Debates of 22 Jul 2010

MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:30 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:30 a.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Hon Members, Correction of Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, 21st July,
2010.
Page 1 … 14.
Mr Haruna H. Bayirga 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, sorry, let me draw you back a bit. Page 13, on the Appointments Committee, yesterday, I was there in person and I contributed but my name is missing; so, if that can be corrected.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:30 a.m.
I can testify that you were there.
Hon Members, page 1, Wednesday, is it “21st” or what? Is it correct?
Mr Ambrose P. Dery 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, “21st” should take “st” and not “th”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Very well. Hon Members, the Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, 21st July, 2010 as corrected is --
Dr Mathew O. Prempeh 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I want to bring to your notice that -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Is it about

Correction of Votes and Proceedings?
Dr Prempeh 10:30 a.m.
No, we have ended that but before you go --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:30 a.m.
No. Hon Members, the Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, 21st July, 2010 be adopted as the true record of proceedings.
Dr Prempeh 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I wanted to bring to your notice something that is currently on the airwaves of this country. Increasingly, people are calling in to stations and expressing their anxiety about deaths immediately after injecting the H1N1. This is going to cause panic in this country -- not fear, panic and it is serious. Today, on one of the airwaves -- Mr Speaker, I am bringing something to your notice -- [Interruption]
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Hon Member, under what rule of the House are you coming?
Dr Prempeh 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I will tell you under what --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Under what rule are you coming ?
Dr Prempeh 10:30 a.m.
Information to the Speaker and the House.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Hon Member, you should see me after adjournment so that we will discuss whatever you want to raise and then we see how we can locate it on the --
Dr Prempeh 10:30 a.m.
This needs -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Hon Member, you are out of order.
Hon Member, I will suggest that if you feel concerned about any matter, I believe
that since you are a very Hon Member of this House, let us find a way of addressing it, but not the approach you want to adopt.
Hon Members, at the Commencement of Public Business -- Item number 4 - Presentation and First Reading of Bills.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Hon Minister for Education, are you now in charge of Environment, Science and Technology? Are you now in charge?
Mr Cletus A. Avoka 10:30 a.m.
I apologise on his behalf, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister for Environment, Science and Technology has indicated she will come but she will be late; so, I want to plead with you and crave the indulgence of my Colleagues in this august House to allow the Hon Minister for Education to lay item 4 on behalf of the Minister for Environment, Science and Technology so that we can progress in our work.
Mr Ambrose P. Dery 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in principle and to facilitate the work of this House, we would accept that, except to say that in these days of rumoured reshuffle, we do not know whether this is a foreshadowing or a harbinger of where various Ministers are going to go. But with that, I think we are all right.
Mr Avoka 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, if there is
BILLS - FIRST READING 10:40 a.m.
Mr Avoka 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, with regard
to item 5 (a)(i) - my information from the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning is that there are some few issues to sort out in respect to that one. So we will suspend the laying of item 5 (a)(i) and rather lay item 5 (a)(ii) at page 2.
And certainly, I would want to crave your indulgence and my Colleagues to allow the Hon Deputy Minister for Finance and Economic Planning to lay it on behalf of the substantive Minister who is not available this morning.
Thank you.
Mr Dery 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, very well. I
think we would allow the Deputy Minister to do that.
PAPERS 10:40 a.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Item 5
(b)(i) -
Mr Avoka 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am surprised -- my information is that the Reports under item 5 (b) are not ready. Besides, the Chairman of the Committee --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Is the
reason that the Chairman of the Committee who is supposed to lay the Paper is not here, or it is the case that the Report is not ready?
Mr Avoka 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, both.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Both?
Very well. So we are therefore, deferring the whole of item 5 (b).
Mr Avoka 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, that is so.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Very well.
Item 5 (c)(i).
By the Chairman of the Committee --
(i) Report of the Finance Committee on the Loan Agreement between the Government of Ghana and Commerzbank A G o f B e l g i u m f o r a n amount of €8,210,129.00 for the supply of the second batch of 50 VDL Jonckheere buses and spare parts under Belgian Government Concessionary Finance.
(ii) Report of the Finance Committee on the Buyer 's Credit Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana and Poly Technologies Inc. of Beijing, China, for an amount of one hundred million United States dollars
( U S $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 )
f o r t h e p r o c u r e m e n t o f strategic equipment to re-equip the Ghana Army and the Ghana Air Force and also improve barracks accommodation for the soldiers.
( i i i ) Repor t of the Finance Committee on the Agreement between the Government of Ghana and Fr. Lürssen Werft GmbH & Co. KG of Germany for an amount of US$37,867,500 (€28,050,000) for the purchase and refurbishment of two former German Navy Fast Attack Craft Type S143, setting- to-work of the ships, delivery and installation of weapons, supply of inventory and spares, training of crews and the transportation of the ships to Ghana.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:40 a.m.
The Leadership should make arrangements to consult to find out whether the Report (ii) and (iii) can be discussed with a special arrangement. Remember when this loan facility was being arranged, the Hon Member for Nkoranza North raised a point. So, Leadership should find out whether we could make a special arrangement for the debate of item 5 (c) (ii) and (iii). Very well.
Mr Dery 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think I
absolutely agree with you. We have had an occasion to discuss some of these things in camera and since they relate to our security, it is better that we actually make that special arrangement so that we do not throw out the very sensitive information

about our own military and therefore, our security.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Very well, Hon Majority Leader, do we take item 6?
Mr Avoka 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we will take
item 14 at page 29.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Very well,
Hon Members, item 14 on the Order Paper.
MOTIONS 10:50 a.m.
Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee(Mr Francis Y. Osei-Sarfo) 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that this Honourable House adopts the Report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs on the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Hon Member for North Tongu, is it a point of order against the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee? If it is not against him, then you are out of order; you may hold your peace.
Hon Member, is it against the Hon Member who is on the floor?
Mr Hodogbey 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, earlier, I stood on a point of order to explain -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Hon Member, you are out of order.
Hon Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, continue.
Mr Osei-Sarfo 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker,
1.0 Introduction
The African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance which was adopted by the 8th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of the African Union on the 30th of January, 2007 was presented to Parliament on the 18th June, 2010 for ratification. In accordance with article 75 of the 1992 Constitution and Standing Order 183 of the House, the Speaker referred the Charter to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration for consideration and report.
2.0 Deliberations
The Committee met on Friday, 16th July, 2010 and considered the referral. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration and an official from the Ministry were in attendance to assist the Committee in its deliberation. The Committee is grateful to the Hon Minister and the Ministry's officer for their presence and their assistance.
3.0 Reference Documents
The Committee made reference to the following documents:
i. The 1992 Constitution
ii. T h e S t a n d i n g O r d e r s o f Parliament.
4.0 Background
Recognising the growing importance of democracy and good governance to the
Ms Shirley A. Botchway (NPP-- Weija) 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion as presented by the Hon Chairman of the Committee and in doing so, I wish to make a few comments.
Mr Speaker, I believe that the Assembly of Heads of State found it very necessary with the wind of change of democracy that is blowing throughout our continent to come up with a legal binding document, which is the Charter before us this morning, for all countries to adopt a Charter, ratify it for it to be binding on member States.
This Charter finds all the protocols, for instance, that you find in the ECOWAS protocols on good governance, which make it one document, which would ensure that once we have the 15- member countries signing and ratifying it, it will be binding on all the 53 States within the continent. I believe that this is an important document that Ghana as a trail
blazer, that Ghana as a leader, should be among the first few countries that would ratify it.
The Charter deals with several sections but it has four main areas under democracy, human rights and the rule of law; it also has a section on elections and democratic institutions. It also has a section on political, economic and social governance.
Mr Speaker, I will like to just highlight a few areas and one to do with elections and the need for member States to ensure that elections are held in a free, regular, fair and transparent manner. And also the need for member States to ensure that during elections, we allow observer missions to come in and then look at our processes before the election day and even after the declaration of results and all these areas.
The Charter is very explicit on elections and the need for democracy, the need to ensure that we have proper working democratic institutions and for some of them, such as the Electoral Commission that it is, indeed, independent.
I t also talks about democratic institutions such as the Legislature and how the legislator should be well resourced and should be independent to carry out its mandate.
It also has a section on human rights and the rule of law and I believe that it obliges all of us as member States to make sure that we provide our citizenry with the conducive atmosphere for them to enjoy human rights as has been adopted by all of us.
It is interesting also, Mr Speaker, that the Charter has one whole section,article 29, on women's participation. I am very
Mr Ahmed Ibrahim (NDC - Tain) 11 a.m.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity. I beg to support the Motion. Mr Speaker, this is a very good Charter for Africa. However, I have some few recommendations.
the objectives
Mr Speaker, if you look at page 3, the Charter 11 a.m.


seems to prohibit, reject and condemn unconstitutional change of governments in any member State, as a serious threat to stability, peace, security and development. The earlier one is on the elections.

Mr Speaker, if this is a Charter that we all agree that we are going to sign to which the Report states that it needs 15 member States to ratify before it comes into being, but as of now, only three have ratified this Charter; it begins to tell you that it may be good on paper; but is Africa ready for it? That is the question. In practice, is Africa committed to it? That is another question.

A Charter that seeks to condemn unconstitutional means of changing government? In Africa, what has been happening currently is nothing to write home about. We conduct elections, we condemn unconstitutional change of government, but we endorse sometimes power- sharing.

Mr Speaker, what does Africa have to do with power-sharing, if we want to condemn unconstitutional change of government? I think the time has come for Africa, now that we are going to ratify this Charter; after it has come into being, to take seriously election monitoring in member States. And if there are any negative observations after elections are organised and there are some sort of malpractices, rigging anywhere, then the African Union is to go and take critical decisions; it should not say, for the sake of peace, let us go and endorse power- sharing.

Power-sharing will not help Africa. If we want to be committed to the Charter, we should condemn power-sharing; we should take monitoring of elections very seriously and the recommendations of election monitoring teams must be considered by the African Union. And serious decisions must be taken. If sanctions are to be

imposed on countries that do not organise free, fair and transparent elections, those things should take place. If we want to go forward, this is the only way. Other than that, if we accept it on paper and we are not committed to it, and we continue endorsing power-sharing, the future of African democracy would be nothing to write home about.

Thank you Mr Speaker, for the opportunity given me.
Papa Owusu-Ankomah (NPP - Sekondi) 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to support the Motion and to urge Hon Colleagues also to support this Motion.
Mr Speaker, Africa has come a long way. Years ago, it would have been inconceivable for the African Union to have this Charter. However, once the Union itself has considered it important and necessary to introduce such a Charter, it also imposes a responsibility on some of the leading lights on democracy in Africa, particularly Ghana.
Of course, in Ghana, we have come to appreciate the fact that alternation of political power is important to the development of democracy. One group may come, next time, another group may come; it also provides a basis for understanding the very essence of democracy by the electorate.
Sometimes, when statements are made in respect of democratic governance in other countries, it leads to a diplomatic furory. And I have personally experienced this when as a representative of His Excellency the President, I addressed a seminar or workshop on elections in Africa and cited Zimbabwe as an example of what ought not to be done by any government when it comes to elections.
Mr Speaker, you would be surprised that a formal note of protest was sent by the Zimbabwean Government to His Excellency the President and I was shocked because, I thought that we
Papa Owusu-Ankomah (NPP - Sekondi) 11:10 a.m.
were discussing guidelines to effective elections and so forth. I am sure with this Charter, comments made may not lead to any diplomatic furorey. But it is also important that Ghana aggressively pursues democratic governance in Africa because, we will then have the moral authority to talk about democratic governance in other places.
I am happy that this Charter has been, as it were, drafted by the African Union. But I am urging the Government to consider as part of its international obligation and in terms of putting Ghana firmly on the democratic map, to pursue diplomatic measures so that we can adopt this Charter as a Union. We now have only three States - three member States which have adopted the Charter.
I am, urging the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration to consider it as one of its main diplomatic endeavours to persuade other African countries to ratify this early enough so that in the next year or two, this will really be a binding document that will then empower the African Union to condemn military adventurism and unconstitutional changes of government in African countries.
I thank you Mr Speaker.

Alhaj i Mohammed-Mubarak Muntaka (NDC - Asawase): Mr Speaker, I beg to support the Report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs on the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance.

Mr Speaker, it is important that, like my Senior Colleague from Sekondi, Hon Papa Owusu-Ankomah rightly said, if there is any country that has the moral right to be talking about democracy, especially in Africa, we stand very tall and it is important that we are able to ratify, not only ratify but encourage many African countries to do same.

Mr Speaker, we may be asking

ourselves, what are the challenges making many countries in Africa fail to this ratification very seriously. If you look at the timing, since 2007, when it was adopted, by now, we would have thought that almost three years down the line, almost all African countries should have ratified this very important Charter.

We know that Parliaments across Africa are those responsible for ratification and we Parliament -- I keep saying this again and again, are the beacon of democracy. We are the icon because without legislative houses, there would be no democracy. Once Parliaments are supposed to serve as an icon of democracy, Parliaments across Africa should be more proactive in ensuring that their governments or those Parliaments ratify this very important Charter.

Mr Speaker, I have some few suggestions that I think moving forward as Africa, we need to be looking at critically if we have to really strengthen democracy.

Yes, it is true that we cannot invent the wheel but when you look at countries that have sustained democracy over decades or centuries, like the United Kingdom and the United States of America, if you read the history, how it started and where we are, with the challenges in Africa, one of the things that is really, really hampering the efforts to strengthen democracy in Africa is about the “winner takes it all”.

“Winner takes it all” does not augur very well for African democracy. We need to find a way of diffusing this issue of “winner takes it all”. You cannot have, for example, 51 persons pushing a car forward and 49 pushing it backward and expect that vehicle to move fast; all that the 49 people are waiting to do is to get the 51 persons

out and then they can also occupy.

It is not about the national interest, it is not about building consensus, it is not about building the country. It is about occupying power. I think one of the easiest ways of diffusing this issue of just occupying power is to look at our individual constitutions across Africa and take measures that would drastically deal with the issue of “Winner takes it all”.

Mr Speaker, aside the issue of “Winner takes it all”, there is the issue of monitoring elections and you would realise that very few African countries have made it in their constitutions mandatory for the Electoral Commissioner to be secured. They can be hired and fired. In some countries, it is even the Interior Minister who is also additionally responsible for organising elections, and when I am to monitor and make sure that the election goes on and I know that my seat is at stake, obviously, the tendency to try to manipulate the system is much higher.

Mr Speaker, with the greatest respect, the way we treat our leaders in Africa is equally another threat to democracy in Africa. If all it takes is when you are in power you molest the former President, then the person will continue. I will not want to use a typical example that we have in our country but looking at the trend, if we do not have the courage to put a break at a certain point, it would become very difficult for us to sustain democracy, people would begin asking themselves, “If this is what is happening to the former leader, what is going to happen to me?

If I willingly allow free and fair elections to go on and then I am supposed to get out, what is going to happen to me?” We need to begin to protect our former leaders. They are not angels but we could not have said that all they did was wrong.

There are so many things that they did that were good. Because democracy in Africa is young and we need to encourage it to get strengthened and get anchored, we need to find a way of protecting our former leaders.

Mr Speaker, with the Electoral Commission, I am of the humble opinion that African countries, even if it means sub-regions, for example, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) could have one Electoral Commissioner with all the individual countries equally having their Electoral Commissioners, then when it is time for elections they come together.

For example, with ECOWAS, there would be 15 plus the super Electoral Commissioner who will put their heads together, even resources. For example, if we have transparent boxes in Ghana and we will only use them every four years, why should Nigeria, Togo, Benin, every one of them also buy transparent boxes?

Africa is a poor continent; resources are needed for water, schools, health and what have you. If we agree and we have a properly structured system, we could be moving these facilities with the personnel across to assist in individual countries to make sure that the elections are truly free and fair. After all, most of the people who will be coming in will not have direct interest in the outcome of the elections.

The day before yesterday, the new Electoral Commissioner for Nigeria was sworn in and I was happy when I heard the President of Nigeria, His Excellency Goodluck Jonathan saying that he was assuring the people of Nigeria that in the next elections, every vote would count. I hope and pray that every vote in Nigeria
Papa Owusu-Ankomah (NPP - Sekondi) 11:10 a.m.


will count but the threat is the one who is supposed to serve as the referee. What confidence do we give to the person? How do we insulate the person so that he will be able to be bold enough to monitor and do the right thing?

Mr Speaker, I believe Africa, we must come together and find a way of making sure that our elections are truly free and fair. The way we intimidate each other, we must reduce it and we must at all times have the national interest at heart.

I believe if we do this, we would be making real progress with democracy in Africa.

Mr Speaker, with these comments, I thank you very much for the opportunity.
Mr Yaw Baah (NPP - Kumawu) 11:10 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for offering me the opportunity to contribute to the Motion.
Mr Speaker, per your Committee's Report, that is “Observations”, item 5.0, it has come out that this very Charter was adopted by African States as far back as January, 2008 and one thing one realises is the tendency on the part of the various governments of Africa, especially the Executive, by adopting various Charters and Conventions. The speed and the manner with which they do it is not reflected; its referral to various Parliaments. It takes some time. So once such a Charter or Convention is adopted, the presumption is that it is supposed to have legal effect.
But until a referral to the various Parliaments of Africa, the whole document would be sitting somewhere. So, I call on governments of Africa that we need to be serious and move with time.
As of now, we have only three African States, that is, three African Parliaments
that have ratified this very Charter to become part and parcel of their national laws. And according to the Charter, if you read further, it calls for ratification by at least, 15 Parliaments in Africa before it becomes part of the laws of their various national jurisdictions.
On this score, I call on governments, that the tendency of always rushing to adopt these various Conventions and Charters, which are not simultaneously referred to the various Parliaments of Africa, for them to become part of their national laws and become workable, they must be treated with the seriousness they deserve.
Mr Speaker, another area which I will like to touch, is article 14, that is, Chapter 5, in response to democratic institutions which are meant to strengthen the cause, that is, deepening the democratisation exercise that we have embarked on. In the various countries, we do have either Electoral Commission or an independent body to undertake the conduction of elections. But what has been lacking very much has been lack of security of tenure. That is, the various Chairmen or Presidents who head such important institutions do not have security of tenure.
Mr Speaker, I make reference to the recent election upheavals that happened in Kenya. If there had been a security of tenure for the Chairman of the independent body that conducted the elections, these upheavals would have been avoided, where thousands of lives were lost. Just three months to the elections, the Chairman of the independent body, Mr Kivuitu¸ who at that time was over 60 years; his office of chairmanship of this independent electoral commission was extended in July, whereas the elections also took place in October. So you could see what happened. Because of lack of security of tenure, it was just July that his term of office was extended to four years;
so you could see the ramifications and what nots, post - October, which means, he owes a lot of allegiance to the authority that appoints him or her.
Mr Speaker, we thank ourselves, especially the framers of our Constitution of 1992. They thought of the need to offer security to whoever chairs the Electoral Commission. No wonder, many countries in Africa today are copying Ghana, because the office of the holder of Chairman of Electoral Commission is quite secured. His terms and conditions of office are of the same colour as that of a Justice of the Court of Appeal in Ghana, that is, he retires at the age of over 65 years and his terms have already been determined. This has been the main cause of where Ghana is seen today as leading this democratic march, because of the security of tenure of its Electoral Commission.
Mr Speaker, another area which I would like to touch on is article 25, especially, in respect of sanctions -- Where there has been unconventional means of overthrowing democratically elected governments. If you go to articles 25 (1) and 25 (2), they are speaking on two things. The first one says once there is unconventional means of overthrowing a government in power, such a country may be suspended from the activities of the Union. Then on the other breadth, it is saying notwithstanding the suspension, “we are supposed also to abide by the obligations”; that is payment of dues and bills. So how do we reconcile this? I think we need to have a second look at this matter.
Mr Speaker, I believe Ghana has been at the forefront, the beacon of hope when it comes to democracy, transitional means;
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Hon
Member for Ashaiman, then I will take the last two.
Mr Alfred K. Agbesi (NDC -
Ashaiman): Mr Speaker, I rise to support this Motion and to make some few comments.
Mr Speaker, I am gratified in reading page 3 of the Report. The first paragraph which says that:
“The Committee also observed that by ratifying this Charter, Ghana is committed to adequately resourcing public institutions that promote and support democracy and it is a constitutional order in the Country.”
Mr Speaker, I say so because democracy as it is captured here and elections and governance are the basis upon which this Charter is being asked to be ratified by Ghana. Mr Speaker we are in this country, we have witnessed elections and we always notice what happens in the various polling stations and electoral centres. Mr Speaker, if Ghana is to ratify this Charter and therefore, must resource institutions that carry on democracy, then I will say that one vital institution which is the Electoral Commission, must be looked at seriously.
Mr Speaker, most of the time, we go to our electoral or polling stations and we are told that voting materials are exhausted. Mr Speaker, this is a serious indictment on the performance of the Electoral Commission. But by ratifying this Charter, then it is hoped that such bodies would be resourced and in future, we may not see situations where voting materials and electoral materials are exhausted, thereby
rose
Mrs First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Be very
brief; you did not send the signal earlier that you wanted to contribute, but because of gender balance, I have to call you. I have no choice.
Mrs Gifty Ohene-Konadu (NPP - Asante Akim South) 11:20 a.m.
Thank you and I am going to look at it from the gender dimension. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to the Motion for the adoption of the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance.
Mr Speaker, you look at page 3 of the Charter, it states within the objectives that concerns of gender would be promoted to ensure that there is gender balance and equity in governance and also development processes.
Again, article 29 as the Hon Member said earlier, states that,
“Parties shall recognise the crucial role of women in development and also strengthening of democracy”.
I think I am happy with this Charter because gender concerns are strongly
factored in the provisions of this Charter. It is my hope that the details would be strictly adhered to, since in the past, we have ratified documents that sought to promote women in political processes that have been ignored. It is important that we just do not pay lip-service to gender issues and pretend that we seek the interest of women, when in practice, it does not happen.
The Convention on Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) was ratified so many years back. The provisions are specific to the concerns of women, but what has happened? No one makes reference to CEDAW in the development processes.
It is my hope that when this Charter is finally ratified, the Government would strictly go by it so that we will have gender balance representation in all political processes especially, in political appointments to ministerial positions, Parliament and District Assemblies. It is only when this is done that women of this country will applaud the Government of the day.
Mr Speaker, with these few words, I support the Motion.
Mr Ambrose P. Dery NPP -- Lawra/ Nandon 11:30 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity. I also rise to support the Motion that we adopt the Report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs on the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance.
Mr Speaker, first of all, on page 2 of
the Report, it has been rightly pointed out that we need 15-member States to ratify the Charter to become effective. But unfortunately, so far, only three have ratified it.
Mr Speaker, Ghana is a pioneer as far as African unity, democracy and good governance are concerned and I believe that right from the first President of Ghana, his pioneering involvement with the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) and also former President Rawlings at the
regional level, and also lastly, President Kufuor as Chairman of the African Union (AU), have all played very important roles in pushing forward the agenda of African unity and good governance in Africa.
Therefore, I think it is already bad enough that three countries or States have ratified before us, and we should do so with dispatch; we should behave as if we ratified it yesterday. It is a very urgent matter and I think we should do so.
Mr Speaker, I have seen in the Report
and apart from ratifying it, we are also being called upon to influence other States to ratify it. I want to make it clear that the mere ratification by Ghana, is going to serve as a catalyst to get other States to sign on.
Mr Speaker, you would agree with me that in the Pan African Parliament, people look at Ghana as a shining example, as a star of democracy and good governance and most of them have expressed surprise why this far, Ghana has not ratified it. I think there is a lacuna we need to plug now and do so for very good reasons.
Mr Speaker, it is not for these sentimental
and cosmetic reasons alone that we should ratify it. But after ratification, we should make good our commitment to make the Charter effective in Ghana, so that we might continue indeed, to be the shining example in Africa.

Mr Speaker, this Charter has come, and if you look at article 11 of the Charter, it does state clearly and I beg to quote:

“State parties should undertake to develop the necessary legislative and policy frameworks to establish and strengthen a culture of democracy and peace.”

Mr Speaker, I am talking about culture of democracy and peace. There is another
Mr Ambrose P. Dery NPP -- Lawra/ Nandon 11:40 a.m.
The changes of governments that we have had in Ghana, even under the Fourth Republic, can we truly say that they are hundred per cent different from unconstitutional changes? Because when a government has left office, it only looks at the new government that comes in, pursues the officers and appointees of the former government, and we call onto the streets the same security agencies who will take control of the country when there are coups d'état.
So, we need to ask ourselves whether in spite of all the credentials that we have as a shining example, if we have developed the democratic culture. I think we have not yet developed the democratic culture, and that is why when we have a change of government, rather than have a civil way of handling differences, we send security men in uniform and not in uniform, to go following and arresting people with cars and what have you. It shows that we have not had the right attitude yet.
Mr Speaker, that has a lot to do with sustaining the democratic dispensation. Because if appointees see what would happen to them when they willingly hand over power, then there is the tendency for them to want to put their self interest above the national interest. So what I am saying here is that, yes, we are a shining example, but the only reason that we can continue to maintain and in fact, enhance that position for Ghana, is for us to develop the political culture, the democratic culture, develop the democratic mindset of tolerance and to agree that differences do not necessarily mean that we are at war.
Ghana is different f rom other
democracies where we have Members of Parliament throwing chairs across the aisle. But we could even do more when we begin to look at issues involved in everything that we discuss in the House and that on both sides, we do not seek to score cheap political points when the interest of the nation is at stake and we do not seek to hit below the belt when the interest of the nation is as stake.
Mr Speaker, that brings us to the elections where we are doing very well but could do better. This Charter is an improvement on what the Africa Union (AU) had. Before this Charter, we had the Organisation of Africa Unity (OAU)/AU Declaration on the Principles of Governing Democratic Elections in Africa, which was adopted in 2002.
But if you look at the provisions of that 2002 Declaration, and you look at the Charter, you would realise that the Charter is a great improvement on the Declaration of 2002. And I say this because we have elections that are held in several countries, including Zimbabwe, and we have had observer missions from the AU who have gone, observed the elections and came out with a number of issues that I think are worrying, but in the end, they also always come with the conclusion that “having considered everything, the election was free and fair”. And that is because the criteria that were used to judge those elections, per Declaration 2002, are vague and I will demonstrate some of that.
First of all, if you look at election Declaration 2002, there is a provision for access to public media, access to State media, but it just says that they should try to make sure there is access. It does not tell us what it means, it does not talk about equality and what have you.
So, now, if you look at the improvement
in the Charter, which is article 17 (3), for instance, which talks about access to media, it says and I beg to quote:
“Ensure fair and equitable access by contesting parties and candidates to State-controlled media during elections.”
So, the experience we had in Namibia was this, that in Namibia the State controlled media is about ninety per cent of the coverage, and although we found there that the governing party, South West Africa People's Organisation (SWAPO) had a predominant - the allocation of time was so bad in favour of SWAPO, we still could not find anything wrong with the results because the Declaration of 2002 does not give us any hard and fast rule by which we could come to that conclusion.
A second example has to do with what my Colleagues have talked about, which is participation of women. And if you look at the Declaration 2002 at (iii) (j), it just states that
“to encourage participation of Africa women in all aspects of the electoral process, including representation.”
That is all that it says. So you see that when it comes to representation, it is just like it is stated, as it is an afterthought. But if you contrast that with what we have in the Charter, which is at article 29, you would see that at article 29 (3), it states and I beg to quote:
“State parties shall take all possible measures to encourage the full and active participation of women in the electoral process and ensure gender parity in representation at all levels, including legislatures.”
So, if you look at that Charter, straightaway, the Ghana Parliament has a problem because we do not meet that criterion. And it is important because that is the direction the continent is going. My Colleagues on the Pan-African Parliament realised that we are adopting new rules
which are insisting that at least, we have two members of that delegation belonging to one gender or the other. And if you look at the number of women Members of Parliament that we have here, clearly, it is not going to be possible for us to do that.
So, we need, apart from signing this, as has been said, to allocate resources to first, the democratic institutions; that is, Electoral Commission, National Commission for Civic Education (NCCE), human rights, the Judiciary and all that. And this is where we must stop the cheap politics in Ghana. Democracy is expensive, yes, and indeed, it has been said and I think it was said by Churchill, that
“democracy is the worst form of government except all those governments that have been tried.”
It is the worst form of government except all forms of governments that have been tried and so it is expensive. But the only intention we have to an expensive democracy, is the chaos and the civil wars that we would have and I bet you, the cost is going to be too much for us to bear.
So we should begin to allocate our resources in Ghana, knowing fully well that every other development can only be premised on good governance, democracy and peace, and if we do that, then it should not be difficult for us to begin to give money to the Electoral Commission to get us the most modern forms of voting that will give us the best result. We should not wait for development partners alone to come to our aid. I think we need to put our money where our mouths are and also begin to give money to all the institutions like NCCE, which will help us build that democratic culture that will send us far.
Mr Speaker, I think what all of us must commit ourselves to, and also come to, when we begin to talk about even Parliament-- This Parliament has done
well to allocate resources to the Judiciary, to make it as independent as possible but we also need to empower Parliament that we do not continue to be an appendage, we do not continue to be dependent on the decisions of the Executive and we can only do so if we are all committed - the Executive and all of us to the Charter.

So it is all right to sign the Charter, it is all right to be among the first countries to ratify it, but it is even better for us to invest in our democracy to ensure that we are not overtaken.

Finally, Mr Speaker, let me make a comment on “unconstitutional changes of governments” which is at Chapter 8. Mr Speaker, this is the problem that we have in Africa, and I am particularly interested in the present provisions and it is in article 23 (5). Mr Speaker, we have had a problem in Africa. Although we have always been against unconstitutional changes, we seem to be limiting our understanding of unconstitutional change to a coup d'e tat. Therefore the experience we have had in Niger was when an incumbent President changed the rules and stayed in power. Or the situation we have in Zimbabwe, where the President stays in power and it, is based on an election of a sort. If you look at clause 5, it tells you - it reads:

“Any amendment or revision of the Constitution or legal instruments which is an infringement on the principles of democratic change of government.”

Mr Speaker, it goes beyond the mere coup d'e tat and to cover all, the intrigues that you can have an incumbent government play and think that all they can do is a coup d'etat by constitutional means. You know that one of the cardinal principles of democracy is that, there must be a limit to the term of the Executive,
Mr Abdul-Rashid Pelpuo (NDC - Wa Central) 11:40 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in support of the Motion by the Committee on Foreign
Affairs on the adoption of the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Good Governance.
Mr Speaker, historically, the Charter was first adopted by the AU in January, 2007. One year hence, in Ghana, we signed the Declaration, and two years from then, today, in the Parliament of Ghana, we are debating it and seeking to ratify, to adopt finally the declaration to ensure that democracy, good governance, and elections become part and parcel of our lives and that they become traditional in how we approach governance and how we compose ourselves in transition from one point to the other, in the change of leadership.
Mr Speaker, Africa has come a long way. We have come from a point when we were bundled from our various countries and shipped to Europe and America as slaves. We broke with that past and came to a point when we were colonised, subjugated, made to do menial work for Europeans and Americans, and we broke with that past too, mainly because of our efforts, because of our determination to break with the subjugation of man by man. Mr Speaker, once we broke with colonial rule, we were in charge to take care of ourselves.
When I read this Report, that historical documentation was not missed out of it. We got to a point, Mr Speaker, when Africa, as a whole, decided that we will not just break with colonial rule, with traditional democratic practices which we jettisoned along the line and went in for other systems of government, mainly military and which indeed, brought about civil wars and unconstitutional changes in government. We decided that we are now going in for democracy as a choice. And democracy as a choice is coming with a documentation, a declaration, which we all have to adopt and accept and which will then rule our lives.
Mr Speaker, I believe very strongly that the position of Ghana in this ratification, in this adoption, is very crucial. The Committee did not mince words when it said that we are not just asking Ghana to ratify this, but that for Ghana to move a step forward in ensuring that in ratifying, we influence others in doing so as well.
Mr Speaker, the central role we play in democracy in Africa cannot be missed out in our discourse on democracy. It is important for us to understand that the crucial role Ghana plays is now a worldwide knowledge. It is now known throughout and we are becoming a beacon of hope for Africa, because of not just what we stand for, but what we do with our lives in every step we take in shifting democracy from one point to the other, and in letting it manifest in our lives as we move along.
Mr Speaker, democracy entails that we respect human rights and we move away from the old practices of making people feel they are not part of it. It ensures inclusion, it ensures practices that would make the human life decent, respectful, and indeed, to ensure that in choosing our leadership and in choosing the policies we want to run in the country, we would ensure that every person has a hand in it, and that is how come we accept democracy and pluralism as a choice through elections - free, fair and transparent elections in our lives.
Mr Speaker, it is important for us to note that in ratifying this declaration, we are not just doing it as a mere activity, as an activity that can be done as a nine-day wonder. We are doing it for posterity. We are doing it so that eventually, we can have a government, we can have a people who are eventually going to have democracy happen in their lives, who are going to take it as part of their cultural outlook and who are going to move it from the high
level of governance to the lowest level of governance, at the unit committee levels, at the family level where the father is the head and the mother is a co-head.
Mr Speaker, it ensures also that our young people, in everything they do, as students, as youth groups, understand that in respecting the rights of another person, is to ensure that in that enterprise, that person has a say and that the rights of people will end where the noses of others begin. That is the practice of democracy, democracy in practice.
Mr Speaker, I, therefore, want to once again, support this Motion and to just address one issue that came up and that took divergent opinion here. The concept of power-sharing, which is taking shape in Africa.
Mr Speaker, we have to make a choice if we want to go democratic and stay with it. We have to now choose the kind of principle of democracy we want to move with. Whether we want it because we want to have proportional representation in our system of democracy or we want to have a “winner-takes-all” in our democratic practice. In Ghana, we are used to the winner-takes-all and it is working for us - [Interruptions] - Mr Speaker, in much of Africa -
11.50 a..m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon Deputy Majority Leader, it is working for you and who? [Laughter.]
Mr Pelpuo 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I can see that anytime there is an election and there is a winner, we have Hon Members of Parliament who are found on both sides. We also have a government which is led by the winning party. And that is a practice we have known all these years. Mr Speaker, I have not seen any other practice in this country besides that.
Mr Dery 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think my Hon Colleague, on the Majority side is misquoting me. I said, what Mr Churchill said was that, “democracy is the worst form of government except all those which have been tried”. So although it is the worst, it is better than all those which have been tried”, if you need an interpretation. The way he is taking it is not what I said, so, he should be careful.
Mr Pelpuo 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the Hon Deputy Minority Leader would allow me my views as well. I -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon Deputy Majority Leader, he is saying that you are making an attribution to him. You said you were quoting him, and he is saying that that is not what he said.
Mr Pelpuo 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am not eventually quoting him. I am just using what he has said and turned it the other way round. [Interruptions.] Yes - it is for all those that have been tried - except all those which have been tried.
Mr Dery 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that we should be careful. You see, we have our kids listening. I have said that the
quotation is that:
“democracy is the worst form of government except all forms of government which have been tried.”
Now, when you say ministerial and presidential, they are both democratic -- [Interruptions] - No, please, please - and they have been tried and they are part of democracy. They are not part of those that I am condemning. Yes, so, please --
Mr Pelpuo 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would implore my very senior Hon Colleague to listen to me very well. I am saying that in our particular instance, we have tried only one form of democracy. We have tried democracy, whether it is ministerial or presidential, it is democracy, we have tried that. I am not talking about socialism. I am not talking about communism, those are the tried ones except those which are tried. Churchill meant that those were tried.
In Ghana, we have not tried them. We have tried only one. And I am saying those that we have tried, the ones that we have tried which manifested in different forms are acceptable to us. That is the simple point I am making.
Mr Speaker, I think that Africa must take a stance whether we want to say that our individual countries are picking on a system of democracy that will allow inclusion of everybody or we take a democracy which will allow the winner to take all. That is the divergent opinion and that is a point we have to take a stance and go with it.
Mr Speaker, but I am very happy to note that this declaration, when finally adopted by Africa, would find space in the Pan-African Parliament; it would find space in the Human Rights Commission of Africa and it would find space in the Regional Economic Commission of Africa. These are the major organs that often deal with issues of Africa and that eventually will spread to the rest of us.
I would implore that anytime Ghana finds itself represented in any of these
Commissions -- and I can assure you, those of us here, we would definitely be monitoring it. That anytime we find ourselves in any one of these, we ensure that we do not just influence the fact that we Ghanaians are doing it but we influence the other countries to adopt the declaration and allow it to happen in their lives, in practical terms,
Eventually, we can have Africa moving together, towards achieving a holistic democratic tradition, which will be the one that would dictate our lives, that would dictate the kinds of governments we run and that would eventually be the one that would be the champion of peace and stability in this country.
Mr Speaker, with these few words, I want to support the Motion and urge my Friends, Hon Members of Parliament, to do same.
Thank you very much.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon Members, that brings us to the end of the debate. I would now put the Question except the Hon Chairman wants to wind up. But I do not think so. Very well.
Thank you, Hon Chairman.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Item number 15 on the Order Paper --Hon Minister for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Avoka 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I regret to say that the substantive Hon Minister for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration is outside the country on an international
assignment. And under the circumstances, I would crave your indulgence to humbly request that the Hon Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration be permitted to move the Resolution.
Mr Dery 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that is acceptable.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon Deputy Minister?
RESOLUTIONS 11:40 a.m.
Mr Francis Y. Osei-Sarfo 11:40 a.m.
Mr
Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader, item 6. Is that right?
Mr Avoka 11:40 a.m.
That is so, Mr Speaker. We will do item 6.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon Members, the University of Ghana Bill, 2010 at the Consideration Stage.
Mr W. O. Boafo noon
Mr Speaker, the Bill
before us is a very important one. We just had the Second Reading this week, only two days ago and we have not had the opportunity to make an in-depth study of these proposals. Mr Speaker, there has been no winnowing at all.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Member, you may have a point there but at times also, we look at the nature of the debate on the floor. This was one Bill that received support from both sides of the House and therefore, I do not think that we will have any problem with it at the Consideration Stage, apart from very few issues of governance. Basically, the Bill received support from both sides of the House and it is not a very contentious one. I think that we should make progress by starting the Consideration Stage today.
H o n M e m b e r s , w e s t a r t t h e Consideration Stage of the University of Ghana Bill, 2010.
STAGE noon
Mr Speaker, the reason is that it reads noon
“A person who is not a member of the university shall not enter the premises of the university or have access to the facilities or privileges of the university without the permission of the university.”
Mr Speaker, I think not to enter, is honestly, taking it too far. This is because I stand here, I am a product of Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) but a Member of Parliament. If I have other business in terms of supervison, which is a role by a Member of Parliament, by this subclause, I cannot enter the University of Ghana. I think this is taking it too far. These are higher institutions of learning.
The University of Ghana is a very high institution of learning and we cannot restrict it like a secondary school where each time one has to enter, one needs permission to enter. Mr Speaker, I hope my Hon Colleagues would support the amendment that this whole subclause be deleted.
The university should be open, people should have easy access to it, in and out. This is because when one is entering the university, there is security at the gate, there is security at every Faculty, there is security at every hall of residence
and I think the security network that the university has should be enough to protect -
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Member, there is a reason for that provision there. I am not supposed to take part in this. But there is a reason for that clause and I believe that Hon Members on the floor would explain why that clause is there.
Prof. Christopher Ameyaw-Akumfi noon
Mr Speaker, I thought, probably, a member of the Committee would react to that but - [Pause.]
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Members, at Consideration Stage, we do not need secondment. Under the rules, we do not need secondment.
Several Hon Members - rose -
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Majority Leader, let me hear you first.
Mr Avoka noon
Mr Speaker, I think that we can compromise this subclause by deleting “from” after “shall” -- delete “not enter the premises of the university or”. So the rendition would now read as follows:
“A person who is not a member of the university shall not have access to the facilities or privileges of the university without the permission of the university.”
So one can enter but to have access to the facilities and privileges of the university, one needs permission. But to put there that one cannot enter the place at all, I wonder whether it is -
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
I think there is a reason for that clause.
Hon Member for Techiman North?
Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi noon
Mr Speaker, I tend to agree with the Hon Majority Leader. I am sure what the Hon Member for Asawase, Alhaji Muntaka does not want to see is refusal of entry. That can be regulated by other bye- laws on the campus. But the critical thing here is having access to the facilities and I think we should maintain that. Therefore, the rendition by the Hon Majority Leader, in my view, should be accepted.
Prof. George Y. Gyan-Baffour noon
Mr Speaker, I think I disagree vehemently to that. What this means is that I cannot have access to the library in the university unless I get permission. Where am I going to get the permission before I get to the library? This is a State institution; it is not a private university. If it is a private university, yes, they can do that. But a State university, we cannot prevent a citizen from having access to the library and other faculties.
Papa Owusu-Ankomah noon
Mr Speaker, at the Committee level, we discussed this matter at length. But Hon Members would take note that even at the university sometimes one sees “university property, keep off.” If we say that one is a Ghanaian, so one should have access, then what business has the university to say that “University property, keep off”? Even in Parliament -- What institution is more of a national character than Parliament? Yet, Parliament, when one is entering the premises, one needs identified permission.
The security man at the gate gives one permission, other than that there would be no justification in putting a security person there -- Because I have a right to be at the university, why are you asking me, where is my identity? Why can I not enter? Why is it that I am entering with my vehicle and you say I cannot enter?” It is because, principally, if one is not a member of the university, one does not have automatic access. It is the university that puts a security person there and instructs the security person to exercise that power,
Dr Matthew O. Prempeh 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
listening to my senior Hon Colleague from Sekondi and the Hon Majority Leader, that is even more important the reason I should support Hon Alhaji Mohammed- Mubarak Muntaka. The universities should not tell us, Mr Speaker, that we cannot enter their premises and use their facilities. One, they are public institutions. Actually, everybody should be allowed. It is only when one is a nuisance to the university that one should be restricted. The restriction should not be a prima facie blanket. [Interruptions.] Mr Speaker, I have not finished; I have three reasons
-- 12:10 p.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Hon
Member, this is the Consideration Stage, make your point. Others will have a point and that is why we allow as many people
as possible to speak at the Consideration Stage.
Dr Prempeh 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am left
with two reasons. Mr Speaker, if this is allowed to stand blanketly, nobody is allowed any facility or access. We should say that if the university has reasons to suspect that one is a nuisance to the university, then one should be restricted, not to say that one cannot even go in.
Mr Speaker, I support Hon Alhaji Muntaka.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
The Hon
Member for Old Tafo, then Ho West.
Dr Anthony A. Osei 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I
am surprised some of my Hon Colleagues are taking this position. This is accepted international best practice. Nothing here stops anybody from going there. All it says is that, if one is not a member, they have to have a way of screening the person involved. In fact, as we speak, Hon Members go through there all the time and they are allowed to go. Mr Speaker, this is a public place; we do not allow anybody to come to the floor of the House. Are we saying that because it is a public place, anybody can walk in and out?
Mr Speaker, there are individuals in the university; they ought to be protected. As we speak and as I said, we all go through there, we are not members, but they allow us to go through. As the Hon Member for Sekondi said, that is why they have given their security people the power to allow or disallow. If one gets there and they see the Member of Parliament (MP) tag, they allow one in. To say that this prevents us from --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Hon Members, I know as a fact that that is international best practice. In fact, there is a legal decision on that. That is the reason I was trying to see whether the lawyers remember the legal position on that. When there was a decision whether the roads of the university are public or private -- So
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.


So, I will call the Hon Member for Ho

West and then we would take the Member for New Juaben North.
Mr Emmanuel K. Bedzrah 12:10 p.m.
Mr
Speaker, I support whatever we have in the Bill here and I urge my Hon Colleagues to throw away the amendment proposed by Hon Alhaji Mohammed-Mubarak Muntaka.
Mr Speaker, if we have free access to the university campus, how will we know that this or that person will be a mischievous person?
Mr Speaker, we have a situation on university campuses now where all kinds of people just enter the university campus to do all kinds of things there. If we we delete this clause without any restriction to people, Mr Speaker, a lot of things will go on on campus and we cannot support that. Therefore, I support that we maintain the clause (2) in the Bill.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Hon
Members, I will take two more. If we are not ad idem, I will defer the Question; we will go and do research and we prove what is international best practice. I will take two more.
Hon Member for Bekwai, I will call you; I will take more than two.
Mr Hackman Owusu-Agyemang 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe that if the intention, the spirit is, indeed, to ensure that there is some form of control, then it must be maintained lest we give credence to the universities being ivory towers.
Indeed, Mr Speaker, what prevents a former employee or an alumnus from being riotous, from being uncontrollable?
So listing this thing there does not mean that the people, whether one is an alumnus or an employee or pensioner or honorary degree holder, will behave himself or herself.
The university itself has its own modus operandi and the way of going about things and I believe that if it is international best practice, let it be there and the university by its own regulations, control those who have access and who do not have access.
So on that basis, I want to submit that Hon Alhaji Mohammed-Mubarak Muntaka's -- triple ‘M' -- amendment has no merit and must be withdrawn and thrown out completely.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Hon
Member for Bekwai and after him, I come to you.
Alhaji Sumani Abukari 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I rise to oppose the amendment proposed by Hon Mohammed-Mubarack Muntaka - Hon triple ‘M'. Mr Speaker, anybody who speaks for or against clause 3 (2) has some mischief in his head. - [Laughter.]
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Hon
Member, what did you say? Repeat what you said.
Alhaji Abukari 12:10 p.m.
Anybody who
opposes clause 3 (2) has mischief in his head --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Hon
Member, you are out of order because you cannot impute improper motive.
Alhaji Abukari 12:10 p.m.
I repeated it because you said I should -- I was about to apologise and withdraw that word “mischief”. So Mr Speaker, I apologise and withdraw the word “mischief.”
Mr Speaker, we all know that until
recently -- and I think it is even ongoing at a lesser level -- people went to the
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Are you
opposed to the amendment?
Alhaji Abukari 12:10 p.m.
Pardon me, Sir?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Are you
for or against the amendment?
Alhaji Abukari 12:10 p.m.
I am completely
against the amendment.
W should allow the University to put in some regulations to give the students peace of mind to go about their studies. If one wants to go there -- I go there and when they see the sticker and they look at me they say, “all right go”. So Mr Speaker, I am completely against the amendment by Hon triple ‘M' and I will
Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
honestly, I was originally intending to support the amendment but now, I have a dilemma. I am aware of the judgement in the University of Cape Coast v. Mensah case, in which it was decided that the university is a private property. So that is the position of the law. But I am also aware that there are members of the public who live on the university campuses legally; they legitimately live on the university campuses. Do those people require permission from the university?
But I am also considering the definition of “permission” as given by the Hon Member for Old Tafo, that so long as there is somebody at the gate who admits one or may refuse -- that amounts to permission, so to speak. So it is virtually about the gatekeeper ensuring that undesirable characters do not enter. But Mr Speaker, this can also be interpreted to mean different things. So it may mean prior permission before one gets to the gate. It can be interpreted so.
So, we probably, I would rather support the rendition proffered by the Hon Majority Leader “having access to the privileges and facilities of the university”. But as to entry, indeed, as we speak now, that may be the only access to certain people even to their private homes. How do we manage these problems? The university of Ghana premises, it covers all the way including the main road linking Aburi because both sides of the road belong to the university.
So, we have to be careful what we mean by “entry to the premises”. When we talk about access to the university facilities, I agree entirely; but both sides of the road, the Aburi road belongs to the university of
Ghana. And if we say one cannot enter, does it mean that I cannot use that road? Do I need prior permission? These are matters I think we should consider and then come to their conclusion.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon
Members, have you looked at the original Act to see whether these provisions were there and yet we were all having access, we go there and come out and all those things? This is a standard practice. Anyway, Hon Members, I will take one more and then if you are not ad idem, we defer the Question --. Very well, I should put --
Dr Kojo Appiah-Kubi 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
thank you for giving me the opportunity to oppose the amendment. Apart from the fact that as it is, what is in the Bill conforms to international practices; it is also a fact that this will help in protecting the staff, the workers, the students and other clients of the university.
Quite recently, a foreign student was just raped on campus --
Prof. Gyan-Baffour 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I think the Hon Member is misleading the House and in fact, the Hon Members who spoke earlier have also misled the House that it is the international best practice. It is not Nowhere in the world - I was in a university in America, Wisconsin State University, a State university. Anybody who has a State identification (ID) has access to the university. It is not the ID of the university, it is the State; being a citizen, one has access to the place. It is not approval from the university, it is being a citizen of that State, to have the right to enter the university. So, it is not the practice anywhere.
The point is that the idea of “Ivory Towerism” and exclusivity with the university should be looked at carefully to

avoid the case where only certain people can be allowed into a university. What are we creating?
Dr A. A. Osei 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, point of
information. I think two things -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon
Member for Old Tafo, you have the floor.
Dr A. A. Osei 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, two things
are informing this debate. First, the legal matter is there. So, if for no other reason, we should be cautious. Secondly, my good Friend and Brother is talking about having a State ID, that is precisely the point. A person is easily identifiable and therefore, having access is easy. And this is where the university exersises its discretion to ask for some ID so that one can enter. But to say that [Interruption] That is why I support my Hon Colleague. He is trying to mischieviously find a way to be able to roam the campus. He is not listening. It is very important that -- [Interruption]
Dr Appiah-Kubi 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, another
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon
Member, you have the floor. Continue.
Dr Appiah-Kubi 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, so
apart from the fact that crime on campus is very, very high -- the crime rate is one of the highest in the country. And if we were to allow access to everybody, then
  • [DR A. A. OSEI) we are sort of condoning and increasing crime on campus. Quite recently, a foreign student was raped. By whom? By a non- staff member, by a non-student. And why was she raped? And how did he gain access? It is because right now, everybody is permitted -- [Interruption]
    • Mr Samuel Ayeh-Paye 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I stand on a point of order. The Hon Member says that we cannot allow everybody to the university campus and therefore, we cannot also allow ordinary members. If my father is a lecturer at the University of Ghana and he has been given accommodation there, I want to ask whether I am a member of the university. If I am not, I want to go to my home, would I need permission before I enter my home on the university campus? It is a question we must answer. If my father is a lecturer there and I want to go to my home because my father has been given accommodation at the university -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, continue and conclude.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think
    that we can ignore that because every staff member has an ID card and that is the permit that guarantees - [Interruptions.] The children also have access; they also have ID cards. I used to work -- [Interruptions.] I am a member of the university and my wife and children have university ID cards. They have ID cards. Will he want to tell me that everybody should have access to the university hospital?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Order! Order!
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am
    opposed to these amendments on two grounds -- to protect people who are guaranteed, who are permitted to work there, to live there and study there, from crime.
    Secondly, to protect the resources, for effective use of the resources that are given to the university because if we were to allow everybody to have access, if we were to allow everybody to use the facilities of the university, that will be increasing the cost of the university and that will be against the benefits of the students and most probably, the staff who are permitted, who are supposed to benefit from these resources.
    On these grounds, I wish to say that we need to oppose -- I will side with my Hon Colleagues that let us all oppose with a strong majority, the amendment that has been proposed.
    Mrs Gifty E. Kusi 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have problems -- even here, we have problems on the type of permission that we need. We are having problems; we do not understand because the permission -- If just identifying myself at the gate, I would be allowed, it may be different from somebody outside who may not even enter; we will just say, “please enter” and then we will sack him from there. So, we do not understand; we here do not understand this, so I think the rendition of the Majority Leader should be taken into consideration.
    The words “enter” and “permission”, we do not understand here and we are Hon Members. What about people outside or a magistrate somewhere interpreting this law? So, Mr Speaker, we should look at the words “shall not enter” and the word “permission”. Is just identifying myself with my ID card enough or do I need a written permission from the university? It is very, very important; we do not understand --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon Members, you know very well that statutes are going to be made under this Regulation to regulate all these matters, so I do not see why we should be too much worried about
    this? But Hon Majority Leader -
    Mr Avoka 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want to invite my Hon Colleagues to vote massively for the amendment that I have proposed on the amendment proposed by Hon Muntaka. Mr Speaker, we all know that the Road Traffic Act provides among other things that if one is arrested by a policeman, one has 24 hours within which to produce his or her driving licence. Yet notwithstanding the provision of this Law that permits one to be given the opportunity within 24 hours to produce one's driving licence, many of us here are victims of policemen meeting us on the way, saying that we should produce our driving licences and we say “let me bring it tomorrow” and then they say, “okay, go to the police station, we have processed you for court.”
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Leader is misleading the House and for that matter , the whole country. He is talking about harassment from the police but how can the police harass - [Interruption] - he said that the police had been harassing - [Interruption.]
    rose
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 12:30 p.m.
    But how can the police harass for harassing sake? No, they will demand one's ID card, and why should one not have a driving licence when one is driving? Why should one not have a mission at the university campus and what one expects to do there? One should have a mission; and if a person has a mission, he or she would be permitted to accomplish

    that mission -- simple. And if one does not have it, what is one going to do there? That is the question that he should answer.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon Member for Old Tafo -
    Dr A.A Osei 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise on Order 48 (1) - [Interruption] - Mr Speaker, I come under Order 48 (1) -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon Member, we have - [Pause.]
    Dr A. A Osei 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with your permission, if I can read it -
    “The presence of at least one-third of all the Members of Parliament besides the person presiding shall be necessary to constitute a quorum of the House.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon Member, we have quorum to do what we are doing -
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:30 p.m.
    One-third -- Mr Speaker, I do not believe that we do.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Yes. Hon Member, we have quorum to transact business - Hon Member, we have quorum to transact business but because this particular one is contentious, I have decided to defer it - [Interruptions] - Yes, so that debate would continue -
    Mr Avoka 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am in the process of carrying the day - [Laughter.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, let us defer this matter so that we do not go into issues of quorum - [Interruption] - and all those things so that we can make progress. Yes, let us defer this matter; we will do more consultation and come back to the floor.
    Hon Members, clause 3 is accordingly deferred.
    Clause 4 - Aims of the university.
    Alhaji Muntaka 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4 (b), delete “capable” and insert “qualified”. I am proposing a further amendment to what I have proposed here. That instead of deleting the whole line, we can simply just say “qualified to benefit from it” -- instead of the whole thing. So the rendition would now read -
    “Higher education would remain available to citizens who are qualified to benefit from it”.
    Mr Speaker, the reason is that the “capable” there is the tendency to think that financing could be embedded in it -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon Member, the amendment that you are moving is different from what has been printed on the Order Paper. Are you changing that amendment?
    Alhaji Muntaka 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am saying that I am further amending what I brought in to just simply read [Interruption] - I am saying I am further amending what is on -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    So what is your new rendition?
    Alhaji Muntaka 12:30 p.m.
    My new rendition is that clause 4 (b) should now read as --
    “Higher education would be made available to citizens who are qualified to benefit from it” --
    instead of
    “capable of benefiting from it”.
    Because “capable” could mean a lot of things including financing and a whole lot but “qualified”, that is a standard -- we know, once a person qualifies to enter, he or she can benefit from it.
    1.37 p.m. -- [MR SECOND DEPUTY
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    this amendment will even introduce more confusion. We all know that we have qualification for entering the university; but it is not everyone who qualifies who is admitted for lack of space. The essence of this word “capable” means that it is there for everybody who is capable of having access to it. If we talk about qualification, qualification may even be more restrictive than capability. Every Ghanaian is capable of entering into the university but one has to qualify and there must be space available. This is because if we look at the aims, it says:
    “Higher education would be made available to citizens who are capable of benefiting from it.”
    I believe it is quite all-embracing. I
    hope my Hon Brother would be persuaded to abandon his amendment.
    Alhaji Muntaka 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with the greatest respect to my Senior Colleague, yes, when we say “capable” and one qualifies, there is monetary terms that can disqualify a person. That is why I am saying that we have to make it very clear so that the capability is in the qualification. I think that makes it easier. When one qualifies - but the university says “capable” -- Mr Speaker, I am tempted to believe that one could qualify and other restrictions could be used and that could make it a bit more difficult for Ghanaians. That is why I thought that using the “qualify” could make it a bit easier for understanding.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon Dr Akoto Osei -
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:30 p.m.
    If my Hon Friend will - I think if we restrict it to “qualification”, it is too restrictive. Capacity may include qualification and other things; but his language now says “who qualified”, that makes it more restrictive. But if we say “who are capable”, it includes
    qualification and other things - But I think we need to include other things apart from qualification because currently, it is not just qualification that gets one there. So I think it would be in our interest if we leave it as an aim so that we do not become too restrictive.
    Prof Dominic K Fobih 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the use of the word “qualified” will be restrictive to the functions of the university because the university does not admit students on qualifications alone. Sometimes the university has had to resort to experience of the person to really offer its services to that person.
    In some cases, a person may be qualified in terms of, maybe, he has a second degree but depending on the class of the degree, the university may decide that despite the fact that he has that qualification, he is not qualified for a programme that it wants to offer but rather would want the person to demonstrate beyond doubt that he has acquired enough experience that compensates for, maybe, the class that the person obtains.
    So, if we just use the word “qualified”, then we are restricting some of these other considerations that the university makes. So, “capable” is more comprehensive than “qualified” in this sense.
    Dr Prempeh 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to
    support the - [Interruption] Mr Speaker, I rise to offer an amendment to what exists. The reason? I want it to read:
    “higher education will be made available to citizens who are capable.”
    When we say, “capable of benefiting” - [Interruption.] Yes, it is an amendment.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Hon
    Majority Leader, do you rise on a point
    Mr Avoka 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is a follow-
    up information. The Hon Member who moved the Motion, after one or two interventions, has decided to withdraw, so I want us to curtail matters. He has nothing to support once the amendment has been withdrawn.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, at the Consideration Stage, the flexibility is such that we want to listen to the wisdom of Hon Members.
    Hon Dr Prempeh, please, continue.
    Dr Prempeh 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I proffered an amendment to the clause as it stands as of now -- Clause (4) (b),
    “higher education will be made available to citizens who are capable.”
    Mr Speaker, if we add “capable of benefiting from it”, it gives a sense that there is somebody who is so wise in the university there who should decide that even though I have got triple “A's”, I am not benefiting from university education. That is not what this Bill is intended to do. Every citizen who is capable of entering the university - fine.
    But when we say “of benefiting from it”, we have already put the cart before the horse. Who is going to look at my age when I am 80 years to say, “I have benefited from university education?” So I proffer that Hon Members should stop - I agree when we say “capable” in paragraph (b), it is reviewed but we should stop immediately after “capable” and not bring “of benefiting from it”, because nobody can decide who would benefit from university education or not; “who is capable of entry” is fine but “benefiting” is wrong.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    And
    in fact, when we are admitting people, we do not really consider what benefit may accrue to them; honestly. The only thing is that, “Are you qualified to enter?” And that is why at this stage, it is good
    Mr Joseph Y. Chireh 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    I do not think that we should stop at “capable”. Why “capable”? If we just say that “higher education will be made available to citizens who are capable” -- capable to do what? They are “capable of benefiting from it”; it just now shows what that capability is meant to do. If they are capable but they cannot benefit from it -- One goes to the university with good qualification and we cannot benefit from it; should that be the case? One is capable of benefiting -- Why?
    The “benefit” there, is just telling us that you can go and get education from that higher institution. Why should we drop - He did not do his grammar well. It has to be qualified and that is why we should reject it. The drafters looked at all the pros and said “benefiting from it”; why should we stop at “capable”?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Except
    that Hon Minister, the capacity here needs not refer to benefits. But even the mere capacity to pursue that course of study according to the highest standards of the university -- that is what that capability connotes, not capability of going to benefit from it or doing whatever with it. But are you capable in terms read pursuing that course? If you want to read medicine, can you do it? Are you a person capable of reading law? That is what “capable” there, in my view, means -- your capacity to pursue the discipline that the university offers.
    Prof. Fobih 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with all
    due respect, your ability to benefit from a programme is assessed by the university sometimes conducting an interview despite the fact that you are qualified to do a programme. So, that authority, if it
    is taken away from the university, then it becomes a mere perception that you are capable of doing something. But the university has to make sure that you will not spend your years of training at the university without achieving the standard that is set in that programme.
    So if you qualify to do a Ph.D programme, for instance, with your second degree, the university will conduct interviews and even with the interviews, it is not everybody who passes. This will be ranked, so the “ability to benefit” here is referring to the university's authority or power to assess your fitness to benefit or gain from the programme that you have applied for. And so, leaving it will be missing something that will be essential or even determine your future in the programme.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Hon Prof Ameyaw-Akumfi, you are in the House> [Interruption.]
    Hon Members, I am just drawing his attention that we may soon need his expertise so that he would sit well.
    Prof. (Emeritus) Samuel K. Amoako 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want to support the rendition by the Hon Member for Manhyia. (Dr Matthew Prempeh).
    Mr Speaker, I think we can just stop at clause 4 (b) “higher education will be made available to citizens who are capable.” If you are “capable”, you show the capacity to do university work. Benefitting from your studies is determined by the university ahead of time and that is how they draw their syllabus and their curriculum. They determine what society needs and then come up with courses and programmes that will benefit the society.
    So, if you choose to do a particular
    programme, it means it would benefit the society. It is not there and then that you will decide that this will benefit the individual. The university structure is not to benefit individuals.
    You go to do a programme that will benefit society and that is determined before you are admitted into any particular programme. So, I think it will do us a lot of good if we stop at just “capable” and that will take care of the qualification that the Hon Member for Asawase brought about. You are qualified, you are admitted, but you must show capacity to do the work. So, when we stop at “capable”, I think that rendition will be right.
    Mrs Gifty E. Kusi 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think we would be better off if we say “capable of pursuing the course”; not “benefiting from it”; The person is “capable of pursuing that course or the study”. I think that should be the - Not stopping at “capable”. Capable of what? Of pursuing that study.
    Mr Chireh 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the issue I have raised about qualifying this is that it also includes whether - You can get five “A's” and they admit you to read Administration. During the interviews that they conduct now, they look at you and say, “Look, you may not benefit from this course -” [Interruption.]
    Wait. Fortunately, Mr Speaker himself is a retired Professor from the University of Ghana and there are courses that people have pursued.
    You get there and your lecturers will take you through as my Hon Colleague Prof. Fobih (Hon Member for Assin South) is saying.
    You can attend the meeting, you are capable; if you say “capable of persuing”,
    Mrs Akosua Frema Osei-Opare 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I stand on a point of order to straighten a bit of what the Hon Minister is saying. I find it difficult to accept that the university or any institution of learning should be the determinant of benefit or no benefit. The due process is that, you have courses, and there are some basic qualifications and capabilities that are required to pursue that particular discipline.
    Once you qualify, it is not for them to decide whether -- for example, if I pursue a course in archeology, it will later benefit me in one way or the other. However, it belongs to another department, such as the counselling department, which in fact, often does not even come in until the students have entered the university.
    Therefore, the issue here is, the capacity of the person to pursue a particular discipline, and that is the limit to which this clause should be looked at. Therefore, I believe that the rendition to say that: “let us look at the capacity to pursue that course”, is one that is appropriate for the situation that we are discussing.
    I thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Chireh 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon
    Member who just spoke, her point of order was rather supporting my argument. If we say somebody is “capable”, that means, he or she has grades that enable him or her to pursue the course, that is one. So you do not need to add “capable of pursuing a course”. When you qualify, you have the grades; that is one; now there are people who get to the university with very high grades, they tell you they want to do this
    Mr Chireh 12:50 p.m.


    course but you know that the society and that person can better benefit by the pursuing of another course, “benefiting from it”, so the “benefiting” is not to be determined as a criterion for the person to enter. His capability has decided that, but whether you “benefit from it”, is the issue I am raising. [Interruptions.] Dr Prempeh read medicine, but if this provision was there, he would have been made to read law to come to Parliament rather than - [Laughter.] So my point is that -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, I think you have finished?
    Hon Dr A. A. Osei.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just

    Who says I want to benefit? I may not want to benefit by going to the university but I want to be able to have the capacity to pursue whatever they are providing. The issue of “benefiting” is a secondary matter. When you enter, you may decide to negotiate with the university that this or that is how you want to benefit and they may guide you.

    In fact, most successful people in the United States of America have not gone to the university to exactly benefit, most of them have left and they are the most successful people in the world. If this was predetermined, that was how they would benefit. Bill Gates is one good example. So it is not up to the university to determine the benefit a priori. But the university must be given an opportunity to help those who are capable of pursuing those disciplines they have set.

    I thought if it stopped at “capable of”,

    it leaves it short of something; so we may find the right language to say “capable of pursuing the relevant discipline or something” but that one is a matter of language, at least, the spirit of where we want to go can be captured. But the current thing about “benefiting” is certainly not the best.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    The
    last contribution from Hon Prof. Ameyaw- Akumfi.
    Prof. Christopher Ameyaw-Akumfi 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think in a sense, I was going to agree with the Hon Member for Asawase, Mohammed Mubarak Muntaka, except that his rendition can still not be refined. [Interruptions.] I think what we are trying to state is that anyone who decides -- this “benefit” thing should be deleted; if he qualifies and wants to take advantage of higher education, he can go through it. Mr Speaker, why do we not look at this rendition? --
    “Higher education, would be made available to citizens who are capable of availing themselves of it”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, how do you find that? “To citizens who are capable of availing themselves of it”.
    Mr Puozaa 12:50 p.m.
    Does it really go down
    well with the language? It does not, this changes the intention of the draftpersons.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Very
    well, if it does not change the intention of the draftpersons, then we may put the Question.
    Alhaji Muntaka 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    proposed the amendment and I want to agree with it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    You are
    in favour of “agreeable”? It would read as follows:
    “Agreeable to those who are capable of availing themselves of it”.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought Hon “M. M.” Muntaka withdrew his - [Pause.]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    The
    rendition will be:
    “those who are capable of availing themselves of it”.

    So that it will read as follows:

    “and making higher education available to Ghanaians capable of availing themselves of it.”

    That is, capable of availing themselves of higher education. That is it.

    .
    Dr A. A. Osei 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the Hon Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi may agree, I would want to slightly amend his amendment, because what I am reading sounds clumsy and not right. But I think that if you say “higher education will be made available to citizens who avail themselves of it” - because this issue of capacity to avail oneself, I am not sure what it means. What does it mean to say, “?do I have a capacity to avail myself to higher education”? It is the capacity to pursue a discipline. We are talking about a capacity to pursue a discipline so either we say “a capacity to pursue the relevant subject”, I will agree. But to say “capacity to avail”, I would have to be convinced of what it means.
    Mr Boafo 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the rendition is very clumsy. Mr Speaker, one would just ask himself, what are the ingredients involved in this case? Then we have to establish “capacity”, we have to establish “availability”. Mr Speaker, I think “availability” should be taken off. The University is more concerned with the capacity of the person to pursue the course, it is not that the person is going to make himself available. Is making yourself available to the university authorities, then you are admitted? No. You have to show capacity to pursue the course or the study, and that is more elegant than “capacity” and then “availability”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Hon Members, it is very important to have this aspect of the law well presented, because we are talking about objectives and if the objectives are not clear, it would not do any good.
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think all of us here have some type of nostalgia and attachment to the University of Ghana and we all look at it from an exclusive perspective, where we are trying to make laws that will be for a group of people. I think what we should be doing, is to make sure that the access is to everybody and then allow them to use their test course and all that to get the people in. But to say that “somebody who is capable” should be allowed in, I think, it is going to be a bit discriminatory.
    What I think we should do is that, you know, the higher education would be made available to all citizens who aspire to have higher education. That one gives everybody access to it. But to say that because one is not capable and all that and make laws based on capability, I think it is actually exclusive and being unfair to others who may aspire to the thing, but because of certain reasons, they cannot get in.
    Mr Alex A.Tettey-Enyo 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    I think clause 4 (b) is only reflecting something that is already provided in the Constitution, article 25 (1) (c), under educational right, and I read with your permission:
    Mr Puozaa 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there are two important words over there; that is “capability” and one, “availing himself of it”. Remember that thousands of candidates apply to the university, it is not all of them who are capable, that is why there is a selection.
    Now, if I have qualified and I do not make myself available, definitely, I will not benefit from it. So the two words, I think, are quite important. But another way out is, we could just delete all the words after “citizens” and let it remain as follows:
    “higher education will be made available to all citizens.”
    And that takes care of what is in the Constitution.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Hon Members, just a moment. The Hon Minister for Education (Mr Tettey- Enyo) has drawn our attention to the constitutional provision. I want us to be very mindful of that and as much as possible, see if it can guide us so that we do not even try to reinvent an existing wheel.
    Mr Joe Ghartey 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for recognising me or seeing me at long last.
    Mr Speaker, first of all, before I comment on this, the past few minutes have been very interesting; it has been a professorial discourse among professors. Mr Speaker, sometimes, when we lawyers are speaking, they complain that it has become a lawyerly discourse, and Mr Speaker, I recognise the fact that today,

    Mr Speaker, what is the purpose of this clause 4? The purpose of the clause is that, it defines the aims of the university. The question that we should ask ourselves is that, does it create right because, just simply defining the aims, what is the vision, what is the mission of the university? Does it create right?

    Mr Speaker, why I ask if it does create right is that, if I am a Ghanaian and there is a clause there, and I am capable and I have not been admitted, do I have the right to go to court and say that I am capable but have not been admitted? Mr Speaker, I think that the nature of the argument, with the greatest of respect to all my very professorial Colleagues who just contributed, is splitting of hairs and we can continue splitting the hairs.

    But perhaps, I would propose an amendment -- on the safe side, I would propose an amendment which is based on the Constitution, because what the Constitution says is that, it talks about accessibility. So it leaves the discretion to the university. Because the discretion must be the university, the Constitution recognises that. But if you say that “who are capable of benefiting from it”, what does it mean? Does it mean if I qualify and I am capable - [Interruptions.] So, I think that it should be -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Hon Member, we have made progress beyond that. We have made a lot of progress beyond that point.
    rose rose
    Mr Ghartey 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that a professor - he is not a professor; one professor has got up again. So, Mr Speaker, I think that if higher education shall be made equally accessible to all citizens, I totally agree with the Chairman that it should end at “accessibility to citizens”, then the university would use its own mechanisms to choose.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 1:10 p.m.
    I think that, Mr Speaker, the aims of the university have been stated. It does not include (b). It is the principles that will guide the university in achieving the aims that have been emphasized, because already it says “the aims of the universities are to provide higher education”. It is there.
    But how do they achieve that aim? What principles should guide the university in achieving that aim of providing higher education? It will provide higher education to citizens who are capable of benefiting from it -- [Interruptions] - That is the principle that is to guide it in its provision of higher education. So I am saying that it is the principles that will guide the university in achieving its aims and objectives -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Hon Member, just continue with your arguments.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 1:10 p.m.
    And what has been referred to in the Constitution really, is not that that is the objective, no. It is the accessibility because it goes further to say that “a progressive free education.” That is the emphasis. So if you say that on the basis of capacity, in my view, it is meaningless. Then we must
    as well delete that entire subclause. But the principle that is supposed to guide the university in achieving its aim, that we as the people have enacted, is to be on the basis of capacity to benefit. That is it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    That is also another road we have already gone through and I think we have the general understanding that it is not capacity to benefit, but capacity to pursue a course of study.
    Mr Pelpuo 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I suppose that this aspect of the Bill is not referring only to “capacity or “capability”. When they say “all citizens”, what comes to mind readily is about colour, it is about sex, it is about ethnic groups and everything. So when you say “citizens” and you are talking about “capability”, what about the others?
    So when you say “citizens” and end it there, then the others can find expression in the Bill, so that we can all be taken care of. It does not matter whether you are capable or the status of the university, the internal workings of the university will take care of that. But we do not legislate on something, which is apparent and which the university is taking care of because its internal laws permit it to do so. So I think it should end at “citizens”, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Inusah A .B. Fuseini 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that Hon Papa Owusu-Ankomah got it very right. Mr Speaker, there are two things. If you look at clause 4, it talks about the aims and how to achieve those aims. You read it carefully. The aims of the university have clearly been identified in clause 4, but how do you achieve those aims? Clause 4 (b) says that in achieving those aims, it must be on the basis of capacity to benefit. That is the principle. So if we end at “citizens”, we will not be answering to the question “how?” So the clause 4 (b) is answering to the question, how do you achieve those aims that have
    Mr Inusah A .B. Fuseini 1:10 p.m.


    been elaborately spelt out in clause 4, and for the benefit of the entire House? I read it again -

    “The aims of the university are to provide higher education, undertake research, disseminate knowledge, and foster relationships with outside persons and bodies in accordance with the following principles:”

    And what are the principles, In subclause (b), the principle should be on the basis of capacity - [Interruptions] - To benefit - yes!
    Dr Prempeh 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want to quote the Constitution, article 25 (c), and it is also about principles, the whole of article 25. It says, and I quote -
    “All persons shall have the right to equal educational opportunities and facilities and with a view to achieving the full realisation of that right -”
    Then subclause (c ) says -
    “higher education shall be made equally accessible …”
    That is one -- [Some Hon Members “to all.”] -- I am coming, “to all”, that is “citizens”, --
    - 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Oh! Please, Order! Order!
    Dr Prempeh 1:10 p.m.
    “. . .by every appropriate means, and in particular, by progressive introduction of free education;”
    So the “capacity” here, the Constitution defines it as “progressive free education” So the “capacity”, the Constitution was talking about, was nothing but -- [Interruptions] - Yes, yes -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Hon Member, you address the Chair and you will make progress.
    Dr Prempeh 1:10 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker. So when we are coming into the Universities Bill and it is about principles, the principles should be all-encompassing, they should not be principles in particular. So it should be, “higher education will be made available to citizens who have the capacity” -- [Interruption] - Not to “benefit” but “capacity” to --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    I think we have gone beyond “benefit”, and we agreed on it.
    Dr Prempeh 1:10 p.m.
    I want him to pursue that line of programme.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Very well. I believe that, Hon Members, if we take the cue from the Hon Minister for Education - “making higher education equally accessible to all on the basis of capacity ” --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with respect, I think as per the reading of the article, that is, clause 25 (c ), the principle relates to “accessibility”, accessibility of education. And Mr Speaker, the other important leg, in my view, is on the “by every appropriate means”. That is making it accessible “by every appropriate means”.
    So Mr Speaker, in my view, if we rest it at the point of “capacity”, it does not
    address one of the very fundamental issues covered by subclause (c ) - “by every appropriate means”. And in my view, that is where we should stop. And I believe we should have that addendum to make it complete, otherwise, it is left hanging. We are talking about the principle and I thought that talking about -
    I do not know how you have couched even subclause (a), because I thought that if you are talking about principle, you will not begin by saying that in determining the subject to be taught, emphasis would be placed on so and so.
    The principle should be emphasizing courses of special relevance with needs and that is how to capture it. And I thought what had been done there is totally wrong. So maybe, the Hon Minister and the draftspersons may advert their minds to that.
    Indeed, if we spoke about aspirations of citizens of this country, Mr Speaker, we would not find space for the Republic but we would jump to Africa. I think it is also totally wrong, that is in (a).
    But coming to (b), Mr Speaker, I think
    that the emphasis should be “by every appropriate means”. We should capture that one as well.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Well, I think the Hon Minority Leader is suggesting a few things to the draftspersons, which they can take advantage of. Nevertheless, it does not change how far the Hon Minister for Education has led us to the question that is now before us:
    “making higher education equally accessible to all on the basis of capacity.”
    And I would put the Question. - [Interruptions] - Very well, I would put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Hon Members, let us make progress. I believe the drafting department can take advantage of the other suggestions and see what they can do further.
    Alhaji Muntaka 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, paragraph (c), line 4, delete “balance” and insert “and minority interest”.
    So the rendition will finally read:
    “ ( c ) i n i t s a c t i v i t i e s i n c l u d i n g r e c r u i t m e n t , admission, promotion and the provision of privileges, honours and facilities, the university will be conscious of the need for gender and minority interest.”
    Mr Speaker, the basic reason that I want the minority interest to be emphasised is that, when you go to the campus, the tendency for the minority to be subsumed is very high. And I think it is important that this is captured. I can give a typical example.
    When we were in the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), every Hall had a chaplain. We the muslims, even when one went on the corridors of the chaplains to pray, it was a problem. And I think that the minority on campus were completely subsumed. People forgot that there was a minority that needed to be taken care of. And it was always a problem. On all our universities today, you would realise that where, for example, the muslims pray, is a big challenge. Meanwhile, in all the Halls, there are chaplains.
    So, I am saying that because we are talking about facilities and all those things, in doing this, we should always have at the back of our minds, the interest of the

    minority.

    Thank you, very much, Mr Speaker, and I hope that my Hon Colleagues would support this.
    Mr Boafo 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the expression “minority” turns to create a problem. When the Hon Member, the proponent, was making his point, he was referring to religious minority. But there may be ethnic minority, there may be class minority, like the disadvantaged in society. I think he is trying to create conflict here for us by this legislation. So I think instead of “minority”, if we still insist, then we can substitute it with “vulnerable”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    And when we start delving into the area of minorities, may that include gay minority rights and all manner of those things that have rocked other nations? Is that the area that we want to get into? It is a really very tricky area but as for the gender, I think we all understand.
    Mr Puozaa 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I strongly support your stand because stating just “minority” will be opening the floodgates for anything at all. So, let us leave it as it is. It is better.
    Alhaji Muntaka 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member for Mampong did make a proposal, and I think it is acceptable to me. That instead of the “minority”, which may open so many gates, we should use “vulnerable”, so that it will read:
    “gender and vulnerable interest”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Except that gay people have often said they are also very vulnerable.
    I would put the Question so that Hon
    Members would decide.
    Mrs Akosua F. Osei-Opare 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, based on the discussion, it seems to me that it would be better to recognise disadvantaged groups rather than vulnerable groups. In this situation, for instance, you might want to look at facilities taking into account gender balance, but even persons with disability -- So, I believe that a better situation that will really cover the kind of people that we are talking about will be to use the words “taking into account gender balance and disadvantaged groups”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Why do you not use your very word “disability”? If it is disability, then let us say so.
    Mrs Osei-Opare 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that that may even be better - to be specific because actually, this is a specific group that needs that kind of attention. When I looked at the import of that whole clause, it seems to me that they were looking for not simply about people, but also facilities and therefore, the group that really came into my mind is “persons with disability”. But in case there are other issues such as what the Hon Member for Asawase, Alhaji Mohammed-Mubarak Muntaka has put out, in terms of certain types of facilities to cater for other needs, the word “disadvantaged group” might then spread and to such groups as well. But really, for this purpose, the mentioning of the persons with disability, perhaps, might be the better and more suitable words than what I originally said.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    So, we can then substitute that with “gender balance and the physically challenged”?
    Dr Prempeh 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in clause 4 (c), let us read it carefully. It says:
    “ in i t s ac t iv i t i es inc lud ing recruitment, admission, promotion and the provision of privillages…”
    Mr Speaker, a university promotion can never be done on ethnic minority, physical disability or gender. Promotion is purely merit and performance. Recruitment and admission, I agree - this pertains to the Faculty really - And if you are talking about promotion in the university, an institution of learning, and we are going to reduce ourselves to “balanced gender”, we are going to reduce ourselves to ethnicity - [Interruptions] - I am coming -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Hon Member for Manhyia, can you please read the entire rendition.
    Dr Prempeh 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it says:
    “ ( c ) i n i t s a c t i v i t i e s i n c l u d i n g r e c r u i t m e n t , admission, promotion and the provision of privileges, honours and facilities, the university will be conscious of the need . . .”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    “The university will be” ?
    Dr Prempeh 1:20 p.m.
    “. . . conscious of the need . . .” Mr Speaker, I said, I totally agree.
    Alhaji Muntaka 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe my Hon Colleague is grossly misleading this House. Mr Speaker, the issues there are many. Like he said, you are talking about recruitment, you are talking about admission, you are talking about promotion and the provision of privileges, harness and facilities. Mr Speaker, you would realise that the only one there that you may say is strictly by performance is about the promotion. So this thing is to go -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Hon Muntaka, if you agree that promotion is inclusive of all those items, will you defend promotion on the basis -
    Alhaji Muntaka 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, unless otherwise, we are going to separate each one of them and speak on it. I believe they are saying “conscious” -- we are not -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Hon Muntaka, and if you may need to separate something, then the Hon Member has drawn our attention to something which is very, very crucial and he cannot be misleading this House. Let us therefore, find ways and means of maybe, making a separation, if you want to keep certain aspects of gender and incapacity or whatever, but which would not affect promotion. It is a very important matter, that is, if promotion is well understood.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are talking about general principles. Nothing here says that we are creating a criterion on promotion based on -- What I am saying is that, we are talking about principles; the fact that the word “promotion” is there, does not say that we are trying to create a criterion on promotion on the basis of vulnerability. It says we are conscious; obviously, the university has its requirements for promotion, admission and so on and so forth. But being conscious of it does not say that if there are five disabled people, promote them.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Hon Dr Osei, will you want the university to address its mind when it comes to promotion, to matters of gender and physical disability?
    The Hon Member for Techiman North, Hon Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi.
    Dr Osei 1:30 p.m.
    I do not have any difficulty with that at all; not that I am saying that they should do it that way; I will not have any difficulty -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    The academics, perhaps, may not want to consider that kind of thing at all. The Hon Member for Techiman North, Hon Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi.
    Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, being conscious of anything, means, have at the back of the mind the fact that we have gender -- we have promotion. Mr Speaker, who is a professor, how on earth are you going to give special consideration to this group or that group because of the fact that they are females, because of the fact that they have what? No, I think we have -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    The Hon Member for Manhyia, Dr Prempeh, you would kindly wait awhile.
    Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I suggest that we delete the “promotion” from that list and the rest can stay.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Very well. In fact, honestly speaking, if you bring this to academics, they will not be amused with Parliament at all. In fact,

    these are matters -- when you are making an academic assessment, you should be mindful of such factors: it is a very serious matter to academics. I think this part of the Bill should be reconsidered. They will either decouple it so that we save time and progress because I think the mood of the House is very - Yes, Hon Member.
    Mrs Osei-Opare 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, am I recognised?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member.
    Mrs Osei-Opare 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that the import of that subclause is to state the fact that there are considerations that are very important in promoting. I am now limiting myself to the issue of promotion; that there are other considerations besides academic competence and this happens in every situation that we find ourselves in.
    There are certain characteristics and criteria that are beyond academic performance or the number of articles that you have published in reputable journals and so on and so forth. This clause is asking us to tell the university that in the course of promotion, they must not just limit themselves to just one criterion but that other kinds of criteria; there may be the soft criteria such as gender, and such as disability, other considerations, which will help promote or help to advance the course of national development that can be a criterion --
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Hon
    Prof (Emeritus) Amoako, do you stand on a point order?
    Prof. (Emeritus) Amoako 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe, maybe, it is a point of information that might clarify the situation we are dabbling ourselves with. When it comes to promotions in the university settings, they are carefully and meticulously spelt out in their statutes. These are principles of the aims of the university we are dealing with. So
    promotion has no place here.
    The criterion for promotion is based on merit as spelt out in the statues of the university. So I think a consideration of gender balance and so on should not be in the principles of the aims of the university. So “promotion”, that word alone, should be taken out of this rendition.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Hon Members, seriously speaking, we have to consider consultations so that we do not start putting ourselves in a difficult situation.
    Yes, Chairman of the Committee.
    Mr Puozaa 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, your Committee looked at this issue. But then we tried to apply ourselves to the issue of gender throughout the Bill and where even nominations are to be made, we made a conscious effort to increase or to include women as part of it. That is the spirit of what we did. So, this is not a mistake or an accident; we saw it and we felt that it was necessary. That is it. [Interruption.]
    I said that throughout the Bill, the Committee tried to pay attention to gender issues and where you have one or two nominees, we insisted that at least, a female should be one of the two. This is what we have done and this goes -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Nominees to what? For example, if you are talking about nominees to a council and so on, yes, that one we agree on the gender matter. But when you come to talk about gender as a factor in academic promotion, you will be dabbling in a very dangerous area. And I would not put the Question on this. The Committee should go and seriously reconsider this. And the Table Office must note.
    There is another amendment - Clause 4, Chairman of the Committee, paragraph (e), line (4).
    Mr Puozaa 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 4, paragraph (e), line 4, delete “people of this country” and insert “peoples of Ghana, Africa and humankind”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    So that clause 4 (e), we proceed -- “For the general benefit of the people of this country”, We are simply saying “for the general benefit of the peoples of Ghana, Africa and humankind”.
    Dr Prempeh 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want to
    ask the Chairman if he availed himself of clause 4 (d), because it talked about world affairs and Africa. So clause 4 (e) was trying to bring us back home to Ghana because the world and Africa had been taken care of in clause 4 (d). I do not know why we should go back and consider inserting “Peoples of Ghana, Africa and humankind”.
    Mr Speaker, clause 4 (d) has taken care of that and this clause 4 (e) is about Ghana, so we should let it stand as it is and we should not be afraid to promote ourselves because clause 4 (d) has explicitly done what this insertion wants to do.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, it would appear 4 (d) talks about mainly content and then that part of (e) now talks about who are to benefit from the -- so consider that.
    Mr Boafo 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want
    to propose that we only add after the “country” “or elsewhere”, so that we are not specific about Ghana, Africa and humankind. “For the general benefit of the people of this country or elsewhere”. This is partially captured under paragraph (f), the penultimate and the last line -- and any other problems which exist in Ghana or elsewhere in Africa. The (e) is intended to be global. So, if we can just limit ourselves to the people of this country.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, if our attention may also be drawn to the often used expression in academia -- “for the general benefit of humanity”. And you realise that it is a very, very common expression in the academic world. It is the global nature of the work both in terms of doing and the benefit derived therefrom, the way to refer to it is humanity; if it may be considered.
    Mr Puozaa 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree.
    Prof. (Emeritus) Amoako 1:40 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, I rise to support what you proposed. Because if you look at the other subclauses, they take care of particular countries or areas of the world. But this is dealing with the responsibility of the use of their education and the benefit thereof. So, to humankind or to humanity, are all encompassing and the other subclauses refer to Africa or West Africa and so on and so forth. So, I believe that we will consider your suggestion or proposal, that we change it to benefit humanity because that will be all encompassing.
    Mr Osei-Owusu 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    am not opposed to the “humanity” being replaced but I am worried about “independent thought”. I think (e) should read: “Students will be taught methods of critical and independent thinking”
    not “independent thought”. I think that will be a better rendition.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, “independent thinking”.
    Prof. (Emeritus) Amoako 1:40 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, I want to agree with and support what the Hon Member for Bekwai said. This is a matter of the rendition of the
    Prof. (Emeritus) Amoako 1:40 p.m.


    whole sub- clause. I think grammatically, it is better to have “independent thinking” instead of “independent thought”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    That
    is very good and in fact, generally, in the academics, we talk about thought in terms of what others have already laid down from their research and from their thinking but the student is also being taught to have “independent thinking”. I can see Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi is agreeing with it. Very well. So we will put it this way.
    “Students will be taught methods of critical and independent thinking while being made aware that they have a responsibility to use their education for the general benefit of humanity.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:40 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, I have many, many problems with the way these clauses have been captured. I think that, maybe, the draftspersons may have to have a second look at that. But beyond that, Mr Speaker, I believe the subclauses that we have been dealing with have all been employing the word “will” and I thought that in place of the word “will” we should rather substitute “shall”. “Students shall be taught methods of critical thinking . . .”; “students shall be given the understanding . . .” “Students will be given understanding”, as if somebody is going to ram those things down their throats.
    Mr Speaker, I believe the construction, “shall”, would be better.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Very well. Shall we leave that to the draftpersons? Please, draw appropriate attention for the draftpersons, so that they can put the appropriate wording because
    these are more of drafting details.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    beg to move, clause 4 (d), between “of” and “world affairs” insert “business entrepreneurship”.
    So, the new rendition should read:
    “as far as practicable, students will be given an understanding of entrepreneurship, world affairs and in particular of the histories, institutions and cultures of African civilizations.”
    My main reason is that, for Ghana to be able to achieve higher growth rate and probably achieve the standards of living that we crave for, there is the need on the part of this country to create businessmen and we shall be able to fulfil this dream only when we are made aware of entrepreneurship.
    Right now, at the university, business entrepreneurship is already taught, as you are also aware. So, I believe that, it would be proper if students are given the opportunity to learn business entrepreneurship as it is done all over the world and in particular, in East Asia. I believe that this has given the East Asians the urge over those African countries.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr Bedzra 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think my
    Hon Friend's argument would not be attainable here.
    Mr Speaker, for the past 49 years, there has been a law and that law does not say that we should have “entrepreneurship” there. Even though we are moving into a modern world, clause 4 (a) says that “in determining the subject to be taught.” That has been taken care of already.
    “In determining the subject to be taught at the university, emphasis
    would be placed on courses of special relevance to the needs and aspirations of citizens.”
    “Entrepreneurship” is one of them.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “entrepreneurship” is not a subject. It is a course which entails various subjects -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon Members, considering the state of business in the House and the time, I direct that Sitting extends beyond the prescribed period in accordance with Standing Order
    40 (3).
    Hon Members, I think we would do well to make progress.
    I thought the Hon Member was not inclined to pursue that initial proposition.
    Mr Puozaa 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am strongly inclined to pursue it because I believe - [Interruption.]
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want to appeal to my Hon Colleague to withdraw his amendment because if we start listing every subject of relevance, then why do we not have science in there and so forth?
    In any case, I think even (e) talks about independent thinking and (f) also talks about subjects that relate to social, culture, and economic. So I think “entrepreneurship” is series of courses, but we do not need it in there so that we would grow as a nation. I think that is not the relevance. “Independent thinking” will -
    Dr Second Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon Member, are you inclined towards drawing the amendment?
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, let me explain myself further.
    Dr Second Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon Member, you intend to pursue it?
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, he mentioned science -
    Dr Second Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon Member, do you intend to pursue the amendment?
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I intend pursuing it. Let me explain myself.
    Dr Second Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Then I will put the Question.
    Question put and amendment negatived.
    Mr Puozaa 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 4, paragraph (f), line 3, delete “technical and substitute “technological”
    Mr Osei-Mensah 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not have a problem with the amendment but I think there should be an additional amendment. If we relate paragraph (f) to the amendment we made in (e) by substituting “people of this country” with “humanity” then, we cannot restrict ourselves at the end. “And any other problems which exist in Ghana or elsewhere in Africa”, because humanity goes beyond Ghana and Africa.
    So if we are talking about the problems,
    if the benefit is to humanity, then we should consider problems which are related to humanity in general but should not restrict ourselves only to Ghana and Africa.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that in discussing these principles, we must discuss or consider them disjunctively and not conjunctively. If you look at when we were talking about humanity, they have the responsibility to use their education for the general benefit of humanity. That is understandable. But here we are talking about -- research would be undertaken in the subjects which are taught in the university but with special attention. So there is an emphasis.
    So the fact that we have amended it in the previous one, does not mean that it should be here because in that one, we were talking about responsibility of using one's education to benefit humanity.
    With this explanation, I do not know whether my Hon Colleague will reconsider his amendment.
    Mr Osei-Mensah 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    am not fully convinced, in the sense that using education in the benefit of humanity means also using education to solve problems of humanity because how do you benefit from education? You benefit from education by using the knowledge acquired to solve problems and successful solutions to existing problems will give you the related benefit. So if we say it should not be general and should be restricted to Ghana and Africa, I do not think it is right.
    Mr Speaker, this problem starts
    from (d); (d), we spoke about “African civilization”. When we come to (f), we talk about “Ghana or elsewhere in Africa”. When we go to (g), we talk about Africa. When we go to the next one, it is “within the country and outside”. I think there should be some form of consistency. [An Hon Member: No] Why?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, we shall make progress.
    Mr Osei-Mensah 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    We
    shall make progress.
    Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    has he abandoned it? [Some Hon Members: Yes, he has abandoned it.] Because Mr Speaker, the point is - [Laughter.]
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would
    like to propose a further amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, you may propose further amendment, please.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 1:50 p.m.
    Pardon?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    You
    may continue.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    would like to propose that the words “which are taught in the university but with special attention to the subjects” be deleted on the following grounds.
    Research should be allowed to be undertaken in the area of expertise. There are a lot of subjects -- a lot of areas which are not taught in the university but where people have the expertise, they should be allowed and can find funding; they should be allowed to do research in that area. Because the university has only twelve Faculties and a very limited number of courses that they teach. If the person can find funding, why not.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Order! Order.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, so, I
    believe --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    In fact, it is a very, very important point please, let us listen carefully to the Hon Member. It is a very, very important point.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, so
    research -- that person has the expertise and a very good expertise in the area where he was not teaching but he thought he could do a research with funding from outside but because that particular subject or that research would not fit a subject that was in the university, he was refused
    the permission to do that research. And I believe as a university, people working there should be allowed to do research in the area of expertise, so long as they can They will be able to bring results which will be to the benefit of humanity; they should be allowed to do that research.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, let us address our minds to a situation whereby Rockefeller Foundation gives someone an international award to carry out a particular area of research in the University of Ghana. Incidentally, it is not one of the areas in which the University of Ghana actually mounts a course. It should be possible for that research to be done here in Ghana as an independent study and that person does not have to operate under a particular department in terms of a subject that is being taught. And in fact, globally, this can happen and it is done sometimes.
    There are people who are brought, they are attached to the university and they are only taking advantage of the academic atmosphere and they do virtually what one may call, their own thing. And I think we could consider “research will be undertaken in all subjects but with special attention . . .” Then we save ourselves what could be an unnecessary trouble -- “all subjects”.
    Dr A. A. Osei 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is
    not practicable to do research in all subjects because it says “research will be undertaken”, that is all. Do not use “all”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Very well. So, shall we leave this to research -- just to capture the idea of the university having research done without that important qualification by the Hon Member, of subjects which are taught in the university. Just leave it generally to research. That is the essence of his amendment.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    would like to offer a new rendition.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move,
    “research will be undertaken in subjects that relate to social, cultural, economic, scientific, technical and other problems which exist in Ghana or elsewhere in Africa.”
    Because, looking at what has been listed here, there is no other area else that research can be undertaken. So, that captures everything.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, if you look at the two sides of (f), the first part speaks about research generally. And then the second part is careful to give emphasis of certain areas that the law considers are very important to Ghana. So, I do not think we can box them in one. We must find a way of capturing the true meaning or intention of the drafters by giving the general provision and then we can, after that, zero into other areas which are identified as of particular interest.
    Prof. (Emeritus Amoako) 2 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, I seem to agree with the Hon Member who proposed the amendment. I think we can take out the words “in the subjects which are taught”; it should be taken out, so that the rendition will be
    “research will be undertaken in the university but with special attention to . . .”
    Then, it will sort of divorce the teaching aspect of the subject from the research part of the university's responsibilities. What he is trying to say is that, if you do not offer a particular subject taught in the university, it means you cannot perhaps, accept money for research into that field, which could happen. So, what he is saying, I think it makes sense; we need to
    take out “in the subjects which are taught in the \university”. What if those subjects are not taught in the university?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, from what the Hon Member is saying, (e) refers to teaching and then (f) refers to research; the two main areas. He would want us to consider -- “research will be undertaken in the university”. With that -- Yes.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    the fact is, subjects that are taught in the university are not static. They are not cast in concrete. And we are talking about research, then it says first, the priority will be -
    (1) In subjects which are taught in the university;
    (2) Special attention to subjects that relate to social, cultural . . .
    (3) Any other problems
    So this is all encompassing. When you delete “subjects which are taught in the university”, then it means that research is being carried out at large. But research will first have to be undertaken in respect of subjects which are being taught at the university to benefit teaching and learning in the university.
    So, I am saying that this has three categories:
    (1) In subjects which are taught in the university;
    (2) Special attention to subjects that relate to social, cultural . . .
    (3) Any other problems
    That is how I see it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Let us consider this. You see, the introductory word “but” means that all that follow should relate to the previous and that
    is where the difficulty may be and that is where the Hon Member's concern, which is also highlighted by Hon Prof. (Emeritus) Amoako may raise difficulties.
    Dr Prempeh 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want
    us to exercise our minds again. A lot of researchs have led universities establishing subjects and Faculties that did not exist. And so, to preclude or to emphasise that research should be done in only taught courses, is generally wrong.
    If we even go further to the foundations of universities, universities were centres of research before being lately centres of short courses. They were centres of independent research, scholarly research.
    I will tend to agree to what my fellow Colleague suggested and that the rendition should be “research should be undertaken in the university but with special attention”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Hon Members, let us quietly address our minds to this, otherwise, we may create difficulties. Research should be undertaken in the subjects which are taught in the university. Basically, it could mean that if the subject is not taught in the university, there is no research in that area. Then it says, “while you are addressing your mind to this” -- and that is why there - “While you are addressing your mind to”, when you want to do research in an area, it must be taught in the university. Nevertheless, we would want that we pay special attention to subjects that relate to social, cultural, economic, scientific, technical and other problems which exist in Africa or elsewhere.
    So, in other words, you must have this done in terms of subjects we teach. But in doing so, we must be mindful of the fact that we are aiming at solving problems and if we want to avoid that ambiguity, then please, let us address our minds carefully because this has actually happened before. People win awards and they say we do not
    have that subject here; and if that is not what we want, then let us make ourselves clear.
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    think a better rendition will be --
    “research will be undertaken in all disciplines with special attention to subjects that relate to”.
    So we will have to delete from “in” up to “the university” up to “but”. But then just insert “in all disciplines” and that takes care of all the problems that we are discussing.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Thank you. “Research will be taken in all disciplines” - [Interruption] - “in the subjects which are taught in the university.” So that it will save us the trouble. Shall we get the rendition? Hon Member, I will repeat it - “Research will be taken in all disciplines -”
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker --
    “Research will be undertaken in all disciplines but with special attention to subjects that relate to social, cultural, economic, scientific, technical and any other problem which exist in Ghana or elsewhere in Africa”.
    If that is the case.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    And in fact, if what the Hon Member has proposed is done, it means we can even break the sentence. “Research will be undertaken in all disciplines” --
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee -
    Mr Puozaa 2:10 p.m.
    Hon Speaker, please, I am surprised that it is the professors who are arguing so much over this. Because I believe that students serve as disciples to
    An Hon Member 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think you said I would be the second person to speak.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    I have changed my mind.
    Yes, Dr Yakubu -
    Dr Ahmed Y. Alhassan 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I really was very hesitant to join in the debate. But I think that if research is about moving from the known into the unknown, I think that the principle as captured should suffice.
    A university should not necessarily accept funding simply because it is money. A university must be noted to specialize in something and make a name in the world for it. So you must start with what you teach before you go into what you do not teach. And a university should be capable of knowing that this is the area that we have strengths and this is the area we want to make a name for, in the world So I think the principle as captured, should be left same.

    Thank you.
    Prof. Fobih 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I appreciate the limitation on the subjects taught in the university being expressed. But Mr Speaker, research work is undertaken in the university either by post-graduate students or by a Faculty. And a Faculty doing a research will always want to do a research that will promote the mandate of the university so that other students from other countries will be attracted into that field to work with a Faculty member. This is so because the university does not undertake a research where there is no qualified supervisor.
    If a student is doing A post-graduate research, he must always work under a qualified supervisor who is at the Faculty. And for that matter, the university would promote post-graduate research in fields or areas where there are resources and expertise as well. It is only when you have a visiting Faculty coming to do a research that perhaps, you have to find a way to accommodate such a person. But generally speaking, the university promotes research in areas where it has the competence and the resources to promote it. And this is what is implied in this statement.
    Several Hon Members - rose -
    Prof. Fobih 2:10 p.m.
    And I believe that we will be doing a lot of harm if we ignore this fact and then substitute it with anything that does not reflect this specialization that the university is focusing.
    Secondly - [Interruption.] - Yes
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Yes continue -
    Prof. Fobih 2:10 p.m.
    Secondly, the emphasis on the socio-cultural, scientific, technological problems in Ghana as well as other African countries is to make the research home-made in a way. Because we have been complaining; all of us have been
    complaining that we know so much about problems elsewhere in the world but we do not even know the problems that exist within our own continent or countries. And this is why the university is emphasising that research must focus more and more on our African problems or Ghanaian problems.
    So there is no conflict here except that we have to find a way that some of the other issues that may crop up from outside the research work can be accommodated within the context of knowing more about our own problems. That is all.
    Dr A. A. Osei 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think in agreeing with Dr Alhassan, the intent of clause 4 (f) is first and foremost, to concentrate on what is known - your expertise. But to accommodate my Hon good Friend, we can have another subclause that says,
    “opportunities may be provided for research in subject areas that are not taught in the university.”
    I do not have a problem. But I think the emphasis first and foremost must emanate from what is known in the university because that is where your expertise is. We can have a subclause giving room for people like he who wants to come and do research because there is money.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do agree with my Hon Colleague on the other side that research is moving from the known to the unknown and that is precisely what research is. If you like to explore the unknown, you need to do something different, which we normally do not do; which is not normally done at the university and that is why - [Interruption.] I beg your pardon?
    The university has only 12 Faculties
    and it teaches in a limited number of fields. What about the new areas which are springing up? Do we want to tell ourselves that “no, we close the university because - [Interruption.] I do agree with him, if there can be a subclause to provide that opportunity.
    But why do we need a subclause if we can amend this clause simply - In any case, if you read the clause that relates to social, cultural, economic, scientific, technical and other problems, these areas cover all fields of research. So, in my opinion, we could just do ourselves good favour if we were just to limit ourselves or delete the whole phrase “which are taught in the university, but -” [Interruption.] All right, I do agree with him. In order not to lose, I will agree with him.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    Very well. Shall we then stick to the original amendment? Economic, scientific - [Interruption.]
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are well aware that this issue that we are talking of has happened so many times at the university, that people have been refused funds; people have been refused permission to do research just because they want to explore the unknown. [Interruption.] It is true. He is saying people can go somewhere else and truly, these people went away and who lost? It is the country which lost.
    So I would plead with my Hon Colleagues not to limit ourselves to only subjects that are taught in the university, but let us open up for more new disciplines that are not taught in the university, that are coming up as well. There should be a subclause. I would offer -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    Hon Members, Hon Prof Gyan-Baffour suggested - [Interruption.] Hon Members, with regard to that aspect of
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    With regard to the other amendment, I think it would be appropriate for the Committee to seek some further guidance and reconsider and then advise. This is because, maybe, assuming the University of Ghana, for example, were to tell us that “we have suffered considerably from certain research moneys that would have been available but for the fact that we do not teach a course and we may want to be advised by it” I do not think this honourable House will want to deprive itself of just information. So I want the Committee to please, make further enquiries in that regard. After all, we are not finishing this Business today.
    Alhaji Muntaka 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, paragraph (g), line 3, at end, add “in a manner that will not disadvantage Ghanaian students”.
    Mr Speaker, I am saying this because of - [Interruption.] So that the rendition will now read:
    “opportunities for higher education and research will be provided for students from other countries, particularly countries in Africa”.
    I am saying you just add “in a manner that will not disadvantage Ghanaian students.
    Mr Speaker, why I am saying this is that currently, our universities have introduced fee-paying and this issue of fee-paying is gaining a lot of currency and a lot of our colleagues in the sub- region are trooping in to take advantage of the facilities and the opportunities that we have provided. If we are not careful, such that the opportunities become so big, they will be taking a chunk of space from Ghanaians. That is why I am just adding that we should put this as a caution that will guide us as a country and I hope that Hon Colleagues would understand this and support it.
    Mr Osei-Owusu 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the idea behind the amendment is all right; we want as much as possible to ensure that we do not disadvantage ourselves by opening up to other people. But I would rather we propose further amendment to the amendment that for - Instead of saying “in a manner that not”, we say --
    “provided that opportunities to students outside Ghana shall not exceed, maybe, 10 per cent of all opportunities that are available;”
    or,
    “provided that Ghanaian students shall not be at a disadvantage.”
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I fully appreciate the sentiments that must have influenced my Hon Colleague in his amendment. But we should also bear in mind that this is not supposed to be what the university will use daily in implementing its programmes.
    Whether it would disadvantage or not, would be a decision taken by the University Council at a particular time, depending on the circumstances of the case.
    We try to legislate so many things;
    we unduly tie the hands of those who implement them. Indeed, when the representatives of the university came to the Committee and we were discussing it, that was one of the major concerns.
    I fully appreciate this but these are policy matters that an Hon Minister can easily influence at the university. After all, we provide funding, so while I agree with this, I agree that this may not be the base. After all, this Bill is being enacted to govern the University of Ghana for the benefit of Ghanaians. If we say, “so that we do not disadvantage”, it is as if the university itself, in its daily activities, may veer into areas that may disadvantage the very people for which the university was established.
    So I think, yes, this is important but these are matters, with respect, that even as Parliament, we may take note and give directions to the university. It will be better that way, and of course, let us not forget too that we have statutes of the university. So, this will be more or less broad --

    I am done.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Hon Member, the Standing Orders allow Hon Members to stand up and when they are seen, they may be allowed to speak, and sometimes, they may be conveniently not seen, and I have expected you to see that they are not being seen and to continue.
    Hon Boafo.
    Mr Boafo 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I appreciate the rationale behind the proposed amendment
    but at the same time, I consider it to be too protectionist and if we legislate for such a course of action, we are likely to suffer from reciprocity, and I do not think it is healthy for us. I do not think we have to legislate for this matter.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    I think the Hon Member has gently abandoned his amendment, so we may make progress please, Hon Members. There are times that we must make progress.
    Clause 5 - Principal Officers of the University.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    There is no advertised amendment but --
    Dr A. A. Osei 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just need your guidance, as I look around the room and given the way the debate is going, it appears to me and this, I will defer to you that, it may be important at this point to consider whether or not we shall abandon our work, so that Hon Members may have time to reflect more on the serious issues that we are dealing with.
    Clearly, we have much, much less than one-third of all Hon Members and I think this Bill is so important that, it may be that we might want to consider adjourning and having more time to reflect on these serious issues, so that we can interrogate it better when we come back. I am just asking for your guidance in this matter.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Yes, I will put the Question on clause 5 and then since I am inclined towards your gentle suggestion, I will act accordingly . . .
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Hon Member, you intend to make an amendment to clause 5?
    Mr Boafo 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, they have provided the Oath of Office in the Schedule and at the same time, they are referring to
    Mr Boafo 2:30 p.m.


    the Second Schedule of the Constitution.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Kindly note we did not put the Question to clause 4 because there are a couple of matters outstanding in the entire clause and the Table Office may take note.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, clause 5, what is your reaction? There is no advertised amendment.
    Mr Puozaa 2:30 p.m.
    I saw nothing wrong with that.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    So Hon Boafo shall we proceed?
    Mr Boafo 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it has been the practice, at times there is no amendment but because -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Yes, I said there is no advertised amendment. Do you propose an amendment?
    Mr Boafo 2:30 p.m.
    Yes, and I am seeking clarification from the Chairman before I propose the amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Please seek your clarification, the Chairman did not get you.
    Mr Boafo 2:30 p.m.
    I just wanted to find out why he provided the Oath of Office in the Schedule, but at the same time, he referred to the Second Schedule of the Constitution.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Hon Boafo, if you will argue your point a bit, I think it will give him guidance so that he will know the essence of your difficulty.
    Mr Boafo 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the point is that, I do not think it is necessary having provided the Oath of Office in the Schedule to at the same time, refer to the Second Schedule of the Constitution.
    Mr Puozaa 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, please, let us read it: “as reproduced as a Schedule to this Act”; if you turn to the last page, page 21 of the Bill, you will see the Schedule reproduced there.
    Mr Boafo 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have understood him -- [Laughter.]
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have also a question; probably, I would like to have your direction -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Hon Member, you catch my eye by standing.
    Hon Member, you may continue.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 2:30 p.m.
    Clause 5 (1) talks
    about the principal officers as being the Chairperson of the university and then the Vice Chancellor, but the last one -- Clause 5 (4) talks about other officers. Who are these other officers? Does it mean the Chair -
    Dr A. A. Osei 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with respect, I appreciate his submission but I do not see any amendment on the Order Paper. So if the Hon Member has an amendment, he should propose it. That is the point why we have the Bill and we are at liberty to propose amendments. Otherwise, we move on.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    But an amendment may also emanate from a clarification that is sought, and the Hon Member may then either abandon his thoughts or formulate his proposed amendment.
    Mr Boafo 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, he is seeking clarification as to who are the other officers. The other officers are the Chairperson of the University Council and the Vice Chancellor. The section only talks about principal officers and we have singled out the Chancellor whose Oath of Office shall be administered by the President. So the other two officers
    are those referred to under subclause (4).
    Dr Prempeh 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to 5 (2):
    “prior to the assumption of office, the Chancellor, Chairperson, members of the University Council and the Vice-Chancellor are to swear the Oath of Office as prescribed by the 1992 Constitution.”
    Mr Speaker if he goes further and say “as is produced as the Schedule to this Act” and we go there, what has been reproduced is not what is in the Constitution, it has been modified. So if they want to leave it as it is in the Constitution, I am happy. But “as reproduced”, means, verbatim, but in the Constitution, there is nowhere that says “as printed in this Schedule” and “truly serve the University of Ghana, Legon”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, is there a way of capturing the word “reproduce” without disturbing the meaning? Because actually, it is not a reproduction.
    Mr Puozaa 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, since it is not an objection, he might or could propose a rendition that would be suitable. [Interruption.]
    rose
    Mr Puozaa 2:40 p.m.
    I am still on the floor.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, I think he will make a suggestion and then it would depend on your views.
    Dr Prempeh 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like it to read as follows:
    “Prior to assumption of office, the
    Chancellor, Chairperson and members of the University Council and the Vice Chancellor shall swear the Oath of Office as prescribed in the second Schedule of the Constitution.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    I think it is only a matter of wording, please.
    Dr Prempeh 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I said “prior to the assumption of office . . .”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    In fact, Hon Dr Prempeh, it is only a modification. Is that not so?
    Dr Prempeh 2:40 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    So it is modified?
    Dr Prempeh 2:40 p.m.
    It is modified. So if we could delete --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    And “as modified as a Schedule”?
    Dr Prempeh 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “as modified” would be accepted.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Exactly. Hon Chairman of the Committee, that is why I was telling you that it would only be a matter of wording --“and as modified as a Schedule to this Act.” This is because there is no word like “Chancellor” in the Constitution. It is a modification for the purpose of the university. Is that right?
    Chairman of the Committee, do you think that is satisfactory?
    Mr Puozaa 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is just a matter of deleting “second Schedule of the Constitution”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    It would be a matter of replacing the word “reproduce” with “modified”. It is a modification.
    Mr Puozaa 2:40 p.m.
    It is all right. It should read “as modified.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    It should read “as modified”?
    Mr Puozaa 2:40 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    I want to read for the benefit of Hon Members. It reads:
    “Prior to the assumption of office, the Chancellor, Chairperson and members of the University Council and the Vice Chancellor shall swear the Oath of Office as prescribed in the Second Schedule of the Constitution and as modified as a Schedule to this Act.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 5 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Hon Members, the indication is to continue with this business tomorrow. It is a very, very important business and I trust we shall tackle it in the very early hours of the morning and make appropriate progress.
    Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Pelpuo 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that at this very juncture, it is very much appreciable that we are still here in our numbers, so determined to do what we all love doing, making the laws and ensuring that this Bill, which is very crucial, to strengthen and modernise the University of Ghana, attracts a lot of attention. But it has come to a time when the day is no longer our friend.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to suggest to
    you, since it is your discretion, to adjourn

    the House until forenoon tomorrow.

    Thank you very much.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Minority Leader, do you have something else to say?
    Mr Boafo 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I wish to commend the members of the Committee on Education for supporting the ongoing debate.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Hon Members, the House stands adjourned till tomorrow 10 o'clock prompt, in the forenoon.
    ADJOURNMENT 2:40 p.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 2.45 p.m. till Friday, 23rd July, 2010 at 10.00 a.m.