there is a reference to subsequent custody of the property seized. Mr Speaker, I would like to propose that instead of just stating the property, we can include or add that there should be a reference to subsequent custody and description of the seized property.
    Mr Bandua 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I wanted to
    know the rationale behind this addition because normally, when a property is seized, the description would be captured somewhere, particulars of property would be taken by the person who keeps the property. So, I do not see why we have to put it in there, if he can give us any reason for that --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    So, shall we flag that or you can just put your heads together gently and come out with a formulation? That is the beauty of Consideration Stage.
    Mr Bandua 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, since
    we have all agreed, if we leave that to the draftspersons, I think that would be in order so that they would come out with a proper rendition to capture both suggestions.
    Mr Pelpuo 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am just wondering why we want to legislate on what the police and other security officials do everyday. Anytime they seize, routinely, they document what they seize, the time and space. So I do not know why we should put this in a legislation, to add what to it? ‘Seizure' means that taking something and documenting exactly what you have seized, it is part of their work.
    If you legislate on it, you are melting down the effect of what they do. Sometimes, they even do more than we imagine including taking photographs of it, et cetera which we cannot put in this Legislation. So I suppose that we can do without it.
    Mr Bandua 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think it
    would be very necessary to capture the state and the details of the property because there are various types of properties that may be seized and some of the properties may be very expensive. We cannot say that every police office would go to that extent of capturing the details but once it is stated here, they would be advised to capture the detail and the state of the property.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    So, the mood is that we capture appropriate provisions that would make it legally mandatory for certain steps to be taken.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, what
    do you suggest? Do we stand this down, do we leave it -
    Mr Bandua 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we would
    leave it to the drafters.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    We
    would leave it to the drafters to fill in the details?
    Mr Bandua 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is so.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    Hon Boafo, is that acceptable to you?
    Mr Boafo 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is only the
    insertion of “detail description and state of the property”. I do not think that this one, we require the expertise of a draftsman to do it. I could see the Senior State Attorney or the Principal State Attorney is nodding to my proposal so-- Mr Speaker, I have been requested by the Deputy Attorney- General and Deputy Minister for Justice to come up with a rendition. And with your permission, I will do so.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    Please,
    go on.
    Mr Boafo 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the new
    rendition will be, that reading from sub- clause (3):
    “Without limiting the provisions of section 10, subsection 6, the central authority shall certify and forward to the foreign State or foreign entity a report that contains information on the:
    (a)outcome of the search
    (b) place and circumstances of the seizure and
    (c) subsequent custody, detailed
    description or state of the seized property.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    Subsequent custody -
    Mr Boafo 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “detailed description and state of the seized property”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, is that -
    Mr Bandua 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that is all right.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 20 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 21 -- Issue of search warrant.
    Mr Bandua 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 21, subclause (1), line 1, delete “judge” and insert “Court”
    Mr Speaker, the amendment is consequential.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bandua 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 21, subclause (1), paragraph (a), delete “an” and insert “a serious”
    The reason for this deletion and insertion is that “serious” has been defined in the Order Paper so that it makes it easier for us to appreciate the type of offence. So “a serious offence” instead of “an offence”. I think, on page 20 of the Paper, it has been defined.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, the amendment is for the

    consideration of the House. And we are instructed by the definition of serious offence as on page 20 of the Order Paper. Hon Members are invited to read to inform themselves accordingly. In the light of the definition advertised on page 20--

    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bandua 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 21, subclause (2), line 1, delete “judge who” and insert “court that”
    That is consequential. Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr Bandua 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause (21),subclause (3), line 1, delete “purposes” and insert “purpose”.
    Mr Boafo 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the proposed amendment, only to add further amendment with regard to subclause (3), line 2. This is just to provide consistency with the previous one we did by expanding in line 2, “reference to foreign States requests or foreign entities requests” and to restate it as follows:
    “for the purpose of subsection1 (a), a statement contained in the request of the foreign State or the request of the foreign entity”
    We have made an earlier correction.
    Mr Bandua 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not
    have any objection to that amendment.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Boafo 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is the amendment I just proposed.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    Very well, that has been taken care of then.
    Mr Bandua 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    Mr Bandua 3:05 p.m.
    No objection, Mr Speaker.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22 (2) (b), then subclause (2) (c) (i) then (2) (c) (ii), second line, and (2) (c) (ii) the last line, delete “thing” and insert “item” or “items” as the case may be.
    Mr Bandua 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think I am in agreement with him, instead of “thing' we use “item” or “items”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 22 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill
    Clause 2 -- Execution of search warrant.
    Mr Bandua 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 23, subclause (2), line 1, after “officer” insert “or an authorised person”
    So, the rendition will be,
    “(2) A police officer or an authorised person, who...”
    I th ink th i s amendment i s a l so consequential.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Boafo 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not know
    whether you have put the Question for the entire clause 23 because I have an amendment to clause 23 (2).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    No, you
    may proceed.
    Mr Boafo 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move,clause 23, subclause (2), line 4, delete “within” and “insert” “at”.
    Mr Speaker, clause 23 (2) line 4, we
    have the expression, “within the place
    move, clause (21), subclause (4) line 1, delete “judge who” and insert “court that” and in line 2, after “officer” insert “or the authorised person”?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    Is it
    “the authorised person” or “authorised person”?
    Mr Bandua 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “or
    the authorised person”. “Judge” is consequential and then for “the authorised person”, maybe, any other person apart from the police officer may be requested to execute the warrant.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    And Chairman of the Committee, do we want to speak of “the authorised person” - is that “authorised person” aforementioned somewhere? And if so, shall we have “and” for “the”, unless of course, the person is aforementioned?
    Mr Bandua 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “or an
    authorised person” will do in this situation.
    Question put and amendment agreed to
    Clause 21 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 22 -- Content of search warrant.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    There is no advertised amendment.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think we can have a consequential amendment to clause 22 (1) in respect of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960, as we did earlier for clause 19 (4) (b). Mr. Speaker, it is only consequential.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, your response.

    or premises” but it goes with an earlier expression in line 3, “fixed”. I believe we say, “fix ...... at” and not “fix ..... within.”
    Mr Speaker, if I may read the entire subclause 3:15 p.m.
    “(2) A police officer or an authorised person who, in an unoccupied place or premises, executes a search warrant issued under section 21 (1), shall on entering the place or premises, or as soon as practicable after entry, fix a copy of the warrant conspicuously at the place or premises.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    Thank you very much. This is very, very important because in such circumstances, you will not even be able to get within and yet what happens without must have the full force of the law.
    Mr Bandua 3:15 p.m.
    It is in order, Mr Speaker.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    Any
    further amendment?
    Mr Pelpuo 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just want
    to find out whether we have given up amending the “domestic law of the Republic” instead of just saying “laws of the Republic”, or we have now found it all right because I have seen that it is recurring -- [Interruption] -- Clause 23.
    Mr Bandua 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, anywhere we find “domestic” we replace with “laws of the Republic”. The “domestic” does not come in. So, it should follow throughout the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    Very
    well. Are we clear on that?

    Hon Minority Leader, you do not seem to be -
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was just wondering where “domestic” appears in clause 23. Perhaps, I am suffering from some optical illusion but I am not seeing any such thing.
    Mr Pelpuo 3:15 p.m.
    23 (b) (i). “execution of such warrants”, is that not clause 23? [Interruption.] I think it is our printing. [Pause.]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    So, Hon
    Deputy Majority Leader, we can proceed?
    Mr Pelpuo 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we can move
    on. The Hon Chairman said he had taken note of it and had given - Wherever there is “domestic law of the Republic” we change it to “laws of the Republic”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    Very
    well. So, we have had two amendments to clause 23 and I will put the Question on the clause.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 23 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 24 -- Report on the execution
    of warrant.
    Mr Bandua 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 24, subclause (1), line 1, after “officer” insert “or an authorised person”
    It is consequential, Mr Speaker.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    I beg to move, clause 24, subclause (1), the last line, delete the word “thing” and insert “item”
    Mr Speaker, I be l ieve th is i s consequential to what we did.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    That is
    very clear, is that not?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with respect to the Deputy Attorney- General and Deputy Minister for Justice, if there should be a comma, it would alter the meaning of that construction entirely. I think we are served a better purpose without the comma after subsection (1).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice, shall we -
    Mr Barton-Odro 3:15 p.m.
    Yes, I do not know how it would change the meaning, he has not said so. If he could give me further and better particulars, I would be grateful.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    The Hon Learned Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice would like to
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not really know the intendment of the insertion that he is proposing. Because, clearly, the construction there is very neat:.
    “the police officer or the authorised person shall after submission of the report under subsection (1) send a copy of the report to the Minister”.
    And if we should have a comma after subsection (1),
    “the police officer shall after the submission of the report under sub- section (1), send a copy of the report to the Minister.”
    Mr Speaker, if you break the sentence
    by that comma, it changes the meaning. What it means is that, the police officer or whoever shall send a copy of the report to the Minister.
    So that leg could stand on its own but it cannot, it is sequel to the submission of the report and so the comma is not needed at all.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    By way
    Mr Bandua 3:25 p.m.
    That is all right, Mr Speaker.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bandua 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 24, subclause (1), line 3, delete “judge” and insert “court” and in line 4, delete “judge who” and insert “court which”
    Mr Speaker, these amendments are consequential.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr Bandua 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 24, subclause (2), after “officer” insert “or an authorised person”
    So the new rendition will be
    “the police officer or an authorized person shall after submission”
    This amendment is consequential Mr Speaker.
    Mr Barton-Odro 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just
    to add a little, maybe, it has to do with grammar; a comma after subsection (1) will do well.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    A
    comma after subsection (1), at the very end of the subsection (1), after the word “seized”?
    Mr Barton-Odro 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what
    I am saying is that, subclause 2,
    “the police officer or any authority person shall after submission of the report of subsection (1), send a copy of the report to the Minister.”
    of style, it is even possible that we shall have a comma after “shall” and a comma after “subsection (1)” as the Deputy Attorney-Generaland Deputy Minister for Justice is suggesting. But I think we can leave that to the draftspersons who are experts in these matters. I think we can even have two commas.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think you are right, the exercise is sending a copy of the report to the Minister, which is done only after the submission of the report. So if you do not have a comma after the “shall” that is why I said, then it will alter the meaning completely. But if you have the comma after “shall”, then of course, the meaning is the same without any commas at all.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    I thank you. Very well, then I will put the Question on the earlier amendment.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 24 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Pelpuo 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just rise to draw your attention to the general mood of the House and to request that we have done so well, Sitting up to this time and as it is your discretion, we call on you to, maybe, end the Sitting here.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    Thank you very much, Hon Deputy Majority Leader.
    Minority Leader, it is just proper that I should hear you, not necessarily by way of a motion but maybe, you are in the mood to compel us to continue, which suggestion may actually reflect the mood of the House, I do not know.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:25 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, just to commend Hon Colleagues who have Sat through for a good job done. Clearly, we are quite drained and I will propose and further to what the Deputy Majority Leader has said, that we bring proceedings to a halt and continue tomorrow.
    Again, to urge other Hon Colleagues that tomorrow, definitely, we are going to have another extended Sitting so that as many as possible would be with us in the Chamber to continue the business of the Bills that we have to pass before we adjourn sine die.
    Mr Speaker I thank you.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    Hon Members, the House stands adjourned till tomorrow 10.00 o'clock in the forenoon.
    ADJOURNMENT 3:25 p.m.