Debates of 19 Jul 2010

MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:10 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:10 a.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Hon Members, Correction of Votes and Proceedings, of Friday, 16th July, 2010.

Hon Members, in the absence of any corrections, the Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 16th July, 2010 be adopted as the true record of proceedings.
URGENT QUESTIONS 10:10 a.m.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH 10:10 a.m.
Minister for Health (Dr Benjamin Kunbuor) 10:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the side effect following the vaccination is referred to as “adverse events following immunisation” (AEFI). This may be expected as identified during clinical trial of the vaccine -- or unexpected. The expected adverse events following H1N1 vaccination include, local reaction such as redness, soreness and swelling at the injection site, which less often can cause fever, muscle or joint aches or headaches. These symptoms are

generally mild and do not need medical attention and last one to two days. Rarely, the vaccines can cause allergic reactions, such as rashes, rapid swelling of deeper skin layers and tissues, asthma or a severe multi-system allergic reaction due to hypersensitivity to certain vaccine components.

Adverse events follow immunisation monitoring through a system called “Post Market Surveillance” or “Pharmaco- vigilance”. AEFIs are investigated and captured in investigation forms from regions and districts by staff of the Food and Drugs Board and health workers at all levels.

The emergency drugs for AEFI management are available at each health facility, post and all reported cases requiring medical attention are being managed free of charge by health workers at all levels.

Both expected and unusual AEFIs are being reported to the World Health Organisation (WHO). Informed decisions would be taken based on the seriousness and/or usual nature of such events in consultation with the WHO.

So far, about 390 minor and expected adverse events have been reported and they have been effectively managed.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Hon Member, your supplementary question.
Dr Prempeh 10:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would like to know from the Hon Minister for Health, what type of vaccine are we using in Ghana? Is it unajuvenated or ajuvenated? Is it multi shot syringe or single-shot syringe?
Dr Kunbuor 10:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, what I want to say is that that is a very technical area and I would need some notice here.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Yes, it is very technical, you need notice.
Dr Prempeh 10:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would understand what the Hon Minister is saying but he cannot answer this Question to the House and not find out these things. So he is trying to say he was not briefed well, but Mr Speaker, it is very, very important.
The type of vaccine being used in Ghana. -- [Interruptions]-- Yes, my question is very relevant to the Hon Member because does he know the number of people in his constituency who have complained of the side effects? Mr Speaker, the type of vaccine --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Hon Member, we know it is a very important Question, that is why it was admitted and treated as an Urgent Question.
Dr Prempeh 10:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, that is why I can understand your point. But if the Hon Minister cannot tell us the type of vaccine, the side effects, he might not be able to tell us. Because if the vaccine is ajuvenated or not, if it is a single shot syringe or multi shot syringe , Mr Speaker, I will proceed to ask the questions on the side effects that are happening in the country.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Hon Member for Manhyia, your Question talked about the problems associated with the vaccination; you never asked what type of vaccines are being used.
Mr Ambrose P. Dery 10:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that I do understand where Mr Speaker is coming from but I think we should understand the Hon Member for Manhyia. The side effects also relate to the type of vaccine, so if he asked the side effects in Ghana, he expects that the Hon
Minister will be briefed. I also understand where my brother the Hon Minister is coming from; he has not been briefed in that direction and therefore, we should not push him.
However, I want my Brothers at the back who are wearing our traditional jersey to know that the Hon Member has the right to ask that question and they should allow him to do so.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Hon Deputy Minority Leader, I agree entirely with you but the Hon Member must lay sufficient foundation to arrive at that point.
Dr Prempeh 10:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, if you will barely give me two minutes -- In 1976 -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Hon Member, you know the rules. Even though you are a young Member of this House, you are one of the Members who have learnt the rules very fast. So I recognize that and I know what you wanted to do.
Dr Prempeh 10:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I wanted to lay the foundation because if the Hon Minister had briefed the House of representatives, Ghanaians, our fears would have been allayed, and it should not take an Urgent Question for the House to be briefed in cases of emergency. So I was laying a foundation that in 1976, a flu vaccine was administered in this world and it caused problems - [Interruption.]
Hon Member: Were you born?
Dr Prempeh 10:20 a.m.
Yes, I was.
And we want to know, for there are reports from even the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) that are alleging that depending on the type of vaccination, certain type of effects come. So if the Hon Minister was not briefed, then I would like to stop here but then when he goes back, he has to be briefed very well and comes
Mr Dery 10:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity. I think that it will be a good idea for the Hon Minister for Health to come to this House, and through us, let the Ghanaian public know that those side effects that are scaring a number of people away from the vaccine should not have that result.
Mr Speaker, under Order 70, it is possible, if we agree for such a thing to be done. This is because you will realise that due to the technical orientation of my Hon Friend from Manhyia, he is taking an angle that excluded the Ministry's positive intervention. But if you look at Order 70 (2), it says:
“A Min i s t e r may make an announcement or a statement of government policy. Any such announcement or statement should be limited to facts which it is deemed necessary to make known to the House and should not be designed to provoke debate at this stage. Any Member may comment briefly, subject to the same limitation.”
Mr Speaker, so it remains for this House to determine if we consider this matter to be so serious. Because at the end of the day, if Government's efforts at getting H1N1 vaccines to the people of Ghana is going to be thwarted by misinformation and confusion, it might be necessary for the Hon Minister for Health to come here and make a Statement, and through us, get our people to turn up for the vaccines so that we can achieve the goal that the policy of Government sets out to achieve. So I would apply that we consider this.
Mr Speaker, on the lighter side, I like the way you were anticipating what my Hon Friend from Manhyia was going to say. I do not know whether you have the
assistance of Paul the Octopus in Germany because this clairvoyance that you are displaying is not known.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Well, Hon Members, I think the Hon Deputy Minority Leader will take it up with the Hon Majority Leader so that you will liaise with the Hon Minister who is here, so that depending on his programme, he may come and brief the Honourable House.
Dr Kunbuor 10:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the point is well made but the basis is that we would have been in this House after the World Health Organisation (WHO) has actually got back to us. In fact, there are two issues that we need to brief the House on and that are on the variety of CSM we had in the North and then on H1N1. But as you would know, these documentations, results and reports have to be sent to WHO.
WHO will have to look at them very closely. They gave us the guidelines and protocols, so they would want to find out the extent to which we follow the protocols, and they will issue us with a report, and that is what we will bring to the House.
On the more specific thing, we have no other vaccine than the one that WHO has manufactured. It is the only one vaccine that they have manufactured and that was the only one delivered to us; the country has not procured any vaccine beyond what was delivered by WHO.
Dr Prempeh 10:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in good faith, I would accept what the Hon Minister has just told us but he should understand that the vaccine being administered from the United States of America is very different in the vaccine being administered in Canada and the side effects are very different. We take it in good faith that he will be briefed and this House will be well informed.
Mr Cletus A. Avoka 10:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I take it that the sense -- and your direction is that the Hon Minister will at
the appropriate time come and brief this House on the H1N1 epidemic and then also the way forward as far as Ghana is concerned, including the drugs we use and the side effects, et cetera. We can be well informed because many of us are ignorant about the situation -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:20 a.m.
So many of us too are scared to go for it.
Hon Minister for Health, thank you very much for attending upon the House to answer the Urgent Question.
Hon Minister for Health, you have been discharged.
We also have in the House Hon Minister for Water Resources, Works and Housing to answer Questions.
MINISTRY OF WATER 10:20 a.m.
RESOURCES, WORKS AND 10:20 a.m.
HOUSING 10:20 a.m.
Minister for Water Resources, Works and Housing (Mr Alban S. K. Bagbin) 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, my attention was drawn to this Question earlier by the Hon Member and we had discussion on the issue but I got the filed Question just this morning. However, with the information I have, I will be able to answer it for the Hon Member.
Agona is one of the important towns in
the Afigya Sekyere District in the Ashanti Region and it is located in the central part of the region, about 30 kilometres north- east of Kumasi. It is one of the towns that

have fallen under the five-year programme of the Ministry after the completion of the Strategic Investment Programme from 2005 to 2007. The second phase which is referred to as the subsequent year investment programme takes care of the water needs of Agona and some of the towns in the area.

The current water supply system of Agona is based on ground water obtained from three mechanised boreholes but this definitely, is insufficient even though it is also expected to supply Gyamase and Tabre. Now, the programme is to drill six new boreholes in addition to the three and we believe that if these six new boreholes are drilled, they could produce sufficient water to supply Agona and the other two towns up to the year 2011.

But there is an additional problem; the problem is that of the presence of high ion content in the water. Therefore, the rehabilitation and expansion programme that would soon come on board, is to take care of not only the increase in the supply of potable water but we are going to install a plant that will be able to remove the ion content from the water and we will also be expanding the distribution network in Agona and the two towns, and this, we believe would take the town to the year

2011.

In fact, the population figures that

are estimated to be served up to 2011 are a little over 25,000 users. That is the programme that would soon commence before the end of this year. I have not been able to get the exact date because I could not get the technical men on the ground.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Mr Yeboah 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would
want to ask the Hon Minister that if
Mr Yeboah 10:30 a.m.


the Ministry knows that there is high ion content in the water they are now drinking, why is it that the Ministry has not addressed the situation but allowing the people to drink the water.
Mr Bagbin 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, my attention
to the ion content in the water supply of Agona West was drawn by the Hon Member of Parliament for the area, I think, about two weeks ago, and I immediately took action by informing the Ghana Water Company Limited to send technical men to the ground and action is being taken on it. I never had information that there was ion content in. Immediately we got the information, we took action on the situation.
So, I would have to apologise on behalf of the company for not diligently following up to be able to measure the ion content in the water that is supplied to Agona. As I said, serious action will be taken on it and following on to make sure that this is done even before the expansion is taken care of.
I had to call the resident doctor of the hospital, who threatened to close down the hospital, that they should hold on, action would be taken to cure that deficiency to enable clean, potable water to be served in the area and he understood me and they are still operating in the area. We are sorry that the relevant institution did not take quick action on the matter until he drew my attention to it.
Mr Yeboah 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, since there
is no free lunch in this world and the people of Agona town are paying huge water bills, can the Hon Minister and his Ministry promise us that they will do something like asking the water company to put some fund at the bank so that when in future, some people are sick because of the ion content, it will be used to help pay
their hospitals bills? Also, can he endorse it for the company to put some fund aside to help the people who are going to get sick because of the ion content?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Hon
Mr Bagbin 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I got the
sense of the question, and I just want to assure my Hon Colleague that the usual performance assessment and sanctions will be taken against the officials involved and whatever ameliorated actions that are to be taken, would be taken in the circumstances.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Your last
supplementary question.
Mr Yeboah 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I want to
know from the Hon Minister, when would this be done?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Hon
Minister, you said you would take some action and he asked, “when would this be done?”
Mr Bagbin 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, at this
stage that action has already been taken and there are men on the ground trying to assess the quality of the water; even though it is being stated and there is evidence that the ion content is high, they need to do that assessment, they need to look at the kind of equipment to use. So that is already being done.
As to the action being taken against the officials, that definitely, is administrative and it would be done after at least, we have been able to solve the problem. It is important that we do not let that becloud the central issue of providing potable water for the people.
But I assure him that action will be taken and taken promptly.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Hon
Members, we now move to Question
number 438 standing in the name of the Hon Member for Adenta.
The Hon Member for Adenta is not here, so we move to Question number
493.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 10:40 a.m.
MINISTRY OF WATER 10:40 a.m.
RESOURCES, WORKS AND 10:40 a.m.
HOUSING 10:40 a.m.
Mr Alban S. K. Bagbin 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Ministry started the National Housing Programme in 1994 with the objective of providing houses for low and middle- income workers of the country. Between 2000 and 2004, the policy lulled. Then in 2005, a project, dubbed “Affordable Housing Project” to provide 100,000 housing units over a five-year period was initiated.
To date, in fact, 5,138 housing units are at various stages of construction at six sites, namely, Borteyman-Nungua, Kpone near Tema, in the Greater Accra Region; Asokore-Mampong in the Ashanti Region; Koforidua in the Eastern Region, Tamale in the Northern Region and Wa, in the Upper West Region.
In addition to this, a number of investors, (that is, both local and foreign), have expressed interest to participate in the Government's National Housing Programme. To this end, the Ministry has signed Memoranda of Understanding
with several of these investors. In all, a total of about 145,802 safe, decent and low-income affordable housing units of various types would be constructed and delivered by the following:
Messrs STX Engineering and Construction Ghana Limited with a project proposal of about US$10 billion from Korea for 200,000 units, with 45 per cent of the units, that is, 90,000 housing units earmarked for workers including the security services.
Messrs Goodwill International Group of Companies, 14,360 affordable houses of various kinds to be constructed in all the regional capitals of the country.
Messrs Agu Resources Limited in partnership with African-Asian Financial and Properties Holding Company LLC of USA and with the support of Government is constructing 10,000 units at Nsakina near Amasaman.
Messrs Italconstruct International Limited for 11,332 housing units.
Messrs Swiftforms Systems Limited for 20,000 housing units to be constructed in the ten (10) regional capitals.
The State Housing Company Limited has proposed to construct 110 housing units countrywide. The company has vast tract of lands at various locations in the country, which it proposes to utilise for the construction of housing estates.
Definitely, the constraints of the company is the budget, because they are depending on the budget to do that. So this is what we have now in place to try
Prof. (Emeritus) Amoako 10:40 a.m.
Mr
Speaker, in the Minister's Answer, in paragraph (2), he mentioned that 5,138 housing units were at various stages of construction under the affordable housing project. May I know from him whether this project is on-going or has been abandoned?
Mr Bagbin 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, this project
is definitely ongoing - definitely, on- going. The difficulty we are encountering is that the documentation seems to be giving different figures and we are taking a physical count to make sure that the numbers are right, and to look at the stages of completion. Some of them have not even started and some of the contractors have not reported to site since 2008.
We are trying to locate them and some of the addresses they have given are not easy to locate and therefore, the Deputy Minister in charge of Housing, own Colleague, Hon Maj. (Dr) (Alhaji) Mustapha Ahmed (retd) is physically visiting the sites -- he has done that and we are taking count, and very soon we would be briefing this House comprehensively on that project so that together, we can push it faster than it is going.
Prof. (Emeritus) Amoako 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in the Minister's Answer, again, in paragraph (3), he said - “In addition to this, a number of investors (that is, both local and foreign) …” Of the companies listed on page 25, may I know which ones are local and which ones are foreign?
Mr Bagbin 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, definitely, the State Housing Company is local. The other companies, we have Messrs Agu Resources Limited, which is a local company. They are only getting the
financial support from African-Asian Financial -- but it is a local company. Messrs Goodwill International Group of Companies is led by Ghanaians. Basically, it is a local company.
The others , even though they are registered locally, have a larger shareholding from outside, that is why I said both local and foreign. Like the STX Engineering and Construction Ghana Limited, the shareholding, basically, is about 90 per cent Korea and 10 per cent Ghana. Messrs Swiftforms Systems Limited and Messrs Italconstruct International Limited are in the same light. There are Ghanaian partners but basically led by foreign investors.
Prof. (Emeritus) Amoako 10:40 a.m.
Mr
Speaker, I believe those companies he has designated as “local” are all private companies? State Housing Company is a public company -- I am a little disturbed about the numbers -- Why is it that State Housing Company, which is a public company, is building only 110 housing units and the others are in the regions of thousands --10,000, 14,000, 11,000 and so on. Would the Hon Minister please, explain the rationale behind this?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:40 a.m.
He has
explained but Hon Minister?
Mr Bagbin 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I did state that it is just an issue of financing. The State Housing Company is depending on Budget, while the rest are looking outside. So far, this is what they have proposed to do -- In fact, the proposal was for this year. In future they also want to go the full hog in seeking assistance from financial institutions, both local and foreign, and there are discussions to see how best to do that because they have the land. And they are also in a lot of arrears because many Ghanaians have shown interest in their properties and have paid some monies to
the State Housing Company and they are not living up to expectation. So the new leadership is looking beyond the issue of annual budget and that is why we have this small figure against their name.
But these other companies are looking far higher than just that and we are supporting them with the normal government facilitation and incentives. Even Ghana Real Estates Developers Association (GREDA) members have come to discuss with me the Government's facilitation and support and I am aware of the actions being taken. But we cannot term those houses for workers because the Question is on houses for workers, not the whole housing industry.
Mr Joseph B. Aidoo 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in view of what has happened to STX Engineering and Construction Ghana Limited of late, does the Hon Minister still have faith in the STX proposed deal?
Mr Bagbin 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, my understanding of what happened in Parliament on Friday was that Parliament decided that the Joint Committee on Finance and Works and Housing should reconsider the issues that were raised and re-present their Report to the House for debate. I have not, in any way, read any loss of faith in the STX housing project from the House. And I am very committed and very hopeful that this House would reconsider that Report before even we go on recess.
Ms Cecilia Abena Dapaah 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I want the Hon Minister to elaborate fur ther on the type of relationship that the Ministry, on behalf of Government, has with Messrs Goodwill International. This is because in his response [Interruption] All right, I think,

I would end there -- to elaborate on the type of relationship between the Ministry and Goodwill International Limited.
Mr Bagbin 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is the same relationship we are having with the other companies; that they have come into the country, they want to go into the housing sector; they come to the Ministry to discuss how we can partner to make sure they deliver housing that will be affordable to particularly low and middle- income workers. And that is why I took the trouble to even go and inaugurate the commencement of the project. So, it is the same relationship, nothing apart from that.
Mr Emmanuel A. Owusu-Ansah 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in the Hon Minister' Answer at page 25, he gave indications about private companies which are in the construction industry for houses for the nation. And in most of them, he indicated where the houses are to be constructed. In the case of Messrs Italconstruct International Limited, the 11,332 housing units, he has not indicated where they are to be constructed. May I know from him where these housing units will be constructed and how soon will they be constructed?
Mr Bagbin 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the proposal is to construct houses for the Ghana Police Service and the Government. The numbers have not yet been finalised; they are yet to come for us to discuss that. And that is why [Interruption].
I am sorry, the location has not been agreed upon. But this is the proposal they submitted to the Ministry. They have submitted an MOU which is being discussed. And usually, we send them to the Attorney-General's Department for advice. So, until we get advice from the Attorney-General's Department, I believe it is not proper for me to go into what is still under discussion. So, the site has not been finalised. But this is the proposal.
Mr Theophilus T. Chaie 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, according to the Hon Minister, in 2005, as
Mr Bagbin 10:50 a.m.
Well, Mr Speaker, what we have on the ground is that none of the housing units has been completed. I think the problem that was encountered in the implementation was one of the availability of financing.
Initially, the HIPC funds were being used for financing the cost of the construction and GH¢40 million was used. And then the Government had to go to SSNIT when that ran out, to borrow GH¢30 million, making a total of GH¢70 million. But no unit has yet been completed. In fact, at Wa, it has not yet commenced at all.
That is why we are taking some time to go into it but the small bills that are being presented on the work that is ongoing are being taken care of through the use of the normal Budget provisions. But we need to do that and we have to come to the House to assist the Ministry to look for a reliable source of funding to be able to complete all the 5,138 housing units.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:50 a.m.
The last on this matter - Hon Member for Old Tafo?
Dr A. A. Osei 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in the Hon Minister's Answer, he says that a Memorandum of Understanding with several of these investors have been signed with the Ministry and that he will expect a total of 145,802 houses including the 90,000 from STX. Is he in a position to tell us, those that are related to Messrs Goodwill International Limited, Agu Resources Limited, and Swiftforms Systems Limited, whether public funds will be used to fund those houses?
Mr Bagbin 10:50 a.m.
Definitely, Mr Speaker, as it stands now, there are provisions being made by the various companies. But because Government wants the houses to be affordable up to the stage that Ghanaian workers and others can acquire them, Government is definitely supporting these companies with some incentives.
In fact, we did the same to the local companies as far back in 1996, like Regimanuel and the rest, which made the houses affordable to the generality of Ghanaians, including workers. Some Hon Members of this House even benefited from those facilities. It is the same thing. We are not using any funding to support these companies from Government sources. If there is the need for us to do so, we will definitely have to get the approval of this House.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:50 a.m.
I do not want to take more than one on this matter. So, since the Hon Deputy Majority Leader is on his feet, I would take him.
Mr Abdul-Rashid Pelpuo 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I just heard the Hon Minister say that Wa - none of the 5,000 houses in various stages of completion is in Wa. I want to find out whether he has some plans to ensure that in the event of revisiting the construction of these houses, Wa will be included before the others. This is because I know Hon Ambrose Dery who was then the Hon Regional Minister acquired some land for that. I do not know whether he would consider sending some of the houses there.
Mr Bagbin 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the issue on Wa was because that was the last regional capital to have benefited from the project. The land has been acquired, and the plots have been allocated to the contractors.
The only problem is the nature of

the awards. The materials were given to different contractors while the civil works were given to different contractors. So the main civil works contractors had to wait for the other contractors to supply the materials, including blocks before they commenced works, and that is what is happening in Wa.

The ten main contractors are waiting for the other materials, contractors to supply the blocks and the rest for them to start. That is where we think that we have to relook at the whole system of the award of contract to make these things work. So that is what is accounting for the delay, but that is definitely, an area that will receive some attention. However, the other projects are ongoing now. Wa is yet to commence.

Control of Floods in Accra

Q.494. Prof. (Emeritus) Samuel K.

Amoako: asked the Minister for Water Resources, Works and Housing what measures had been taken to control flooding, especially in Accra, in the face of the rainy season this year.
Mr Alban S.K. Bagbin 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, Central Government has made available, a total sum of (GH¢3,420,000.00), three million, four hundred and twenty thousand cedis for emergency flood relief activities this year, 2010.
The activities being undertaken include
the following:
i. d e s i l t i n g , e x c a v a t i o n and widening of channels;
ii. l i n i n g a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n of specified channels,
iii. c o n s t r u c t i o n o f 1 7 N o . culverts at critical locations at road- channel crossings for both vehicular and pedestrians;
and
iv. construction of a footbridge.
With the aim of improving flows in channels and other waterways in order to convey flood waters out of flood-prone communities. This will consequently reduce the incidence of flooding in floodprone areas in the country. The exercise, which is in progress in various towns and cities of the country, is nearing completion.
Prof. (Emeritus) Amoako 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I find the Hon Minister's Answer a little evasive. In my Question, I was asking for what is happening generally, emphasising what is happening in Accra. I do not see the Answer addressing it to what is happening in the entire country or in Accra specifically. So may I ask him where the desilting, excavation and widening of channels are going on, where in Ghana?
Mr Bagbin 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the works referred to, are taking place all over the country. The GH¢3.42 million specific works are taking place in Accra, Kpando, Kumasi, Ada, Tefle, and Takoradi. So there are a number of towns benefiting from this. But the amount of money required for us to make an impact is definitely far higher than the GH¢3.42 million and therefore, this is just remedial works.
But the major ones are taking place in Accra, where you have the usual Odaw Stream, Gbawe and the larger drainage channels being excavated and widened. So a large chunk of the money is being spent in Accra, but there are also small works going on in the other towns and cities.
Prof. (Emeritus) Amoako 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would have been satisfied if the Hon Minister had said this earlier . But if you look at his Answer number (ii), he
said, and I quote:
“lining and construction of specified channels, ”
I am interested in knowing which ones. Are these channels in Accra? If they are in Accra, where in Accra?
Mr. Bagbin 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, definitely, I referred to some. But for purposes of clarification, the Odaw Stream, near where they call the Courseway Down is one. If you go to Achimota, Mile 7 is the other; if you go to Gbawe, you have some going on there; you have some going on at Kasoa and Martey Churu, there is some going on there. The foot bridge, if you want to know, is being constructed at Alogboshie, that is one footbridge for this year.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11 a.m.
Finally, your last supplementary question.
Prof. (Emeritus) Amoako 11 a.m.
Yes, the last one.
Mr Speaker, I would like to know from the Hon Minister, he himself admitted that the GH¢3,420,000.00 would not be enough, cannot even make a dent in the works required of controlling flooding. What is the Ministry doing about providing more funds for the control of flooding, especially in Accra?
Mr Bagbin 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we cannot go beyond what is allocated to the Ministry by the Budget. But the Ministry definitely, is not depending on just government revenue; the Ministry is going beyond that and bringing in others that will be prepared to support. But definitely, we have to provide the figures before this House for approval in the budget estimates.
Ms Cecilia Dapaah 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker,
I remember that last year, as a result of flooding, the Government provided GH¢10 million for flood control. Is this amount - the GH¢3.42 million part of that amount?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon Minister, are you aware of the GH¢10 million?
Mr Bagbin 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am talking about this year. Last year`s GH¢10 million, I am not aware of it but I am talking about what is in the Budget this year. I am saying that it is the amount that has been approved for this purpose and that is what is being utilised. The others, you may be talking about the Ministry of Roads and Highways but we are talking about what is approved for the Ministry of Water Resources, Works and Housing.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11 a.m.
Of course, you are the Ranking Member, I will give you a second chance; I will relax the rules in your favour.
Mrs Dapaah 11:10 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
This amount was for emergency flood control; so it was not part of the main Budget, it was an emergency flood control fund and I was tracking it. That was why I was asking whether the Ministry was able to access that money or not. That is what I want to find out.
Mr Bagbin 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, because the question was directed at this year, I did not look for the information on issues concerning last year. So now, I will go and crosscheck to see whether last year they were able to access it and if so, how much and what they did with that money.
Thank you very much.
Mr Justice Joe Appiah 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, may I crave your indulgence to read from the Answer the Hon Minister gave:
With the aim of improving flows in channels and other waterways in order to convey flood waters out of flood-prone communities. This will consequently reduce the incidence of flooding in flood-prone areas in the country. The exercise which is in progress in various towns and cities of the country is nearing completion.”
Mr Speaker, His Excellency the President, Prof. John Evans Atta Mills paid a working visit to Sakaman in the Ablekuma North Constituency and ordered that a storm drain should be constructed -- the Hydrological Services Department is under the Ministry of Water Resources, Works and Housing. What is the Hon Minister doing to start this project but allow people to demolish houses in Sakaman?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Hon Member, that is not a supplementary question.
Mr Appiah 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, His
Excellency paid a working visit to my constituency at Sakaman and he ordered that a huge storm drain should be constructed there. What is his Ministry doing because Hydrological Services Department is under his Ministry. As of now, they have not started the work and they have demolished people's houses. What is he doing to start that huge storm drain?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Hon Member, I have ruled that it is not a supplementary question. You can reframe it to still achieve the same purpose.
Mr Appiah 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I want to ask the Hon Minister about the huge storm drain which the President ordered to be constructed, what is he doing to start that project?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Hon
Member, it is not a supplementary question. Nobody has talked about the promise of the President at Sakaman. The Hon Minister, in all his answers, did not mention it. But if you want to relate it to the question of flooding, then you have to find a way of asking the question in that direction.
Mr Appiah 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is a flood-
prone area, that is why I am saying that.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Yes, Hon
Member for Ablekuma North, you must find out from him whether he was aware of even that promise at Sakaman, so you lay solid foundation for your question so that you can interlink it. I will give you the last chance to see whether you can interlink it.
Mr Appiah 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you
very much for your concern.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Hon Members, order!
Mr Appiah 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that
the Hon Member for Ablekuma South is disturbing me --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Hon
Member, address the Chair.
Hon Minister, he says what are you
doing about Sakaman which is a flood- prone area in Greater Accra?
Mr Bagbin 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am aware of the statement of His Excellency the President, when he visited the area but I do not know which of the drains he is talking about because his constituency in Ablekuma covers a large area with a number of drains.
But definitely, we would do this with the support of this House because the Budget provision will come to this House for approval and the issue he is talking about is being worked on by the Hydrological Services Department, which is a technical unit under the Ministry. If he wants us to update him on the state of the works now then he has to do the proper thing. However, he has the opportunity to ask a substantive Question, so that we can get the detailed information for him to take to his constituency.
Mr Yeboah 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I want
to ask the Hon Minister -- There is a damaged foot bridge in my constituency, how does he apply for this?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Hon
Member, that is not a supplementary question.
Hon Members, we move to the next Question, Question number 495.
Provision of Pipe- borne Water to Nyanyano Community
Q.495. Mr Ekow Payin Okyere Eduamoah asked the Minister for Water Resources, Works and Housing when Nyanyano community would be provided with pipe-borne water.
Mr Alban S.K. Bagbin 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, Gomoa Nyanyano is programmed to receive water from the Weija water treatment plant through Kasoa town.
A 150 mm water mains extension to Gomoa Nyanyano has been completed as part of the Kwanyaku - Kasoa Interconnection Project.
The unutil ised capacity of the
Kwanyaku Water Supply system is capable of serving Kasoa, Awutu Bereku and Nyanyano areas. Denys BV, which constructed the Kwanyaku new treatment plant is undertaking this phase of the project.
The contractor is currently testing the pipelines and Gomoa Nyanyano would enjoy potable water supply by the end of July, 2010. In fact, some portions of Nyanyano are enjoying pipe- borne water now.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Hon
Member, are you all right or?
Mr Eduamoah 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am
just coming from Nyanyano and water is flowing and I want to thank the Hon Minister.
Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
Mr
Speaker, in thanking the Hon Minister responsible for Water Resources, Works and Housing by his firm indication that potable water supply would be enjoyed by the people by the end of July, which is just about ten days from now, I think it is a welcome piece of news for the people of the area he has mentioned. But may he tell us when this programme commenced?
Mr Bagbin 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the
programme to connect Nyanyano with pipe-borne water commenced this year.
M r K y e i - M e n s a h - B o n s u : Mr Speaker, I am talking about the programme. The Hon Minister knows that the programme did not commence this year; he knows that. He cannot say this.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Hon Minority Leader, we are talking -
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
When we come here, Mr Speaker, with respect, we want to be served the truth and nothing but the truth. The Hon Minister knows what he is saying is not true.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Hon Minority Leader, you know the question to ask him; I will allow you. You know the
question to ask him to get the answer you want. It is there but the question that you asked him, that is the answer he gave you.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, he knows it is there, that is why I asked him the question and he is saying that it commenced this year. He knows that it is incorrect. The Hon Minister knows it is incorrect.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Member for Amenfi East, the last on this Question.
Mr Joseph B. Aidoo 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister has indicated that Gomoa Nyanyano is programmed to receive water from the Weija water treatment plant through Kasoa town meaning that this project is starting from the Weija water treatment plant. When did it start from the Weija water treatment plant?
Mr Bagbin 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the project that we have is the Kwanyaku-Kasoa Interconnection Project. The Weija treatment plant -- depending on which of the plants. There are three plants at Weija and one was constructed as far back as 1981. That is long ago. And that is the plant that serves Kasoa and its environs. But because a new water project was inaugurated and is almost completed for Kwanyaku, that will serve the areas that the water from Weija used to serve around Bawjiase and all those places; we now have some water left to serve Nyanyano. So that is the interconnection project -- [Interruption.]-- I said 1981. The plant that is serving the place was constructed in 1981.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Hon
Members, that brings us to the end of Question time.
We thank the Hon Minister for attending upon the House to answer Questions from
BILLS - CONSIDERATION 11:20 a.m.
STAGE 11:20 a.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
What is
the reason?
Mr Bandua 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we close
with perpetual succession so that any agreements, contracts or things that we may enter into, will survive it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Hon
Member, look at subclause 2 of the Bill. Is it not there?
Mr Bandua 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we will

delete it later on. After this amendment, I will delete those ones.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, you may recollect that the recent Bills that we have been crafting, we have been coming with a standardised formulation. So what the Hon Chairman is moving, is supposed to be in sync with what we have been doing.
M r F i r s t D e p u t y S p e a k e r :
Consistency?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:20 a.m.
Yes.
Mr J. B. Aidoo 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, even
though I am tempted to agree with the Hon Chairman and the Hon Minority Leader, if we look at subclause 2, when it is deleted, we would realize that a very important aspect of that clause will be lost. For instance,
“The Office is a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal and may sue and be sued in its corporate name.”
All that aspect will be lost, particularly with “common seal and may sue and be sued in its corporate name”. So I think subclause 2 should stand on its own.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
That is
why I asked them to look at subclause 2.
Mr W. O. Boafo 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, this
amendment is being made in conformity with the new Interpretation Act. That was the expert advice that the Attorney- General's Office Draft Section gave us and that is the very reason subclause (2) is being deleted.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
But they
drafted it and brought it here?
Anyway. Hon Minority Leader, the point being made by the Hon Member for
Amenfi East is that some of the wording of subclause (2) would be lost if we go by the amendment. So those of you who were at the winnowing -
Mr Bandua 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am inclined to believe that once we close it with “perpetual succession”, those other ones are implied.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
They can “sue and be sued” --, but does it go with the common seal?
Mr Bandua 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think all body corporate are supposed to have common seals.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, unfortunately, I do not have my Mutual Legal Assistance Bill with me. But I think we can leave that conveniently to the draftspersons and they will see whether incorporating it would not offend what we have done earlier and then we can move on. So subject to that, I believe you can put the Question.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Very well, I will put the Question and we shall all look at the Mutual Legal Assistance Act so that we will introduce the consistency.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1, subclause (2), delete.
This is in view of the amendment that was made in subclause (1).
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Hon Members, this is consequential.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1, subclause (3), delete.
Mr Speaker, it is consequential.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr Boafo 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, for your benefit and for future guidance, the relevant provision in the Interpretation Act is section 24, which sets out extensively the -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
What is
there?
Mr Boafo 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, with your
permission, if I may read:
“Where an enactment contains words establishing or providing for the establishment of a body corporate, the words operate--
a) To vest in that body when established, the power to sue and be sued.
b) To contract and be contracted by its corporate name.
c) The right to have a common seal and to alter or change that seal which common seal shall be judicially noticed and shall authentic a document to which it is affixed and attested in accordance with the law applicable to the attestation of documents.
d)The right to acquire and hold real or personal property for the purposes for which the corporation is constituted and
to dispose of or charge that property.
e)The right to regulate its own procedures and business.
f) And the rights subject to article 195 of the Constitution to employ the necessary staff for the performance of its functions.
Mr Speaker, it was in the vein of this provision that the Attorney-General's Office advised that there is no need for such an extensive provision.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Yes, that is correct but the other view being held by the Hon Member for Amenfi East means that when you take the Act, you must always read it together with the Interpretation Act to get the full import. We are making laws for the ordinary people of this country who do not even know that you need an Interpretation Act to understand an Act. So, why do you not leave it in the common and the natural form so that when they pick the Act, they can see it is only when it calls for interpretation that we fall on the Interpretation Act, which ordinary people do not do?
The House may have to take a second look at that approach and see which one is better because how many people will have to know that if I take this Act, I must hold the Interpretation Act together? We are legislating for the ordinary people of this country and when they take a Bill, the Bill as much as possible should speak for itself. And so, we may want to revisit this matter in future but for now, let us proceed.
Mr Boafo 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe that in the process of legislation, we will try through that means, to educate the public so that they will know that when they are considering Acts of Parliament, there is a basic law, second to the Constitution of
Mr J. B. Aidoo 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in making laws, we do not do them only for the lawyers. As it stands now, in respect of the Interpretation Act which Hon Boafo is talking about, substantial ingredients are being lost here. For example, the holding of common seal and the issue that the body corporate may sue and be sued in its body corporate name is lost. When you go to subclause 3, the body's authority to hold movable and immovable property and to enter into contract and all those ingredients are also lost and it goes on and on.
So, if you are not a lawyer, it means that when you take this law, you will be found wanting as to the right import of what this law is carrying and that is what some of us are concerned about. Even though we have the Interpretation Act, it has captured some of these ingredients there. I believe that they should also be supplied here so that the law becomes simple instead of it being very rigid in the way we are putting it. It is becoming too rigid for some of us.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
I think all of us now have to start attending the winnowing.
Hon Members, let us proceed but if in the wisdom of the House, we think that we should change course, well, we may want to change, but let us continue.
Mr Bandua 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1, subclause (4), at end, add “and the cost shall be borne by the Office”.
So, it will read as follows:
“Where there is hindrance to the acquisition of property, the property may be acquired for the Office under the State Property and Contracts Act
1960 CA 6 or the State Lands Act 1962 and the cost shall be borne by the Office.”
Mr Speaker, I think while it is at the instance of the Office that the property is being bought, they have to bear the cost. That is the reason for this amendment.
Mr J.B. Aidoo 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, here again I have a problem. This subclause starts with “Where there is hindrance…”, meaning, in the event of a hindrance. This suggests that already there had been a premise but that premise has been taken away by the deletion of subclause (3) and now, you take subclause (4), there is a problem there. So, why then are we not deleting sub clause (4) together with (2) and (3) and all that?
Why are we not deleting all of them together if we say that they have all been captured under the Interpretation Act? Why should subclause (4) stand here because it is standing here only on one leg, the other leg is missing?
Prof. Gyan-Baffour 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think we have to take a decision right now before we move on because it looks like we are trying to make laws for just interpretation purposes -- for lawyers. But I think we are lawmakers and we make laws for the people and the people should understand what we have done. They should not have to be told that when you are reading a law, you have to go and read it concurrently with something else, no. We are looking at this particular law and maybe, they do not even have the Interpretation Act, so if we decide that because it is there, we should leave it here, I do not think that is right. And we will go on, finish it and then have to come back but I think if we have to take a decision, let us take the decision now, so that we do not have to come back again to amend these laws.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Bandua 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think he has a point there because initially, there should be --
“Where the Office may for the purpose of its functions acquire both movable and immovable property.”
If that one comes before this other one follows, that will give us a better understanding. But I mean, how to frame it, that should be left to the draftpersons. I do not know whether we may have to stand this one down so that the drafts- person will take a second look at it and see how to reframe the whole -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Hon Minority Leader, you have been very active with this Bill?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the purpose for the Motion moved by the Hon Chairman really is to standardise the laws that we have been making in recent times. But I understand the point being raised by the Hon Member for Amenfi East because clause 4 talks about hindrance to the acquisition of property, which we have deleted in the amendment proposed by the Chairman. So that if you now come to talk about “where there is a hindrance”, then of course, you have to go back and refer to the Interpretation Act. And that makes it a bit untidy.
I would want to believe that you may have to have a second look at it. I think the effort really is to try not to repeat but then you will also realise that when you come to the establishment of the governing body of the Office, the appointment is to be made by the President, that is constitutional, that is captured in the Constitution. Would we then say that we should also remove that because it is captured in the Constitution? So I think maybe, we need
a better thinking through of the process.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
If I am allowed to express my sentiments on this matter - that is where I stand on this matter. We should be able to take a piece of legislation, an ordinary person should be able to take a piece of legislation and be able to read and understand it. But where you have to read it with the Interpretation Act before you get the import, we are not doing good to the generality of the people of this country and I want us to take a closer look again at it.
The good news is that those who are now advising you, they themselves brought it in this form to this House and we are now changing it here. It is becoming more complicated. People should be able to take a piece of legislation, read it and understand it. And then when you come to look again, what we are even adding to that clause, if properties are acquired them, under the State Property Act and Contracts Act, it is the State that has acquired them, it is not for that Office. After that the dealing between that Office and the State, is a matter between the State and that Office. So the Office does not even come into the picture at that stage - You would see that the Attorney-General advises on all these things but at the end of the day, there is a central fund at the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning that pays for some of these valuations and all those things under the law. So, when we come, we will look at them. So, I will defer the Question on clause 1, then the Leadership and the Committee get in touch and then we all agree as to what to do.
Hon Members, let us continue.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 - Functions of the Office.
Mr Bandua 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to

move, clause 3, paragraph (a), sub- paragraph (i), line 1, delete “to any State” and insert “any State”.

“Serious” because if you read the whole clause:

“a) investigate and on the authority of the Attorney-General , prosecute serious offences that involve” --

If we repeat “serious” here, in fact, the word “serious” goes to define the magnitude of the offence. We want to say that it is substantial. The degree, the magnitude of the offence is being defined by the word “substantial”. Instead of repeating “serious” here, that “serious” comes to define and qualify the serious offence by indicating that the offence is of a higher gravity or it is substantial, that is the reason for this amendment. And then when we come to the second part, “to any State”, so serious financial or economic loss to the public or any State. The “to” is irrelevant there.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe there is a small mix- up, the second leg, the deletion of “to any State”, the substitution or insertion is not “any State”, we only insert “any” “not any State”. So that it will read,
“substantial financial economic loss to the public or any entity or institution in which the State has financial interest.”
Mr Bandua 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think I agree with him. I think that “State” becomes repetitive there. So his observation is correct. I support the amendment, Mr Speaker.
Mr J. B. Aidoo 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, my problem is with the substitution of the word “serious” and its replacement with “substantial”. Mr Speaker, is the Hon Chairman trying to say that in the event that there is a loss to the State, and that loss is not substantial, but then the loss is of criminal nature, this particular Act will not deal with it? If it is a loss and it is a serious loss, it has to take it on board?
Therefore, using the word “substantial”, in my view actually, will not cure the defect we are trying to deal with because any loss, is a loss, it does not matter whether it is a small loss or a big loss, provided it is of criminal nature, provided it is a serious loss to the State. I believe that the law should deal with it.
Mr Bandua 11:40 a.m.
Mr.Speaker, I think his fears have been taken care of because “serious offences” has been defined in the Act, so that if there are any controversies, you will just refer to what “serious offence” stands for and your problem is solved.
Mr Boafo 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the substitution is being made because in the legal lexicology, the expression “substantial” has a crystalised meaning than “serious”. That is precisely why we changed it from “serious” to “substantial”. So that there will be no need to look for new interpretation. It has already been defined in decided cases and in Shrawd's Dictionary on Law.
Mr First Deputy speaker 11:40 a.m.
Yes, but this is a statute we are creating; we are making a law in the area of a criminal offence and it is important that when we use words, they are very clear so that their interpretation is not abused.
I have always told you that I have learnt my lesson. Have you defined “substantial, financial or economic loss”? Have they been defined in the Bill?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think, on a second thought, we can even delete the word “substantial”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
In fact, that is what I am even moving towards. So, if you keep it, you must define it. If you keep “substantial financial loss”, you must define what you mean by “substantial financial loss”, so that we are all clear. So that when anybody is charged with it, he knows what it means by “substantial financial loss”. If you do not define it, then that means that the word “substantial” must go, as the Hon Minority Leader is suggesting.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I said I believe that upon reflection, we can delete it because we have defined “serious offence” and we are saying that any serious offence that involves financial or economic loss. The offence may be serious but in terms of financial or economic loss, it may not be very substantial but the intent is what matters. Because, for instance, at a personal level -- if armed robbers come to your house, they want to cause serious, maybe, bodily harm to you. They want your money; they are not able to get money because you yourself did not have enough money in your house. They succeed in taking the little money that you had.
Is it to be construed that because the loss was very minimal in respect of financial loss, it does not make the offence a serious one? It is a serious offence, nonetheless. So, I believe that we can delete the further qualification of “substantial” and I think it will not derogate from the construction.
Prof. Gyan-Baffour 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker,
my concern actually goes beyond the adjectives “serious” and “substantial”. I think that the “financial loss” itself has to be defined here because it turns out to be that “lack of performance” is interpreted by the courts at certain times to mean “financial loss”.
If I issue a cheque to somebody and he spends the money and he does not perform the way he is expected to perform, it comes out to mean “financial loss to the State”. Therefore, I think that the interpretation -- We have to try and define what this “financial loss” itself is and not maybe, the adjective to that but what is it that we are referring to as “financial loss” or “economic loss.”
Mr Bandua 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, like the
Hon Minority Leader said, I think we can delete the “substantial”. But as to defining “financial loss”, I think it is so broad that we may have to leave that interpretation to the courts.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
When you
are creating a more or less criminal offence sort of, that is where we are moving towards, then you have to be very clear in your mind. I think that -
Mr Barton-Odro 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have personally had problems with this issue of “financial loss”. It is rather broad and amorphous of a sort. I do not know if we would be doing the right thing if we should be defining it here but it is worth considering because if it is a criminal offence, then it must be well defined so that you know the ambit. We need to take a serious look at it. As a personal opinion, that is where I stand.
Mr Chireh 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in relation to what the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice is saying, we cannot do so in this Bill because the substantive provision in the Criminal Offences Act defines it. If he says he has problems with defining it, then that is where the amendment should come from so that we will further elaborate on the definition there. Because in that provision, the definition is rather nebulous. It is not that it is not there. It is too open ended and the ingredients are there but not clearly elaborated.
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker,
I am sorry, I was just enquiring from the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice where the draftsperson is because I remember before we commenced, you posed that question. He is the political authority but the technical people should be here to also assist us.
We are talking about a definition that
is in the Criminal Offences Act -- we are not even sure. We do not know the precise definition, whether it will even cover this one. This is a simple Bill dealing with specific matters.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
When we
introduced the law of causing financial loss, then the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) was created and the understanding at that time was that that was one of the areas they were supposed to concentrate on. So, now that the thinking is changing in this House and given all the difficulties that we have with that law in this country, and any law that removes certainty, it means that that law has problems. I do not know whether I should continue or defer the matter on this particular clause while we make progress. Do not forget that they are changing the “serious” to “substantial”-- The “substantial” has been withdrawn.
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11:50 a.m.
What is
the difference between “serious” and “substantial”?
Mr Barton-Odro 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, what
we are saying is that based on the proposal by the Hon Member, we think that if we withdraw “substantial”, it would not make any difference to the rendition there.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
That
“serious offence” is also defined in the Bill?
Mr Barton-Odro 11:50 a.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
“Serious,” which is different from “financial loss”, but you have “serious offence”, which has been defined in the Bill and if you want us to, I will do that; I will put the Question.
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker,
if it is acceptable to the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and the pro tem Deputy Chairman of the Committee, I will propose that we defer this matter and we come to it later. Some of these things, we should try as much as possible to avoid any ambiguity -- and we have so many amendments. We can continue while we look at this one again.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
I think the
advice from the Hon Member for Sekondi should be taken because when you are invited to the new office, Economic and Organised Crime Office, they must know what they are investigating and what they are investigating must be an offence under the Criminal Code. So, if that is not known to the Criminal Code and we want them to investigate it, then there is a problem.
Hon Member for Akropong, I hope you
have got the point I am making? What they are investigating itself, what you are being investigated for or the caution statement being taken from you must in itself be known to the law.
Mr Boafo 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the offence that would be investigated would be the serious offence but in the course of it, they will look for certain ingredients to establish your involvement and in this case, they will look for whether it involves financial loss. It is not every financial loss that will be the subject matter of investigation by that Office. It is a financial loss which must be “serious” or in other words, “substantial”. It is not every financial loss. If it is an ordinary financial loss that we are talking about, then it goes back to the police.
As I was saying, Mr Speaker, in taking the law, we are guided in our understanding by the deciding cases under our official Acts. We do not only take it and just implement it but we are guided by decided cases and we have decided cases on “financial loss”.
Earlier, I did state that when we want to find out the meaning of “substantial”, we have crystalised means; you can go to the Shrawd's Law Dictionary; you can go to the decided cases. There are other sources that you can fall on. It is not our duty to interpret the law. It depends on the dynamics.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
We are not interpreting but there should be certainty of what we are providing for in the law --
Mr Boafo 11:50 a.m.
But we need the interpretation too?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
It should be very clear that this is what we want because if the courts themselves have problems, they will go back and refer to the debate here, the discussions here, to guide them. We must be very clear.
Mr J. B. Aidoo noon
Mr Speaker, the memorandum to this Bill, clearly states that the law establishing the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), Act 466 is mandated -- that is, the SFO is mandated to investigate and detect crimes that are likely to cause serious financial or economic loss to the State. So, it is most likely that this law might have dealt with financial and economic losses that are of serious nature. Therefore, I believe that there should be a law in respect of Act 466, which deals with this matter that is before us.
So, we can continue but my beef was with the word “substantial”, because it is difficult to actually quantify the “substantial” nature of a loss, it is difficult. A loss can be serious but quantifying it is the problem. That is why we requested that the word “substantial” should be withdrawn. Of course, we can still take it as “serious financial or economic loss”. I think that can do for this particular case or we can even delete “serious” altogether and it can still hold.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon
Members, I would want to take solace under the Standing Orders by deferring that particular clause, so that we do further consultation on it. So we proceed.
Mr Bandua noon
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, paragraph (a), sub- paragraph (iv), delete and insert “(iv) prohibited cyber activity”.
Mr Speaker, “prohibited cyber activity” has been defined at page 20 of the Order Paper.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr Bandua noon
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 3, paragraph (b), delete “crime” and insert “unlawful activity”.
Mr Speaker, it will read “recover the
proceeds of unlawful activity”. “Proceeds of unlawful activity” has been defined at page 35 of the Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon
Members, the terminology, I do not know whether it has changed. If you have been in white colour crime, it is “proceeds of crime”. That is the standard terminology. If you have ever been in white colour crime as some of us have worked in white colour crime, the terminology
is “proceeds of crime”. I do not know whether the technical people have given you any reason it should not be “proceeds of unlawful activity”; if it is a crime, then it is also unlawful anyway. “Proceeds of crime” is a standard term.
Chairman of the Committee?
Mr Bandua noon
Mr Speaker, they have
not given us any definition but they have defined “proceeds of unlawful activity” in the Bill. So, I am of the opinion that since they have defined what they mean by “proceeds of unlawful activity”, that is the position.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
You know certain civil activities can be unlawful? So do you think that they should also be covered? It is purely civil.
Mr Bandua noon
In the context of this
Bill, I think that the interpretation that has been provided is crime.
Mr J. B. Aidoo noon
Mr Speaker, for
purposes of consistency, the amendment being proposed will not hold. Mr Speaker, throughout the memorandum, it is indicated that the Bill provides for the recovery of “proceeds of crime” and this can be found in paragraph 1 of the memorandum and even when you go to paragraph 4, again, it says that:
“The object of the Office is to detect and prevent organised crime and generally to facilitate the confiscation of the proceeds of crime.”
If you take the clauses, as they stand, clause 2, that is, clause 2 (b) --
“The objects of the Office are to -- generally to facilitate the confiscation of proceeds of crime”.
There is nowhere “unlawful activity” has been indicated and we must be consistent”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
If you
want a situation where you want to expand the net, then you add “unlawful activity” to the “proceeds of crime”. But deleting it -
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Yes, Hon Minister.
Mr Chireh noon
Mr Speaker, I believe that this change has been necessitated by the fact that there are standard provisions in the kind of Bills of this nature, agreed on internationally. So, if you limit it to “crime”, it means that you need to establish criminal conduct, convict the person before you can - but if there is no criminal prosecution, the evidence of “unlawful activity” in itself, qualifies for this. In order that we broaden the scope, I will go either for us to adopt the proposed amendment or do what you have suggested, so that we broaden the scope.
Now, if you leave it to “proceeds
of crime”, it is too open. What crime? Unless “crime” is defined here, to restrict it to the Bill that we are about to pass. I will suggest that the “unlawful activity”, which has been defined to include “the proceeds from criminal activity”. That should be the case.
So, my first preference would be for us to support the amendment because these are laws being made as a result of international compacts entered into by different countries. The terminologies seem to be very uniform. But if you limit it to “crime”, it may not be broad enough. So I will support the amendment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Minister, if it is an international best practice that they want to bring, when did
they develop it? Because the proposers of the Bill used “proceeds of crime”. It is this House that is changing it to “unlawful activity”. So when did that international best practice come into being?
Mr Boafo noon
Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman of the Committee indicated that the interpretation section defines what is meant by “proceeds of unlawful activity”, that is, under section 75 or so, that is the interpretation section. We do not have any definition of “proceeds of crime” -
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Which page do we have the definition?
Mr Boafo noon
That is page 35. Mr Speaker, if it is a question of consistency, then we only have to amend clause 2 (b). So clause 2 (b) will read --
“The objects of the office are to --
“generally to facilitate confiscation the of the proceeds of unlawful activity”.
Instead of “crime”, to be consistent with clause 3 (b). Otherwise, we will have to provide the definition of what is meant by “proceeds of crime”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Where do
we have the “unlawful activity”? I cannot find it in my Bill.
Mr Boafo 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is “proceeds of unlawful activity”, that is page 35, line 6. It says:
“proceeds of unlawful activity” means any property derived from or obtained through the commission of a serious offence.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Is it a criminal offence or civil offence?
Mr Boafo 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is a criminal offence because reference is made to the commission of a serious offence and “serious offence” has been defined extensively on page 36, line 5.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
I have seen it.
Mr Boafo 12:10 p.m.
And even the definition of “serious offence” is not exhaustive. It says:
‘serious offence” includes' . . .”
So the ejusdem generic rule will apply in this case that whatever crime that can fall under this one, would be considered.
Mr Speaker, we have to make quality laws, we do not have to sacrifice mediocrity in this case at all. We do not have to. We have to make quality laws. We are not making the laws only here, we are also making them to the international community. We must have that in mind. We should be concerned with the ordinary man on the street.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Very well. So what is “serious fraud” in law? Hon Member for Akropong, you have referred me to “serious offence”, so what is ‘serious fraud' in law?
Mr Boafo 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, you would know very well that if I am on my feet now and you ask me what is meant by “serious fraud” - [Laughter.]
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
This is because you referred me to “serious offence” and under “serious offence” is “serious fraud”. I am asking you, what is ‘serious fraud'?
Mr Boafo 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if I have a case on “serious fraud”, before I proceed to appear before the Bench, I would have researched on what the meaning of
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
But we are passing the law, we must know what it is before we pass it.
Mr J. B. Aidoo 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have difficulty with the definition of “unlawful activity.” Mr Speaker, let me give a very simple example. I enter your office, use your laptop without your authorisation, certainly, that is an unlawful activity. But the question is, is that a crime for which I should be prosecuted under this law? It is an unlawful activity of course, but we are looking at serious criminal offences that will have effect on our national or State financial and economic situation, and we equate the whole law to unlawful activity. What is the meaning of “unlawful activity”? If our learned fellows would help us with the definition of “unlawful activity”, we will go with them.
Mr Chireh 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if you read on page 35:
“The ‘proceeds of unlawful activity' means any property derived from or obtained through the commission of a serious offence.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
“Serious offence” has been defined.
Mr Chireh 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, so they have all been defined.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
I am asking you, in that definition, what is serious fraud?
Mr Chireh 12:10 p.m.
What is “serious fraud”?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
They have defined it and they mentioned “serious fraud” as one of the serious offences.
Mr Chireh 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we would have to look at the meaning of serious fraud” in the Serious Fraud Act, which we are trying to amend and incorporate it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
We are not amending it. If this law comes into being, the Serious Fraud Office Law will be repealed, so that law will not apply again.
Mr Chireh 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we have not yet come to the Interpretation column. As promoters of this Bill, we intend to define “serious fraud” as per the Serious Fraud Act, when it comes to clause 75.
Mr Boafo 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, one significant thing about the definition of serious offence is that, under the last definition, it says:
“(c) any other offence punishable with imprisonment for a period of not less than twelve months.”
Mr Speaker, you see how far it has been reduced? You were asking about what is the meaning of “serious fraud”. I will say that, “serious fraud” may involve an offence other than fraud by false pretences.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Anyway. I reserve my comment.
Prof. Gyan-Baffour 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think Hon Members should not be carried away by trying to push things that really are not the object of this Bill. When you look at the object and you look at the memorandum, the offences that are mentioned there -- the crimes and offences are specifically mentioned:
“These offences include money laundering, human trafficking, cyber offences and computer-related fraud.”
It looks like Hon Members are thinking and going beyond all these boundaries and pushing in gradually other offences that are outside these areas. So we have to be very, very careful because just as the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice was talking about, causing financial loss to the State, which she is worried about -- this very House passed it and during the passage, we were not very carefully about -- its implementation. So, let us look at this very, very carefully so that we do not import certain things in it which are not really the object of the Bill before us.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
But Hon Members, seriously speaking, do you want that general definition where the offence is punishable not more than twelve months? Is that the kind of jurisdiction we want to confer on Serious Fraud Office? Are they not going to have problems with the police? Is that the kind of offence that as a House, we want to give to Economic and Organised Crime Office that we are creating?
I think that we may have to take a second look at all these things. Is that the kind of jurisdiction we want to confer on them, Hon Members?
Mr Chireh 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if you look at the number of amendments to this Bill, I would recommend that we do some winnowing, at which point -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
They have done that already.
Mr Chireh 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, then it is serious. Then we have to isolate some of the thorny issues and re-look at them. This is because as he is saying - of course, it
is very difficult normally to have absolute certainty of a law. But we must also be clear in our minds what it is we are doing. Given the fact that there are so many issues coming up, it means the winnowing was not very effective. I would recommend that with the technical people behind to explain some of the things, we should do a second winnowing.
Otherwise, we will spend too much time talking about one clause for the whole day. I recommend that to the promoters of this Bill.
Mr Bandua 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I disagree with him that the winnowing has not been very effective. The fact that opinions are being expressed, does not mean that the winnowing has not been effective. This is his opinion he is expressing on the matter. So to that extent, I do not think what he has said is right.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
He is expressing his opinion and he is entitled to do so.
Mr Boafo 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, at the winnowing, one most important thing is that, we tend to rely more on the expertise of the draftspersons because we are not engaged in the redrafting of the law. So we rely on the expertise of the representatives from the Attorney-General's Office. I wish she were around -- and she is a very senior -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon Members, when you are creating this type of office which is likely to overlap other State institutions, you must be very clear in your mind the kind of jurisdiction that you are conferring.
In fact, I want to say from the Chair - I am sorry - I was involved in the drafting of the Serious Fraud Office law. I was
Mr Justice Joe Appiah 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the meaning of “serious fraud” is serious deceit or we call it nyansa krono, in our local language. It is serious deceit or nyansa krono [Interruption] Have you heard it before? [Laughter] - Why should I sit down? Serious deceit or nyansa krono, that is the way I define “serious

fraud”.
Mr Barton-Odro 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that having listened to the concerns raised by Hon Members and taking into consideration, the fact that we do not have to rush, I think that it would be advisable although winnowing has been done, that we step this one down and then do some further consultations and come out with something that will be more acceptable.
Mr Pelpuo 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, after winnowing, the decisions of the winnowing committee is not cast in iron. If we think that we have proposed something which is eventually unacceptable and there are cogent arguments that point to that, let us change it.
The suggestion that we should substitute “crime” with “unlawful activity” was not suggested by any technical person. We were just convinced that if we do that, we were doing something specific. But if we now know that “proceeds of crime” is standard, is understandable and it is more pointing to exactly what we want, why do we not just accept it that way and not go arguing about it?
Mr Speaker, I propose that we leave out the amendment and allow the “proceeds of crime” to stand, so that we do not have to define “unlawful activity” -- you go for the definition of “unlawful activity”, then it is pointing to “serious offence”, you have to go to “serious offence” in order to get the meaning. A crime is established by law and when it is established by law, finished. We do not have to go finding definitions.
Mr Chireh 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to differ from the Deputy Majority Leader. The issue is not general crime. We are creating Organised Crime Office and therefore, anything unlawful which we may have in the Criminal Offences Act provided generally, is different from this particular thing. And that is why I agree with the things that you were talking
about. In drafting a law like this, similar to what we did with the Serious Fraud Office Act, these things are specific.
He also says that it was not on the basis of any technical person. Unfortunately, I disagree again because if you look at it, it is in the definition column of this Bill, which means that, that is what they really meant to have done, otherwise, there will be no purpose for defining that there.
So technically, I will even say it was a slip of the computer to have put there “proceeds of crime” because it is the usual thing. If it was the general crime situation, anything that proceeds from crime, the one we are talking about which the police can normally investigate and - it is “proceeds of crime”. But this one, we are talking about a number of activities which are unlawful and may not necessarily be criminal.
You also want us to look at the distinction between what the police should handle and what the Economic and Organised Crime Bill should handle and that is why the definitions must be clearly separate.
That is what I submit, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon Members, we may have to make progress. So I am suggesting that where there are problems we defer it as the Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice has suggested, while we try and make progress, then we can consult on those areas and come back and know what to do.
Mr Bandua 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, paragraph (d), line 2, delete “crimes correlative to the offences specified in paragraph (a)” and insert the following:
“crimes specified in paragraph (a) and their correlative offences”.
I think the words have been re-arranged to make them clearer and better to understand.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
What is the difference?
Mr Bandua 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the difference is that, if you look at it - the first one is that “crimes correlative to the offences”, but this is “crimes specified in paragraph (a) and their correlative offences”-- that is the new rendition which brings out the meaning better than the earlier one. Because in the earlier one, we have - I mean, it is a drafting style - “crimes correlative to the offences specified in paragraph (a)”. But this one reads “crimes specified in paragraph (a) and their correlative offences.”
This rendition is better than the earlier one, Mr Speaker.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just to put it in context. If you say that you want to prevent the commission of “crimes correlative to the offences specified in paragraph (a)”, what it means is that, you are not actually addressing the prevention of the commission of the “crimes specified in paragraph (a)” but only offences related to those crimes themselves. So, the amendment proffered by the Chairman addresses the two, that the intention is to prevent the commission of those crimes specified in paragraph (a) supra, as well as offences related to those ones specified in paragraph (a).
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
The explanation you have given is different from what the Chairman of the Committee has given. But it is clearer now, that we want to use one stone to kill two birds. The crime itself in paragraph (a) and their correlative crimes, so they become clearer now.
Mr Bandua 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 3, paragraph (e), line 3, delete “agency” and insert “agencies”
We want to make it plural.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr Bandua 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 3 - paragraph (f), line 2, delete amongst other things, submitting letter of request”.
So the new rendition will be:
“Co-operate with relevant foreign or international agencies in furtherance of this Act.”
It ends there, Mr Speaker.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon
Chairman, people want to know why the amendment.
Yes , Hon Min i s te r fo r Loca l
Government and Rural Development?
Mr Chireh 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the thing is,
we are deleting after “Act”, all the words to the end. We are not substituting.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Very well.
We are deleting. Why are we deleting?
Mr Bandua 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the words
that follow: “by amongst other things, submitting letter of request” are not very relevant here. They do not make much difference. That is the way I see it. So, “co-operate with relevant foreign and

international agencies in furtherance of this Act”, that alone is -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
In other
words, there are other pieces of legislation that can deal with the issue of request under the Mutual Legal Assistance Act. Do you agree with me? Is that the reason? Because there is another law that deals with request, this law does not deal with request. So, it is superfluous.
Mr Bandua 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with
you that it is superfluous.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
I would
defer the Question on the entire clause pending the resolution and the consultation on the other aspects of the subclauses that have not been dealt with.
Prof. Oquaye 12:20 p.m.
Sorry, to go back a bit.
Mr Speaker, I would think that with regard to (vii) “crimes specified in paragraph (a) and their correlative offences”, that will be tantamount to repeating, in effect, crimes specified in paragraph (a).
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
No, Hon
Second Deputy Speaker, the (a) is to investigate.
Prof. Oquaye 12:20 p.m.
Yes.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
The other
one is to prevent. So, they are two separate things; one is investigation, the other jurisdiction there, which you are talking about, is dealing with prevention. So you are not only preventing the correlative crime but you are also preventing crimes mentioned in paragraph (a).
Prof. Oquaye 12:20 p.m.
Very well. All (a) is
investigation?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Yes, (a) is
investigation.
Prof. Oquaye 12:20 p.m.
And (b) refers to
prevention?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Is
prevention. Yes.
Prof. Oquaye 12:20 p.m.
So, “to prevent crimes
specified in paragraph (a)” and then do something else?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Absolutely.
Prof. Oquaye 12:20 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
So, as I
said, I defer the putting of the Question on the entire clause 3, so we move to clause 4.
Clause 4 - Governing body of the Office
Mr Bandua 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 4, subclause (1), paragraph (c), delete and “insert the following:
“(c) one representative of the Inspector-General of Police, not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner”.
I think this amendment is of co- ordination purposes. Since the Office will deal more directly with the police, it is better to put in the police instead of the Ministry of the Interior.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Why did
you not add to the “Interior”?
Mr Bandua 12:20 p.m.
The Ministry of the
Interior will be unwieldy. They deal directly with the police.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
You are talking about organised crime, narcotics, and the police. Is there a representative of Narcotics Control Board?
Mr Bandua 12:20 p.m.
Narcotics Control Board
is there, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
All right,
one would have thought that you had a broader picture at the Ministry of the Interior with the whole issue of organised crime.
Mr Bandua 12:20 p.m.
But the problem is that
if you asked the Hon Minister for the Interior, it may be somebody else instead of the police. I do not know but we feel that it is better to zero in on the police instead of leaving it to the Ministry of the Interior.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
But under
the Serious Fraud Office law, I thought we had both the police and the Ministry of the Interior.
Mr Chireh 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if you looked
down, you have one representative of the Minister responsible for National Security. So, I think that it adequately covers it, given the present arrangements we have instead of the Ministry of the Interior.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
But
the present arrangement may not be permanent. Tomorrow, the President or another government might change his mind to create the Ministry of National Security. But it is very, very, important that as far as crime is concerned, the Interior Ministry has a broader picture of crime than the police generally, in terms of policy and all those things.
Prof. Oquaye 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, when it
comes to these matters, the Attorney- General and Minister for Justice is peculiar. Even though the person also occupies also a political office, his situation is different and that is easily acceptable.
Mr Speaker, as much as possible, we
would also want to make this a kind of professional affair. It is a police-people's matter. And if we leave it that way, I think it will be better. Because the moment you
are bringing somebody from the Ministry of the Interior, in fact, you are essentially bringing the Minister's representative. And we would want this to be as political as possible. If so, let us emphasise professionalism, for which matter, the police and de-emphasise the involvement of the political arm.
Mr Chireh 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I fully
support what he is saying. If you look at the other representatives, indeed, the offices are mentioned, who should nominate the person rather than the Ministries.
For instance, if you look at (d), Narcotics Control Board is mentioned specifically. Then the Attorney-General's office as a body of lawyers, is also mentioned. But in the rest of the places, you would see that it is the profession or the group that deals directly with the issue.
So as much as possible, once we know that the police are key as far as the Ministry of the Interior is concerned and they are represented, we believe that it would be better than putting the Ministries' representatives there. So we should rather emphasise on the Inspector- General of Police (IGP).
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (1), paragraph (f), line 1, delete “Agencies Governing Board” and insert “Ghana Revenue Authority”.
I think what we have on the ground is “Ghana Revenue Authority”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think he is calling for the deletion of the board. The Board is “Revenue Agencies Governing Board”. not “Agencies Governing Board”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
“ Revenue
Agencies Governing Board (RAGB)”. Is that what is in the Bill?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:40 p.m.
That is
what is in the Bill; so we need to delete the entire construction - “Revenue Agencies Governing Board”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Hon
Member, you are right.
Mr. Chireh 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that
the way it is now, we should say: “Ghana Revenue Authority Governing Board - One representative”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Now, it is
an Authority?
Mr Chireh 12:40 p.m.
Yes, but Mr Speaker,
you realise that even of the commissions and authorities and all these things that we are talking about, there is always a governing board; that is the one to make this nomination. But if you are saying that the Authority should be the one, we should leave it as it is now, that is “Ghana Revenue Authority Representative”, which means that the Chief Executive or any person can do this. But we want that Board. From what we see of the amendment being made, it was the Board of the Revenue Agencies that was to do the nomination.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Hon
Minister, you and the Second Deputy Speaker, some few minutes ago, canvassed seriously about professionalism and you know the “Board” is different from the “Authority” in a sense? So I think that in the same spirit, let us keep the “Authority” there so that some professionalism is injected into what you have mentioned earlier.
Prof. Oquaye 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in fact, I
am very agreeable for the position taken. Because if you say, “one representative of the Board”, actually, it is not necessarily the same -- [Interruption] exactly, as

one person nominated by the institution, because the institution can bring any member without it looking as if that person must be one of the members of the Board. So Mr Speaker, I believe your rendition would make it fine for us.

Question put and amendment agreed to
Mr. Bandua 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 4, clause (1), paragraph (g), “Attorney-General and Minister for Justice on the advice of”.
So it would read:
“One lawyer in private practice with at least, 10 years` experience nominated by the Ghana Bar Association.”
In fact, the intention here is that the nomination should not be on the advice of the Minister for Justice, but it should come directly from the Ghana Bar Association, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
I am sure the Hon Member for Akropong, Mr Boafo, is very instrumental in this amendment?
Mr Boafo 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, precisely so. We want the Ghana Bar Association to be autonomous from the unofficial head of the Bar.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Very well. Hon Members, clause 4, subclause (1), paragraph (g), delete “Attorney-General and Minister for Justice on the advice of” -- I think there is a problem; is the amendment correct? It is correct?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the amendment is correct, save preceding “Attorney-General” with “the”,
so that we do not have “the” repeated. If you take “of ” from “Attorney-General” and end at “of”, the word “the” will be repeated. So we take just one “the” off.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Because there is another “the” qualifying the “Ghana Bar Association”?
Hon Members, clause 4, subclause
(1), paragraph (g), delete the words “the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, on the advice of”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (1), paragraph (i), delete and insert the following:
“(i) one person with intelligence background, not below the rank of Director nominated by the Minister responsible for National Security.”
Mr Speaker, we have brought “not below the rank of Director” to qualify the person, instead of bringing it at the end of it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Let me
get - Wait, I want to be with you. What you are doing now, is it the same as what is printed on the Order Paper?
Mr. Bandua 12:40 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
What you are moving is what has been printed on the Order Paper?
Mr Bandua 12:40 p.m.
That is so, Mr Speaker.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Hon
Members, I will now put the Question on the entire clause 4.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
before you put the Question, I canvassed an earlier position. I do not know what plenary may think of it. But if we look at (g), we are saying that there should be one lawyer in private practice with at least, ten years' experience. We are going forward to say that that person should be nominated by the Ghana Bar Association.
Mr Speaker, in (h), we are also saying
that one chartered accountant with at least, ten years' experience. I think we should provide for who nominates the person, otherwise, it may create a problem.
I am being told that there may be
a couple of institutions that have that certification. But Mr Speaker, if we canvass that idea, then in the same vein, one could also talk about the Bar Association of Ghana as against Ghana Bar Association.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
But you
know there is one which is recognized and it is found in our national Constitution? But I think that you have a point there and the issue that you are raising is even more complicated. At the end of the day, who is going to do the appointment? Is it the President? So when the professional body nominates and the President does not want to appoint that person, can he be forced to nominate that person? -- He will be forced to? Very well. Then I am all right.
Mr Chireh 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that the issue that he has raised, we should amend that one to the nomination to be done by the Institute of Chartered Accountants or the appropriate professional body. I know that we have the Institute of Chartered Accountants ( ICA) for Ghana and then we have Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA), which is now localized in terms of having a chapter

here. So if it is because of that we should still put it there that from the appropriate professional association, so that the nomination has to be done.

Mr Speaker, we were also talking

about whether the President would be compelled or not. Yes, whoever is the Minister responsible for this will have to write to the appropriate professional association for the nomination and when that nomination comes, he then forwards this for the approval of the President. If there is something wrong with the name, all he needs to do is to write back for the professional body to re-nominate somebody.

In fact, in case of the Ghana Bar Association, it is even oppressive but we have agreed to that. So that is why we must also now, as far as I am concerned, mention that it should be by the professional body.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Hon
Minister, the point that is being made and the Hon Minority Leader canvassed it on the floor some few minutes ago, is that, there are more than one professional body. We have the ICA, Ghana: we have the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA); we have the ACCA -- If you say the professional body, you must go beyond that to see how they themselves organize themselves to select. Normally, the practice is to rotate it among themselves. But we have not got that rendition here.
So there are two things there. I may defer the Question on this clause -- or put the Question as it is because the way it is, we have to go beyond it and find a way of amending it appropriately. But there is no amendment now and the amendment cannot easily be captured now.
Mr Boafo 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am not so
familiar with the accountants' groups but I believe the Institute of Chartered Accountants are chartered and ACCA are
certified. So if this Bill refers to chartered accountants -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
We also
have Chartered Institute of Management and Accountancy (CIMA). So it is not as simple as that. I know what I am talking about. If you look at the rendition in the Media Commission Law, it tries to address this problem by saying that they should do it in a certain way.
Prof. Oquaye 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in the face of multiple bodies - because it is quite clear that the accountants have more than one, that is very clear -- there is precedence because in the Constitution, we have one representative of religious bodies, for example, so that where there is more than one body that represents some identifiable groups, then they find their own means of electing at any given time, who should be their representative. Then certainly, the onus is on them. Very often, they go by way of rotation.
But Mr Speaker, definitely, that is far better than one chartered accountant with at least, one of ten years' experience. Because there is nobody responsible for nominating them and it becomes very, very difficult, and it is not expected that that person must be nominated by the President. So one representative of the Organisation of Chartered Accountants. And then it is for them to sort out whether it is CIMA or Institute of Chartered Accountants, Ghana, whatever. But then it is very, very clear and the onus is on them.
Mr Chireh 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, you have put the issue beyond any argument. What we should put here is Institute of Chartered Accountants, because we have legislated for them as a regulatory body and therefore, just like - In fact, it is not just an association. In this particular case, it is a legal body enacted through law. So they are the most appropriate to do this on
behalf of the State.
I have my friend who is a Chartered
Accountant. He will support my argument. The others are -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
In fact,
he will be biased because he belongs to one and a former President of one of the professional bodies, so he will be biased in your favour.
Mr Chireh 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, he will not be biased because I am talking about fact of law, that we have legislated for their existence and therefore, they are the most appropriate to recognize when Parliament is dealing with this matter. The others just incorporated themselves by the Company's Code and there is not legislation, they do not regulate.
Mr Albert Kan-Dapaah 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think I agree with him. There is only one such registered body, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, Ghana, which was set up by an Act of Parliament. So I think what he really wants to say is --
“a chartered accountant nominated by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, Ghana”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
What about those who have the ACCA and are -
Mr Kan Dapaah 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am also a fellow of ACCA. But to be able to practise in Ghana, I must be a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
When did you become a fellow?
Mr Kan-Dapaah 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I became a fellow of the ACCA as a result of my long service.
But seriously, Mr Speaker, to be able
to practise in Ghana, whether you are a Management Accountant or ACCA or CPA from the United States, you need to register as a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, Ghana. So there is only one professional body for professional accountants in Ghana.
Mr Chireh 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I, therefore, beg to move, that “nominated by” should be added to the “Institute of Chartered Accountants”.
Mr Barton-Odro 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I know that there is something in the pipeline. The Ministry of Education is coming up with asking the Attorney-General's Office to prepare a law for one of these bodies. And at a meeting, we asked them to give us further and better particulars. Assuming that, that goes through, what do we do?
Mr Kan-Dapaah 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is for the Tax Accountants; it is for taxation. They want to have an association of tax practitioners. It is totally different from the activities of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. These are registered Chartered Accountants who now want to distinguish themselves as being specialists in taxation matters. So, they call it the Institute of Taxation, in fact.
Mr Chireh 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that - I will propose further amendment to (g) that --
“One Chartered Accountant with at least ten years' experience, nominated by the Institute of Chartered Accountants.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
Do you have a copy of the Bill? It is (h)? Do you have a copy of the Bill?
Hon Kan-Dapaah, what is the correct definition of the group? Is it ICA, Ghana or just ICA?
Mr Kan-Dapaah 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, ICA, Ghana.
Mr Boafo 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think if we can insert the number of years of standing practice --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
Ten years is there.
Mr Boafo 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker ten years.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
“. . . at least ten years' experience” is there.
Hon Members, so let me put the Question on the National Security one, then we come back to that one. Hon Members, I will put it.
I was going to put it when the Hon Minority Leader got on his feet.
The new amendment is that clause 4 paragraph (h), after “experience” add the words “nominated by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, Ghana”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 - Tenure of Office of Members of the Board.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe we should look at clause 6 (5) and provide for some exemptions. You posed a question, if the professional associations like the Institute of Chartered Accountants nominate a person, will the President not appoint that person? The obvious answer that you had was that once it comes from the Bar Association, the President should nominate the person.

If you come to clause 6 (5), there is a provision that the President may by a letter addressed to a member revoke the appointment of that person. And that may include those nominated by the professional associations. Can the President do that? The President cannot do that. That is why I think, maybe, we may have to look at that.
Mr Chireh 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 6 (5) is actually saying that if for any reason, the President has good grounds to remove somebody from the Board, it should be in a letter addressed to the person. This should stay as it is because it could even be that the professional body that nominated the person wants the person's appointment to be revoked. And if it is revoked, it is only the President who should do so. It has nothing to do with who nominated him in the first place.
The President, if you absent yourself even as a nominee of a professional body for the stated period, the number of times without good reasons, he should revoke your appointment. So, it has really nothing to do with the nominating of position. After he has done so, he cannot go on by himself to appoint another person, he must again revert to the nominating authority. So I think that as it is, nothing is wrong with this provision.
Mr Boafo 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the appointing authority is the President, the others are only nominating. So the issue being raised is only administrative, between the President and the nominees. They will consult and resolve their problems. But the appointing authority --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
Who hires fires?
Mr Boafo 1 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
Very well.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the point being raised is, nomination is made by the appropriate professional body. The duty of the President is to appoint that person. We are saying that without any exception, the President may revoke the appointment of that member. Of course, we are believing that we will be operating in normalcy and that nothing untoward may be done.
The fact that after the revocation, the President may have to consult, would not be of any moment in (g) if no exception is created. That is why I thought that we could create an exception that except in the case of (g) and (h), for instance,
“revocation can only be done in consultation with the relevant professional body.”
Other than that, if you have a President who may not be conforming with normalcy, then we will wake up one day-- and let us not forget that this is a very serious Act. It is a very serious Act and we are striving to put this beyond Executive control and beyond partisan control. So, if we are not careful to put the matter beyond dispute, and I believe that we should go beyond the screen -- Otherwise, we may in the process create rather unconsciously, some problems for ourselves. That is all that I have to -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, do you not think that if the President wants to exercise that discretion capriciously, he will be called to order? Otherwise, the power, if you look at the general provisions of the Constitution in terms of appointment into the Public Service, it is done by the President. If you look at the totality of the various provisions of the Constitution, it points to that.
That is why I posed that question
earlier, that if they nominate, then automatically, he cannot refuse to appoint and you are saying that in the same vein, when he is revoking, he should do it in consultation sort of or something to that effect.
I know that is the point you want to make but I think that this is what you find in all the Bills that we have passed here. So, the bodies are involved. If the body nominates somebody and the President feels strongly that there is something wrong or the person for example, who has been nominated has a certain disability, the President can inform the nominating body that there is a disability with that person, so they should bring another person.

P ro f . O q u a y e : M r S p e a k e r, respectfully, what the Hon Minority Leader has said is a very very important matter that we must consider seriously. If it has not been done seriously in the past, then it is time we had a different attitude.

Mr Speaker, when the 1992 Constitution was being drawn, one matter came to the fore, that is, in certain specific cases, there should be institutional representation. The concept of institutional representation was applied in the Council of State for example, the Media Commission for example. And there was one underlining principle so that as a President, it does not matter who should at any time be in control of the totality of the appointment or removal of all these positions. That is to create checks and balances in the application of power.

So Mr Speaker, the idea here is that the appointment should be made by institutions and these people may be called institutional representatives on the Board. The institutional representatives should

be nominated and in effect made to take office and can also only be recalled by those institutions which nominate them and it is not for nothing, to create checks and balances, a limitation of power and to avoid arbitrariness in the governance of this country. This principle must be very very well got . It was a fundamental principle in the l992 Constitution, and this Honourable House must adopt it. It is a way of ensuring counterveiling authority in this Republic and to ensure our human rights.

So Mr Speaker, we must so craft this in such a way that those who appoint can recall, they can also disappoint but not the President. Orthewise, it will be a matter of “very well, you appoint”. When you appoint, once you are finished, then I will start to manipulate the process.

Chireh: Mr Speaker, I was standing

when the Second Deputy Speaker was talking. We know that in this appointment, it is article 70 of the Constitution that we are using, and he also knows that there is a Constitution Review Commission reviewing the entire Constitution. What I want him to address his mind to is that, we have an administrative action separate from these checks and balances that he is talking about. For you to be a member of the Board, you need to be appointed by somebody.

The President cannot ask the Bar Association, “we want this particular person”, no. The Bar Association can also write to the President and say, “look, we have found our member not worthy of being a member of this Board”. So the President has no other way but to say that “the appointment I have given you, I have revoked it”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Hon Members, let me refer you to article 297, clause (a) of the Constitution.
“297. In this Constitution and in any other law --
(a) the power to appoint a person to hold or to act in an office in the public service shall include the power to confirm appointments, to exercise disciplinary control over persons holding or acting in any such office and to remove the person from office;”
Article 297 clause (a) --
Mr Boafo 1:10 p.m.
Mr speaker, article 297 (a)
is preceded by, “subject to the Constitution and any other law”. We are here making a law, so the Constitution permits us to circumscribe the power of the President where we feel that there is likelihood of an abuse.
Mr First DeputySpeaker 1:10 p.m.
It means
that in this Constitution and in any other law -- So if you do not provide for it, in any other law, this is what it means. If you go and put a different thing there, this 297 (a) takes precedence over any other law.
Mr Boafo 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I quite agree with you but what I am saying is that we are making a law now and the reference to the Constitution and any other law, and certainly, this is part of the law we are making. So as the lawmakers, we can qualify the power of the --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Have
you read it? It is saying that the power to appoint goes with this - in any other law. In this Constitution or in any other law, whoever has the power to appoint is that person. It also means that you have the power to remove from office.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:10 p.m.
Mr
Speaker, article 296, in my view, precedes article 297; article 296 provides that where in this Constitution or in any other law, discretionary power is vested in any person or authority, that discretionary power shall be deemed to imply a duty to be fair and candid.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Hon
Minority Leader, I referred to this earlier and I am saying that if the President exercises that power capriciously, he is subject to the Constitution. He can be challenged in appropriate forum. That was what I said earlier.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:10 p.m.
Mr
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
But you
have used it and I have never objected to it - [Laughter] -- so you can use it.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:10 p.m.
Mr
Speaker, article 296 (b) provides that
“the exercise of the discretionary power shall not be arbitrary, capricious or biased either by the resentment, prejudice or personal dislike and shall be in accordance with due process of the law;”
Mr Speaker, it is for the avoidance of doubt that I said I thought that we could do this. The fact that we have been doing this in other laws, does not necessarily mean that we can continue on that path.
Mr Speaker, I know for a fact that for 8 consistent years, when we came to passing Resolutions in this House, we had used two-thirds majority in this House -- that is between l993 and 2001 until one day it dawned on us that what we had been doing was really not in conformity with the constitutional provision and we came to the realization that, no, we needed just onehalf plus one.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Hon
Members, I have a certain attitude, when there is a constitutional provision, I am very, very slow and I am not supposed to interpret the Constitution but looking as it is - when the President decides to exercise that power capriciously, then he would go to the appropriate forum.
Mr Bandua 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I may want to add that this is a security service and the President is normally head of the security services. So I think it is only proper that he has these powers of appointment and dismissal at the same time. Because being the head of the security services, he has more information than anybody else. So by the peculiar nature of this Service, it is only proper that this clause is retained, that:
“The President may by a letter addressed to the member revoke the appointment of that member.”
In any case, I do not think that the President would do it without consulting the body that nominated the person. Mr Speaker, that is my position.
Prof. Oquaye 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
“the President may by letter addressed to the member revoke the appointment of that member.”
If we are not simply far-sighted enough, we would be creating a situation by a legislation whereby the Bar Association
nominates a person who goes -- the Accountants nominate a person, tomorrow the President writes them a letter, “Your nomination is revoked” and then it is revoked. Then we are not serious. We are aware, and let the President appoint anybody --
Mr Speaker, there must be a distinction between those persons nominated by the President whom he can also dismiss by a letter; fine. Certain people may be brought there by executive fiat, but those who are institutional representatives, he cannot write them letters and sack them and we must make that clear in the law. Other than that, Mr Speaker, there would be something very, very deficient at the work we are doing here.
This has nothing to do with any President “A” or President “B”, no. Whoever happens to be the President of the Republic of Ghana at any given time, that person cannot dismiss by presidential letter, institutional representatives on this Board. Otherwise, we would be creating this law, tomorrow it would become just a political instrument and we would be regretting it.
Mr Chireh 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Second Deputy Speaker is a lawyer of long-standing repute and he knows what he is saying.
As he rightly said, in article 296 of the Constitution, they say that any one of us exercising administrative responsibility, we must do so in consonance with that article. I do not know why he and the Hon Minority Leader want to create dictators of Presidents. We cannot create dictators of Presidents like that. We are referring to the Constitution and we are saying that there is a nomination process different from the administrative appointment letters.
Therefore, why do you impose on the President the capriciousness, the whimsicality to just do things that he should not do, when he is operating with the Constitution?
Apart from that, the ground rules are

laid down for whose appointment can be revoked and that is, if you absent yourself for a number of occasions, you do not declare your interest when the matter is before you. All these things are indicated in this law and we are making a law referral to this.

If you say that we in Parliament here should make a law, to allow the nominating agencies to appoint the people, after they have done so, who would pay those people? Is it the nominating agencies who have now appointed who should approve them? No. It is because you have an appointment letter that you can.
Prof Oquaye 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we have to do something very, very serious -- It is a very serious point of correction.
Mr Speaker, when you say that people who make certain kinds of arguments are going to make monsters or dictators of Presidents, our own 1992 Constitution is a rejection of dictatorship. It is a rejection of “one man rule” and we say it. It is part of the preamble. The whole proceedings of the Commission is full of this, so we must not be unmindful of that fact.
In this country, we have been through dictatorial situations, we have been through all manner of unconstitutional rule and so when we are seeking now to rule ourselves by Constitution, by limitation of power, it is not something that we must brush over at all. So, I really mean what I am saying, that in view of our history, in view of the conscious effort of our Constitution itself, to avoid this -- and I have referred to the Constitution Commission's debates and in terms of institutional presentations.
Mr Speaker, the intention of the Constitution framers in bringing about institutional representation was to check
power, the power of whoever happens to be President. If my Hon Friend on the other side thinks, maybe, this is being said against a particular person or not, let us have the law as it is, but this has nothing to do with any regime.
We must be very, very careful about these matters and to limit the power of the Presidency, and it is something that we have seen before.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Let me take the last from Hon Member for Akropong.
Mr Boafo 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have read article 297 of the Constitution as he has rightly pointed out. I believe the provision under article 297 of the Constitution is very explicit. I do not see how we can circumvent this constitutional provision. It says that in this Constitution and in any other law, the power to appoint implies the power to remove, and that power is vested in the President and if there is the need for us to do anything about it at all, then, maybe, we can insert something to the effect that the President should do that for a sufficient cause. We can insert something to the effect that:
“The President may by a letter, and for sufficient cause addressed to the …”
So that if the President fails to comply with the due process, then the necessary remedial courses will be available to the aggrieved person.
Under article 23 of the Constitution, where there is a provision relating to administrative justice, the administrative officers and officials are required to exercise their duties or functions or obligations in a reasonable manner. That is the method of -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Once the “may” is there, it involves one of discretion and then the article 296 of the
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.


Constitution comes into play. So if you remove me and you remove me without sufficient cause unjustly, or on other grounds, then you invoke -- I am a bit slow because of my understanding of article 297 of the Constitution.

If you look at clause 5 which we have just passed, which we have just seen endorsed, the power to appoint - one of the clauses - yes. Clause 4 (2), the power to appoint has been vested in the President and then the Constitution is saying that whoever has the power to appoint, has the power to revoke the appointment.

The provisions of the Constitution has, in a way, tightened our -- If he does it -- If there are no good grounds, that is, a - The “may” there, is a discretion. If he did not exercise that power in a fair and candid manner or he exercises it capriciously, then he is liable for an action to be taken against him. That is my understanding. So, if we are not too sure and we all want to pass a law that will stand the test of time, then let me defer it and we make progress so that we move on and then we can confer later on and make progress. That is my understanding of article 297 of the Constitution -- so that we do more of the clauses and then we come back and then we - because we have taken a lot of points in this particular matter.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe the use of the word “may” really, is not permissive. It is the resort. The President revokes the appointment of a member. If the President chooses to revoke, then it comes by a letter, so the President “may” revoke the appointment of that member. The President may allow the person to continue as a member or he may not. So, that is the application of the word “may” in that construction. If he chooses to do that then he comes by a letter.
Mr Speaker, I think we are ad idem. We are not saying that the President cannot revoke. I think the point at issue is the process of revocation that we are addressing. That, yes, the President does the revocation just like he does the appointments, and it satisfies the question as I said, you yourself posed, that if a nomination is made by a professional body, can the President refuse to appoint the person?
The obvious answer is that he cannot. And if he cannot on his own refuse to appoint that person who is chosen by the institution that he represents, then in the same way, the President cannot on his own, revoke by his own fiat, the appointment of that person unless it is done in consultation with that body.
Mr Speaker, so we are not talking about the revocation per se, we are talking about the process of revocation. But --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, what you are saying is the best thing to do, that is the best practice. But we are constrained by article 297 of the Constitution. I entirely agree with you but in my view, we are constrained by article 297 (a); but I do not interpret the Constitution; I do not have the power to do so.
I also do not want to preside over a Bill and the Bill is challenged in court and I find myself wanting. So, that is the difficulty here, that is why I said that let us take some time and do further consultation among ourselves.
Let me hear the last from you, Hon Boafo -
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
My Hon Friend, later I will take you after the consultation, not today.
Mr Boafo 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if our fear is
to forestall any abuse by the President, I think we can add a rider. But in the case of appointments under clause 4 (g) and (h), “the President shall consult with the nominating bodies or institutions”. I think it would be acceptable to the Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
Hon Members, what I intend doing is that, let us defer that subclause and we do further consultation among ourselves.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8 -- Disclosure of Interest
Mr Boafo 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, subclause (3), at end, add the following:
“but without prejudice to any further cause of action that may be instituted against the member”.
Mr Speaker, clause 8, subclause (3) deals with a situation where a member can unjustly enrich himself and the sanctions are to remove him as a member of the Board and also to confiscate the benefits that he has derived from his activity. And it appears that should be the end. But the amendment seeks to go further by requiring that those two actions do not debar any course of action that would be available against that particular person.
So the amendment seeks to fill that vacuum where the confiscation of the benefit derived from the unlawful activity and the removal of the member of the Board, would not be an end in itself. But if he has committed any crime or any unlawful activity, he should be subject to the law.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
Hon Members, this is a straightforward
amendment. So I will put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9 Establishment of committees.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 9, subclause (1), line 1, delete “constitute” and insert “establish” and in line 2, after “function” delete “of the Board”.
Mr Speaker, the clause will now read 1:30 p.m.
“the Board may establish committees consisting of members of the Board or non members or both to perform a function”.
Mr Speaker, I am proposing further that we delete the words “of the Board” in line 2 of subclause (1), of clause 9. So the entire rendition will be “the Board may establish committees consisting of members of the Board or non members or both to perform a function”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
Hon Members, I will put the Question --
Mr Barton-Odro 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, about the second leg, I want to find out why he thinks that -- because what function? Is it any function? There must be a function in reference to his or her position as a Board member. So why do we want to leave that qualification?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if the Board establishes committees, definitely, their discharge will be towards their fulfilment of the functions not only at the Board, but even of the office. So you cannot limit it to the functions of the Board because the functions of the Board are limited as per clause 5. Functions of
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice -- well, let me hear from the Second Deputy Speaker, then -
Prof. Oquaye 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am agreeable to what the Minority Leader is saying. In fact, it would actually be tautologous; “the Board may” and we say “of the Board”. So after that, we could end it. In that connection, it is better to say to my mind “to perform any function” and that is where the problem may come from. When you say “a function”, then we may say “a function of the Board”, but any function, of course, simply means any function that the Board deems appropriate for them to perform.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
Hon Second Deputy Speaker, if you put it that way, then how do we check that they do not add ultra vires? Because that is the point that the Hon Deputy Attorney- General and Deputy Minister for Justice is alluding to.
So you have to be careful; so that they do not become busy bodies and go and assume certain functions and start involving themselves in the day- to- day running of the organization which is not a function of Board members. So let us look at it very well. If you say any function or a function, it must be a function that relates to the function of the Board, because they are Board members, simplicita.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, but it should be taken for granted that if a Board is constituting or establishing a committee and assigning them a duty, the Board will prescribe the duty and function to them. And so, it cannot be said that they would go wild fishing in uncharted territories.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Yes, but we must also be very careful not to create a conflict between the Board and management. We must be careful in the law we are passing not to create a conflict between the Board and management. You can get a Board that becomes so executive and then decides to go and assume certain powers beyond policy formulation and all those things. There are several experiences that some of us have come across, so it is better - All that I think that provision is trying to do, is to limit them, that whatever function you have, it should be a function that relates to the functions of the Board. So whichever way we couch it, that role or part must come out clearly and it must relate to the function of the Board.
Prof. Oquaye 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, you know that I am very much always in favour of tightening the screws, and in tightening the screws, I think we should live with the original rendition and leave the amendment to only the first part. This is because, on the function of the Board, sometimes it can be really tricky. People have small power and they want to assume so much, then there is a conflict between the Board, the original body, the sub- committee and so on.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Hon Osei- Owusu, I thought you were on your feet?
Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am only suggesting that I agree entirely. There are several experiences of Boards virtually assuming management, and if
we tighten the screws as the Hon Second Deputy Speaker suggested, then we would leave no room for the Board to set up committees to take the functions of management.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
So we would deal with the first leg of the amendment of the Hon Minority Leader.
Hon Minority Leader, the amendment is in your name, are you agreeable?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:40 p.m.
Well, Mr Speaker, I felt that that one could be taken for granted because as I indicated, the role of the Board itself, really relates to policy formulation. However, looking at the object of the office and the functions of the office as set out in clauses 2 and 3 and which body is to ensure that these functions and objects are attained, Mr Speaker, I thought that it was obvious. However, if Hon Members think that we should retain “perform a function of the Board”, well, I have no strong opinion about it. But I thought that that one would be understood.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Very well and thank you for your co-operation.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 9, subclause (3) delete.
Mr Speaker, the reason is that a disclosure of interest is captured in clause 8.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 9, subclause
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:40 p.m.


(4), delete.

Again, disclosure of interest and the consequences for non-declaration is captured in clause 8 (2).
Mr J. B. Aidoo 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the amendment which was just carried -- in fact, if the Hon Minority Leader can come again. This is because in clause 9 (3), we are talking about members of the committee and not the Board. There is a sub-committee and we agree but in that sub-committee, the members may not necessarily be members of the Board, they could be different members for which reason they may also have some interest in the matter before them.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, I think there is a problem there. The Hon Member is right. I think we should draw a distinction between non- members and members. For the members, it is taken care of in clause 8, but for non- members, there is no provision taking care of them.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if my Hon Colleague had had patience, and we had got to (xx), there is an amendment and it is to take care of his worries and concerns. Section 8 applies to members of a committee of the Board.
So the application of committee members, including committee members from the Board itself and non members would be captured in (xx).
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, it does not fully address the issue. We have two categories of Board members there; some are members and some are non members. Those who are members have been taken care of, as you rightly said, in clause 8, in terms of disclosure of interest. Those who are non members - this is because they were, in the first place, not appointed by the President, so their appointments cannot be
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think, initially, I also had similar concerns and at the winnowing level, I think we came to some determination. This is because clause 9 (1), establishing committees, says:
“The Board may cons t i tu te committees consisting of members of the Board or non members or both . . .”
Both are members of the committee, whether you are a non-member or you are a member, once you are put there, you are a member of the committee. So, if you say that it applies to committee members, then it means both members of the Board who are on a committee or non members who are on the committee.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Because there is a general principle here in clause 8, with regard to disclosure of interest, Hon Minority Leader - there is a general principle of disclosure of interest. So, whether you are a member of a committee or not, once you have not disclosed your interest, you are caught by it, once you are a member of the Board.
Mr Boafo 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is
a clause 9 (5) which takes care of the penalties involved. Maybe, we can take care of the concerns expressed by the Hon Member when we come to item (xx). We can add something to the effect that:
“Section 8 applies to members of the committee of the Board with the necessary modification.”
What in the past should have been said mutantis muntandis. But now, we are saying with necessary modifications.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Hon Member for Amenfi East, has it addressed the point you have raised?
Mr J. B. Aidoo 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think this is a new clause which is being introduced to -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Pardon?
Mr J. B. Aidoo 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I mean that (xx) is a new clause which is being introduced to address the very issue I raised.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
So that addresses the issue on whether you are a member of the Board or non member? So it addresses that?
Mr J. B. Aidoo 1:40 p.m.
Yes, it cures that defect.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Very well. Hon Members, have I put the Question on (xvii)?
Some Hon Members 1:40 p.m.
Yes.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
So the Question should now be on subclause (4)?
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Boafo 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 9, subclause (5), line 2, delete “sub- section (3)” and insert “section 8” and at the end, add the following:
“but without prejudice to any further course of action that may be instituted against the member”.
Mr Speaker, clause 9 (5), there is a reference to subsection (3) and that should read subsection 8 (3). That is clause 8
(3) which refers to the members of the Board. So the section 8 is left out, hence the proposed amendment.
The other amendment is consequential.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 9, at the end, add the following new subclause:
“Section 8 applies to members of a committee of the Board.”
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
Now that you have removed those provisions applying to committees, the only place where we can find “disclosure of interest” is in clause 8. Therefore, we are saying that, apart from those clauses applying to members of the Board, they also apply to committees which are both members and non members. But you have drawn our attention to it earlier.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree. All that I am saying is that, this one should not be at the end. It rather should precede (5) -- the location should be before (5).
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
Well, the Table Office - that is a drafting issue so that they will take note of it.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
Hon Members, are we going further? Then accordingly, under Standing Order 40 (3),
I direct that the House Sits outside the prescribed period.
Mr J. B. Aidoo 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was just craving your indulgence and that of the House to revisit section (5), particularly the Head notes. Mr Speaker, it says “the functions of the Board on policy formulation”. But when you read the clause, the provision itself, it does not specify any functions of the Board. It just says that --
“the Board shall formulate policies necessary for the achievement of the objects of the office.”
That is all. So if the Head notes would read “Function of the Board”, maybe without bringing in “on policy formulation”, We delete “on policy formulation”,
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
Are policies there -- in that one sentence there is “policy” there - “Functions of the board on . . .” Anyway, let us go.
Mr J. B. Aidoo 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I mean just section (5).
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
Let us continue and then at the appropriate time, we will know what to do.
Clause 10 - Allowances.
Mr Bandua 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 10, delete and insert the following:
“Members of the Board and members of a committee of the Board shall be paid allowances approved by the Minister in consultation with the Minister responsible for Finance”.
Mr Speaker, instead of “Members of the Board and members of a committee of the Board shall be paid allowances approved by the Minister in consultation with the Minister responsible for Finance”,
we want this one to be inserted --
“Members of the Board and members of a committee of Board shall be paid allowances approved by the Minister for Justice in consultation with the Minister responsible for Finance.”
Mr Bandua 1:50 p.m.


Question put and amendment agreed to.

Clause 10 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

1.58 p.m. - [MR SECOND DEPUTY SPEAKER

Clause 11 - Appointment of Executive Director.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 11, “Division” after “Administrative” insert “operational”.
Mr Speaker, I believe it is the heading where we have “Administrative and Financial Matters. So for the heading, it should read, “Administrative, Operational and Financial Matters”.
Mr Bandua 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is acceptable.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12 - Functions of Executive Director.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 12, subclause (1), line 2, after “administration” insert “and operations”
So, it reads:
“The Execut ive Director i s responsible for the day-to-day administration and operations of the Office and is answerable to the Board in the performance under this Act.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 12, subclause (2), delete and insert the following:
“The Executive Director may delegate a function to an authorised officer of the Office but shall not be relieved of the ultimate responsibility for the performance of the delegated function.”
It is:
“The Executive Director may delegate a function to a Deputy Executive Director but the Executive Director shall not be relieved of the ultimate responsibility for the performance of the delegated function.”
And we are saying the Executive Director may delegate a function to an authorised officer of the Office but the Executive Director shall not be relieved of the ultimate responsibility for the performance of the delegated function.
So, the authorised officer has been inserted because it has been defined at page 33 of the Bill.
Mr Boafo 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I quite agree with the Hon Chairman. But on a second thought, there was only an insertion in line 1; that is -
“The Executive Director may delegate a function to an authorised officer of the Office. . .”
My problem is with the “authorised officer of the Office” because it appears later in the Bill that the Executive Director
can authorise a police officer to undertake certain functions. And the police officer so authorised - may be an authorised officer but he may not be an authorised officer of the Office of the Economic and Organised Crime Office. So, if we can delete “of the Office” that will help.
Mr Bandua 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think we may delete “of the Office”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
Is it acceptable to you?
Mr Bandua 2 p.m.
It is acceptable to me.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
So, it will be:
“The Executive Director may delegate a function to an authorised officer but the Executive Director shall not be relieved of the ultimate responsibility for the performance of the delegated function.”
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe the Hon Chairman, if he adverts his mind to the proposal by my Hon Colleague, would disagree with him. Please, look at it carefully. We are talking about the exercise of the functions of the Executive Director. Originally, we were talking about delegation of authority to a Deputy Executive Director. In that case, we are talking about officers of the Office, not any other authorised officer.
Mr Speaker, when we come to the exercise of the general powers of the Office, prosecuting the functions of the Office, that is a different thing altogether. And that is captured in clause 18. So, my Hon Colleague from the mountains is taking us to too high a plateau, and Mr Speaker, it is wrong. And in respect of the functions of the Executive Director, we should restrict it to “an authorised officer
of the Office”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
Hon Boafo from the mountains? [Laughter.]
Mr Boafo 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 18, which was referred to by the Hon Minority Leader talks about the authorised officer's powers which should be exercised in conformity with the Criminal and Other Offences Procedure Act and the Police Service Act and any other law relating to a police officer. But I am referring to a situation - I was trying to lay my hands on the actual provisions. But there are provisions in the Bill which give the power to the Executive Director to appoint police officers to assist the officers of the Office. And the police officer who is so appointed is an authorised officer. That is why I am a bit uncomfortable with the addition of “of the Office”.
Mr Bandua 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if you look at clause 18 - Let me take it and let us see how it would work out -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
You are called upon to adjudicate on the conflicting positions from the other side.
So, please, go on.
Mr Bandua 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we want to read so that we will see how it sychronises with -
“The Executive Director , Deputy Executive Directors and officers authorised by the Executive Director shall exercise the powers and have the immunities conferred on a police officer in the Criminal and Other Offences . . .”
So I think that we should retain “of the Office” there.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
happily for us, the Hon Member has agreed for us to abandon it.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
Hon Member from the mountains, are you persuaded? [Interruptions.]
Mr Owusu-Osei 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, here in clause 12, in talking about -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
May I know clearly your position, so that - Do you support it?
Mr Owusu-Osei 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the position that “officer of the Office” -- Because we are talking about the functions of the Chief Executive. And if you remove “of the Office”, then the suggestion is that the Chief Executive's power can be given to any authorised officer outside the Authority. The definition of “authorised officer”, as given at the definitions column, talks about an authorised officer of the Authority and outside the Authority. So that will not be helpful to the Authority.
Mr J. B. Aidoo 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are going beyond the office of the Executive - [Interruptions] - Yes, because we are not talking just about administration. In the Hon Deputy Minority Leader's own amendment, he has introduced operational responsibilities, which means that in authorising an officer, the Executive Director may go beyond just administration. He may even authorise, let us say, a police officer to undertake some operations. And for which reasons, I would want to go with my Hon Friend from the mountains - [Laughter.]
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, now that the mover of that amendment has abandoned it, there is nothing before this House. So, my Hon Friend cannot be supporting an amendment that does not exist in this House.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, I have not heard from the mouth of the Hon Member from the mountains, who is a learned Friend. And in the circumstances, I think we may want to consider one thing. Can we possibly - And luckily the Hon learned Attorney-General and Minister for Justice herself is here.
Is it possible to contemplate a situation, for example, whereby, some person, even outside the office, may be some expert, may be given some specific duty to perform, like investing some matter on behalf of the Executive Director or so? Even, maybe, some institution being asked to do something on behalf of the Executive Director so as to help him or her perform his or her duties more efficiently?
Yes, Hon Deputy Majority Leader?
Mr Pelpuo 2:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are talking about delegated authority and as one delegates authority, one delegates it to people who understand the authority one is handing over to them and it is within. Normally, it is a principle that allows a managing director or a person in charge to, within his own limits of authority, delegate part of his authority to them and they would be responsible as well. An external person would not be as responsible for an action as much as an internal person.
When it is going outside the office, it has gone beyond the question of delegated authority, because one cannot authorise an officer who is not within one's power of control to be obedient and perform a function the way one wants it. One cannot hold him responsible because there are no laws within the organisation that can enable one to reach him and punish him or do anything to him. So even if we want to stretch it beyond the office, it is advisable not to do that. So I think that “in the office” is important.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
The learned Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, and the Deputy, is
it possible to contemplate a situation, for example, whereby the Executive Director may want to ask the High Commissioner in London or some other person there, maybe, even the Defence Attaché to do something on his behalf? If these are some of the things which can be contemplated under the law, I think if we know, it can help Hon Members to make a clear stand on this.
Mrs Betty Mould-Iddrisu 2:10 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker. Number one, the scenario you explained, I do not think that this is what this section seeks to address. Unfortunately, I was not here for the winnowing. Respectfully, I do not have a problem with it as it stands. I understand the amendment that was agreed to in the winnowing. But I think that when we look at the interpretation, it takes care of the reservations that we have.
We also look at section 18 that talks about that limited powers; it is the power to exercise the powers of the police. But I really think that with the interpretation, we should be covered with the interpretation clause, talking about an officer of the office. That is what an “authorised officer” is. I think that it should be covered by that.
I do not know the Executive Director delegating a function to a deputy -- The emphasis here is on the delegation of the function and I think that it is within the powers. Unfortunately, I was not part of the winnowing but I for one, I am happy with the current phraseology.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, in the entire process, do you contemplate a situation where it is possible for some appropriate person -- and I have given an example of a Defence Attaché or someone like that -- acting on behalf of the Executive Director abroad or anything of that sense?

So that we can fully understand what the parameters of that delegation may be.
Mr Bandua 2:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I cannot contemplate any such situation; I do not know whether such situation can arise. Maybe, the Hon Minister will be able to deal with this.
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 2:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that Executive Director will delegate his function to somebody outside of the office, I do not contemplate such a position. And the other scenario in which he might have needed somebody to exercise that function, it is catered for under section 18, which is the police; that is the powers of the other scenario that the Executive Director would need in order to carry out a certain function, which is not specifically provided for.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
So the
Question to be put would remain:
“The Executive Director may delegate a function to an authorised officer of the Office but shall not be relieved of the ultimate responsibility for the performance of the delegated function.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 13 and 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15 - Funds of the Office.
Mr Bandua 2:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, paragraph (b), lines 2 and 3, delete “and Economic Planning”.
So it would read:
Mr Bandua 2:10 p.m.


“. . . donations, grants and any other moneys that are approved by the Minister responsible for Finance.”

We want this deleted because it is purely financial issues that are being discussed here and it may come to a time when a different Ministry may be created for Economic Planning. So it is proper to delete it from this provision.

Question put and amendment agreed to.

Clause 15 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 16 to 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 - Request for information.
Mr Bandua 2:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19, subclause (1), paragraph (b), line 1, before “Director” insert “Executive”.
So it would read:
“A person who in the opinion of the Executive Director is a proper person to assist with an investigation being conducted by the office.”
I think this amendment is necessary because the Executive Director is an employee of the institution. So it is the Executive Director who is a staff of the institution.
Mr Pelpuo 2:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have
no serious problem with it except the description of the person, which is to say “proper person”. It does not sound elegant. I do not know what else to put there but “proper person” - Why do we not say, maybe, “authorised person”, or -- rather than proper person. But if it is all right, fine.
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 2:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe “proper person” should stand within this context.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
Do we consider “proper person” as an elegant expression in this context?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with respect, I think it is good to let it stay because in the context, we mean the relevant person, appropriate person and so on. So I think if it is the proper person or the relevant person, in my view, it does not take anything away.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
So Chairman of the Committee, what will be the rendition to put the Question?
Mr Bandua 2:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it will be “proper person”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
Would
you read it all?
Mr Bandua 2:20 p.m.
“ A person who in the opinion of the Executive Director is a proper person to assist with an investigation being conducted by the Office.”
Mr Speaker, that will be the rendition.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 2:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19, subclause (2), line 2,
before “Director” insert “Executive” and in line 3, delete “documents are” and insert “document is or the inability to produce the document”.
Mr Speaker, this is consequential.
Mr Speaker, I will take the whole rendition. It will go as follows 2:20 p.m.
“Where a person required to furnish the Office with a document is unable to produce the document, the Executive Director shall request the person to state where the document is or the inability to produce the document.”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
The operative words are “to state”. So we cannot say “the inability to produce the document or where that document is “or whatever”. This is because the operative words that govern the rest of the sentence are “. . .to state” something. So it is to state where the document is or -
Please, continue. You will see that it does not fit. “to state”, one, “where the document is”, and then two, and then what?
Mr Bandua 2:20 p.m.
“Or the inability to produce the document”. That is the inability of the person or why he is unable to produce the document. This is a question of drafting, I do not know. But the intention is that --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
So please, put it well for us -- “Or why he is unable to produce the document”, something of the sort.
Mr Bandua 2:20 p.m.
I think we will leave it to the drafters.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
It is to state something. Or the reason -
Hon learned Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, I hope you are with me. It is to state one thing, first, where the document is, and secondly, reason -
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, “or the reason for the inability to produce the document”.
Mr Bandua 2:20 p.m.
“Or the reason for the inability to produce the document”. Mr Speaker, I beg to so move.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 2:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19, subclause (3), line 1, delete “documents are” and insert “a document is”. And in lines 3 and 4, delete “documents” and insert “document”.
Mr Kyei -Mensah-Bonsu 2:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, they are consequential to those amendments proffered by the Chairman of the Committee.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Boafo 2:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19, at end, add the following new subclauses:
“(4) A person or a representative of an entity appearing before the Executive Director or an authorised officer of the Office shall be granted access to a lawyer of personal choice.
“(5) Where a person or an entity willfully refuses, conceals or otherwise fails to produce a document as required by the Executive Director or an authorised officer, that person or representative commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than two hundred and fifty penalty units or to a term of imprisonment of not more than three months or to both in

the case of an individual and in the case of an entity, to a fine of not more than one thousand penalty units.”

Mr Speaker, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that there is an express provision in the law which grants access to a lawyer of the person's choice.

Mr Speaker, recently, we were here when the Hon Minister for the Interior came to this House and there was a Question about the exclusion of counsel from interrogation by the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) and the answer was that there was no express provision in the Constituent Act of the Security Agencies and this proposed amendment is intended to fill that gap.

Later in the Bill, there are provisions which require the Executive Director to conduct investigations or interrogations and we were told that the practice is to constitute a panel. So this provision is to enable the person being interrogated to have a counsel of his own choice.
Mr Pelpuo 2:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 19 (5). I wonder whether the Right to Information Bill is already not in operation the moment we admit it. Maybe, we need to be apprised the more so that we can all follow and accept it because it is such that the introduction of punitive action for people who fail to submit documents is threatening and maybe, he can explain further -
Mr Osei-Owusu 2:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the idea of the amendment, I think, is all right. It is acceptable except that the language may need fine-tuning. I would rather propose that the person or representative of an entity appearing before an Executive Director or an authorised officer of the
Office shall have the right to counsel of his choice -- counsel to the person's choice.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
Any other views on this?
Mr Pelpuo 2:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the amendment is all right except that I do not think it must be the responsibility of the officer to find a lawyer for a person appearing before it. But that seems to be - “shall grant access to a lawyer of a personal choice”. If we make it mandatory, it is binding on them to grant access and granting access does not mean accepting; it goes beyond that.
But if the sense of it is to say that it shall not prevent anybody from bringing his personal lawyer, then that is all right. But if we say “grant access to”, it means that they should be responsible for getting the person a lawyer. It can be interpreted that way and that will be so burdensome to the Office.
Mr J. B. Aidoo 2:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the amendment further proposed by Hon Osei-Owusu is more elegant because if the person has the right to counsel -- I think that one is more elegant. It is also in consonance with some of our laws and consistence with the provisions of the Constitution. So, I think it is better than the rendition we have by Hon Boafo.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
Hon Boafo, I thought you made reference to recent discussions in the House with regard to what stage a person may have access to counsel. A distinction was made which is rather interesting. Do you intend that this should take care of any difficulty with regard to what stage a person may have counsel present and so on? If so, do you think this does take care of that for counsel to be present at all stages of the investigation and examination? Because some interesting distinction was made between a person who is merely helping with investigations or who is being
interrogated and a person who has been charged with an offence.
If that is a difficulty now, do we want to keep it or we want to take care of it in this law? And we may also want to consider that Constitutional provision which says that a person will also be provided with all facilities to defend himself. And in bringing about such a law, shall we want to let this remain ambiguous or shall we want to provide specifically for it? And if we talk about facilities, shall they include witness statements, et cetera except where this may be found to be a security issue? So, Hon Boafo, you may want to look at it holistically and help us.
Mr Boafo 2:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I quite appreciate your point. It may be necessary for us not to stop at the right to counsel alone but go further to embrace the availability of facilities to enable the person defend himself in accordance with the relevant article in the Constitution on fundamental rights and personal liberties. In that case, if we can adopt the language in the Constitution with regard to the availability of facilities to an accused person.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
Hon Boafo, if you may please help us to get to the appropriate section of the Constitution with regard to that omnibus word “facililties”, which accidentally is creating problems. If you can read 19 (2) (e), (f) and also (g). If you may, please, read that for us.
Mr Boafo 2:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is the provision under Fair Trial. We are talking about stage of interrogation. I believe that if we can concern ourselves at this stage with the right to counsel, then when we come to the subsequent provisions where it involves quasi trial, we can consider extending the provisions in the Constitution to the person who will appear before the Executive Director and his
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
Very well. So, you are mindful of that? So, how will you put it so that during investigation - In fact, at every stage of the process, the person shall have not only the right to counsel but for counsel to be present.
Mr Barton-Odro 2:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am a bit worried because we must make a distinction between a situation where the person has been charged and the process before he or she is charged. There must be a distinction. When one is collating information towards deciding whether there is a need to charge or not to charge the person, the circumstances are different. When after one has gone through that process, one thinks one is convinced that the person has to be charged, the circumstances also differ. So, the right to counsel has to be looked at in that perspective. That is my only worry about it.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
Yes, Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice, at least, I am very certain about Britain. In the British system, the police or the law enforcement officers can do all they want to do in their own offices and with all bodies or agencies.
But where a person is invited to the police or any law enforcement institution, the moment he is invited to appear before them to be asked a single question or the other, he has the right to have a counsel present. And that is where the distinction is? Because, otherwise, we may get a person, put him under circumstances that are not desirable, get certain statements and we say,
“Now, we want to do the formal process of charging you.”
But already, a lot of harm would have been done to the human rights of
Mr Barton-Odro 2:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am all out with you. My only problem is, the fact that one has been invited does not necessarily mean that one will be charged. The fact that one has been invited might mean that one might be used as witness, for example. So, we have to be careful how we tread. I agree that we do not have to trample upon the rights of an individual who will eventually be charged.
In the same breadth, are we saying that for every invitation to ask questions as to gather information material, we should have counsel present?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
The person should have the right to a counsel once he is invited to the police station or wherever. This is because everybody starts as a person invited to assist the police with investigations before that person will be an accused. Otherwise, invariably, we will have the police trampling upon the rights of every citizen who is a potential accused person because he or she starts as a person invited to assist the police with their investigations.
Then when we have finished trampling upon his rights, we say, ‘Oh, now we are going to accuse you. You have right for counsel to be present.” That, in my opinion, is most ridiculous and it will not happen in the United States of America, it will not happen in Britain -- these countries that have established human rights and constitutionalism and due process. I am very, very certain of these two countries.
Mr Boafo 2:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the position that you have just espoused because if we try to bring the categories, we may end up by leaving certain stages of the process and if we go by the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice's position, we may ourselves, in a position where a suspect in an interrogation without the guidance of a counsel, may incriminate himself and it would be too bad at the later stage to get this expunged from the process. So I think it would be safer if we leave it to cover all possible situations.
If we get to a situation where national security is involved or the national interest is involved or public safety is involved, that can be a justification and that will be put to test under due process. So, I want to differ at this stage with the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice.
Mr J. B. Aidoo 2:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the right to counsel, I believe, is part of the justice procedure system and unless, maybe, the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice is telling us that investigation at the pre-arrest stage is not part of the justice procedure system, then I will agree with him. But if investigation at the pre-arrest stage or maybe, detention stage, interrogation, investigation and whatever -- at that stage --is part of the justice procedure system, then the person being interrogated should have the right to counsel for the sake of justice.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
And particularly, a citizen must help the police in investigations. In fact, it is a civic duty. But a citizen should not be pushed to the wall to say, “Until you formally arrest me, I will not assist the police.” But if that is so, then that is what we need to - Any person who is well informed will say, “If you do not formally arrest me, I will not have anything to do with you.” But that is not the way the police can work efficiently. Leave the police to “invite” - and very often we know “invite” is in
inverted commas.
Mr C.S. Hodogbey 2:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there are some interrogations where sometimes the presence of a counsel is not required, especially when the investigators want to extract some important piece of information from the - [Inaudible] -- and the question is, the amendment seeks for personal choice. So if the person who is being interrogated is not able to get a counsel of his choice, will the investigation or interrogation be suspended until he gets a person of his choice? That is what we would have to look into.
Mr Osei-Owusu 2:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that we should stay at “the right to counsel” at this point. “A person or a representative of an entity appearing before the Executive Director or an authorised officer of the Office shall have a right to counsel of his/ her choice”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
“….at all stages of the investigation.” That is the issue really he is talking about.
Mr Osei-Owusu 2:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think we should end there.
Mr Pelpuo 2:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the latest amendment. If one has the right of a counsel, one can decide at what stage one wants it. We do not need to spell out and legislate on the stages. We should just say, “They have a right to counsel when they are invited.” So if one is invited for questioning, if one is invited for any other issue, it is no longer something that is subjected to a legal - something that we have to legislate about. So I think it is neater, elegant and something we can support.
Mr Boafo 2:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think we are ad idem on the amendment that we
Prof. Gyan-Baffour 2:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think “elegant” and all those words are very important but I also believe that we have to be very specific on certain issues. When we say that, “You have the right to counsel” and for emphasis, if we say, “at every stage of the process”, I do not think there is anything that we have lost in the process. I think we would be more specific than just stay at “counsel”. So, for the avoidance of doubt, I think we have to add “at every stage of the process”.
Mr Pelpuo 2:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, they have not excluded “any stage.” So “every stage of the” --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
For the avoidance of doubt - I am particularly in favour of tightening the screws. Let us be honest to ourselves. Parliament should take notice of some of the difficulties in the administration of justice, so if a thing is to avoid doubt, why should we create a doubt and then someone will tell you that, at this stage, you have no right to counsel as sometimes happens? And mind you, it is not for only one person; it is for all Ghanaians. I want Parliament to be very careful about this.
Mr Pelpuo 2:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if you have a right to counsel when you are invited, nobody is saying that at this stage you are - There is no exclusion that at a particular stage, you are not supposed to bring a counsel. You are given a blank space. I mean it is a blank page to operate with. If you compartmentalise it and say, “at every stage”, it looks like it is repetition; it is superfluous. I believe that if you are given a blank cheque, “You have the right to a counsel” and without mentioning stages and all that which otherwise, will even muddle the meaning of it.
Mr J. B. Aidoo 2:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this
Mr Boafo 2:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I want to give a new rendition.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
All right.
Mr Boafo 2:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I want to give a new rendition which will be as follows:
“A person or a representative of an entity appearing before the Executive Director or an authorised officer of the Office shall be granted
access to a lawyer of personal choice at any stage of the process.”
Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Boafo 2:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we spent a lot of time on clause 19 (4) and we did not touch clause 19 (5).
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
Was there any other difficulty with regard to clause 19 (5)? I thought we moved on and unless there was something else raised by some other Hon Member. There was only a bit difficulty with regard to clause 19(4) but if there is any other -
Mr Boafo 2:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, for the purposes of the order of proceedings, I beg to move,
“(5) Where a person or an entity wilfully refuses, conceals or otherwise fails to produce a document as required by the Executive Director or an authorised officer, that person or representative commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than two hundred and fifty penalty units or to a term of imprisonment of not more than three months or to both in the case of an individual and in the case of an entity, to a fine of not more than one thousand penalty units.”
Mr Osei-Owusu 2:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the amendment.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Hodogbey 2:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this is a Bill dealing with money laundering and
other issues. So, assuming a person comes to pay the penalty, is that enough? With no issue of imprisonment in there? So, somebody who steals millions of dollars, he comes to pay the penalty as spelt out in subclause 5 -- Therefore, I suggest that there should be more serious penalty because the Bill seeks to punish people who have been able to run away from these offences.
Mr Osei-Owusu 2:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think my Hon Friend has misapprehended the clause we are dealing with. Here, we are dealing with wilfully failing to produce a document to the Executive Director. We are not dealing with the money laundering offences or any of that thing. So I think this punishment suggested in there is appropriate for the purpose.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
Hon Member, the refusal to produce a document can be very, very fatal; it needs not be a small matter.
Mr Pelpuo 2:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my problem with that is, if it can be explained or otherwise fails -- “if otherwise you fail” is equal to “if you wilfully refuse to produce the document.” If it is not equated to “failing”, then it is all right. But if it is equated to “failing”, because we know “or” it is either this or this. And if you fail and you are subjected to the same offence, then it is not very fair to those who would fail because of circumstances beyond their control.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
Then it is not “wilful”. The lawyers will tell you, then it is not “wilful” because “wilful” covers all the various categories of either refusing, concealing or failing', “wilful” covers all.
Mr Pelpuo 2:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, then it is, “otherwise fails to produce a document…”
I do not know whether it is --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
Yes, it means, “otherwise wilfully fails…”, in each case, you must have “wilfully”.
Hon Members, actually, I think the issue raised by the Hon Member is quite worthy of consideration of the House. Because that failure can be a very, very serious offence, sitting on a document wilfully, failing to co-operate in a very serious offence and then all you are facing is three months. Very often I know that in such cases, the continuing nature of the offence attracts more punishment.
Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, in other words, the person refuses once and if the court even orders and he continues to refuse, is it only a three- month matter? Maybe, we may have to do something here, Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice.
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 2:50 p.m.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for this. One penalty unit is equivalent to ¢12.00 -- the drafters are here, so I stand to correction. But I believe that they have aligned the units to the term of imprisonment. I am of the opinion, actually, that this is sufficient for this particular offence.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
Hon Members, so shall we proceed? Very well.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20 - Power to search and remove documents.
Mr Bandua 3 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 20, subclause (1), line 4, before “control” delete “the” and in line 5, delete “documents” and insert “a document”.
Mr Speaker, if I take the whole rendition, it will read 3 p.m.
“The Executive Director shall apply to the Court, without notice to the person or entity specified in the application to issue a warrant authorising a police officer to enter premises in the possession of or under the control of the specified person or entity to search and remove a document specified in the application.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Bandua 3 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 20, subclause (1), paragraph (b), line 1, before “Director” insert “Executive”.
Mr Speaker, this amendment is consequential.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 20, subclause (1), paragraph (b), delete “documents” and insert “a document”.
Clause 20, subclause (1), paragraph (c), line 2, delete “documents” and insert “document”.
Mr Speaker, the two amendments in my name, I believe, are consequential,
so I believe you will understand it. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
So you moved the two together?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3 p.m.
That is so, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, when I connect these things out, I thought the Hon Chairman will assume responsibility and move all of them together; so I moved them together, I connected them.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
These are consequential amendments, so I will put the Question.
Question put and amendments agreed to.
Mr Boafo 3 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 20, subclause (3), line 2, delete “to be”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition will be that --
“the authorised officer of the Office shall prepare an inventory of the documents retrieved in duplicates. . .”
Mr Bandua 3 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the amendment.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Boafo 3 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 20, subclause (4), line 1, delete “documents” and insert “document” and at end, add the following:
“but the person or entity from whom the document was retrieved is entitled to apply to the Executive Director for a copy or extract of the document.”
Mr Speaker, in line 1, of sub-clause (4), the deletion of (s), so that the expression will become “document”. It is consequential on the earlier proposed amendment. At the end, we add the following:
“but the person or entity from whom the document was retrieved is entitled to apply to the Executive Director for a copy or extract of the document.”
Mr Speaker, this contemplates a situation where the Executive Director will take the original documents away from the entity or from the person, that if it is a land document, he may need a copy for further purposes; or if it is a document covering a vehicle, he would need a copy, so that if he is accosted in traffic, he can show it to the police officer, This is the essence of the proposed amendment.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
In that connection, Hon Boafo, you would want that the document should be taken and the person apply for a copy, or would you not like to then say that upon the taking, you would give the person a copy so that the person does not even have to apply? You can only take when you give the person a copy. Would that not enhance the very protection you seek? You can only take it upon giving the person a copy. Not that you take it and then he will apply for a copy and then you will take whatever time that you like to give him a copy. Is that it?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with respect, I cannot fathom a situation where copies will be given before the document is taken. It certainly must be taken before, maybe, copies may be availed to the owner. But beyond that Mr Speaker, it is for purposes of ensuring that those documents, perhaps, do not even get missing from the system, so we still have copies of them. I do not know whether it should come by application which will take sometime or maybe, once it is taken, then within three days or so, the person that the documents are retrieved from, would be served copies of the documents that were taken away.

Regarding whether or not one should precede the other, I believe it is the taking away of the document that should precede the serving copies of the document to wherever and whoever they are taken from.
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 3 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe that we are happy with the phraseology as it presently stands. If we attempt to place undue burden on the new office, it will prove difficult administratively. There are situations when we have to collect thousands of documents. If the people need the documents, then of course, when they apply, they should be able to be given copies. If I understand you properly, the automotive giving of all copies that are taken, would prove administratively extremely difficult.
I think that we should not fetter the hands of the office, because sometimes you need to come and just contain an office and take everything away. So that if there are documents that are needed by the party immediately, once they apply, we give them the copies.
Dr Richard W. Anane 3 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, I think we want to protect the individual even in the position that the person may have been placed. But Mr Speaker, I believe that yes, the person is entitled to. But as the Learned Attorney- General and Minister for Justice is saying, it is possible the person may not even need it. So there will be no need for the person to seek for that. But can we make it in such a way that the phraseology accepts that that person, when he needs it, can go for it, but when he does not need it, may not go for it? In that case, I want to propose that the rendition be:
“by the person or entity from whom the document was retrieved is entitled to a copy or extracts of the document”.
Dr Richard W. Anane 3 p.m.


In this way, it is opened and the person may, if he needs it, go in for that. But if he does not need it, he will not go in for anything. It should read:

“but the person or entity from whom the document was retrieved is entitled to a copy or extracts of the document.”

But normally, if the person does not need it, he will not go and seek for that. But when he needs it, because it is mandatory that you give it when he needs it, as soon as he goes, he will give it to him.
Mr Barton-Odro 3:10 p.m.
That is the more reason we are saying it should be on application. It is your right, but if you do not want to exercise it, nobody forces you. If you want to exercise it, you put in an application for it and they will be compelled to make it available to you.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
Thank you very much -- except that Hon Boafo, are we sure of a copy or extracts? What kind of extracts are you possibly contemplating? They will make a summary or what for you? Can we be clear on what the extract is?
Mr Boafo 3:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is left to the choice of the person and it depends on the type of document and what he needs from it. Mr Speaker, if you go to the Registrar- General's Department, you can ask for a copy of the Regulations or you can ask for an extract from the Regulations or a copy of a special resolution filed with the Registrar-General or extract from that. So, each case would be determined on its own merit.
But Mr Speaker, following your advice to tighten the knot and if I may go further - [Interruptions] - Hon Attorney-General

Mr Speaker, if we can bring a time limit within which on application the copy or the extract will be available to the applicant, we would like to propose the following, that we add --

“…and the Executive Director shall comply within seven days after the application.”

Unless the learned Attorney-General and Minister for Justice is of the view that it is too short a time.
Mr Barton-Odro 3:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, twenty-one days is reasonable. This is because it depends on the volume you are talking about. So twenty-one days would appear for me reasonable.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
Hon Boafo, we should simply add “within twenty-one days” and then I will put the Question? He says we should add “which shall be given within twenty-one days.”
Mr Boafo 3:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, by way of compromise, I think we can come to fourteen days and we are dealing with an Executive Director here. So it would be faster. But when it gets to the court, you know that the process is very slow. If it were to the court, we would agree on twenty-one days, but this is an administrative process.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
But Hon learned Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, is it every document that would be in the interest of justice to return or to give a copy of it to a person or body that is being investigated? Would there be a situation and I think there could be, when in the interest of maybe, justice, entire State and everything, a copy should not go back?
Let us be mindful of the security of our State as well. So we see some really dangerous subvertive documents with
regard to cocaine business in Ghana to destroy our very lives and then the person says “I want a copy” and he should get a copy. Should we then let these matters be determined by the court? Let us know exactly what we want.
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 3:10 p.m.
I thank you for this, Mr Speaker. I have reservations about this. But there are some instances where for purely utilitarian functions, you need to have copies of the documents, as you are saying, maybe, in terms of the vehicle or so.This is not only the security aspect, but also the purely criminal aspect. We should remember that this is a law dealing with organised crime as well, and it deals with large quantities of commercial documents involving banking transactions and so on -- advanced fraud and complicated issues and money laundering.
I would respectfully advise that there should be some discretionary power within the Executive Director or the Executive Director should be able to go to court to block anyone from obtaining copies of such documents. Sitting here, I can think of several instances of matters that have come before me, where we would not want to let the people get copies of the documents that we have seized.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
So Hon Boafo, it is possible for people to apply to the court in this situation, then the State would also be in a position to present a case before the court that no, we cannot give a copy. Then it would be for the court to balance the interest of the individual and the State.
rose
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
Hon Boafo, I will come to you.
Mr Pelpuo 3:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think I
was going to raise the same issue when you called the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. I think that, if for example, an Al Qaeda person comes here
and maps out a strategy to bomb places and then you seize the document and then he has the right to apply for it -- So, we have to be careful what kind of application and retrieval we are talking about. I think that a compromise position is to apply to the court and the court determines whether they should give it to you or not. So, it is not all documents we can be asking for.
Dr Anane 3:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, I do appreciate principles that have been espoused. But Mr Speaker, an individual seeking support under the court may take a longer period. If we take the individual and we take the State, Mr Speaker, the State should be the one on whom that burden should be placed.
If the State thinks that this document should not be given to you, then the State should apply to the court to get it done, because there are not many instances where we would find out that this document is not a document that should be given to you. If there were so many of such instances, that would have been a different matter, Mr Speaker. So that is my submission.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
So, Hon Anane, in principle, the principle is fine, except that the State should rather apply within a certain period if they are not inclined towards giving it to you.
Very well.
Mr Boafo 3:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in the spirit
of flexibility -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
Give and take?
Mr Boafo 3:10 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker. If we can add that --
“unless the Executive Director determines that the release of the copy or the extract would be prejudicial to further investigation.”
If we couch it in that way, it takes care of the concerns of the Hon learned
Attorney-General and Minister for Justice.
Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 3:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the last rendition by Hon Boafo would give rise to arbitrary of capricious discretion making in residing in the Executive Director. I would respectfully submit that the application, to have copies, should go to court and let the court decide it.
It is within the power of the Executive Director to decide whether or not to give, and sometimes we do give copies. It is not a problem at all, most of the time we can give copies. But as I said, the nature of some of these cases and the nature of some of these criminal activities that we have come across especially involving banks -- you know, banking transactions, cross border transactions do not make me comfortable in giving those whose documents are seized an automatic right to production of copies of such documents.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thought that originally, I was going to support my Colleague, the Hon Member for Akropong (Mr Boafo). But the further amendment that he is providing really then takes us back to the original position contained in the Bill which provides -
“The office may take possession of the documents for a period necessary for the investigation or trial and any proceedings subsequent to the trial.”
One would say that that is also discretionary. I do not want to believe that it involves arbitrariness because Mr Speaker, if a person then thinks that he should go beyond this, the court then would be the resort. I do not even think that we should make that provision here. So I think apart from what is contained, I do not think that we need to even have this provision, in particular considering his own amendment. I think we can allow this to stand.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
Because it would be very dangerous to also release documents like that. Lawyers will tell you the kind of documents that seriously will be involved in these dangerous international -
So Hon Boafo, would you want to withdraw the amendment, since from the point raised by the Hon Minority Leader, it will not actually be necessary? We do not want individual's liberty to be trampled upon. At the same time, our State must be strong enough to protect us against certain dangerous persons and practices.
Mr Boafo 3:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my amendment is not seeking to ask the Executive Director to release the entire documents to the applicant. It is only a copy. If they want to retain the original, they can retain it for as long a period as they need it. My concern is for him to get a copy for his personal use in case he needs it for other purposes. I illustrate this with the Land Title Registration Certificate --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
Hon Boafo, can you imagine a situation whereby even a person holding another copy of that document, it would enable him to do that very wrong thing that you seek to deal with him from, I mean, it can happen.
Supposing there is a power of attorney that has made him to perpetuate a fraud, then he gets a copy and he is able to perhaps, go on doing that very wrong thing. So it can be very, very tricky. Let us balance the interest of our State.
Mr Boafo 3:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, they can adopt all sorts of administrative restrictions on this. They can endorse it “not for use anywhere”, or something of that sort. I mean, it is necessary for the person to
get a copy.
Mr J. B. Aidoo 3:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this around, I will not support my good Friend from the mountains.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
Thank you.
Mr J. B. Aidoo 3:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this particular provision is flowing from clause 19 and it is not just an ordinary, maybe, seizure or retrieval. It is contingent on a situation whereby the person or the entity refuses to provide the document or the information - because the clause 19, we took, “whereby the person wilfully refuses” - And then when we come to clause 20 (1) (a) -
“person or entity required to produce a document to the office fails or refuses to produce the document,”
Mr Speaker, that is where the Executive Director would have to authorise an officer to intervene and then go and retrieve that document. When the document is retrieved and then you are asking that the very person who refused to provide the document should be given a copy, then where are we going? Mr Speaker, when you go further, my good Friend's amendment (xxvi) is even more dangerous. So this time round, I will support him. I will not rather request him to honourably withdraw his amendment.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
Hon Boafo, would you want to help the House further?
Mr Boafo 3:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, initially, I thought the learned Attorney-General and Minister for Justice had no problem if we should go to court for the court to order for --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
Now , the Hon learned Attorney-General and Minister for Justice has a problem, and she has made it very clear. So let us proceed from the position that she has emphatically come upon.
Mr Boafo 3:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in that spirit of shifting the burden from the Executive Director to the court, the import of the proposed amendment under clause 35 can be incorporated in the next proposed amendment; that is under clause 36, where I am also seeking to add -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
So for the time being, you want to abandon the amendment at this stage?
Mr Boafo 3:20 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
Thank you very much. The amendment therein is abandoned.
Mr Boafo 3:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 20, add the following new subclause:
“A person or entity from whom a document has been retrieved is entitled to apply to the court within twenty-one days after the date of retrieval for an order to set aside the search, removal or retrieval and restoration of the document.”
Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment is to give the right --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
It is consequential. It would have been consequential if the earlier one had been adopted.
Mr Boafo 3:20 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker. And the suggestion that I am bringing on board
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
Very well, Hon Member.
Mr Boafo 3:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
“That a person or entity from whom a document has been retrieved is entitled to apply to the court within twenty-one days after the date of retrieval for a copy or extract of the document or another to set aside the search, removal or retrieval and restoration of the document.”
Mr Speaker, this is not a strange provision at all. We have it already in our Criminal Justice Delivery System, where we call it - at times the court even gives the order of restitution. So it is not a strange phenomenon at all.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
Very well. I can see the Hon learned Attorney- General and Minister for Justice is very much in agreement with you and I will put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
Hon Deputy Majority Leader, at this stage, is there any indication?
Mr Pelpuo 3:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe this is the stage everybody is enjoying the exercise and we would have wished to continue but - [Interruptions] - Mr Speaker, there is a very enthusiastic call from the floor that we continue and finish with clause 21 before I conclude what I was trying to say.
rose
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
Yes, Hon Minority Leader, I thought you wanted to say -- the earlier indication is to start tomorrow.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is just one more clause before we finish with Part I and that is clause 21.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
And there is no listed amendment.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:30 p.m.
I think there is just one amendment. We can just deal with that one and adjourn.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
Very well. Leadership, clause 21.
Clause 21 - Obstruction of officer of the Office.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 21, line 1, delete “of the Office”.
Mr Speaker, the little amendment is in respect of the deletion of the words “of the Office” because the authorised officer refers to not only those authorised from the Office but any other person so authorised from the Office or by the Office.
So, I thought, in that case, it should be “Obstruction of an authorised officer”, simpliciter.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, do you have any objections? -[Pause.]
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
Hon Deputy Majority Leader, your expectations are fulfilled?
Mr Abdul-Rashid Pelpuo 3:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as I said, this is a moment everybody is enjoying and we would have loved to continue but it does not look like the day is in our favour. It is moving very fast to the dark side of it. So, I would want to suggest that we bring proceedings to an end while suggesting that we find time and do more winnowing before we come on board tomorrow in the forenoon.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, I hope with your amendment, you have no other - except you have some good news for the House.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, on behalf of the House, I cannot have good news. The good news definitely would come from the Hon Majority Leader or his Deputy.
But I just wanted to draw the attention of the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and her Deputy to what we have done already in respect of clause 18 - just for them to ponder over so that, maybe, when we return the next time, we would really come to the realisation whether we have done the right thing or not.
In respect of clause 18, the Question has already been put on it though, but just for their further consideration --
“The Executive Director, Deputy Executive Directors and officers authorised by the Executive Director shall exercise the powers …”
Mr Speaker, the Head note reads “Authorised officers to exercise powers
of police” and I thought that perhaps “unauthorised officers” have been defined, not “officers authorised by the Executive”. Would you just say --
“The Executive Director, Deputy Executive Directors and authorised officers of the Office shall exercise the powers …”
Would you say that? Just for you to consider, maybe, when we come back. This time round, we would come to some determination of that.
So, Mr Speaker, with that, as you said, we do not need any Motion for adjournment. So, you may adjourn.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
Hon Members, the House will stand adjourned to tomorrow at ten o'clock in the forenoon.
Thank you, very much.
ADJOURNMENT 3:30 p.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 3.35 p.m. till Tuesday, 20th July, 2010 at 10.00 a.m.