Debates of 29 Jun 2010

MADAM SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:35 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:35 a.m.
Madam Speaker 10:35 a.m.
Hon Members, Correction of Votes and Proceedings of Monday, 28th June, 2010.
Page 1…4 -
Mr David Oppon-Kusi 10:35 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, on page 4, somebody seems to be re-writing my name --
Madam Speaker 10:35 a.m.
What number?
Mr Oppon-Kusi 10:35 a.m.
Number 139. My
Madam Speaker 10:35 a.m.
So it is “David”,
not “Davi”?
Mr Oppon-Kusi 10:35 a.m.
Yes, Madam
Speaker. It is “David” not “Davi”.
Madam Speaker 10:35 a.m.
Thank you. It will
be corrected.

Hon Members , the Votes and

Proceedings of Monday, 28th June, 2010 as corrected is adopted as the true record of proceedings.

Hon Members, Correction of the

Official Report of Wednesday, 23rd June,

2010.

Any corrections in the Official Report?

Hon Members, in the absence of

any corrections, the Official Report of Wednesday, 23rd June, 2010 is hereby adopted as the true record of proceedings.

We have Questions -
Mr Abdul-Rashid Pelpuo 10:35 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, the Hon Minister for Energy is present to take the Questions.
May I crave your indulgence to remind Hon Members that, constituency-specific Questions would be limited to the Hon Members asking those Questions for the sake of time, so that we do not veer into areas where we might be going out of order.
Madam Speaker, may I also take this
opportunity to crave your indulgence, to allow the Hon Minister for Chieftaincy and Culture, who was supposed to be here yesterday but upon an information given us that he was on his way coming -- it was misinterpreted that he was on his way from his office coming.
When the phone rang and he picked it, he said he was on his way coming but he was coming from a funeral where he represented the President in the North. So, once he is here and the demand was that he should explain himself to the House, and perhaps, apologise, if you would permit him, he will quickly do that for us to be satisfied.
Madam Speaker 10:35 a.m.
Yes, if that was
what happened yesterday, the Hon Minister could explain himself.
Mr Alexander Asum-Ahensah 10:45 a.m.
Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I was not in the House yesterday. I wish first to apologise for my absence and then the inconveniences that my absence might have caused.
The problem was that, I was asked to
lead a government delegation to the Buwa Traditional Area to attend the funeral of the late Kuoro Doctawie Niina IV, the paramount chief of the Buwa Traditional Area. We went there on Thursday - I left Accra on Thursday and it was on my way back that I had a call that I was being asked to answer a Question in Parliament.
So I answered that I was on my way coming. That was misinterpreted that maybe, I was around in Accra and on my way from my house to the Parliament House. Instead, I had the message around Kumasi, so it was not possible I could come to the House to answer the Question. So the message that I gave was misconstrued or misinterpreted. I apologise for all the inconveniences that might have caused the House.
Mr Ambrose P. Dery 10:45 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I think the Hon Minister has rendered his apology and in principle, that is acceptable. Except that he was now veering into other areas, which were dangerous territories. Talking about the fact that it was just yesterday he got to know that he was supposed to answer a Question in Parliament, I think that that should be cut out.
He said when he was on his way that he heard . I think he was rather too profuse. In principle, we accept the apology, but we do not want to believe that having
sent Answers here, it was just yesterday morning which was the first time that he knew the matter was coming before this House. So it is just an aside. If he wants to come, he is permitted to come so that we respond.
Mr Asum-Ahensah 10:45 a.m.
Madam Speaker,
-- 10:45 a.m.
Madam Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Do you want to
respond?
Mr Asum-Ahensah 10:45 a.m.
Madam Speaker,
I was trying to say that I was out of Accra on Thursday after Sitting, so I did not know that the House would Sit on Monday. As usual, we Sit on Tuesdays. The Business Statement rather was presented on Friday, I was not here and then I did not get the information too. So that is the explanation that I gave.
rose
Some Hon Members 10:45 a.m.
Eyç, ēyē.
Mr Dery 10:45 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I was not
here on Friday as well but we have systems within the House. You have your Chief Whip of the Leadership, and I got to know -- and in fact, the Deputy Majority Leader was in the news, he was on television and it was clear to all Ghanaians that we had decided from this week to Sit on Mondays.
I cautioned my Hon Friend that he did not have to respond but once he has responded, I think I should put the records straight, that there are ways he should know and if the only way the Hon Minister gets to know is by a call on that day, then something is seriously wrong, fundamentally wrong on that side, that needs to be checked.
Madam Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Yes, but the apology, you have accepted, the House
Madam Speaker 10:45 a.m.


resettlement issues.
Mr A. E. Amoah 10:45 a.m.
Madam Speaker, in the Hon Minister's Answer, he indicated and I beg to quote:
“Proposals for the development of the two mini hydro power stations have been received and are being evaluated.”
Does the Ministry find it desirable and beneficial to construct the mini small power stations to augment the staggering power supply in the country?
Dr Adjei 10:45 a.m.
Madam Speaker, yes, we
do find that adding more hydro-power to the existing system is very good to our country. The hydro gives the base and supplies the firm load that we need and it is within the Government's plan to ensure that we work on, at least, one of the dams to start with.
We are looking at the evaluation and when we are concluded, we would work with the Hon Member to resolve the issues on environment and social issues in the area of operation.
Madam Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Yes, any other
questions?
Mr A. E. Amoah 10:45 a.m.
Madam Speaker,
I just want to know whether in the preliminary studies, environmental and settlement issues were not determined?
Dr Adjei 10:45 a.m.
Madam Speaker, only a partial work of the environment has been done. But because we do not intend to build a dam on the river, we intend to have a cascaded -- a run of the river approach to developing the hydro site. We have asked that a detailed environmental work should be done.
In fact, a detailed geodetic work to ensure that wherever we site it, would not create any flooding. And if we are going to create any form of flooding, it has to be similar to the flooding that usually comes during the normal flow of the river without the plant being there. So these are the issues that we are working on.
We are also looking at the financial
Mr Hodogbey 10:45 a.m.
But Madam Speaker,
if the dam is constructed in the Western Region, which in the President's last State of the Nation Address -- It was stated that a new dam would be built on the River Ankobra in the Western Region to augment the electricity supply. If luckily some Question has come now, I think we have to discuss it in the interest of the nation and not only constituency-related.
Madam Speaker 10:55 a.m.
In which case, Leadership, he is challenging your decision to restrict this to constituency- specific. Do I listen and permit him to ask his question?
Mr Dery 10:55 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I think this is a question of interpretation. This Question relates to regions and I am not sure if it is specifically constituency. This is because he is talking about two political regions of the country. And so, it transcends specific constituency -specifies. I think it is in that light that he might not be completely out of order trying to ask the question because it is not constituency-specific as such.
That is my humble view, I do not know.
Madam Speaker 10:55 a.m.
I seem to agree. Do
you agree, Hon Deputy Majority Leader? Then, I would allow the question.
Hon Hodogbey, ask your question.
Mr Hodogbey 10:55 a.m.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I just want to know if these two dams are similar to those which were proposed in the Budget Statement by our President either in 2009 or 2010, to build a dam in the Western Region to augment electricity supply.
Dr Adjei 10:55 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I believe
has accepted --
Yes, Hon Minister, we have accepted your apology. But now, you see, we are very keen in having our Ministers here to answer our Questions. So let us all learn from this.
Mr Asum-Ahensah 10:55 a.m.
I thank you,
Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Yes, Hon Leader, are you ready with your Minister?
Mr Pelpuo 10:55 a.m.
Yes, Madam Speaker,
the Minister is ready.
ORAL ANSWERS TO 10:55 a.m.
QUESTIONS 10:55 a.m.
MINISTRY OF ENERGY 10:55 a.m.
Minister for Energy (Dr Oteng Adjei) 10:55 a.m.
Madam Speaker, previous studies undertaken by VRA on rivers in the Central and Western Regions identified seven (7) potential sites for small or mini hydro-electric dams. The rivers involved are the Tano and Pra.
An update of the preliminary studies was undertaken in 2008 for two of the sites on the Pra River , that is Hermang (90 MW) and Awisam (50 MW). Proposals for the development of the two mini/small hydro- power stations have been received and are being evaluated.
Further studies would have to be initiated to determine the extent of work and especially on the impact of the dams on the environment including any
side. We are asking the people who are competing, we are trying to find out who would give us the best value for money and when we are done, we would work definitely, with all stakeholders in the environment.
Mr A. E. Amoah 10:55 a.m.
Madam Speaker,
my last question. I want to know whether the Ministry has any time-table for these studies and processes to be completed, so that a concrete action would be taken on the construction of the dam.
Dr Adjei 10:55 a.m.
Madam Speaker, it is part of the Government's plan to add 3,000 megawatts to the national generation capacity. We intend to do that within the framework by the year 2015. So we are working towards that framework.
rose
Madam Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Hon Member, are
you asking a question?
Mr Hodogbey 10:55 a.m.
Yes, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker 10:55 a.m.
The Question dealt
with two regions, Central and Western, you are aware. Are you in the Central or Western Region?
Mr Hodogbey 10:55 a.m.
No, Madam Speaker,
certain Questions are actually -- even though they may be constituency- related but they are beneficial to the entire country. Therefore, sometimes, we would have to look into it very critically.
Madam Speaker 10:55 a.m.
I do agree with you
but today, specifically, the decision was taken by the Leadership that to save time, we ask constituency-specific Questions. And I was going to allow a question coming from the other region. But if you are not from the other region --
Madam Speaker 10:55 a.m.


the Question asked was of the two regions, and I said that we had undertaken a study in 2008 in the two regions. So the Question was specific in the time-frame. We have taken the seven studies that were done specifically for that time.

Madam Speaker, what we have done is that we have picked those that we believe can give us maximum generation capacity and we are pushing them forward.

The others that were supposed to give us 25 megawatts, we are not looking at them. In this specific one, we are not going to construct dams. It is rather the river, that is, we would just reinforce the base where we have the plant and allow the water to flow its natural course.

If the Hon Member wants to ask me a Question about the River Ankobra, I would be ready to come back and give detailed information.
Mr Albert Kan-Dapaah 10:55 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Hon Minister whether he is not aware that the preliminary studies for these two projects had been done much earlier than 2008 and indeed, the update of those studies in 2008 was only designed to lead to the immediate development of the projects. Is it the case that after 2008 and after the change of government, a decision was taken to suspend the projects pending a review by the new government?
Dr Adjei 10:55 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I am not too sure what the question is definitely. But, yes, lots of work have been done on all sites in various regions. What is usually done is that, in a particular time- frame, we would pick a specific area and do detailed work. When we looked at it, we realised that it was even contractor specific. We allowed other people to also come into the frame and give us ideas.
We looked at it -- in fact, we spread the detailed map there. But we were worried about the environmental issues and wanted to make sure that because we were not going to construct a formal dam, it should not flood beyond what normally occur under flooding period. And the engineers and the work done, were not able to satisfy our requirement.
So, that is why we have asked them to do a detailed work on that component to be sure that, if normally, there is a flood and it affects two villages, we want to make sure that when we bring in the power plant, it is only those two villages that are going to be affected as much as possible. In this way, you will be able to say to the environment people that we did not disrupt a lot of the activities that are there. And that is a study that they are going to do for us.
Also, things have changed in terms of the costing. We have learned a lot from our dealings with the Bui Dam in terms of hydro. We are working on the Juale one also. So we have combined all the knowledge in this, and we are making sure that the financial aspect is also properly costed so that we do not have to worry about scope changes and its impact on cost as we go through the implementation phase.
I want to assure Hon Members that we are committed to ensuring that we harness all the hydro sites as much as possible. But they would also want to agree with us that we have to do that within the environmental constraints that we have and let me assure that we would definitely do it.
Madam Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Hon Ahi, are you standing or sitting? All right, let us move on then.
The next Question stands in the name of the Hon Member for Bunkpurugu/
It is after assessing the work of 2008 that we realised that there were still some loopholes on the environment side; there were loopholes on the costing side. And because we want to be very careful, we are asking a neutral contractor to undertake the environmental one, add it, so that by the time we start the project, the cost component will be specific and we will be robust enough to be able to complete the project.
So, we are continuing from various studies that have been done and moving the project into implementation phase.
rose
Madam Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Hon Kan-Dapaah, let us move on. You cannot have two questions.
Mr Kan-Dapaah 10:55 a.m.
Madam Speaker, no, he said he was not too sure whether he understood my question. And indeed, the answer he gave -
Madam Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Al right, put the question properly then.
Mr Kan-Dapaah 10:55 a.m.
Madam Speaker, can the Hon Minister be specific on this? My question was, did he find it necessary to suspend the project in 2008? Because as of 2008, everything had been done and the project was supposed to have been started around that time. Is he saying that he found it necessary to suspend the project and that is why still in 2010, they are working on it?
Dr Adjei 10:55 a.m.
Madam Speaker, we found it expedient to reinforce the studies that have been done to ensure that we can complete the project within cost, within time and within standards.
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 10:55 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, having regard to the answer that the Hon Minister has just given, would he be able to let us have an idea when he thinks all the works would be completed to enable the project to start as the previous Administration was even ready to inaugurate the commencement of the project in 2008?
Madam Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Hon Minister, can you give them an idea?
Dr Adjei 10:55 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I think we have made it very clear that this is a project that we looked at and picked. We are comfortable to move it to completion. But as a new leadership in the Ministry, we want to be sure that the project and everything that has been done, has been reviewed to our satisfaction, before we continue to do it. As of now, I am unable to put the time-frame on when the project would be completed.
Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:55 a.m.
Madam Speaker, in the Hon Minister's Answer, in the second paragraph, he talks about an update of the preliminary studies that was undertaken in 2008. It does mean that, preliminary studies had been done early on. And then an update on the preliminary studies was done in 2008. The Hon Minister then says in paragraph three, that further studies would have to be initiated to determine the extent of work, especially on the impact of the dams and the environment, including any resettlement studies.
Madam Speaker, is the Hon Minister telling this House that the preliminary studies and the update of the preliminary studies, the two works that were done early on did not deal with the impact of the dam on environment and resettlement issues?
Dr Oteng Adjei 11:05 a.m.
Madam Speaker, yes, works have been done before then.
Dr Oteng Adjei 11:05 a.m.


Yunyoo (Mr Kwame Duut).

Electricity to Communities in the Bunkpurugu/Yunyuo Constituency

(Provision )

Q. 561. Mr Emmanuel Kwame Duut asked the Minister for Energy when the electrification projects of the following communities would be completed:

(i) Bunkpurugu town

(ii) Jilig,

(iii) Chintloung,

(iv) Najong No. 2,

(v) Najong No. 1,

(vi) Yunyoo,

(vii) Binde,

(viii) Toomni,

(iv) Nganma-Gberuk,

(x) Bimbagu,

(xi) Nabteng,

(xii) Duklotuk,

(xiii) Garijuar,

(xiv) Kugri

(xv) Kpemale
Dr Oteng Adjei 11:05 a.m.
Madam Speaker, Bunkpurugu town, Jilig, Chintloung, Najong No. 2, Najong No. 1, Bimbagu and Binde communities form part of the on-going SHEP-4 electrification project being undertaken by the Ministry. High Voltage (HV) and Low Voltage (LV) network construction works for Bunkpurugu town are 100 per cent complete. Customer service connections are ongoing in the community. As of April
21, 473 single-phase and 7 three-phase customers had been provided with energy meters. Construction of Low Voltage (LV) networks for Najong No. 1, Najong No. 2 and Binde are ongoing, while that of Jilig and Chintloung are yet to commence. The projects in these communities have been scheduled for completion by the end of the year, 2010.
Yunyoo, Toomoni, Nganma-Gberuk, Nabteng, Duklotuk, Garijuar, Kugri and Kpemale communities do not form part of any of the ongoing electrification projects being undertaken by the Ministry. These communities will be considered under subsequent phases of the National Electrification Programme, when funds become available.
Mr Duut 11:05 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Minister for Energy, in his Answer he states that Bunkpurugu town is 100 per cent complete. Meanwhile, there are so many sections in Bunkpurugu that are still in darkness. So how is it 100 per cent complete?
Dr Adjei 11:05 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I believe that we said the high voltage and then the low voltage networks -- the low voltage network is a function of the number of poles that the communities can procure themselves and our information is that, for the poles that they have procured within the beginning of the project, we have put wires on all of them.
Mr Duut 11:05 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I want to know from the Hon Minister, in his Answer, he states that the electrification for Najong No. 2, Najong 1 and Binde is ongoing. Meanwhile, Najong No. 2, it is only 20 poles that are lying there. How and when will it be done?
Dr Adjei 11:05 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I believe we have said that the construction of the LV network is ongoing and that we expect
the contract being undertaken by the contractor the Hon Member referred to and the original contract has no such names. The names of the two communities are not in the original contract.
Mr Ofosu 11:05 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I want to know from the Hon Minister, having stated that I am aware and I have seen as I have referred to, whether he would go back to his notes and report to this House the true state of the matter; if so, when?
Dr Adjei 11:05 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I believe that the information I have says otherwise and these are things I would usually want to plead with the Hon Member that in such situations, if he had visited the office, we would have taken his information, work with ours and resolve this amicably. But for now, the documents that I possess indicate that the names of the communities are not part of the project. But I am ready to work with him, looking at the information he has and see how we can work together to move the electrification project forward.
Madam Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Shall we move on. The Hon Member for Techniman South, Mr Simons Addai? [Pause.]
Anybody with instructions?
Shall we move on to the next Question then?
The Hon Member for Bosome-Freho, Nana Yaw Ofori-Kuragu.
Mr Kwabena Owusu-Aduomi 11:05 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the Hon Member is outside the country on an official assignment and has asked me to seek your permission to ask this Question on his behalf.
Madam Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Permission granted.

Electricity Connection to National

Grid

to complete the project by the end of this year. So I believe the engineers would work together with the Hon Member, and we all will ensure that by the end of the year, the project is completed.
Madam Speaker 11:15 a.m.
We move on to the next Question; the Hon Member for Kade, Mr Asamoah Ofosu.
Electrification Projects in Communities in Kade Constituency
(Completion)
Q. 562. Mr Asamoah Ofosu asked the Minister for Energy when the following communities in the Kade Constituency of the Kwaebibirem District would be provided with electricity:
(i) Kukubi
(ii) Okyinso Amanfro
(iii) Okyinso Krobo
(iv) Mereponse
(iii) Dokyi
Dr Oteng Adjei 11:15 a.m.
Madam Speaker, Kukubi, Okyinso Amanfro, Okyinso Krobo, Mereponso and Dokyi communities do not form part of any of the ongoing electrification projects being undertaken by the Ministry. These communities will be considered under subsequent phases of the National Electrification Programme, when funds become available.
Mr Ofosu 11:15 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I rise to further ask the Hon Minister that Kukubi and Okyinso Amonfro, having been listed under the SHEP 3, Phase 41 and SHEP 4 projects of which I am aware that Messrs Konash was given a letter from the Ministry and signed by the immediate past Director of Power to undertake the electrification project in Kukubi. So since when did it cease to be part of the on-going electrification project as per his Answer?
Dr Adjei 11:15 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I reviewed
Dr Adjei 11:15 a.m.


(on behalf of Mr Nana Yaw Ofori- Kuragu) asked the Minister for Energy when the following communities would be connected to the national grid:

(i) Brofuyedru

(ii) Kotobu

(iii) Yapessa

(iv) Adieto

(v) Anumso

(vi) Esaase

(vii) Detieso

(viii) Apew

(ix) Banso

(x) Nsutem

(xi) Appatuboum.
Dr Oteng Adjei 11:15 a.m.
Madam Speaker, Brofuyedru, Kokobu, Yapessa, Adieto, Anumso, Esaase, Detieso Apew, Banso, Nsutem and Appantuboum communities do not form part of any of the on-going electrification projects being undertaken by the Ministry. These communities will be considered under subsequent phases of the National Electrification Programme, when funds become available.
Mr Owusu-Aduoni 11:15 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the Hon Minister has indicated subsequent phases, which implies that the Ministry is working to get these communities connected. May I know from him what are these phases his Ministry has lined up and under which of them will this electrification of the communities fall?
Dr Adjei 11:15 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I believe that the phases are that, if you want to opt to be under Self-Help Electrification Programme (SHEP), then there are certain criteria that the communities would have
to fulfil. Thereafter, I should be able to be in a position, definitely, to give you a time-frame within which you can come on board.
In the absence of that, then the programme is, by the year 2020, all communities within the country have to be connected to electricity. So we are still working within the time-frame of, by the year 2020 and I assure him that within that period, those communities would be given electricity.
Mr Owusu-Aduoni 11:15 a.m.
Madam Speaker,
the year 2020 is not very far. I want to know from the Hon Minister, how far has he gone in sourcing for funds to fulfil the promise of the year 2020? Because if we are to connect every town and village within the country by the year 2020, he must start now. I want to know how far his Ministry has gone sourcing for funds for this project.
Dr Adjei 11:15 a.m.
Madam Speaker. I believe
that for those who have been in the energy sector before, the availability of funds is not the issue. The issue that constraints us is the government counterpart funds and that, as we all know, we have a limited portion during the Budget period. I am saying that if Hon Members believe that this rural electrification component is very important, then I will work with them that in the coming Budget, they help me by giving me a bigger cake in order to ensure that we speed up the electrification projects to their communities.
Thank you.
Madam Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Third question,
if any.
Mr Owusu-Aduoni 11:15 a.m.
Madam Speaker,
these towns are in the Bosome-Freho District; it is one of the new districts that we have. Has the Hon Minister got any idea of electricity coverage in this district?
The transformer failed on inauguration and the supply could not be connected at that time.
Upon the request of the District Assembly, VFR/NED replaced the damaged transformer and connected power supply to the Animal Research Centre at Chagbani in 2009 where the State farms are located. The Kuntuli community could, however, not be connected owing to the fact that the poles that were used to extend the lines to the community were found to be rotten because they were substandard poles.
We have been advised that the District Assembly has recently provided the 28 poles required to replace the rotten ones. The Ministry is therefore, liaising with the NED to ensure that the project is completed.
Mr Bukari 11:15 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I am satisfied with the Answer given by the Ministry, except that the poles and the transformer were supplied recently. Before then, the Question had already been put in and so I want to thank them for the action they have put in.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Hon Simons Addai
is in now. Honourable, yes, let us go back to your Question.
Electricity to Newly Developed Residences in Techiman Municipality
(Extension)
Q.563. Mr Simons Addai asked the Minister for Energy what package the Ministry had to assist the Municipal Assembly to extend electricity to newly developed residences in the Techiman Municipality.
Dr Oteng-Adjei 11:15 a.m.
Madam Speaker, in line with the implementation of the National Electrification Scheme (NES), the mandate of the Ministry of Energy is to extend electricity to communities without
Dr Adjei 11:15 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I have
no idea.
Mr Owusu-Aduoni 11:15 a.m.
Madam Speaker,
this part of the Ashanti Region is one of the most deprived areas. It has poor road network as well as inadequate coverage of electricity. I want to know from the Hon Minister if his Ministry will speed up plans to consider these towns to get connected to the national grid, especially Yapessa.
Dr Adjei 11:15 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I happen
to have an idea of where the area is. The Hon Member of Parliament is a very good Friend of mine and we will do everything we can within the law to ensure that he gets access to electricity within his community.
Thank you.
Electrification Project in Chagbani, et cetera
(Completion)
Q. 589. Mr Joseph N. Bukari asked the Minister for Energy the causes of the delay in the completion of the electrification project in Chagbani, Kuntuli and the State farms in the Saboba District.
Dr Oteng Adjei 11:15 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the Ministry of Energy has never initiated any electrification projects at Chagbani, Kuntuli and the State farms communities. However, information available at the Ministry indicates that the Northern Electricity Department (NED) installed a transformer for power supply to the Animal Research Centre in the twin settlement of Kuntuli-Chagbani as a community project in about 2003.
The project was initiated by the then Deputy Minister for Lands and Forestry and Prof. Okyere of the Animnal Research Centre (around 2000) with funding from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The supply lines were extended for connection to residents of the community.
Dr Oteng Adjei 11:15 a.m.


electricity supply at all.

Following the completion of an electrification project by the Ministry of Energy, the project is handed over to the respective utility company, that is either the Electricity Company of Ghana (ECG) Limited or the Northern Electricity Department (NED), based on the location of the community, to operate and maintain the network. Expansion of the handed over network as it is in the case of the Techiman Municipality, becomes the responsibility of the Northern Electricity Department.
Mr Addai 11:15 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I am aware of NED responsibility. I want to find out if the Ministry has any package to assist the communities which embark on expansion of electricity.
Dr Adjei 11:15 a.m.
Madam Speaker, our policy
does not allow us to enter into that domain and for that matter, we do not have any package.
Mr Yaw Ntow-Ababio 11:25 a.m.
Madam Speaker, in an Answer to this particular Question, the Hon Minister says categorically that the Ministry of Energy does not extend electrification to any community in the NED`s area. Is he aware that there exists in his Ministry a Department of Rural Electrification, which is doing on-going extension of electrification in the Brong Ahafo Region?
Dr Adjei 11:25 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I believe
that is not what I said. The Hon Member was asking about a specific case of Techiman Municipality that has already got access to electricity. He asked whether we do have a package for that specific case and I explained that our mandate allows us to go to areas where there is no
electricity at all.
So for the fact that Techiman as it is now, has been electrified, any expansion work cannot be undertaken by the Ministry but has to be done by the NED. So we do accept that we are in charge of extending the reach of electricity to all non-electrified communities within the country but once we have extended access to that community, the expansion projects are undertaken by the utility company.
Madam Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Hon Minister,
we thank you for coming to answer our Questions. We thank you very much.
11.27a.m. -- [MR FIRST DEPUTY
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Hon Deputy Majority Leader?
Mr Pelpuo 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker, if there are no Statements -- the Hon Minister for Local Government and Rural Development should have been here but he has indicated to me that because of what transpired yesterday, he still finds it important to continue the consultation so that eventually we can have the Bill meet our expectation and the general acceptance of Members of Parliament.
So we can go on to item number 8.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Hon
Members, Mutual Legal Assistance Bill, 2009 under consideration.
Mr Dery 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think we are
dealing with the Mutual Legal Assistance Bill. I wonder where the Hon Attorney- General and Minister for Justice or Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice is because it seems neither of them is here. I thought I had seen the Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice early on.
to.
Mr Bandua 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 25 - subclause (2), line 1, delete “judge” and insert “court”.
Mr Speaker, it is consequential.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker,
may I move the amendment advertised in the name of the Hon W. O. Boafo in respect of the item captured as (x)?
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 25, subclause (2), paragraph (b), line 3, after “State” insert “foreign entity”
But before then in paragraph (b), line 1, after records, the word “thing” should be deleted and in its place, we insert “item”. It is consequential upon what we did yesterday, “that an order should be made for a record, item or computer data seized in the execution of warrant --”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Hon Minority Leader, let us move the amendment standing in the name of Hon Boafo then we can also make any matter consequential to the previous amendment; then it will become clearer.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, if that is your wish. But I felt the one I was proffering really precedes the advertised amendment in the name of the Hon W. O. Boafo but I will bow to the Chair.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
It is easier for the Chair. So kindly -
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:35 a.m.
All right.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Have you
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Yes, I was
also speaking to him a few minutes ago.
Mr Dery 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, so we need to
get them in place before we can continue.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Hon
Deputy Majority Leader, where is the Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice?
Mr Pelpuo 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am sure he
is compelled to answer to nature's call. Sometimes people might just vanish as a result of that. I cannot be sure but I suspect that he is around. We are trying to reach him by phone but once the Hon Chairman is here, we could continue so that we get him here.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Hon Deputy Majority Leader, what should we do?
Mr Pelpuo 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Deputy
Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice is here, so we can continue.
BILLS - CONSIDERATION 11:35 a.m.
STAGE 11:35 a.m.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:35 a.m.
Yes, I have moved the one in respect of Hon W. O. Boafo.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Hon
Minority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker,
I beg to move, clause 25 (b), line 1, delete the word “thing” and insert “item”.
Mr Speaker, may I also indicate - and I believe this is just a matter for the draftspersons.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 25, line 2 before “execution” insert the word “the”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
The word?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:35 a.m.
The word “the” - “in the execution of the warrant” - [Interruption.]
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, cluse 25, subclause (4), lines 1, 3 and 4, delete “judge” and insert “court”.
Mr Speaker, this is consequential.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei -Mensah-Bonsu 11:35 a.m.
Mr
Speaker,I beg to move, clause 25, subclause 2, paragraph (b), after seizure, delete “judge” and insert “court” and delete “thing” and insert “item”.
Mr Speaker, I felt that consequential to what we have done, in 25 (2) (b) if the Hon Chairman may look at the concluding clause -- “the judge may order that the
Mr Bandua 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think he is right.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Who is moving the amendment? Is it the Hon Minority Leader or the Chairman?
Mr Bandua 11:35 a.m.
He has moved; so I am supporting the amendment that he has moved.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
rose
Mr Bandua 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in subclause
5 of the same clause 25 -
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, before we get to subclause 4, I beg to move, clause 25 subclause 3, line 1, after “The return of” delete “a thing” and insert “an item”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker,I beg to move, clause 25, subclause 3, paragraph (b), line 3 delete “a thing” and insert “an item”.
Mr Speake r, i n c l ause (b ) - [Interruption.] - Before then subclause 3 (b), we also have “thing” there so consequentially we should also change it to “ item”.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr Bandua 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 25, subclause 4 (b), delete “thing” and insert “item”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Dery 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that the
Chairman of the Committee is jumping the amendment numbered (xi) which relates to subclause (4) of clause 25. Mr Speaker, so, I think I would help him move that one. But in doing so, I also want to point at line 1 of subclause 4, first, where “thing” appears, and to apply that we change that one to “item”.
Having done so, Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 25 subclause (4), lines 1, 3 and 4, delete “judge” and insert “court.
I would like to say that where we put “a thing”, it should be “an item” and not “a item”.
So Mr Speaker, I beg to move the amendment in those terms.
Mr Bandua 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that has been moved by the Hon Minority Leader; it has been moved early on. That is clause 25, subclause 4, lines 1, 3 and 4. I moved that early on - [Interruption.] - All right, very well.
Mr Dery 11:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 25 subclause (4) paragraph (b) line 2, delete ‘thing' and insert ‘item”.
Mr Speaker, I have seen that on the list of amendments, we do not have any amendment in respect of clause 25 (4) (b) and I think that we should make the consequential amendment of “thing.”
The new rendition will be,
“(4) -- (b) With respect to the preservation and return to Ghana of the item, and . . .”
M r S p e a k e r , a m e n d m e n t i s
consequential --
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 11:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 25, subclause (5), lines 1 and 3, delete “judge” and insert “court”.
It is consequential, Mr Speaker.
Mr Dery 11:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I want to support the amendment except to add that at line 2 of subclause (5), we have “thing,” “record, thing or computer..” and I will add that we change “thing” to “item”.
So, Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause
25, subclause (5), line 2, delete “thing” and insert “item”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 11:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 25 (5) lines 1, 2 and 3, delete “judge” and insert “court” and also in line 2, delete “thing” and insert “item”.
Question put and amendment agreed to
Clause 25 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26 -- Examination of witnesses
Mr Bandua 11:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 26, subclause (1), paragraph (b), delete “questions” and insert “subject matter”.
Mr Speaker, I think this amendment is necessary because the “questions” relate to a specific subject matter so the emphasis should be on “subject matter” and not on “questions”.
Mr Bandua 11:45 a.m.


Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 11:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 26, subclause (2), line 2, after “permission” insert “from the appropriate authority” and at end of the subclause add the following:
“where the legal representative is not qualified in this country”.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
Hon
Deputy Minority Leader, let him finish and give his -
Mr Dery 11:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am drawing your attention to the last amendment that we just approved.
What was in was, “(b) the questions to be put to the witness to be examined orally or in writing”, and now, we have changed that to “subject matter.”
Mr Speaker, I think that in examination
of witnesses, we put “questions,” not “subject matter”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
I was
wondering when you were all sitting but because I was not at the winnowing, I was a bit careful.
Mr Dery 11:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I was also not at the winnowing. But I think that our attention has been drawn to that and we should put back the “question”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
Hon
Mr Dery 11:45 a.m.
But I think that Mr Speaker, if I am making a move, it is on our behalf, so - We think that we should reinstate the “questions” and not “subject matter”. We ask witnesses “questions” and not “subject matter”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
Hon
Chairman of the Committee?
Mr Bandua 11:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I also share the same view but it looks like at the winnowing, our emphasis was placed on the “subject matter” that would be put to the witness. That is why we agreed to this at the winnowing.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
Hon
Chairman, how do you put a subject matter to a witness?
Mr Bandua 11:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the questions will relate to the subject matter, meaning that the question should relate to a specific subject matter.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
Yes. So,
that is not the amendment? I get the point.
Mr Bandua 11:45 a.m.
Very well, then I agree
with the “questions”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
That is not
the amendment. It should be “questions relating to the subject matter”. That should be the proper amendment, not the way it has been captured.
Mr Bandua 11:45 a.m.
Very well, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
So, what
do we do now? Now that I have put the Question, what do we do?
Mr Bandua 11:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think we
can revert it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
So “the questions relating to the specific subject matter . . .” Let us get the rendition.
Mr Dery 11:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think in
questions that do not relate to the subject matter. Maybe, that might have informed the Committee at the winnowing to introduce “the subject matter”. But I do not have any problems.
Mr Dery 11:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, that might be for our convenience but we do know that before a competent court, the issue whether the question is relevant or otherwise, is determined by the court and therefore, it is “questions to the witness”. So, I think that I agree.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
But you see, it is the issue - I agree with you. The issue of relevance is a matter for the court to know whether the question is relevant for it to be admissible.
But it is equally true that if we put the matter beyond doubt, that it should relate to the subject matter -- it is also -
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
There is another amendment there. Hon Chairman, last week, I told you that it is important that once we finish with one amendment, you must be on your feet; you do not have to wait for me to be calling you, it creates problems.
Mr Bandua 11:55 a.m.
Thank you very much for the reminder.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 26, subclause (2), line 2, after “permission” insert “from the appropriate authority” and at end of the subclause, add the following:
“where the legal representative is not qualified in this country”.
We are making this amendment because since it relates to a foreign country, maybe, the person has not been called to the Bar in Ghana; so there will be the need to ask permission for him before he can appear in court in Ghana. That is why we are making the addition “where the
deference to the group that did the winnowing, we could say,
“(b) . . . questions relating to the subject matter to be put to the witness . . .” That would marry the two ideas, but the “questions” must be there.
Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
Hon Members, the new
rendition is that, “clause 26, subclause (1) paragraph (b), after ‘questions' insert “relating to the subject matter.”
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker,
if we had “questions”, simpliciter, I thought that it would be valid. This is because if you go back to clause 8, it deals with the content of the request, the nature of the criminal matter including whatever has been specified. So, I thought that as it has been captured in clause 26, is relevant. However, if for the avoidance of doubt, we still want to say, “the questions relating to the subject matter . . .” I do not have anything against it. But, indeed, the “subject matter” has been captured in clause 8.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
Chairman
of the Committee, what do you say?
Mr Bandua 11:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think for the avoidance of doubt, we should bring in “relating to the subject matter”.
Mr Dery 11:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that
when it comes to witnesses, it is clear that what you put to witnesses in examination is questions and therefore, the “questions” must be there. But “relating to subject matter,” I do not have any quarrel with that.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
My understanding is that why “the subject matter” came up is because they wanted the situation where one would not go and spring any surprise on the witnesses, so that the scope - so that one does not ask
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.


legal representative is not qualified in this country”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
Any comment on the amendment? Otherwise, I will put the Question?. [Pause.]
Hon Members, clause 26, subclause (2), line 2, after “permission” insert “from the appropriate authority” and at end of the subclause add the following:
“where the legal representative is not qualified in this country” --
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
Are you arresting the Question?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:55 a.m.
Not really; but Mr Speaker, for purposes of elegance, that same line (2), as we have been doing all this while, instead of the “accused person's legal representative”, we make it the “legal representative of the accused person” -- [Pause.]
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
Hon Minority Leader, so what is your amendment?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, just the reconstruction of “the person's legal representative” to read “the legal representative of the accused person”; that is just what I am saying. But I have really not looked at the amendment being proffered by the Hon Chairman. I just said that for that place we have that reconstruction. But it does not go to the substance of the amendment being proposed by the Hon Chairman.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
In fact, when the amendment was proposed, I actually asked the floor if there were no comments before I was going to put the Question.
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not even understand the import of the amendment or whether the amendment is even necessary. Because the whole clause deals with the examination of a witness before a competent court of the Republic. If one is seeking permission, I am wondering from what authority is one seeking permission? It is the court.
Even this case of “where the legal representative is not qualified in this country”, we have rules governing representation before courts and there is an existing procedure where someone who is not qualified to appear before the courts in this country has to follow to enable him or her have access. So why do we include all these things? It is a mere surplusage.
In my opinion, the subclause is so clear and I do not understand why we want to introduce these things “appropriate authority”. Which “appropriate authority”? The “appropriate authority” is governed by the existing laws of this country. So, this amendment is wholly unnecessary.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
Hon Chairman, what do you say to the Hon Member for Sekondi, (Papa Owusu- Ankomah)? Because when you talk about “appropriate authority”, then you are going back to the laws that he is referring to. Therefore, it makes this amendment superfluous; that is the point that he is making. Once you refer to the “appropriate authority” in this law, then you must go and look at the law, then that law will tell you what the “appropriate authority” is and what to do. But what do you say?
Mr Bandua 11:55 a.m.
Well, if that is the case then maybe, we have to withdraw the amendment.
to represent him or her. If by any mutual arrangement, one is exempted, one then becomes the valid legal representative. So there is no reason we should belabour it; this provision is adequate and I think we should leave it as such.
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I know of situations where His Lordship the Chief Justice has granted permission to a Queen's Counsel to appear before the Courts for purposes of a case -- for that case only. So we have existing procedures. It is unfortunate the Hon Deputy Ranking Member is not here, he has been a Judicial Secretary before and he will attest to this fact. But we do not by this legislation create a different scenario.
Probably, the Judicial Council may feel challenged because they do not have the benefit of precedence but we should be able to -- But if we say that “competent authority”-- who will be that “competent authority”? Is it the Hon Attorney- General and Minister for Justice granting or waiving express provisions relating to legal practice in this country for purposes of this Bill?
If we are talking about the “competent authority”, the competent authority is the competent authority that admits lawyers to practise law in this country.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
Hon Member for Sekondi, the point being raised is that in certain cases, there could be challenges. Now, this is a Mutual Legal Assistance Bill where we enter with other States into certain arrangement, agreement and understanding and this is what this Bill is talking about so that those frustrations are removed.
Would it be too much a problem to address that problem specifically under this law only for this purpose? Would it
Mr Barton-Odro 12:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we have had a few problems recently with these kinds of issues, where there have been occasions when requests have been put through to the Judicial Council seeking somebody who has not been called to the Bar here to represent a British citizen in the Supreme Court and a lot of issues were raised.
When it came to the Judicial Council, the contention was that if one has not been called to the Bar in Ghana, one does not have the right unless where we have the reciprocity arrangements, with a member State. So I do not think it will be out of the way to get this amendment through.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
Hon Members, I think that this is a specific legislation relating to mutual legal assistance. If we want to create a specific provision to deal with mutual legal assistance because of mutuality, let us say so and let us capture it properly here.
Then we know that because of that mutuality, we are making a specific provision to deal with it when it comes to matters of mutual legal assistance. Then there is a specific provision to deal with it and therefore, it will be different from the normal procedure that applies as we have referred to. Let us be very sure and then we can get specific provision in the law to deal with that.
Mr Dery 12:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that I agree with Hon Papa Owusu-Ankomah that this amendment is not necessary. This is because what the Hon Deputy Attorney- General and Deputy Minister for Justice is saying is tried.
If one goes to a jurisdiction but he or she has not been called to the Bar there, one cannot appear. So what one must do is, with all one's legal knowledge, one must get somebody who is within the Bar there
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe that the first leg of the amendment, that is, the subclause (2), line 2, after “permission” insert “from the appropriate authority” is indeed right. I do not really know the import of the second leg where the legal representative is not qualified in this country. I do not know the import of it.
Mr Speaker, because indeed, we want to locate the “competent authority” where the request would be addressed to. Indeed, if we go back to clause 6 (2), we have made this clear. Mr Speaker, we have determined what the “competent authority” is in clause 6 (2). And indeed -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
Hon
Minority Leader, what we have there is not “competent authority” but “appropriate authority”. “appropriate authority” and not “competent authority”, which we all know has been defined.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if we looked at clause 6 (2), we have talked about “competent authority”. Clause 6 (2) talks about “competent authority” and not appropriate authority.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, the point also being raised by the Hon Member for Sekondi, and indeed, now being supported by the Deputy Minority Leader is that there is an authority for that purpose. That is the point being raised. Are you now taking that thing from them to put in another authority? Let us be very clear what law we want to pass.
Mr Dery 12:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that the Hon Minority Leader has settled the matter in our favour. This is because “competent authority” has been defined and it means:
“an organization, agency or body of the Republic of a foreign State or foreign entity originally competent under the respective domestic law
my point is that, clause 26 (2) says that:
“The foreign State or foreign entity may by the request seek permission for the accused person or the accused person's legal representative to attend the examination of the witness and ask questions of the witness.”
This amendment seeks to insert “permission from the appropriate authority” and I am saying that it is really not necessary. And two --
“where the accused person's legal representative is not permitted to practise in this country”
That is also not necessary. This is because they are in existence; procedures to permit legal representatives of persons who are not qualified to practise in this country under specific circumstances, to have the opportunity to appear before the court of competent jurisdiction in this country.
So why do we want to add all these things? It is mere surplusage. Unless of course, there is some other reason for amending this clause to insert those factors, that is all. I mean if I am convinced, I do not have a problem.
Mr Chireh 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am persuaded by his argument because if you see the way the sentence is, what are we seeking permission for? Maybe, if you want to seek permission for the legal representative who by our law may not have been registered by the General Legal Council to practise, then we need a subclause which then requests the legal representative to go through the process before he qualifies to represent the accused.
But if we put it where they want

. . .”

It does not create any authority outside what is recognised by the domestic law. So why are we trying to create a problem when there is no problem? If it is not broken, do not fix it. We are trying to create a problem for a solution; there is no problem. So, let us stop this “appropriate authority” and those things. It is there.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Hon Members, all the points being raised by all of us are valid points but my worry is that you have gone into a certain agreement with another country and under the agreement, you are saying that if your lawyers come, they may have access to our courts.
Mr Dery 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there are certain fundamentals about legal practice that we cannot change. I was privileged to be Deputy to Hon Papa Owusu-Ankomah and we have gone to other jurisdictions. There are special arrangements by which you can even talk but it does take away the arrangement that you would need the permission of the authority there and therefore, we should not disturb it.
There are other legislations on that subject matter and this is not the area. It is not a subject matter on representation, it is just mutual legal assistance and we cannot make a provision here that tends to amend the provision under the specific legislation on the representation. That cannot be allowed. So, Mr Speaker, I do not see the problem.
rose
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as the Hon Minority Leader, he should be patient and wait for all of us. Mr Speaker,
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Hon
Members, a very strong point has been made that that particular clause is talking
Mr Inusah A. B. Fuseini 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
even though the tangent from which you have taken appears to be the right thing, to give a general privilege to persons to appear before any tribunal to defend or represent persons who are appearing before them, if you look at the way clause 26(2) has been couched, the amendment seeks to answer two questions: from where, and why? That is what the amendment is seeking to do.
If you are saying that a person must seek permission, then the question that immediately follows is, from where? So it is answered, “from an appropriate authority”. But why at all would a person seek permission to examine witnesses? It is precisely because that person has not been called to the Bar in that jurisdiction to examine those witnesses. So that is what the amendment is seeking to do --
are you limiting the issue of legal practice only to the legal representative but not the accused person? Why are you interpreting it in that term?
Mr Fuseini 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am interpreting it in that term because I am reading it to mean that the accused person by himself, can seek permission for a legal representative who is not registered in the jurisdiction to appear to examine a witness or the legal representative himself can make the request. That is how it is intended to be couched. The accused person himself can make that application, that somebody who is not otherwise called to the Bar in this jurisdiction -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
If the
accused person can seek permission, then the issue of practice does not come in there at all. It does not come in.
Mr Alfred K. Agbesi 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
it is well known that before you appear before the Bar, you must be qualified. An accused person who is even a lawyer also needs to be represented. But where the accused person is not a lawyer, then he needs to be represented by his counsel of choice. The counsel may not be qualified in Ghana. So if that counsel needs to represent him, then there is need for other things to be done, like permission from the “appropriate authority”, which is being said here.
In this case, Mr Speaker, I will agree that the way the amendment is coming, it is giving qualification to somebody who cannot normally appear in Ghanaian courts. It is giving permission to such a person to be represented or put representation in the courts.
In this case, then the general rule that “anybody who appears must be called to the Bar” is being waived because authority is being sought from the appropriate
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Hon Member, why do you also think that the accused person's legal representative is not even a qualified person in Ghana? Why are you assuming that he is not even a qualified person in Ghana? Why are we making that assumption?
Mr Fuseini 12:15 p.m.
No, Mr Speaker, I am
not making that assumption. In fact, it is implied here - [Interruption]-- that any person --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Where?
Mr Fuseini 12:15 p.m.
In fact, the way it has
been couched, it is implied that --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
In the
amendment or in the Bill?
Mr Fuseini 12:15 p.m.
In the Bill. The whole
Bill implies that anybody can appear before a court under the Mutual Legal Assistance Bill to represent persons. That is the import of the Bill. But clause 26(2) is making an exception in situations where that person is otherwise not qualified to appear. That is how the Bill is intended, it is a lacuna the Bill is intending to cure. That any person who is a lawyer called to the Bar, in that jurisdiction under this law, can appear to represent persons and examine witnesses. But in a situation where the legal representative is not called to the Bar, is a lacuna the amendment is trying to address and it answers the questions from where, and --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Have you
seen that the “permission” there -- “seeking permission” applies to both the accused person and the legal representative? Have you seen that the “permission” there qualifies both the accused person and the legal representative?
Mr Fuseini 12:15 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
So why
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Hon
Minority Leader, followed by the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice and then the Hon Chairman would tell us whether he wants his amendment to stand or he wants to withdraw it.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
I think, first of all, we must assure ourselves that what we are doing here would not derogate from the existing practice. And indeed, that has been put beyond doubt by clause 1, subclause (2) of this enactment. Mr Speaker, with respect, let me go over that:
“The provisions of this Act shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from an existent or future agreement, arrangement or practice …”
quarters. If so, then we are virtually saying that, yes, even an accused person can seek permission for somebody who is not even qualified to be in the court in Ghana to represent him. This is because of the special permission that is being granted. That is the way I understand this one to be.
Prof Oquaye 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are
making a law which essentially has an international application effect. Mr Speaker, definitely, we are not the first to invent this wheel and we could easily resolve any such difficulty by reference to some of the best practices.
But basically, Mr Speaker, if any such law exists in Britain, America, France, Germany, at least, some of those that I can say I have some idea about, you will definitely not be able to hop from Ghana and then go and represent somebody there just because a Ghanaian is involved.
Mr Speaker, that is not possible. So definitely, we must simply -- we are agreeable, but let us make arrangements that are in tandem with our present practices and also in consonance with our self respect as Ghanaians. Nobody simply hops into -- it does not matter, even if you have got a PhD from England and you are not called to the Bar and you are a Ghanaian lawyer, you cannot just go there and represent even a Ghanaian.
You may be there, but you would need a special dispensation or to engage a local solicitor. So, Mr Speaker, this is something that we can simply enquire into and I can see that is the mood of the lawyers here generally and then do the appropriate thing.
Mr J. B. Aidoo 12:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just a brief
one. Mr Speaker, the bone of contention here is about the legal representative

So, the intendment of whatever amendment should not have the ability or even the potential to abrogate or derogate from the existing practice.

Mr Speaker, now, from that angle, one

would want to know the import of this. As I have already said, we have defined for ourselves the medium, and that is why I insist that the permission as articulated by the Hon Deputy Minister for Energy must be addressed to a certain outfit. We have defined and determined the role of the appropriate authority. So, in my view, that one is necessary.

Regarding what must be done in the event where the legal representative is not qualified in this country, then of course, I agree with the Hon Member for Sekondi and the Hon Yieleh Chireh that perhaps, we should have a separate construction for that one, we do not mix it with this. Which is why I said the addition “where the legal representative is not qualified in this country” is totally out of place.

So, I think it is not necessary. We better deal with what we have; the first leg and just reconstruct “the person's legal representative”, to mean what I said it should and then we move on. If we like, then we can have a separate construction to deal with where the person's legal representative is not qualified in this country.
Mr Barton-Odro 12:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I
have listened to the contributions of Hon Members. As a matter of fact, the General Legal Council has currently tasked the Director of the Ghana Law School to draft a proposed law which will take care of this situation, especially because we had a problem with a Queen's counsel wanting through the British High Commission
to obtain permission for that counsel to appear to represent a British citizen in the Supreme Court. It was turned down by the General Legal Council. But we said we should couch a law which will make it possible but on the basis of reciprocity.
If we should go along that line, then it will be appropriate for us to defer this portion of this Bill, look at it and come out with something which will take care of what we are thinking about in future, so that we do not have any problems with it. That is my contention.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Hon Chairman, the amendment is in your name.
Mr Bandua 12:25 p.m.
I think we would defer
it for further consultation.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Hon
Members, the amendment is deferred.
Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 28 - Transfer order.
Mr Bandua 12:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 28 subclause (1), line 4, delete “a judge” and insert “court” and in line 5, delete “of a court in whose area of jurisdiction the person is detained, for a” and insert the following
“in the area of jurisdiction where the person is detained for a. . .”
Mr Speaker, it is just to tidy up the rendition.
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 12:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
I just wonder why we are always seeking
Mr Bandua 12:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is the second limb; initially, I was saying that we replace “judge” with “court”. Magistrate courts would also be included here so that we use “court” instead of “judge.” That is what I said, and this amendment would be made throughout the Bill.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, happily for us, a court has been defined in this Bill to mean a high court or circuit court. And who presides over a high court or a circuit court?
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 12:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am saying this because it seems as if we come here, we have so many amendments. But really, it does not seem as if the rationale behind the amendments are explained properly to the House, and after we have made some amendments, we then realise the sort of law we have enacted.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Chairman of the Committee, have you filed an amendment to the interpretation of a judge of the courts? Have you done anything to the interpretation column? If you have not done anything to the interpretation column, then it means that all this journey we have embarked on - [Laughter.]
Mr J. B. Aidoo 12:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, further to what the Hon Member for Sekondi, Papa Owusu-Ankomah has said, if the request comes, let us say during the holiday, that is when courts are on recess, what happens? Can a judge not take up such a request? Will the applicant have to wait until the court, as an institution, resumes? This is the problem; so the application should go to the judge.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Hon Members, the phrase “a judge of a court|”,

to amend. I thought that this rendition is clear and unambiguous. I do not know, now they want to insert “judge” and then “court”, why? It says:

“Where the Minister approves a request of a foreign State or foreign entity to have a person in custody in this country transferred to a foreign State as witness or before the forum of a foreign entity as witness, the Minister or a person authorised by the Minister shall apply to a judge of a court in whose area of jurisdiction the person is detained for a transfer order.”

Why? Is there anything confusing about this rendition? Why do we want to change it? Because probably, the rendition does not sound right in the ear of somebody? I just do not understand it. There is nothing wrong with this clause.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Hon
Member, if the matter is before a magistrate and he is not called “a judge”, is it not better to use a “court”?
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 12:35 p.m.
It says a
judge. Yes, probably, you do not want the magistrate to do it. Unless of course, that is not the intention. But really, whatever arguments he advanced for this amendment does not convince me. Is it that you want it to be done by a court, a magistrate or you want it to be done by a judge? You have somebody detained in Accra, you know Greater-Accra is a district in itself; we want a judge to have that power, not the magistrate, what is wrong with it? Or is that not the intention?
Let him kindly explain it to us then explain the rationale for the amendment. But when you just say that oh, it is just to tidy up, make the language easier to understand -- [Interruptions.] -- I
that phrase, I do not think - “a judge of a court?” We all know that judges preside over courts, so why do you say “a judge of a court”?
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 12:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, “a judge of a court” in the normal acceptation of expression may be wrong. But here, because it was referring to a circuit court or a high court, that is why. So if you do not look at its totality, unless of course, the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice who is sponsoring this Bill, wants to change it, I do not have a problem.
But when the Chairman of the Committee comes in the light of the interpretation of the word “court” and says we should change it and so forth, I ask why? Is he then saying that the purpose of this amendment is to give the power even to a magistrate? If that is the case, fine, then we deal with it.
Mrs Betty Mould-Iddrisu 12:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I apologise for my voice. Mr Speaker, I believe that this is a matter which needs not go into this argument. I believe that those of us who are lawyers, anyway, we all know what we mean by this amendment. This is a neater rendition.
When we are talking about a court, the interpretation clause is there; why do we need to say “a judge of a court”? It is clearly not necessary, it is superfluous. We had agreed on it during winnowing, the drafters had agreed, we had considered it; we have gone through this argument and the conclusion all of us reached was a neater rendition for the purposes of this Bill.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe what the Hon Chairman did not really do was responding to the issue raised by the Hon Member for Sekondi, Papa Owusu-Ankomah, which is why
I read the interpretation clause. It thus means that the matter would go before either a High Court or a Circuit Court. So you do not need to say that “a Judge”. That is why we are deleting it; that should have been the explanation. When I proffered that, I thought the Chairman was going to take a cue. But that is the reason for it and so the amendment is really necessary.
Mr Chireh 12:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the amendment should be -- we should delete “of a judge” and just say “a court”.
Number two, the amendment they are seeking to introduce, when they changed “detained” to “determined”, I violently disagreed with that because the whole clause is about somebody who is in a custody and you seek to transfer that person. So it must be “detained” and not “determined”. [Interruption.] What correction? What have I just arrived? --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Hon Minister, we have done that one, they have changed it from “determined” to “detained” when he was moving the amendment; when the Chairman was moving the amendment, he corrected it.
Mr Chireh 12:35 p.m.
He corrected it?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Yes, and I have corrected it here.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 12:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 28, subclause (3), line 1, delete “judge to whom” and insert “court to which”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Hon Members, this is consequential.
Mr J. B. Aidoo 12:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, he should have gone further to look at clause
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I propose that we have a reconstruction to read:
“A court which orders a detained person to be brought for examination shall seek the certified voluntary consent of the person in respect of the transfer of that person to the foreign State as a witness”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
So you should move the amendment; you have read the sentence but you have not moved.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Hon Members, so what you want us to do is to delete the word “persons” between “the” and “certified” and then insert “of that person” after “consent” in line 2?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
Yes --
“The consent of that person in respect of the transfer of that person to the foreign State as a witness.”
Mr Speaker, the use of the word, the apostrophe version of the word “person” in that construction.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
So we are deleting that “persons” and then after “consent” in line 2, we insert --
“in respect of that person's transfer to the foreign State as witness”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
Yes --
“In respect of the transfer of that person to the foreign State as a witness”.
So we have another re-engineering in line 3 as well.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, I have got the second line but the third line, let us get it.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
Mr

28, subclause (3), line (2): “brought before that judge”. We are taking the consequential amendments, so it should read: “before that court for examination”. We are amending only the “judge” in line (1), but line (2), there is another “judge” there.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
I agree with you.
Hon Members, clause 28, subclause 3, line (1) delete “judge to whom” and insert “court to which” and then in line (2), delete “judge” and insert “court”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 12:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 28, subclause (4), line 1, delete “judge who” and insert “court which”.
It is also consequential.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Hon Members, this is consequential.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, may I also suggest that sequel to what we have been doing thus far, we also have a reconstruction as follows:
“a court which orders the detained person to be brought for examination shall seek the certified voluntary consent of that person in respect of the transfer of that person to the foreign State as a witness”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, I have followed -- I have got your point. You want to make it a bit neater there. So let me put the Question on that one then you move yours, then they will follow you.

Speaker, the third line then should read:

“in respect of the transfer of that person to the foreign State as a witness”,

not “the person's transfer . . .” but --

“in respect of the transfer of that person to the foreign State as a witness”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Hon Members, in line 2, we delete the word “person's” and then between “consent” and “in respect” we insert the words “of that person”. And then in line 3, we delete “that person” and insert --
“the transfer of that person to the foreign State as a witness”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 12:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 28, subclause (5), delete “judge” and insert “court”.
Consequential, Mr Speaker.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr Bandua 12:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 28, subclause (5), after paragraph (b), line 1, delete “judge” and insert “court”.
Consequential, Mr Speaker.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 12:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 28 subclause (7), line 2, delete “judge” and insert “court”.
Consequential, Mr Speaker.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 12:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 28,subclause (8), delete and insert the following:
“The court which makes the transfer order shall notify the Minister in writing of the content of the order.”
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thought before you put the Question on 7, the last line, we are talking about the protection of the interest of the detained person, not “interests”. It is a minor question which I believe could be taken care of by the draftsperson. The word “interests”, the plural form of “interest”, I thought it should rather be the “protection of the interest of the detained person” not “interests”. That is in (7), the last line. It is a minor thing and I thought the draftsperson could take care of that.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Yes, they will take note of it.
Mr Bandua 12:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think I share his sentiments; it should be “interest” instead of “interests”. That is in sub-clause (7), “protection of the interest of detained person”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Yes, they have taken note of it.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30 - Return to Ghana of persons transferred in custody.
Mr Bandua 12:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 30, subclause (3), line 1, delete “shall not” and insert “is not required to” and in line 3, delete “section 28 (3)” and insert “section 28 (5)”.
Mr Chireh 12:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I really do
not know why the amendment is being made. If it is permissive for the Hon Minister to make the request, you should say so, “The Minister may” which is not mandatory. If you do not want the Minister to do so at all, the “shall” as it remains now, is correct. But if you are saying it is not required, it means whether the Minister does it or not, I do not know how else you can do that.
So, Mr Speaker, if the Attorney-
General and Minister for Justice can explain what really they want to capture. If it is to permit the Minister to do so, then we may have to use the word “may”. On the other hand, if we just do not want the Minister to do such an act and you have forbidden the Minister from doing so, you say so. But otherwise, this “not required” is a negative way of drafting and it is not

I think the first amendment is not expected that it should be mandatory; that is why it “is not required to”, not “shall not”. And then, 28 (5) is the proper reference, not 28 (3) if you read the whole Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Hon Chairman, what is the difference between “shall not” and “is not required to”?
Mr Bandua 12:45 p.m.
I think one is mandatory and the other is not. “Shall not”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
Why is it that that particular clause should not be mandatory?
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 12:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
clause 28 talks about transfer order and usually it is extradition orders that are required to transfer persons to another State. So in this particular instance, under the Mutual Legal Assistance Bill (MLA), the procedure under clause 28 - therefore, extradition is not necessary under clause 30. Extradition is a different process altogether from the transfer.
So when we say that the Minister is not required to initiate extradition proceedings with the return of a person transferred in the pursuance of a transfer order under clause 28 (3), it has a different meaning from saying that the Minister “shall not”. He “is not required to” because there is another procedure under clause 28. I hope I have made myself clear, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
Hon
Minority Leader, I saw you on your feet.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
if the rendition is that the Minister shall not initiate extradition, then it means that
good.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
Hon
Members, I am even more confused than all of you on this matter because “shall not”, “is not required to” -- In both cases, he is not doing it, there is a certain level of prohibition. I agree that the “shall” is higher than “it is not required to”. We should listen to the Minister, if it is a discretion we want to vest in the Minister, then the proper word to use might be “may”. But it is for the House to decide, mine is to put the Question.
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 12:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
can I just say that reading this, I believe that it is an ouster. Clause 28 ousts the requirement for extradition.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
Hon
Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, they mentioned clause 28 (5). The amendment is talking about clause 28 (5).
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 12:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is
talking about clause 28 (5) now under the amendment and I am saying that -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
What is
the special order in clause 28 (5)?
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 12:55 p.m.
It gives
procedure for handling persons and the procedure for transfer of persons. And as I said earlier, usually the procedure for transfer of persons outside jurisdictions is extradition. So, if it is not required to -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
Is the
“extradition” there because they are not referring to clause 28 generally? They are referring to a particular subclause of clause 28 , which is clause 28 (5). That is the amendment he is talking about. What is special about clause 28, (5) which does not apply to the other transfers in clause 28.?
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 12:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the
drafters have just drawn my attention to clause 1(4) which states clearly that this Act does not authorise the extradition or the arrest or detention of a person with the view to the extradition of that person. That is why I said that “extradition” is a different process from transfer of a person in custody under mutual legal assistance.
So, you must use the words “it is not required to”, not “may not” or “shall not” because those imply that “extradition” might be or could have been used. But the Act ousts “extradition” completely as a tool for transfer.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
Then if it
is an ouster, then in this submission “they shall not” --
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 12:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it
can be but as far as I am concerned --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
Then if
it is “not required”, then it gives you a certain small window of opportunity.
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 12:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
“not required” also means that under this law, they are not required to, not that they “may not” or they “shall not”.
Mr Chireh 1:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if that is what she wants to convey, unless there is a part of this law where the Minister is compelled to initiate the extradition proceedings and therefore, she wants in this particular case not to be so, fine, otherwise, we should just delete the clause and there is no requirement for the Minister under that clause 28 (3) or (4) to initiate anything. But if she says “shall not”, it is something that must have been agreed to.
Is there any portion of this Bill that says that in all cases of transfer, you should do so but in this particular case you should not? No. So you do not even legislate for it. You do not, you just delete the clause and that is it.

clause 29 (2), let us relax the rules, we will take account of it. If it is not too controversial.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we just dealt with clause 29 and I think no amendment was advertised by the Committee. Clause 29 (2) talks about a person in custody whose transfer is the subject of a request.
Mr Speaker, clause 29 (2) provides 1:05 p.m.
“A person in custody whose transfer is the subject of a request and who does not voluntarily consent to the transfer, is not liable to a penalty or any measure of compulsion.”
Mr Speaker, I just wanted us to flash back and look at what we did for clause 19 (7); we used the word “penalty” or “punishment”. I think we substituted imprisonment for punishment and I just wanted us to see whether we cannot have symmetry in respect of the two provisions, clauses 29 (2) and 19 (7), so as to have a common language in respect of the two.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
But there the person -
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if we agree, we can just leave it to the draftsperson to look at the symmetry of language used.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
But here the issue is more of compulsion; we are talking about compulsion. So it might be different. If it is punishment, then we use “punishment” or “penalty”, as in the clause 19 that you have referred to. Here, “compulsion”, that it should not be forced; you see, so the compulsion aspect here is not about “punishment” or “penalty”. We may have to retain the word “compulsion” there.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I understand what you are saying except that the use of “compulsion” could equally apply to clause 19 (7) as well. So, I am saying that, not to press it but -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
Very well,
Mr Dery 1:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think I agree with the Hon Minister for Local Government and Rural Development. As the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice rightly pointed out, that clause 1 (4) says -
“This Act does not authorise the extradition or the arrest or detention of a person with the view to the extradition of that person”.
Having said that, there is no need to have this provision here because again, under other legislation, she might well have the power to do that. And so why do we cause this problem? Clause 1 (4) has set the perimeters of this Act, we leave it there and we delete this -- it becomes a fifth wheel of the coach. -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
If under the Act you cannot do it, why do you go and make provision for it somewhere else? Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice or you still need it?
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 1:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thought that it could remain. I do not have any compelling objection; just to say that in order to make assurance doubly sure, that is why this is there. In case anybody might have thought that they could go by way of extradition, which is the normal procedure. Then, this subsection would have emphasised that this cannot be an option under this particular Act.
So I would have preferred for it to have remained only because this is a completely new law and it needs some assistance in its implementation.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
Very well. Hon Members, in view of the explanation, I will put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, you were talking about

let them look at it and then - Very well.

Clause 30 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31 - Variation of transfer order
Mr Bandua 1:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 31, delete and insert the following:
“The court that makes a transfer order under section 28 (5) may vary the terms and conditions of the order”
Mr Speaker, this is consequential.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
Hon Members, the amendment is to delete and insert the following words:
“The court that makes a transfer order under section 28 (5) may vary the terms and conditions of the order”.
Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, does this amendment not go without saying -- Because it is inherent in the courts to vary whatever they do, to review their actions and all those things without legislating it. Or there is a specific reason for it?
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 1:05 p.m.
I cannot think of a specific reason Mr Speaker, but I do not think it detracts from anything.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
Very well.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 as amended Ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32 - Copy of order to detained person.
Mr Bandua 1:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32 , line 1, delete “section
28 (3)” and insert “section 28 (5)”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 33 to 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37 - Transfer of detained persons to Ghana
Mr Bandua 1:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 37, subclause (4), lines 1 and 2, delete “The judge who makes the detention order or any other judge of the same court” and insert the following:
“The court that makes the detention order”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 1:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 37(6), I think that this amendment should be abandoned. I do not see why it should be“subject to the Constitution.” I will rather suggest that we abandon this amendment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
Have you
withdrawn the amendment?
Mr Bandua 1:15 p.m.
That is so, Mr Speaker.

Clause 37 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39 -- Safe conduct guarantee of persons in Ghana.
Mr Bandua 1:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 39, subclause (4), delete.
Mr Speaker, if you refer to clause 39(1) (a), it says that when a person arrives here, he is not expected to be detained. So there is no need for this subclause. So it should be deleted.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
Which clause says that the person should not be detained when he arrives in Ghana?
Mr Bandua 1:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 39
(1) (a). It says,
“ Subject to subsection (2), where a person arrives in Ghana in response to a request under this Act, that person while in Ghana, shall not be:
(a) detained, prosecuted or
punished,”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice.
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 1:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we support that amendment.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill
Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 41 -- Evidence-gathering by video conference.
Mr Bandua 1:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 41,subclause (2), paragraph (a), subparagraphs (i) and (ii), delete “an” and insert “a serious”.
Mr Speaker, the reason being that “serious offence” has been defined in the Order Paper, page 18.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 1:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have
abandoned the amendment to clause 41, subclause (3), paragraph (a), line 1.
I think that what is in the Bill is better
than the amendment that we are proposing. I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.
Mr Bandua 1:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 41, subclause (10), line 2, delete “domestic laws” and insert “law”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 1:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 41 - subclause (12), line 1, at end, delete “the” and in line 2, delete “domestic”.
Mr Speaker, “domestic” is consequential but ‘the' is out of place.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 41 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 42 and 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 44 -- Content of request for interception of telecommunications
Mr Bandua 1:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 44, subclause (1), paragraph (h), delete “criminal” and insert “serious”.
Mr Speaker, this amendment is consequential.
Question put and amendment agreed
when I put the Question --
Mr Gershon K.B. Gbediame 1:15 p.m.
Mr
Speaker, provision has actually been made for extended Sitting. I just went out, some committees are meeting and I have asked them to also join us; they will soon join us. We have made adequate provision for the extended Sitting and that is what I just wanted to draw your attention to.
Clause 46 - Order for interception of
telecommunications.
Mr Bandua 1:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 46 subclause (3), line 1, deleted and insert the following:
“the court to which application is made under subsection (1) or (2), may make an order for the prevention of crime upon reasonable grounds to”.
Mr Speaker, we have re-drafted it to
specify the relevant subsections which are applicable.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 1:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 46, subclause (3), paragraph (b), line 1, delete “senior”.
So it will read: “authorise a police officer”, in fact , “a police officer” has been defined on the Order Paper, so there is no need for that qualification.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 46 as amended ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
C l a u s e 4 7 - I n t e r c e p t i o n o f
telecommunications without technical assistance
Mr Bandua 1:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg
to move, clause 47 subclause (1), after paragraph (c), line 1, delete “criminal”
to.
Clause 44 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
Hon
Members, is it useful to continue this exercise? I need advice. I have taken the mood of the House; the responses are hardly coming forth and this is a technical Bill.
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 1:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have also observed the mood of the House and I have also arrived at the conclusion that some Hon Members are uncomfortable with any attempt to truncate this discussion. I would not want to raise any matter relating to our Standing Orders that would truncate this matter. But I am just making a general statement.
Mr Speaker, when you have a Bill in which you have over 40 proposed amendments, then you have a problem. The amendments are over 40, why? Why? Then it means that there is something fundamentally wrong with the Bill. [Interruptions.] I am saying that you do not need to have so many amendments and if you have to have those amendments, then they should not be contentious. But look at the numbers in the House - [Interruption.]
rose
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 1:25 p.m.
I am still
on my feet. Are you rising on a point of order? Or you want --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
Hon Member, let us listen to the Hon Member, then you can respond.
Hon Member for Sekondi, let us continue and get to clause 50 and then we can adjourn. I am not getting the response
Mr Bandua 1:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 49, subclause (1), delete and insert the following:
“Subject to any other enactment, where the Central Authority receives a request from a foreign State or foreign entity for assistance for the interception and transmission of an item or its copy to the foreign State, the Minister may if satisfied that the foreign State or competent authority of the foreign entity has jurisdiction over the criminal matter for which the request is sought, apply without notice to the relevant court for an order to:
(a) intercept the item in the mail of a postal service; and
(b) subsequently transmit the intercepted item or its copy to the foreign State.”
The reason for this amendment is that there is the need for a court order before communication can be intercepted, otherwise, the process may be abused. So we want to forestall the process.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr Bandua 1:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 49, subsection (2), delete and insert the following:
“A court to which an application is made under subsection (1) may make an order on reasonable grounds to --
(a) require the use of an investigative technique or other procedure to intercept the item in Ghana; and
(b) authorise the relevant authority to intercept the item.”
I think this follows from the first amendment and it becomes necessary to make this provision to qualify the first amendment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
Chairman
of the Committee, the earlier amendments that we made by deleting “Ghana” and inserting “Republic”, will they affect it or “Ghana” is all right in this amendment?
Mr Bandua 1:25 p.m.
I think it is all right.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
Very good. It is a geographic entity, so “Ghana” should be there. Is that correct? Because earlier, you deleted “Ghana” and put “Republic”; now, you are bringing “Ghana”. You are in charge of the amendment, I am only asking whether we should keep “Ghana” in this case or we should put -
Mr Bandua 1:25 p.m.
Let us keep “Ghana”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
You are not speaking with authority, speak with authority [Laughter.] Hon Chairman.
Mr Bandua 1:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I said it should be there. We have to retain it.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 49 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 50 and 51 ordered to form part of the Bill.
Clause 54 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 55 - Request for freezing, seizure and confiscation of proceeds of crime.
Mr Bandua 1:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 55, subclause (1), paragraph (c), at beginning, insert “known”.
Mr Speaker, this amendment is consequential because the details should be known. We already have some - because we expect that the details should be known before the requests are put in - “known details of the property in relation to which the request is sought”,
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 1:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 55, subclause (1), paragraph (d) at beginning , insert “known”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 1:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 55, subclause (1), paragraph (g), before “third” insert “known”.
Mr Speaker, it is also consequential.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 1:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 55, subcllause (2), paragraph (b), line 1, delete “a”.
Mr Speaker, I think “a” is out of place
so it is not necessary for it to be there.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 1:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 55, subclause (3), lines 3

Clause 52 - Special co-operation.
Mr Bandua 1:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 52, subclause (1), line 2, delete “the police” and insert “a competent authority”.
Mr Speaker, “competent authority” has been defined on the Order Paper, on page 16.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 52 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53 ordererd to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54 - Joint investigation teams.
Mr Bandua 1:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 54, subclause (5), lines 1 and 2, delete “or competent authority of a foreign entity”.
Mr Speaker, so the rendition will read as follows 1:35 p.m.
“The Central Authority of a foreign State in which a joint investigation team is established or the Central Authority of the Republic, if the team is established in Ghana…”
This amendment has become necessary because the investigation team can only be established in States not in entities. That is the reason for this amendment.
Question put and amendment agreed to.

and 4, delete “judge of the relevant court in whose area of jurisdiction” and insert the following:

“court in the area of jurisdiction where. . .”

Mr Speaker, it is also consequential.

Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 1:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 55, subclause (4), paragraph (b), at end, delete “and” and insert “or”.
Mr Speaker, so it will read 1:35 p.m.
“an order to confiscate property derived or obtained directly or indirectly from or used in or in connection with the commission of an offence or another . . .”
It should be alternate so “or” is the applicable word.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 55 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 57 - Enforcement of alternative court orders in Ghana
Mr Bandua 1:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 57, line 5, delete “Ghana's domestic law” and insert “the law of this country”.
Mr Speaker, it is consequential.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
Not the
law of the Republic?
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 57 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 58 and 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 60 -- Claims of third parties.
Mr Bandua 1:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 60 - delete and insert the following:
“Interested parties and restraint and confiscation orders
(1) The Court may in an action relating to a restraint or confiscation order pursuant to section 56, require notice to be given to a person who appears to have an interest in terrorist property and that person shall be added as a respondent to the application.
(2) If the Court is satisfied that the person added as a respondent to the application has (a) an interest in the property the
subject of the application,
(b) exercised reasonable care to ensure that the property is not from the proceeds of a serious offence, the Court shall order that the interest of that person shall not be affected by the order and the order shall also declare the nature and extent of the interest of the person.
(3) Without limiting subsection (2), the Court may make an order to payment of damages or costs in relation to the registration of the restraint or confiscation order.”
Mr Speaker, the rationale behind this amendment is that in the original clause it only caters for third parties but we wanted it to affect all other interested parties. That is the rationale for the amendment.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 60 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 61 -- facsimile of restraint and confiscation orders.
Mr K. Bandua 1:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 61, delete and insert the following:
“Electronic communication of restraint and confiscation orders
(1)A foreign restraint order or foreign confiscation order or an amendment to either may be received by means of electronic communication and registered by the court.
(2)An electronic copy of an order under subsection (1) shall have the same effect as a duly authenticated copy of the order or its amendment omission cease to have effect after fourteen days from the date or registration, unless an authenticated copy of the original order is registered.”
Mr Speaker, the reason for this deletion is that, in fact, what has been provided here - for instance, fax has been overtaken by technology.Other systems are being used, so we want to replace it with “Electronic communication of restraint and confiscation orders”, such that, it includes all other -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
So you are amending the Head notes too?
Mr Bandua 1:45 p.m.
The Head notes are also amended. Yes, that is so, Mr Speaker.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 61 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 63 - Reciprocal sharing of confiscated property.
Bandua: Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 63 subclause (1), lines 1 and 2 delete “after consultation with the Minister responsible for Foreign Affairs”
This amendment is consequential, Mr Speaker.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 1:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 63, subclause (4), line 1, after “property” delete “of” and insert “in”.
Mr Speaker, it is redrafting, because the proper rendition should be -
“the vesting of the property in the Republic”, not “of the Republic”,
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 63 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 64 - Disposal or release of property
Mr Bandua 1:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 64, subclause (3), paragraph (b), line 3, delete “source” and insert “result”.
I think the better word is “result”. So that it would read:
“where necessary waive any requirement that is likely to impede the return of confiscated property which is the result of embezzled public funds…”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
Is the “result” or the “source” of the income?

It is the “source” of the income, not the “result”. Is the “source” not better than “result”?
Mr Bandua 1:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker --
“where necessary waive any requirement that is likely to impede the return of confiscated property which is the result of embezzled…”
I think it refers to the property.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
The “source”?
Mr Bandua 1:45 p.m.
The property --
“where necessary waive any requirement that is likely to impede the return of the confiscated property . . .”
I think it also refers to the property. I think so - “which is the result of embezzled . . .”; it means that the property has been acquired as a result of the embezzlement of public funds. That is the way I understand it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
Well?
Mr Bandua 1:45 p.m.
It means the property was acquired “as a result of” --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
It is the “source”. Normally, with proceeds of crime, we refer to the source of the income.
Mr Dery 1:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I just wanted to draw the attention of the Chairman, with your permission. You would see that (d) talks about funds and that should be “source”. If you come to (c), it then talks of “property”. So, I think that it should be “source” and not “result”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
“The
source of”, yes, “source”. Chairman of the Committee?
Mr Bandua 1:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, then the amendment is withdrawn.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
Very well.
Mr Bandua 1:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 64, subclause (5), line 2, delete “lead” and insert “led”.
The new rendition would be -
“The Central Authority may deduct expenses incurred in investigations, prosecution or judicial proceedings that led to the return or disposition of confiscated property.”
Mr Chireh 1:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not know why they want to bring in a past tense in this. We are making a law, it is not as if it has happened already. So, we should not really move this amendment. I oppose it vehemently and I will vote against it.

Clause 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 65 - Use of exhibits abroad.
Mr Bandua 1:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 65, subclause (1), line 2, delete “a proceeding”” and insert “proceedings”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 1:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 65, subclause (2), line 2, delete “a proceeding” and insert “proceedings”.
It is consequential, Mr Speaker.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 65 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 66 to 68 ordered to stands part of the Bill.
Clause 69 - Court order to produce judicial or official records
Mr Bandua 1:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 69,
this amendment is withdrawn.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
Hon
Chairman, is it all the amendments or only the first one?
Mr Bandua 1:55 p.m.
It is only the first one.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
Then move
the second one.
Mr Bandua 1:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause (3), paragraph (b), delete “domestic laws of the Republic” and insert “law of this country”.
Mr Speaker, it is consequential.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
The
previous one, was it “Republic” we deleted or it was “Ghana” that we deleted?
Mr Bandua 1:55 p.m.
I think we are using “Ghana” and “Republic” interchangeably because they refer to the same thing. If we say the “Republic of Ghana” and we say “Ghana”, I do not think it makes much difference.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 69 as amended ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clauses 70 to 73 ordered to stand part
of the Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
Hon
Members, I want to crave your indulgence -- this Bill has been with us for a long time -- I want to plead with you for the Hon Second Deputy Speaker to come and take over from me so that we continue.
Hon Members, I refer you to Standing
Order 40 (3) and direct that having regard to the state of business, proceedings be held outside the prescribed period.
1.58 p.m. -- [MR SECOND DEPUTY

Clause 74 - Requirement of notification

for the admissibility of foreign documents and things.
Mr Bandua 1:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 74, paragraph (b), line 4, after “five” insert “working”. S o it will be “five working days”.
Mr Speaker, we need to add it so that it will be “working days”; we do not want to include weekends. So, we say “five working days”.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 74 as amended ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 76 - Restriction on disclosure
of foreign documents and use of materials obtained by mutual legal assistance.
Mr Bandua 1:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 76, subclause (1), line 1, delete “section 78” and insert “section
70”.
Mr Speaker, it is consequential and it is the correct reference.
Question put and amendment agreed to
Mr Bandua 1:55 p.m.


Clause 76 as amended ordered to stand

part of the Bill.

Clause 77 - Appeal.
Mr Bandua 1:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 77, delete.
Mr Speaker, the reason is that there is no need to legislate this procedure. So, we suggest that it be deleted.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 77 deleted from the Bill.
Clause 78 - Determination of validity
of refusals.
Mr Bandua 1:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 78, delete.
Mr Speaker, let us take the whole thing 1:55 p.m.
“Where a request by the Republic is presented to a foreign State or foreign entity and a person in that foreign State or before a competent authority of that foreign entity refuses to answer a question or to give up a certain record or thing due to a law in force in the foreign State …”
In fact, our courts do not have jurisdiction over foreign courts, so we felt that there was no need to have this provision here. So we are deleting it.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 78 deleted from the Bill..
Clause 79 - Consultation with foreign
States and foreign entities.
Mr Bandua 2:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 79, subclause (1), line 3, delete “either” and insert
“the Central Authority of a foreign State or competent authority of a foreign entity”.
Mr Speaker, this amendment is consequential.
Question put and amendment agreed to
Clause 79 as amended ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clauses 80 -- 83 ordered to stand part
of the Bill.

Clause 84 - Memorandum of

understanding.
Mr Bandua 2:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 84, delete - [Interruption.]
You want an explanation? This is because there is no need to legislate entering into a memorandum of understanding (MOU). This can be done without being provided for in the law. There is no need to legislate it; to enter into a memorandum of understanding between a foreign State and our central authority, there is no need for this piece of legislation.
Mr Chireh 2:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, for that reason, he started off by saying -- “For the purposes of this Act ...” So why is he deleting it? You are limiting it to this Act; you are not directing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to be entering into all kinds of MOUs.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 84 deleted from the Bill.
Mr Dery 2:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think I do agree that clause 84 is not necessary here and therefore, should be deleted. But I was wondering the position of clause 83. It says and with your permission, I quote:
“Subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the Chief Justice may
by order under the Chief Justice's hand, designate a court to grant audience for purposes of this Act.”
This is an already existing power of the Chief Justice. So I think that we should also delete clause 83.
Mr Bandua 2:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think I share his sentiments; we have to delete it.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
There is a consensus on that; I will put the Question.
Mr Chireh 2:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we should not delete it. The reason is simple. You are asking that the Chief Justice grants special permission under this Act. It is not something that she normally does; her duty is to designate the court and all that. But we want a special designation. In any case, Mr Speaker, we have already put the Question and passed it. Unless you come to Second Consideration Stage, I think that we should retain it as it is.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
Hon Minister, we intend to be very flexible when it comes to Consideration Stage. So if you have a strong point, I would admit it. The most important thing is to consider the Bill critically, clause by clause. If you feel strongly about it, you may want to canvass your point. If you want to abandon it at this stage, you may do so.
So Hon Deputy Minority Leader, your amendment is that --
Mr Dery 2:05 p.m.
Yes, I beg to move, clause 83 delete. Mr Speaker, we come by subsidiary legislation and begin to provide for these things, because the judicial authority of the Judiciary is vested in the Constitution. And so we cannot by subsidiary legislation begin to dictate those things. That is what I mean.
Mr Bandua 2:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support amendment.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 83 deleted from the Bill
Clause 85 -- Regulations
Mr Bandua 2:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 85, delete and insert the following:
“The Minister may by legislative Instrument make Regulations:
(a) to make and receive requests;
(b) to provide for the form and content of requests;
(c) to prescribe conditions for the grant of requests;
(d) to deal with the confidentiality of requests;
(e) for the refusal of requests;
(f) for the transfer of detained persons to Ghana;
(g) for evidence gathering;
(h) for the in tercept ion of telecommunications in Ghana;
(i) for the interception of items in the course of carriage by a postal service;
(j) to preserve communications data;
(k) for investigative measures;
(l) for the seizure and confiscation of the proceeds of crime;
(m) for the disposal, release and sharing of confiscated property;
Mr Bandua 2:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 86, Interpretation, “competent authority”, delete and insert the following:
‘competent authority' includes
(a) The Serious Fraud Office, the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice, the Narcotics Control Board and any other organisation, agency or body of the Republic authorised by the Minister ; and
(b) an organisation, agency or body of a foreign State or foreign entity ordinarily competent or authorised by the Central Authority of that State to handle, submit or receive mutual legal assistance request
(i) the Serious Fraud Office, the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice, the Narcotics Control Board, the Police Service, intelligence agencies and any other organisation, agency or body of the Republic authorised by the Minister; and
(ii) an organisation, agency or body of a foreign State or foreign entity ordinarily competent or authorised by the central authority of that State to handle, submit or receive mutual legal assistance requests.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 2:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 86, Interpretation, add the following:
‘military offence' means a service offence within the meaning of the Armed Forces Act, 1962 (Act 105) committed by an officer of the Armed Forces or a soldier enrolled in, attached to or seconded to the Armed Forces.”
In clause 86, we have added a new interpretation; that is, “military offence” that it was not originally in the Bill. So it is a new interpretation that has been added.
Mr Dery 2:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I just want us to see how we can help make this amendment meaningful. If you say “military offence” means a service offence within the meaning of the Armed Forces Act, 1962 (Act 105)”, what happens when that law is amended? Why do we not make it an applicable law? I just wanted a clarification.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
Chairman of the Committee, do you have any response to that, the idea being that if that law be amended, there could be or there would be other laws and so on? So why does it not become generic? Rather than being specific, let us be generic. I think Hon Osei-Prempeh may want to --
Mr Osei-Prempeh 2:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I
believe, as captured there, it is appropriate. If the law is amended, it should be as amended. At any time, there will be a military offence and the primary law for military is the Armed Forces Act. So I believe that the rendition here is correct.
Yes, that is rightly so, the Armed Forces Act even if it is amended will carry on. He wants the Act to be deleted? I do not believe there is nothing wrong; except that my problem with that is the last but one, “or a soldier enrolled in”. It should be a person enrolled in, attached or seconded to the Armed Forces, not the soldier.
Mr Bandua 2:15 p.m.
The amendment is all
right.
Mr Chireh 2:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this problem
we have even passed one of them. We were talking about the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), Narcotics Control Board (NARCOB) and the rest of them. But we know that the SFO Bill or the one that is going to do away with the Serious Fraud Office, is currently in this House. So like he is saying, we have to be careful what we put in this.
But there is also a capturing of all these things. You can say the enactment governing the Armed Forces, which means, any enactment or existing enactment. There is a way, it is only that I have forgotten how to capture it. For sometime now, I have not drafted a law. Otherwise, there is a way that we can have it all -- encompassing and for all purposes and for all times; make it an enactment government, the Armed Forces.
Mrs Betty Mould-Iddrisu 2:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe that in the ensuring legislation which was for example, the Serious Fraud Office, there is usually savings in that law which should cover such scenarios as we are thinking of now. So it is either we put it in this law or we leave it to be covered in the amended law. Usually the laws says they save what has been done so that it would not become obsolete within this law. So I think it is on firm grounds here, Mr Speaker. That
(n) to transfer criminal proceedings from Ghana to a foreign State or foreign entity;
(o) to amend the schedule; and
(p) to provide for any other matter necessary for the effective implementation of the provisions of this Act.
Mr Speaker, we have provided the details and specifics, to put the matter beyond doubt; so we have provided details of what the Regulations should cover.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 85 as amended ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause 86 - Interpretation.
Mr Bandua 2:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 86, Interpretation, “Central Authority” delete and insert the following:
“Central Authority” means:
(a) the designated Ministry of Justice under section 6 or
(b) the designated person of a foreign State or foreign entity responsible for the transmission, receipt and handling of requests for mutual legal assistance.
Earlier, we did not define the various
bodies and institutions. This time, we have brought them all in.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr Bandua 2:15 p.m.


would take care of the Hon Minister's concern.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
Hon
Deputy Minority Leader, does that take care of your concern?
Mr Dery 2:15 p.m.
Well, I do not know what
she said but in my view, once I have got my position on record, we can go. I do not want to make a submission that is lame.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
If we may recapture that, this is the stage where we should be free to dialogue. The essence of Hon Dery's concern, if one may recap it, is that, we should have something that is omnibus and which will cover whatever is beyond a particular Act, so that it will capture things like the law regulating the Armed Forces or the Regulations of the Armed Forces whatsoever, without talking about one particular law. And then the idea is that it is not necessary.
Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, I think you will want to persuade the House more specifically on that so that we will feel it is not necessary.
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 2:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do
not know how else to say it, except that the lawyers know that invariably, when you repeal a law, you save it in respect of its prior usage. So therefore, it would be automatic that any law which replaces the Armed Forces Act would then supersede or replace the Armed Forces Act here.
As also, if there is a nomenclature change in for example, the Serious Fraud Office, which would be more than a nomenclature-- the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), they are thinking about a nomenclature that change -- it would then automatically become the new nomenclature which would come into
force as the new legislation, replace the old legislation. I hope I have made myself clear to Hon Members.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
Thank you very much. And I will believe that should put our minds to rest. Any other contribution with regard to clause 86?
Mr Bandua 2:15 p.m.
I think there are other
additions to the interpretations column. Clause 86, we have the following: ‘Police Officer' means” - that should also be added to the interpretations section.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
Please, come out clearly.
Mr Bandua 2:15 p.m.
I am saying that we have
not finished with amendments proposed under clause 86.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
Very
well, let us get ourselves clear. So what stands here now is the Question. And let us put that before we come to any other thing. Very well.
Mr Bandua 2:15 p.m.
What stands here should
be left to stay but the corrections that have been effected by the Hon Member for Nsuta-Kwamang should be taken care of.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
Hon
Member for Nsuta-Kwamang Beposo, if you may come out clearly then on the other amendments that you were proposing, this is what I do not want us to lose sight of.
Mr Osei-Prempeh 2:15 p.m.
Sorry, Mr Speaker,
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
You
talked about “soldier”?
Mr Osei-Prempeh 2:15 p.m.
“Or a soldier enrolled in”. Mr Speaker, I beg to move,
clause 86, delete “soldier” and insert “'a person enrolled in, attached to or seconded to the Armed Forces”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
Hon
Member, in the military, they tend to talk about “officers and soldiers”, sometimes “officers and men” but it appears for gender reasons, “officer and men” has become less favoured because the men there include women. So now the tendency is “officer” and “soldiers”.
Mr Osei-Prempeh 2:15 p.m.
My concern was the use of “a soldier”. I am not talking about the offence committed by an officer of the Armed Forces or a soldier enrolled in, everyone in the Armed Forces. But there can even be a civilian employee of the military or somebody attached to the military who can commit an offence under the Act. So we are not restricting it to a soldier. That was why I thought that “a person” there can refer to one in uniform or any other person.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
Can
non-military personnel commit a military offence? The civilians attached to the military apparently cannot commit military offences. You agree with me, Hon Dery?
Mr Dery 2:15 p.m.
The Armed Forces Law applies to enrolled military officers and not to civilians.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
For
Armed Forces Act to apply to you, you must be a soldier.
Mr J. B. Aidoo 2:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am tempted to support Hon Osei Prempeh's submission because here, we have “or a soldier enrolled in the Armed Forces”. Once you are enrolled in, then you are a soldier. So it should be “a person enrolled in the Armed Forced”. A person enrolled
in the Armed Forces then becomes a soldier.
So there is no need to state here “a soldier.” It should be “a person”, then the other qualifications can come. “A person enrolled in, attached to. . .” Now, the “attached” or “seconded to” is referring to somebody who is not a soldier. For instance, a teacher like the professor here, being seconded to the Armed Forces, then it would cover all of them. So I am tempted to support his submission.
Mr Dery 2:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think we
should be very clear that civilians are not subject to the Armed Forces law. But what you can have is a soldier who is not a member of the Ghana Armed Forces who is attached to maybe, by some military arrangement between countries or activity, that can happen. Yes, we have American soldiers coming but he must be a soldier to qualify within the jurisdiction and under the military law, not a civilian.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
Hon
Dery, so you will insist that the essential operative word is “soldier”? The essential and operative word here, by your submission is that, the person must necessarily be a soldier and a member of the Armed Forces?
Mr Chireh 2:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the earlier problem we were confronted with - I have found a solution in section 35 of the Interpretation Act where it says, “Effect of substituting enactment” and I would like to quote a bit of it --
“Where an enactment repeals or revokes and re-enacts with or without modification an enactment, a reference in any other enactment or statutory document to the enactment so repealed or revoked shall, without prejudice to the operations of sub-sections 2 and 3 be construed as reference to the

enactment as re-enacted.”

So all the things we were saying, the Interpretation Act has solved the problem. [Interruption.] But you did not back it with authority and citation. I have cited the authority.

Mr Speaker, section 35 of the

Interpretation Act takes into account our concern about mentioning a specific law -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
Hon
Minister, if you may please, read.
Mr Chireh 2:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
“Effect of substituting enactment.
Where an enactment repeals or revokes and re-enacts with or without modification an enactment, a reference in any other enactment or statutory document to the enactment so repealed or revoked shall, without prejudice to operations of sub-sections 2 and 3 be construed as a reference to the enactment as re-enacted.”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
Thank you, Hon Minister. We have passed that actually. We are now looking at “soldier enrolled, attached or seconded to the Armed Forces”.
Hon Attorney-General and Minister for
Justice, if you may let us --
Mr Chireh 2:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in respect
of that we would just say ‘a member of the Armed Forces” and it would cover everything here.
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 2:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I
think “a member of the Armed Forces” would suit as fine.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
Hon
Chairman of the Committee, kindly give us a full rendition so that we are clear.
Mr Bandua 2:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
“Military offence” means a service offence within the meaning
of the Armed Forces Act, 1962, (Act 105) committed by an officer of the Armed Forces or a member enrolled in, attached to or seconded to the Armed Forces.”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
I
think we should get the rendition clear then when we comment further, we know what to do.
Mr J. B. Aidoo 2:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I
know what he is going to do and I have a problem there. My problem is that, if we look at the intent of this particular provision, we would realize that it is also talking about attachment and secondment and once we make it “a member of the Armed Forces”, we certainly exclude “attachment” and then “secondment” in which case, we would not get the full intent of this particular provision.
Therefore, I believe that a member of the Armed Forces is not enough for this particular provision. So we have to find a way of going round this. I think the problem here is “a soldier” and earlier, we had suggested “a person enrolled in, attached or seconded to the Armed Forces” to take care of all the three personalities there.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
Hon
learned Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, is it the intention of this law to try to bring in civilians attached to the Armed Forces within the purview of this law? Like we know, there are civilian doctors in the Military Hospital. They are not subject to military regulations, they are still treated as civilians and so on and so forth. If that is not the intention of the law, then the Hon learned Attorney-General and Minister for Justice's rendition of a member of the Armed Forces, simpliciter, will take care of the matter.
Mr Dery 2:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think I agree with the Hon Attorney-General and Mister for Justice's rendition because I have had a situation where a number of people committed an offence, both military and non-military and members of the Armed Forces were dealt with under the Act, but civilians under the Act 29. Therefore, this law does not apply to the civilians and so “member of the Armed Forces” is adequate.
Mr Bandua 2:35 p.m.
Then let me take this new rendition and let us see how it goes; it should be
“military offence” means a service offence within the meaning of the Armed Forces Act, 1962 (Act 105) committed by an officer of the . ..
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
No, by “a member ”. If I got the Hon Attorney- General and Minister for Justice right -- by “a member of the Armed Forces”; period.
Mr Bandua 2:35 p.m.
By “a member of the Armed Forces”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 2:35 p.m.
I beg to move, clause 86 , Interpretation, add the following:
‘police officer' means a person not below the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police”,
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 2:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 86, Interpretation, under “offence” delete and insert the following:
‘serious offence' includes
(a) participation in an organised criminal group, terrorism and terrorist financing, money laundering, human trafficking, peopled smuggl ing rape, defilement, illicit trafficking in stolen and other goods, corruption and bribery, serious fraud, counterfei t ing and piracy of products, smuggling, extortion, forgery, insider trading and market manipulation;
(b) murder, grievous bodily harm, armed robbery or theft where there are predicate offences for a serious offence; and
(c) any other similar or related, prohibited activity punishable with imprisonment for a period of not less than twelve months;
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
There is
a further amendment to clause 86. It stands in the name of Hon W.O. Boafo.
Chairman of the Committee -
Mr Bandua 2:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that one has been abandoned.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
It has been abandoned?
Mr Bandua 2:35 p.m.
Yes.
Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi 2:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 86 (a), line 3, “peopled smuggling rape,” what does it mean?
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 2:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, at the top of page 18 of the Order Paper, line 4, the correct phraseology is “people” without the “d”, “smuggling” and after “smuggling” should come the comma and then it continues - “rape”, “defilement”, et cetera.
Thank you for that.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
Hon Member, does that satisfy your query? All right, then it would stand as a proposed amendment. Is that not so?
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 86 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Schedule-- PART A -- Designated Foreign States and Foreign Entities
Mr Bandua 2:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, The Schedule, PART A, under “Foreign States”, item 2, line 3 delete “Central” and insert “West”.
So it will be West African States “instead of Central African States”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 2:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, The Schedule, PART A, under “Foreign States”, item 2, at end, add “and Member States of the Africa Union”.
Mr Speaker, it should be “Member States” not “Members States of the African Union”. So the rendition will be
“Member States of the Economic Community of African States and Member States of the African Union”.
Mrs Gifty E. Kusi 2:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I did not get what he read. Is it ECOWAS they are talking about -- Economic Community of West African States? But he left that one out. He said “and Member States”; so please, let it be clear.
Mr Bandua 2:35 p.m.
That was the first amendment we made before we added this one.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 2:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, The Schedule - PART A, under “Foreign States”, item 3, delete and insert the following:
“State Parties to the
a. United Nations Convention Against Corruption
b. African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 2:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, The Schedule, PART B, heading, delete and insert the following:
“State Parties to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption”.
Mr Speaker, there was a mistake in the heading.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
I will therefore put the Question on the entire Schedule.
rose
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
Hon Member, will it affect the Schedule? Very well.
The Schedule as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr J.B. Aidoo 2:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are going to take the Long Title, but before you do that, there were a few amendments which escaped us and I crave your
indulgence for us to take them.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
Very well, you may do so.
Mr J.B. Aidoo 2:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, page 33 of the Bill, clause 47(3)(d), “criminal offence”.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 47(3) (d),line 1, delete “criminal” and insert “serious”.
Mr Speaker, earlier on, we had amended all the “criminal offences” to read “serious offence,” and therefore, we should have also amended this particular rendition so that the subclause would read, “an indication of the serious offence under investigation”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
So the offence should necessarily be qualified as “serious”.
Mr J.B. Aidoo 2:45 p.m.
Exactly so, Mr Speaker - “serious offence”. We have to be consistent because it has been running through all the amendments that had been carried ever since we started.
Mr Bandua 2:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the amendment is consequential so -- We have made those amendments earlier . So, I support what he is saying. Instead of “criminal”, we should have “serious offence”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
Can we leave that to the drafters so that wherever there is “offence” they know that it is “serious”?
Mr Bandua 2:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that is so.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
We can do that? I thank you. So that should be taken notice of.
Mr J.B. Aidoo 2:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg
to move clause 57, line 4, “that” delete comma . .
Mr Speaker, we should draw the attention of the Clerk's office to delete that comma. It is not necessary.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr J.B. Aidoo 2:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 85(n), line 1, delete “proceeding” and insert “proceedings”.
Mr Speaker, in today's Order Paper, page 16, we dealt with a new clause, that is, clause 85(n). We have “to transfer criminal proceeding from Ghana” and in all the amendments that we have carried, the Hon Chairman has made us to understand that “proceeding” should be “proceedings”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
The Clerk should take notice of that. “Criminal proceedings,” is what we always use, never “criminal proceeding”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
Hon Member, thank you very much for those corrections which will be appropriately taken care of.
Mr Bandua 2:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, Long Title - after “agreement” insert “or other arrangement”.
Mr Speaker, this has become necessary because that provision is in the body of the Bill but it has not been captured in the Long Title, so we want it to reflect in the Long Title.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
The Long Title as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
Hon
Members, that brings us to the end of the Consideration Stage of the Mutual Legal Assistance Bill.
Mr Pelpuo 2:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think we have done a yeoman's job. This is a very successful day and we can only thank ourselves for staying all this while and committing ourselves to this Bill and ensuring that we got to the end of it.
As a result, I think that we are quite exhausted and the day is far spent, so it will be logical for you to use your discretion to adjourn the House.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
Thank you very much. Before the discretion is exercised, if I may hear from the Hon Deputy Minority Leader. He may have something special for the House.
Mr Dery 2:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, no, except to thank Hon Members who have stayed around all this time for their effort.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Members. It has been quite an arduous work this morning and afternoon.
The House stands adjourned till tomorrow in the forenoon.
ADJOURNMENT 2:45 p.m.