if there is evidence which is available only to a Member of Parliament; if for example, the Hon Minister for National Security has some evidence of a security nature or the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice has some evidence that is not available to the general public, and there is a matter before court and the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice or the Hon Minister for National Security, Mr Speaker, regardless of which side they are on, comes to the floor of Parliament and in support or in opposition of a Motion or a statement being made, raises those matters which are not in the public domain, it may have the tendency of prejudicing the outcome of the matter. For example -- Mr Speaker, I see three lawyers shaking their heads.
Mr Speaker, so the point I am making
is that, this provision must be given a purposeful approach, a purposeful interpretation, not a literal or mechanical one as my younger Brother is saying; my Hon Colleague in Parliament, but my younger brother at the Bar. Apart from literal and mechanical, there is also the purposeful approach, and that is the preferred approach today.
What is the purpose of this, and when you give it a purposeful approach, Mr Speaker, you would give it such a broad approach which would enable the debate to go on in this House, because the danger is that, if I want to truncate debate in the House, even when debate has started, I will file an application; it does not even matter if the application is dismissed at the end of the day. We have not even been told the issues in this case before us; we do not know the issues at stake.
Mr Speaker, it is my respectful opinion that in the circumstances of this case, what we are discussing here will in no way prejudice what is happening in court. Indeed, it would be a sad reflection on our court system and I have great confidence in our Judiciary, that a mere Private Member's Motion and some view from Parliament would influence court proceedings when the matter is not in evidence before the court.
On that note, I thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Deputy Minister for Energy (Mr Inusah A. B. Fuseini) (MP): Mr Speaker, indeed, this is an interesting debate. It is an interesting debate because it catches the imagination of everybody in this country. Indeed, when the tariff increases were announced, everybody showed interest and if I may take the words of this Motion, everybody including industry showed concern.
Indeed, even if you look at that aspect alone and take concern within the context of this Motion, it is worrying. And that alone has the potential to prejudice whatever is happening in court. [An Hon Member: How?] Because, that is concern. It is precisely because the two parties have expressed concern; that is why they are in court. So take the tenure of the Motion, take the intendment of the sponsors of the motion, then you would fall squarely within the ambit of Order 93.
Mr Speaker, again, what the Hon Majority Leader is inviting you to do, is to motivate you enough to come to the conclusion that this House must not be seen to be conducting its affairs in such a way show disrespect to the other arms of government.
Mr Speaker, we are also being invited by this Motion that when we have shown concern, we call for a reconsideration, and that is exactly what the suit in court is trying to do. It is saying that the suit, and I think that we should give the plaintiffs in this matter the utmost respect as citizens of this country. They are saying that there is a serious problem about the \utility tariffs, that everybody is concerned, including Government, that Parliament passed a law which made the utility bodies independent and autonomous; that the Executive are those who will implement the decisions of this independent body and in their view, the only neutral, impartial abiter in this matter is the court.
So why do we say as a Parliament, that having passed a law to make the utility bodies autonomous and independent and in pursuance of those powers, the PURC has come out with tariffs and that we are saying that, that law must not work, Let somebody else say so. Mr Speaker, --