Debates of 30 Jul 2010

MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:20 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:20 a.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Hon Members, item number 2 on the Order Paper, Correction of Votes and Proceedings of Thurday, 29th July, 2010.

Hon Members, in the absence of any

corrections, the Votes and Proceedings of Thursday, 29th July, 2010 be adopted as the true record of proceedings.

Hon Members, we have two Official

Reports for correction, that of Tuesday, 20th July, 2010 and Wednesday, 21st July,

2010.

We will start with that of Tuesday, 20th July, 2010.

Hon Members, in the absence of any correction, the Official Report of Tuesday, 20th July, 2010 be adopted as the true record of proceedings of that day.

The Official Report of Wednesday, 21st July, 2010. -- [Pause] --

Hon Members, in the absence of any correction, the Official Report of Wednesday, 21st July, 2010 be adopted as the true record of proceedings.

Hon Members, I come under Standing Order 53 (2) and to call on the Hon Minister responsible for Public Sector

Reform, to move the Motion, item number

5.
BILLS - THIRD READING 10:20 a.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Hon Members, we go back to item 3 on the Order Paper - Business Statement for the Week. Chairman of the Business Committee -
Mr Abdul-Rashid Pelpuo 10:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Chairman who is the Majority Leader is still not around and I seek your leave to present the Business Statement on his behalf.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Very well.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 10:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Committee accordingly submits its Report as follows 10:20 a.m.
Arrangement of Business
Statements
Mr Speaker may allow Statements duly admitted by your goodself to be made in the House.
Bills, Papers and Reports
Mr Speaker, Bills may be presented to the House for consideration and those already before the House may be taken through the various stages. Papers and committee reports may also be laid.
Motions and Resolutions
Mr Speaker, Motions may be debated
and their consequential Resolutions, if any, taken during the week.
Sitting on Monday/Extended Sittings
Mr Speaker, the House is scheduled to Sit on Monday, 2nd August, 2010. Extended Sittings may also be held when necessary.
Mr Speaker, committees with referrals are once again urged to expedite work on them and present their reports on schedule for consideration by the House.
Committee of the Whole Meeting
Mr Speaker, it is recommended that the Committee of the Whole meets on Monday, 2nd August, 2010 after adjournment, to discuss pertinent issues affecting Hon Members.
Mr Speaker, the Business Committee therefore, urges Hon Members to take note of the proposed date for the meeting of the Committee of the Whole and participate in the discussions accordingly.
Mr Speaker, the House is expected to rise sine die on Tuesday, 3rd August, 2010.
Conclusion
Mr Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 160 (2), the Committee submits to this Honourable House, the Business of each Sitting of the week and the order in which it shall be taken during the week.

Laying of Papers --

Report of the joint Committee on Finance and Works and Housing

on the Supplier's Credit Financing Agreement between the Government of Ghana and STX Engineering and Construction Ghana Limited for an amount of US$1,525,443,468.00 for the construction of 30,000 units of houses under the Security Services Housing Project.

Report of the Finance Committee on the Loan Agreement between the Government of Ghana and the Unicredit Bank Austria AG for an amount of €7,300,000.00 for financing the upgrading of highway infrastructure by Implementing Mishuo Bridge and Twifo Praso Bridge.

Motions --

Third Reading of Bills --

S a v a n n a h A c c e l e r a t e d Development Authority Bill,

2010

Adoption of the Report of the Committee on Subsidiary Legislation on the Fisheries Regulations, 2010 (L.I. 1968).

Adoption of the Report of the Finance Committee on the Additional Financing Agreement between the Government of Ghana and the International Development Association (IDA) for an amount of SDR46.2 million (US$70.0 million equivalent) for the Ghana Energy Development and Access Project (GEDAP).

Adoption of the Report of the Finance Committee on the Credit Agreement between the
Mr Speaker, the Committee accordingly submits its Report as follows 10:20 a.m.


Goverrn- ment of Ghana and the International Development Association (IDA) for an amount of SDR49.7 million (US$75.0 million equivalent) to finance the Sustainable Rural Water and Sanitation Project (SRWSP).

Adoption of the Report of the Finance Committee on the Credit Agreement between the Government of Ghana and the International Development Association (IDA) for an amount of SDR58.4 million (US$88.6 million equivalent) to finance the Social Opportunities Project

(GSOP).

Adoption of the Report of the Finance Committee on the Financing Agreement between the Government of Ghana and the International Development Association (IDA) of the World Bank Group for an amount of SDR6.6 million (US$10.0 million equivalent) to support the implementation of the Third Natural Resources and Environmental Governance Development Policy Operation

(NREG-DPO 3).

Adoption of the Report of the Finance Committee on the Additional Credit Agreement between the Government of Ghana and the International Development Association (IDA)

for an amount of SDR29.6 million (US$44.7 million equivalent) to finance the e-Ghana Project.

Adoption of the Report of the Finance Committee on the Financing Agreement between the Government of Ghana and the International Development Association (IDA) of the World Bank Group for an amount of SDR16.5 million (US$25.0 million equivalent) budgetary support for the implementation of the Food and Agriculture Sector Development Policy II

(FASDEP II).

Adoption of the Report of the Finance Committee on the Mixed Credit Facility between the Government of Ghana and the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium and KBC of Belgium for an amount of €9,474,271.00 for the supply of additional fire tenders, aerial rescue and fire fighting platforms, water tankers and other related fire fighting equipment for the Ghana National Fire Service and a Request for tax and duty exemptions amounting to €1,928,932.00 on the equipment/machinery to be imported in respect of the Mixed Credit Facility.

Consideration Stage of Bills --

Economic and Organised Crime Bill, 2009

Students Loan Trust Fund Bill, 2010

Committee Sittings --

Committee of the Whole

Motions --

Third Reading of Bills --

Economic and Organised Crime Bill, 2009

Students Loan Trust Fund Bill,

2010

Adoption of the Report of the joint Committee on Finance and Works and Housing on the Supplier's Credit Financing A g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e Government of Ghana and STX Engineering and Construction Ghana Limited for an amount of US$1,525,443,468.00 for the construction of 30,000 units of houses under the Security Services Housing Project.

Adoption of the Report of the Finance Committee on the Loan Agreement between the Govern- ment of Ghana and the Unicredit Bank Austria AG for an amount of €7,300,000.00 for financing the upgrading of highway infrastructure by Implementing Mishuo Bridge and Twifo Praso Bridge.

Adoption of the Report of the Committee on Environment, Science and Technology on the amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (CPPNM).

Adoption of the Report of the Committee on Environment, Science and Technology on the Convention on Nuclear Safety

(1994).

Adoption of the Report of the Committee on Environment, Science and Technology on the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (Pelindaba) Treaty.

Adoption of the Report of the Committee on Environment, Science and Technology on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

Adoption of the Report of the Committee on Environment, Science and Technology on the joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management (1997).

The House expected to rise Sine Die.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:30 p.m.
Hon Members, any comments on the Business Statement for next week ending, Tuesday, 3rd August, 2010?
Dr Matthew Opoku Prempeh 10:30 p.m.
Mr
Speaker, I want to use this opportunity in the House to advocate, recommend -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:30 p.m.
Hon
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:30 p.m.


Member, is it on the Business Statement?
Dr Prempeh 10:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:30 p.m.
Very well.
Dr Prempeh 10:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am a
member of the Health Committee and we lack leadership and we have been lacking leadership since our Chairman became a Deputy Minister of State. So, I am recommending that as quickly as possible, the House Selection Committee and the Leadership of the House get together and resolve some of these problems because they are creating huge challenges for the work of various committees.
Mr Pelpuo 10:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, he has said
the truth and we would work on it. I am expecting that if the Majority Leader arrives early, either today or tomorrow, we could have a final discussion about the re-arrangement of the committees and present them to the House before we rise.
Mr Ambrose P. Dery 10:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
I take the assurance from my Colleague on the Majority side, but I would like to emphasise that it looks like replacement of people on the Majority side has been rather slow. And for us, it is slowing down the Government Business. It took a very long time before my Colleague on the other side even became a member of the Business Committee,
I think that the Majority side needs to wake up and ensure that they quickly replace such key appointees when there is a vacancy. However, I will take his word but I think we should do it soonest so that this House does not lag behind as far as its programmes and schedules are concerned.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:30 p.m.
Hon
Deputy Majority Leader, I have an occasion of raising this matter myself on the floor of the House. The same applies to the Ranking Member, Public Accounts
Committee. We are happy about the assurance he gave us that if the Chairman of the Business Committee comes, he would be able to do that and programme it before we go on recess.
Mr W. O. Boafo 10:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I could
see from the business for the week, that is for Monday, under Motions, the first item, paragraph (a), is the Third Reading of Bills --the Savannah Accelerated Development Authority Bill for Monday and we have done it today. So, it should be subsequently deleted.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:30 p.m.
Hon
Members, that brings us to the end of the Business Statement for next week ending -
Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:30 p.m.
Mr
Speaker, as you do know, I just returned and have sighted the Business Statement for next week.
You may recollect that the Hon Minister for Local Government and Rural Development gave an undertaking to be in the House to give a report to us. I do not see it captured here or was there any agreement at the Business Committee meeting that it should not be captured? That notwithstanding, he should put in an appearance to brief the House. It is not covered here. If the acting Chairperson could give us -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:30 p.m.
Hon
Minority Leader, when you were away, you were ably represented by your Deputy. I do not know whether you have consulted your Deputy. But I believe once it is the decision of the House whether it is captured or not, if the Statement is ready, we should be able to look for an opportunity for him to brief the House.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
I have duly consulted and confirmed with my Deputy, and I know our interest has not been catered for, which is why I am asking. I believe that I am within my
rights to so demand.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:30 p.m.
This is the
Business Statement that they brought; you are a member and in your absence, this is what they brought. Deputy Majority Leader, are we taking it because there is a general understanding in this House that as much as possible, we should limit ourselves to certain specific public business? I do not know what your response is.
Mr Pelpuo 10:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I know that we have requested the Minister to come here to respond to an issue we presented him but we did not give him any specific time limits, and it is depended on when he would have been ready with the Statement.
He has been given the required signals, as soon as it is ready, we will always find time in the Business Statement to allow him just as we did for the Minister for Health who came here later to explain to us the deadly influenza virus, the vaccination process of it and the consequence of it on human life.
I am also surprised that the Minority Leader is saying it did not cater for their interest. I do not know what their interest here means.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:30 p.m.
Hon
Minority Leader, is it your interest or the interest of the House over that matter?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
in this regard, my interest is coterminous with that of the House.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:30 p.m.
Very well,
so, it is in the interest of the House too?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:30 p.m.
Absolutely.
But Mr Speaker, I totally disagree with the position taken by the Deputy Majority Leader, when he said that no time frame was assigned. The Minister himself said
it was going to be before we adjourned.
Mr Speaker, you remember that I insisted that he gave us a specific time and he said in order to be very diligent in the report that he was going to submit to this House -- but insisted that at any rate, he was going to do it before we adjourn.
It is captured in the Tuesday, 20th July, 2010 Hansard, so I am surprised the Deputy Majority Leader is saying no time has been assigned, when he himself tells us that he would do this before we adjourn.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:30 p.m.
Hon
Members, we should not belabour this point. I think you should consult among yourselves and see whether the Minister can be accommodated. Meanwhile, in your absence, there was a general agreement that Questions and Statements should not be taken, except under special circumstances.
So, you should consult, and if the programme for next week would allow us to accommodate him, why not? We should be able to take him. But there was a general agreement as much as possible, among the Leadership, and indeed, the two Deputy Speakers, that we should limit our work for the few days left to Public Business. However, you should consult among yourselves and if it is possible to take him next week, then we can take him.
Hon Members, that brings us to the end
of Business Statement for the eleventh week ending Tuesday, 3rd August, 2010.
Hon Members, we have agreed not to take Statements but the Hon Member for Manhyia has made a special appeal to me and for a very good reason.
The Research Assistants that came to service this House, today is their last day and I was informed by the Hon Member and it is only fair and proper that a Statement be made. So, on that basis, I have allowed him to make the Statement. But there is not going to be any comment. After the Statement, we will go straight to Public Business.
That was the understanding I reached
Mrs Eugenia G. Kusi 10:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
I agree with you that he came to you this morning, but at least, like yesterday, we all made use of these Research Assistants. So, if at least, one or two on this side and on the other side, I think it will be fine. A Statement like this concerning Members of Parliament and he makes it and nobody talks, I do not think it is fair. Mr Speaker, with your kind permission, just as you admitted, please.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:30 p.m.
Hon
Members, I will let the Member for Manhyia make the Statement but if those who want to comment want to go beyond one minute, I will cut them off. I have all the gadgets here to cut them but I have never used them. But on this occasion, I will try hard and use them.
Mr Dery 10:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, you referred to
gadgets, I hope that the gadgets are safe gadgets. [Laughter.] That they are not of mass destruction?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:30 p.m.
Very,
very safe.
STATEMENTS 10:40 a.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Hon
Member, you brought a Statement which I have admitted; I have a copy here.
Dr Prempeh 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am
reading it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:40 a.m.
If you are going to make a different Statement which I do not have here, then there is a problem. You know the rules.
Dr Prempeh 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you
for the opportunity to make a Statement concerning Research Assistants assigned to some Hon Members of Parliament.
In his State of the Nation Address to
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, before my Hon Colleague started the Statement, you made an intervention and said that he submitted a Statement to you, that he should go according to it, that he knows the rules.
Mr Speaker, I believe this is something
that we may have to address subsequently. Because the rules provide that the terms of the Statement should be shown to the Speaker and not the entire Statement. But as I said, we will come to that later.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Hon Minority Leader, I am happy you quoted the rules rightly, that it should be shown to the Speaker. The essence is to make sure that the Statement itself is consistent with the rules. So if you show that Statement
to the Speaker and you decide to go and do something different -- Hon Member, I have your Statement in front of me.
Dr Prempeh 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I will continue.
Consequently, the National Service Secretariat assigned graduates from the nation's tertiary institutions to some Members of Parliament as Research Assistants in October, 2009. In fact, Hon Members of Parliament were given the option by the National Service Secretariat to choose their own Research Assistants “in order to be comfortable with those who work for them -” as the then Presidential Spokesperson put it. The latter also reiterated that the President was ready to make budgetary allocations to ensure the speedy implementation of this research initiative.
Mr Speaker, barely ten (10) months after these service personnel were posted, very little has been done to achieve the main purpose of this initiative and this is most unfortunate. Permit me, Mr Speaker, to enumerate just three of the reasons for this position.
According to the initial plan, the selected National Service Personnel were to be taken through an orientation or training programme on relevant research methods to adequately equip them in their new roles. This essential stage was never realised. In effect, there are no defined terms of reference for the work of MP Research Assistant. Lack of knowledge of their job description had led to idleness and an underemployment of the skills of these fresh graduates.
But I must be quick to add that some of the MP Research Assistants have not laid back either, giving out their best at work for various MPs, despite the apparent failure on the part of the initiators of this programme. Mr Speaker, any effort to improve the work of the country's legislators, definitely, deserves a resolute
approach.
Again, the apparent failure of the authors of this initiative to provide the needed resources to enhance the work of the MP Research Assistants is just inadmissible. Knowing very well the constraints of office space and other basic facilities which Hon Members of Parliament already face, the initiative has compounded these problems by not providing financial support -- in terms of field allowance for communication, transportation, et cetera, for the work of these personnel.
Some Members of Parliament do not even have the Research Assistants due to these inadequacies. Research Assistants cannot be useful enough in the absence of these essentials. Such personnel only constitute a constraint. Members of Parliament can only continue supporting this initiative if there is a special allowance allocated to them for the work of their Research Assistants. Facilities such as internet connection should be easily accessible for any researcher. But this is really not the case in this Parliament.
The former Presidential Spokesperson, Mr Mahama Ayariga, currently the Deputy Minister for Trade and Industry, suggested at the early stages, that the erstwhile Ministry for Parliamentary Affairs should be used as a new office block for the Research Assistants and advised the Leadership of the House to consult the Ministry of Water Resources, Works and Housing for the release of the office space. This became a mere statement. Or is it that the Leadership of the House is committed to ensuring the success of this laudable initiative?
Mr Speaker, in addition to the above- mentioned, it is sad to note that the work of these Assistants is even becoming a
Dr Francis B. Dakura (NDC - Jirapa) 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I want to compliment my Hon Colleague and Friend from the other side on the issues expressed, with regard to the Research Assistants that were brought to us last year.
Mr Speaker, I think since this is the first time that this has been tried, I would
plead that we encourage the structure to be more established and that when the Committee of the Whole meets, we look at the weaknesses of the system and see where those can better be enhanced. This is because I believe they were very, very important resource to this House, to all Hon Members of the House who had their use and I plead that we look at the weaknesses and see how we can better enhance the Research Assistants of the future.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Hon Member, where from you? [Laughter.] Hon Members, order. The Hon Member has the floor.
Mr Isaac K. Asiamah (NPP - Atwima-Mponua) 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I, first of all, would like to thank the Hon Member who made this very important Statement, a Statement that touches the heart of all Hon Members of Parliament here and indeed, the heart of Ghanaians in general because our job is to promote quality debate and ensure that we have sustainable democracy in our motherland. So, it is important that whatever support that Hon Members of Parliament need to enhance and to promote their work, is guaranteed.
As regards some of us, when this laudable idea was moved, we supported it wholeheartedly, thinking that it was going to, indeed, enrich our work as Hon Members of this Legislature. But after almost a year or so, with the Service persons - Indeed, the young men and women are prepared to give of their best. They are so enthusiastic about what they want to do but the challenges they faced, and as has been well articulated by the Hon Member who made the Statement, are that they do not have the logistics; the support
is not there for them to give of their best.
In my view, if we are not careful, we will be wasting quality human resource this country so needs. We have very intelligent people who have come; they are prepared to support our cause but then the means is not there for them to give of their best. That is my worry.
For that reason, I suggest the creation of MPs' Research Fund to support their activities. It is important that as Members of Parliament, we have a special Fund allocated to support our activities so that funds from this could be used to support the needs of these service persons. If we have such a Fund, Mr Speaker, I can tell you that the MPs will not be compelled to give out some of these meagre things we receive.
Already our pockets are dried but we are compelled to squeeze and give something to support the cause of these service persons. So it is important that we come out with this MPs Research Fund, so that the scope of our operations will be widened and these young men and women could be supported from that Fund, to go out there to search for information. What we need is quality, reliable, information for Members of Parliament; that is what has been lacking. What we need is reliable information; they must go out there, go to the Libraries and do quality research and get us the information we need -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Hon
Member, wind up.
Mr I. K. Asiamah 10:50 a.m.
We are talking of
Bills that come here that are rushed but if we have people on the ground, feed us with the information we need, we would not be

making mistakes like the STX mistake and all the mistakes we have been making in this House. [Laughter.] So it is very important that --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Hon
Member, conclude your statement.
Mr I. K. Asiamah 10:50 a.m.
It is very important
that MPs get the right information that would enable us come out with laws, which will stand the test of time and not laws which will give us -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Hon
Member, do you want to respect the Chair or you want to please yourself?
Mr I. K. Asiamah 10:50 a.m.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, though you reluctantly allowed me to speak, I would conclude by saying that the idea is laudable, we should continue with that spirit but then, the right support should be in place, therefore, the creation of MPs Research Fund.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Hon
Members, that brings us to the end of Statements.
We will now move to item number 10 on the Order Paper. Deputy Majority Leader, is that right? I learnt item 6 is not ready.
Mr Pelpuo 10:50 a.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker, so we
move to item number 10.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Very well.
Hon Members, Economic and Organised Crime Bill, 2009 at the Consideration Stage.
BILLS - CONSIDERATION 10:50 a.m.
STAGE 10:50 a.m.
  • [ R e s u m p t i o n o f d e b a t e f ro m 27/07/2010]
    • Mr Emmanuel K. Bandua 10:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 25, subclause (2), after paragraph (b), lines 1 and 2, delete “is considered” and insert “shall be deemed”.
    The rendition, Mr Speaker, shall read:
    “the authorised officer shall seize the property and the warrant shall be deemed to authorise the seizure.”
    Mr Speaker, this is to create a legal friction.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:50 a.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, just a little observation. I do not know whether it has been taken care of early on. It is in respect of the opening word of 2(b), if during the cause of the search, the authorised officer finds
    “any article the authorised officer believes on reasonable grounds will afford evidence as to the commission of the offence or commission of a serious offence,”
    I thought that the current rendition should rather be “an article” and not “any article”; that is small matter which I believe we can handle.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:50 a.m.
    What is
    the difference?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker
    may recollect that in all these later Bills, we have in such cases, substituted the indefinite article for “any”. But as I said, it is a small matter, if they so consider it appropriate.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:50 a.m.
    Should
    we leave it to the draftspersons?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:50 a.m.
    Well, we
    can leave it to the draftspersons.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:50 a.m.
    Let us
    leave it to the draftspersons to do it.
    Thank you very much Hon Minority Leader. I was going to say the Ayes have it, the amendment is carried. I was going to put the Question on the entire clause 25.
    Clause 25 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Clause 26 - Searches in emergencies.
    Mr Boafo 10:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move,
    clause 26, subclause (1), add the following new paragraph:
    “ ( d ) p r o p e r t y w i l l a f f o r d evidence as to the commission of a serious offence.”
    Mr Speaker, to make i t more
    understandable, I will read the new rendition:
    “where an authorised officer suspects on reasonable grounds that property will afford evidence as to the commission of a serious offence, the authorised officer shall enter premises and search for the property and if the property is so found, seize the property.”
    Mr Speaker, the reason for the proposed amendment is to create another enabling power for the authorised officer. We have three categories of powers created for the authorised officer.
    The first one is, the particular property is tainted property; the next one is to give him power where necessary to search and seize in order to prevent the concealment,
    loss or destruction of a property and the third one is that the circumstances are so urgent that immediate exercise with the power without the authority of a warrant or the order of a court is required.
    The proposed amendment is to create
    another enabling power which requires that if the property will afford evidence as to the commission of a serious offence.
    Mr Bandua 11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have no objection to the amendment.
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it
    is in order.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11 a.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, just a little thing that I have observed. I do not know whether the Chairman might have adverted his mind to it. It is in respect of the concluding clause for subclause (1) which reads as follows:
    “the authorised officer shall enter premises and search for the property and if the property is so found, seize the property.”
    Mr Speaker, you cannot seize if you do not find, so I thought the construction should be as follows:
    “. . . the authorised officer shall search a person, enter premises and search for the property and seize the tainted property.”
    This is because we are talking about the tainted property. If you do not discover it, how do you seize it? So I believe the addition of those words, “if the property is found”, is superfluous in the context. But I do not know; the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice herself is here.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11 a.m.
    Hon
    Minority Leader, I thought that is to put the matter beyond doubt that that particular property which is tainted, if found, must be seized?
    Clause 26 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 27 - Obstruction of search and seizure.
    Mr Boafo 11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 27, paragraph (e), there is this expression “conceals or attempts to conceal”. Mr Speaker, I believe if we leave it at the word “conceal”, it is sufficient because then, we can say “conspire to conceal”. This is because “attempt to conceal” is an inchoate crime.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11 a.m.
    Hon
    Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, the point being made is that, if you single out “attempt”, what about “conspiracy”? Is that not the point? Because we are talking about “conceal” but “attempt” is there, “conspiracy” is there, “abetment to conceal” is there. So if you single out “attempt” --Is that the point you are making?
    Mr Boafo 11 a.m.
    Yes. All the inchoate crimes: “abetments”, “conspiracy” -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11 a.m.
    I think you have singled out only one.
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 11 a.m.
    I think that
    when you look at the heading of the section, it says, “Obstruction of search and seizure” and therefore, this is what this is particularly concerned about. Therefore, within the search, if one attempts to conceal - I concede that “abetment” and “conspiracy” are implicit in the concealment. But the “attempt to conceal” is well placed within the meaning of this
    particular section.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11 a.m.
    Hon
    Member for Akropong, does the putting of this “attempt” here prevent people from being charged for conspiring to conceal? If it will not, then I think it is proper. I do not think it will prevent people from being charged for conspiring to conceal or abetment.
    Mr Boafo 11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with you and if that is the wish of the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, I do not intend pursuing that.
    Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 28 -- Property tracking.
    Mr Bandua 11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg
    to move, clause 28 - after paragraph (b), line 2, before “officer” insert “authorised”.
    Mr Speaker, so it will read as follows 11 a.m.
    “…is in possession or under the control of a person or an entity and it is necessary for the transfer of the property, the authorised officer shall apply to the court for an order for...”
    The word “authorised” here, if you look at the introductory paragraph, the reference here is to an authorised officer and an authorised officer has been defined in the Bill. This is also consequential; we have dealt with it early on. Mr Speaker, I so move.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Boafo 11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move,
    clause 28, after paragraph (b), line 3, after “court” insert “on notice to the person or
    entity”.
    Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment seeks to make the application to the court by the authorised officer on notice to the person or the entity involved. As the current rendition appears, it looks as if the authorised officer can proceed to the court ex parte.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Hon
    Member for Akropong, is it not subject to the rules of court? It is subject to the rules of court. So if the rules of court do not allow you to go ex parte, you cannot go ex parte. If the rules allow you to go on notice, you have to go on notice. So putting it there is not - it may create a problem. And do not forget, these are special crimes and timing also is of the essence. So all these we are doing are subject to the rules of court.
    Mr Boafo 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is true that
    it could be that it is subject to the rules of court. But Mr Speaker, we are all familiar with the rule of interpretation, that is, the provisions of a subsequent Act prevails over that of an earlier Act. If the earlier Act so provides but the subsequent one is silent on it, the presumption is that --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Hon Member, you also know very well that if the person even goes ex parte, it is even for a limited period. The rules will allow him to repeat it within a reasonable time on notice. So it is better to - Anyway, I do not know. I am supposed to do the will of the House. So I do not know -
    Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice?
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    as you rightly pointed out, the rules of court make provision for this and I do not think that it would be proper for us to legislate on that aspect. Because as you rightly said, also one has to confirm and one goes by notice. So I do not think it is particularly appropriate for us to legislate

    on this particular matter.
    Mr Boafo 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the time lapse has handicapped some of us because during the course of the consideration of this Bill, we have amended previous sections to make it “on notice” irrespective of the fact that these are contained in the rules of court. But if that is the wish of the House - [Pause.]
    Mr Joseph Y Chireh 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    think that in effect, my Friend has agreed to withdraw, so once he has withdrawn, we should just go ahead and leave it as it is.
    Mr Boafo 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we go
    back to clause 24 (5), there is a reference to “notice” there and we did not amend to delete “without notice”. My point is that --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Hon
    Members, I was not in the Chair to consider this particular clause, so I cannot easily recollect what happened. But Hon Member, the kind of offence that we are talking about, the kind of situation we are talking about, if we do not allow the rules to operate where if it is proper to go ex parte, one goes ex parte, or otherwise, it may create a problem and by the time we realise the proper thing might be taken out of the jurisdiction or even destroyed and then all the efforts - It will undermine the Bill, the whole process that we are - So I think that - I do not know.
    Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, I think that much as I agree with the explanation being proffered, I would suggest that we stand it down and see what we did for clause 24 so that we are consistent with the earlier lines that we toed.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    I agree with you.
    Mr Bandua 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 28, paragraph (b), sub- paragraph (i), line 2, before “officer” insert “authorised”.
    Mr Speaker, this amendment is consequential.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bandua 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 28, paragraph (b), sub- paragraph (ii), line 1, before “officer” insert “authorised”.
    Mr Speaker, this amendment is also consequential.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    So I will defer putting the Question on the entire clause 28 until we resolve the issue with clause 24 (5).
    Clause 29 - Record of seized property.
    Mr Boafo 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move,
    clause 29, subclause (1), at end, add “after the seizure”
    Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment is to indicate the point of time when we should start reckoning the seven days and it is being proposed to insert “after the seizure.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Yes, Hon
    Members, I will put the Question.

    Hon Members, what is happening to

    you today? [Laughter.] You know that the Chair cannot pronounce anything on the Voice Vote unless you want me to ask you to be standing up clause after clause.

    Hon Members, clause 29, subclause (1), at end, add the words “after the seizure”.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Yes?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    much as I agree with the amendment proffered by my Hon Colleague, would we say that the construction “within seven days after the seizure” is of the same meaning as “within seven days from the date of seizure”? Would we say they are of the same import? I thought that if we had the construction “within seven days from the date of seizure”, that captures better the sense rather than just saying that “within seven days of the seizure”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    What is your rendition?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
    “. . . within
    seven days from the date of seizure.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    “. . . from
    the date of seizure”; is there a difference?
    Mr Boafo 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is more
    precise but I was guided by the language used in clause 23, subclause (2).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    “. . . after
    the seizure”; it is there.
    Mr Boafo 11:10 a.m.
    Just for consistency.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we are for precision and we believe that this is more precise and concise, nothing stops us from adopting this and going back to amend the earlier position that we might have adopted. That is, if we believe that this is more precise and concise. In this case, the consistency may not matter much, Mr Speaker, with respect.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    But
    where there is no difference - there is no difference. We are talking about “seven days after the seizure”, so we start calculating from the date that they seize the items. In other words, they should not keep the item for more than seven days.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, I know the Hon Attorney- General and Minister for Justice knows that there is a world of difference between the two constructions.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Very
    well, Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice?
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Minority Leader that it should be “from the date of seizure”. We would then go back to clause 25 and also include it there.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    Hon
    Minority Leader, let us get the rendition, then I will put the Question.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    I said I further amend the proposal by my Hon Colleague (Mr W. O. Boafo) that it should be “within seven days from the date of seizure”.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr Bandua 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 29, subclause (2), line 2, delete “and the money paid” and insert “where the property seized is perishable and payment of the proceeds”; and in line 3, delete all the words after “trial”.
    So the new rendition will go as follows:
    “The Attorney-General shall apply to the court for an order for the

    sale of perishable items where the property seized is perishable and the payment of the proceeds into court until the final determination of the trial.”

    I think this is for clarity. Mr Speaker, I so move.
    Mr Boafo 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, there are two
    amendments under clause 29, subclause
    (2).
    The first leg has been dealt with by -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    I think
    it is standing in the name of the Hon Chairman and your goodself. So, it is the same rendition.
    Mr Boafo 11:20 a.m.
    This is in connection with
    the second leg of line 3.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    But I thought he had moved all because it stands as one amendment.
    Mr Boafo 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, when he was moving the new rendition, he included the last portion which is being sought to be deleted - “where the property seized is perishable”. And the second leg of the proposed amendment seeks to delete “where the property is perishable”.
    Mr Bandua 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I moved it; I
    did not include it. I left it out, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    Hon
    Chairman and Hon Boafo, you know this amendment should have been broken into two -- because there is one which is deleting and another inserting -- so that it is very clear. But I will put the Question. I hope that the Table Office will capture it well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    I will now
    put the Question on clause 29.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    Hon
    Members, if you are not ready for this consideration, we may have to defer it till next week -
    Why, Hon Member? This is because if I do not hear any response I cannot pronounce on it.
    Clause 29 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Clause 30 -- Return of seized property.
    Mr Bandua 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 30, subclause (1), line 2, after “days” insert “after the seizure”.
    So, it will read as follows:
    “The person who claims an interest in the property seized under this Act shall apply to the court within thirty days after the seizure for an order that the property be returned to that person.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    Hon
    Chairman, we have just changed that rendition. And I thought that you would be guided by it. Because the Hon Attorney- General and Minister for Justice said that we have to go back to clause 23, subclause
    (5).
    Mr Bandua 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, “after the
    date of the seizure” -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    “from the
    date of the seizure” - Yes, that was what - Hon Member for Akropong, was that not the rendition, “from the date of the seizure”?
    Mr Boafo 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, precisely so, that is it -- “from the date of the seizure”.
    Mr Boafo 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move,
    clause 30, subclause (2), paragraph (c), lines 2 and 3, delete “has no connection with” and insert “interest in”.
    Mr Speaker, with your permission I may amend the text of the proposed amendment. It should read as follows:
    “Clause 30, subclause 2, paragraph c, lines 2 and 3, delete “connection with” and insert “interest in.”
    So that, Mr Speaker, the new rendition will be:
    “(2) If the court is satisfied that -- (c) the person in respect of
    whose charge, proposed charge or conviction
    the seizure of the property was made has no interest in the property.”
    Mr Bandua 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have no objection.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    Hon Member for Akropong, then what are you deleting? Is it “connection with”? You are not deleting “has no”?
    Mr Boafo 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am deleting “connection with” and that is why I sought your permission to amend the text of the proposed amendment.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 30 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Clause 31 - Mutual Legal Assistance.
    Mr Bandua 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 31, after paragraph (b), line 1, delete “this Act” and insert “the Mutual Legal Assistance Act, 2010” and delete all the words after “apply”.
    So the new rendition would be:
    “Where a foreign country requests assistance from this country to locate or seize property situated in this country suspected to be property obtained from the commission of a serious offence within the jurisdiction of the foreign country, the provisions of the Mutual Legal Assistance Act, 2010 shall apply.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Hon
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am not quite sure. No, we are not in a position -
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Very well; I thought that if he had and you want to do this amendment, then we add the Act number -- so that the way we put it at clause 20, we should make provision for the Act number.
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 11:30 a.m.
    You are right, Mr Speaker. We would see to that.
    Mr Boafo 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it appears the Chairman left out the second leg of the proposed amendment; that is, to delete all the words after “apply”. [Laughter.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Hon Members, clause 31, after paragraph (b), line (1), delete “this Act” and insert the words “the Mutual Legal Assistance Act, 2010”, so that at the appropriate time the

    draftspersons will put it there, and delete all the words after “apply”.

    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    Clause 31 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 32 - Freezing of property.
    Mr Bandua 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32, subclause (1), line 1, delete “it” and insert “that freezing of property is. . .”
    So the new rendition would be:
    “Where the Executive Director considers that the freezing of the property is necessary to facilitate an investigation or trial the Executive Director may in writing, direct the freezing of …”
    Mr Speaker, this stands for the items that I have inserted.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 32 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Clause 33 -- Application for Freezing
    Order.
    Mr Bandua 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 33 - subclause (1), line 1, after “for” insert “confirmation of”.
    So the new rendition would be:
    “an application for confirmation of a freezing order is made without notice to the respondents and accompanied with an affidavit.”
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr Boafo 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 33, subclause (2), paragraph (c), line 2, delete “and related to a serious offence.”
    Mr Speaker, the reason is that the paragraph deals with tainted property and if we go to the Interpretations column of the Bill, tainted properties define as property used in or in connection with the commission of a serious offence or derived, obtained or realised as a result of the commission of a serious offence. So Mr Speaker, there is no need to make a reference to “related to a serious offence”.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Item
    (xviii) is consequential?
    Mr Boafo 11:30 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 33, subclause (2), paragraph (c), line (2), delete “and elated to a serious offence”.
    Mr Speaker, the deletion is for the same reason.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 33 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Clause 34 - Issue of Freezing Order.
    Mr Bandua 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 34, subclause (2), line 1, before “Director” insert “Executive”.
    So it would read:
    “The Executive Director shall inform a person against whom a freezing order has been made within seven days after the order has been made.”

    This amendment is consequential.

    Question put and amendment agreed

    to.
    Mr. Boafo 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move,
    clause 34, subclause (3), line 1, after “shall” insert “in the case of an entity”.
    Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment
    seeks to clarify the concept of lifting the veil of incorporation by inserting “in the case of an entity” after “shall”.
    So the new rendition would be :
    “The court shall in the case of an entity lift the veil of incorporation to determine if the property is subject to the effective control of the respondent.”
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 34 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 36 -- Breach of freezing order.
    Mr Bandua 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 36, paragraph (a), lines 2, 3 and 4, delete --
    “thousand penalty units and not more than two thousand penalty units or to a term of imprisonment of not more than six years or to
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    The problem with the amendment is that they did not tell us where - They only mentioned the lines but they did not tell us from where the deletion will take effect. That is part of the confusion.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Boafo 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move,
    clause 36, paragraph (b), line 2, at end, add “or not less than two thousand penalty units whichever is greater”.
    Mr Speaker, paragraph (b) deals with the punishment for entities and in that paragraph, it is stated that in the case of an entity -- “to a fine equivalent to the value of the tainted property.”
    Mr Speaker, the entity may commit an
    offence which is equal to the degree which
    has been committed by an individual and the individual will suffer for a penalty of one thousand units. In the case of an entity, it is being equated to the value of the tainted property which may be less than one thousand penalty units. So the proposed amendment is to create equality or parity and it reads as follows:
    “In the case of an entity to a fine equivalent to the value of the tainted property or not less than two thousand penalty units whichever is greater.”
    Mr Speaker, with your permission, if I may substitute “one thousand” for “two thousand” in view of the earlier amendment made by the Hon Chairman.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Hon Member, we are talking about the value of the property; so I thought the two thousand was better once you put “whichever is greater” there.
    Mr Boafo 11:40 a.m.
    Very well, Mr Speaker.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 36 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 37 -- Duration of freezing order.
    Mr Bandua 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 37, subclause (1), paragraph (b), delete “time” and insert “date”.
    the order is made or a later date determined by the court”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 37 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.

    Clause 38 - Review of freezing order.
    Mr Boafo 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 38, subclause (1), line 3, after “Director” delete “not less than” and insert “within”.
    Mr Speaker, subclause (1) deals with
    time and in respect of time “it is not less than”. It is “within”.
    Mr Bandua 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think it is all right.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 38 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 39 - Extension of freezing order.
    Mr Bandua 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 39, subclause (2), lines 2 and 4, delete “shall” and insert “ought to” and at end of line 4, before “Director” insert “Executive” .
    So the new rendition would be:
    “The court shall extend the operation of the order for a specified period if it is satisfied that a confiscation order ought to be made in respect of the property or a part of it or that a pecuniary penalty shall be made against the person on application by the Executive Director.”
    Mr Speaker, it is consequential.
    So the rendition would be:
    “twelve months after the date

    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    Clause 39 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 40 -- Appl ica t ion for confiscation or pecuniary penalty order.
    Mr Bandua 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 40, subclause (4), lines 2 and 3, delete “without leave of the court”
    I think earlier , it was agreed that this can be left to the rules of court, so that there is no need for us to put it here.
    Mr Boafo 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, with your leave, if I may make an amendment -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Is it different -
    Mr Boafo 11:50 a.m.
    It is different.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Very well, then let me put this Question; you can move yours. I have to put the Question on this amendment first, unless your amendment is going to negate his amendment.
    Mr Boafo 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is related to subclause 1 (a).
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Boafo 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 40, subclause (1), paragraph (a), line 2, after “property”, delete “related to the serious offence.”
    Mr Speaker, the amendment is in respect of consistency. Earlier, we had deleted the words “related to the serious offence” wherever the words “tainted property” appeared and under clause 40 (1) (a), line 2, we have a similar provision there. So I am just seeking your leave to delete the words after “property” in line 2
    of clause 40 (1) (a) which reads: “related to the serious offence.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Hon
    Members, the amendment is as follows: clause 40 (1), paragraph (a), line 2,. after “property” delete all the words “related to the serious offence.” That is right? We delete all the words after “property”. The words related to the serious offence.
    Mr Boafo 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes.
    Question put and amend\ment agreed
    to. Clause 40 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Clause 41 - Notice of application.
    Mr Bandua 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 41, subclause 1, paragraph (b), before “Director” insert “Executive”
    Mr Speaker, this amendment is consequential.
    Mr Boafo 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not think the amendment is necessary because we are dealing with clause 41 (1), where at the beginning, there is a reference to the “Executive Director”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Chairman, the Hon Member for Akropong is saying that if you look at clause 41 (1) “Executive Director” is there -
    Mr Bandua 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have seen it but for consistency, I do not think it makes much difference if it is left in there.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Hon Member, is it not referring to “Executive Director” even if you do not put it there?
    Mr Bandua 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree that it is referring to “Executive Officer”. Although early on we have mentioned “Executive Director” and it may imply that the next one may be “Executive Director”. I think that for clarity sake -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Which other “Director” are we talking about apart from the “Executive Director”? That is the point that the Hon Member for Akropong is raising. Which other “Director” are we talking about?
    Mr Bandua 11:50 a.m.
    We are saying that in this particular clause, we are talking about the “Executive Director”. But it is likely there may be other “Directors” in the Bill. I do not think it woukld make much difference if we repeat it here.
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think it is for consistency more than anything else because there are other “Directors” envisaged in this Bill and even though you are right, it is somehow tautologous and I do not think it makes a difference. It is for clarity and we have amended this consistently throughout the Bill, that where there is “Director”, we should add “Executive.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Boafo 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if it is for consistency purpose then under clause 41 (2)(a), we should also insert “Executive Director”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
    Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, from this Bill, it is very clear that the only person who has the power to issue a freezing order is the Executive Director and no other person. And so, when we keep repeating “Executive Director”, let us leave these things to the draftsperson so that where it is so clear like this one -- I do not know but it is your Bill, so I will do whatever you want me to do.
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu noon
    Mr Speaker, I would have left it; I would have inserted “Executive Director” just for consistency.
    We have been doing that throughout the Bill, to leave it now, would be -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
    But you see the point that the Hon Member for Akropong (Mr Boafo) has just raised? The danger is that when you do it, and you leave one or two places, you create problems. You see that the Hon Chairman has filed for the subclause (1) but he was not able to amend it for subclause (2).
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu noon
    Mr Speaker, the drafter is indicating to me that it should be “Executive Director”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
    Nobody is in doubt, Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice that we are talking about the “Executive Director”. The problem now is that the Chairman of the Committee did the amendment in clause 41 (1) but he was not able to do it in clause 41 (2)(a).
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, you see that? If you want to do it, then you must make sure that wherever the “Director” applies -- and we are talking about the “Executive Director”, we should insert it. So that people can take their time and make sure that they qualify the “Director” with “Executive”.
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu noon
    Mr Speaker, we will take note of what you have said.
    I thank you.
    Mr J. B. Aidoo noon
    Mr Speaker, there is only one “Director” in this Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
    One “Executive Director”?
    Mr J.B. Aidoo noon
    Mr Speaker, one “Executive Director” in this Bill, so wherever “Director” appears, I believe that -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
    No! There are other “Directors” but there is only one “Executive Director”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
    Even when the paragraph clearly shows, the opening paragraph --
    Mr J. B. Aidoo noon
    Mr Speaker, then we have to qualify the ‘Director'.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
    Hon Member for Akropong, would you then move your amendment?
    Mr Boafo noon
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 41, subclause 1, paragraph (b), before “Director” insert “Executive”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
    Hon Members, this is consequential.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 41 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    C lause 42 -- Amendment o f Application.
    Mr Bandua noon
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 42, subclause (1), paragraph (a), line 1, delete “the property” and insert “that other property or benefit”.
    So, the new rendition will be:
    “The court hearing an application for a confiscation or a pecuniary penalty order, shall before the determination of the application and on the application of the Executive Director, amend the application to include other property or benefit if the court is satisfied that
    (a) that other property or benefit
    was not reasonably capable of identification when the application was made,
    “That other” because it refers to other
    property. Mr Speaker, this is the rationale for this amendment.
    Mr J. B. Aidoo noon
    Mr Speaker, in the introductory sentence, it ends with “that”. So if we are inserting the words also starting with ‘that', we will just be repeating the word ‘that'. I think the Chairman's - the insertion should have started with the word other “property or benefit”.
    What I am saying is that already we have “that” in the introductory sentence it ends with:
    “The court hearing an application for a confiscation or a pecuniary penalty order, shall before the determination of the application and on the application of the Executive Director, amend the application to include other property or benefit if the court is satisfied that”--
    Then, we come to (a) and that is where we are doing the insertion. So, if we are inserting and the insertion is starting with “that”, we would be repeating the word “that”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
    Then move your amendment.
    Mr J. B. Aidoo noon
    Mr Speaker, my amendment is just a further amendment to the Hon Chairman's amendment that we should insert “other property or benefit”.
    Mr Bandua noon
    Mr Speaker, I think that amendment is not in order. “That” qualifies the second property. So, let us read it properly:
    “… include other property or benefit if the court is satisfied that, “that other property . . .”
    So, that is it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
    Hon Member for Amenfi East, do you get it now?
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Boafo noon
    Mr Speaker, under clause 42 (2), there is reference to the provisions on notice of application but one cannot assume where they are picking that from. So, it may be necessary to indicate that it is referable to clause 41, subclause 1 (b), to insert it after “application”. So that the new rendition would read as follows:
    “The provisions on notice of application in section 41, subclause 1, paragraph (b) apply to this section. Clause 42, subclause 2.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
    Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, what the Hon Member for Akropong is trying to do is to make it clearer by referring to the relevant provisions. But we have to be sure that that is the provision the clause 42 is talking about. Once you are satisfied, we go on but if you are not too sure that that is the only provision they are talking about, then there is a problem.
    Hon Member for Akropong, are you sure that is the only provision that they are talking about?
    Mr Boafo noon
    Mr Speaker, that is the only provision because it relates to consfiscation and clause 41 deals with applications in the case of confiscation orders. That is clause 41.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
    Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, did you get the point that he is making?
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu noon
    Mr Speaker, with respect, no.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
    What he is saying is that, if you look at clause 41 (b), which reads as follows:
    “(b) the Director shall give not less than 8 days' written notice of the application to the respondent.”
    That is clause 41 (1) (b). When we come to clause 42 (2), they
    only say --
    “the provisions or notice of applications apply to this section with the necessary modification or as directed by the courts”.
    And he is saying that we should make reference to clause 41 (1) (b) in clause
    42 (2).
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu noon
    I really do not think it is necessary at this --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    But is the
    whole clause 42(2) necessary?
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think if it is for clarity, it is necessary. It is not vital but it is good that it remains.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, what provisions of notice are we talking about? You know that early on we argued on the floor, not too long ago, that the rules of court would apply with regard to notices and all those things. Are we talking about rules of court or we are talking about provisions within this Bill or within the Act?
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would have believed that it is within the Act but on second thought, I believe that we could delete subclause (2). We want
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    So that the general principles of allowing the rules of court apply?
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, should apply.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    If you read there, they say “as directed by the court”. He has even qualified it.
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 12:10 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, I agree. As you know, my preference is like you, to enable the rules of court to apply to this provision. The drafters say it is good for clarity.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    If it is here?
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if it is here.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Are we talking about provisions within the Act?
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are talking about provisions within the Act, as Hon Boafo was saying, only that I do not think it is necessary to reference clause 41(2)(b) at this point in time.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, I have a difficulty where you legislate “with the necessary modification” and there it is “with the necessary modification”” and then you go and say “as directed by the court”. That one is at the discretion of the court. “With the necessary modification”, who is going to do that “with necessary modification”? It is quite clear that that provision itself is not very, very clear. We are not very certain, so we may have to take a second look. If you want us to defer

    it so that we can do further consultation on it.
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, let us defer it so that we confer with the drafters. As I said, I am happy to have it deleted but she has indicated that it is preferable to stay for clarity. I also do not believe that we need to specify clause 41 and - So let me just defer it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Yes, because we have two problems there. Even where they say that the provisions of the Act will apply, they even added, “with necessary modification” and then they went further and said “as directed by the court”.
    Again, you go and vet the discretion in the court. If you put the two together, you will see that it is not too clear and we may want to do further consultation.
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am much obliged.
    Mr Boafo 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there may be the need for further consideration. But as you rightly pointed out, if the original application is being made on notice for both order for confiscation and pecuniary penalty under clause 42(1). So it follows that an amendment to the original application should also be on notice. I do not think there is the need for clause 42 (2).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Let us just consult and then we would -- So we defer putting the Question on clause 42 and move to clause 43.
    Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 44 -- Procedure against property where a person dies or absconds.
    Mr Bandua 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 44, subclause (1), line 1, before “Director” insert “Executive”.
    This amendment is consequential, Mr Speaker.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bandua 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, Clause 44, subclause (3), line 1, before “Director” insert “Executive”.
    Mr Speaker, this amendment is also
    consequential.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Boafo 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with your permission, if I may refer to clause 44(1) (a) which reads as follows:
    “there is information alleging a serious offence by the person.”
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, after “alleging” “insert” “the commission of” so that it will read as follows:
    “(a) there is information alleging t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f a serious offence by the person.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, did you get the import of the amendment?
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we did. We have no objection.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Very well.
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 12:10 p.m.
    Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 44 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 46 -- Effect of confiscation order.
    Mr Bandua 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 46 -- subclause (4), at end, delete “question” and insert “matter”.
    So if I may take the whole subclause and then explain. Mr Speaker,
    “(4) Where a person who holds an encumbrance to which property is subject claims that the encumbrance is held by a purchaser in good faith for valuable consideration and that the encumbrance is not contrary to a provision in this Act, which claim is disputed by the Republic, the Attorney-General shall apply to court to determine the question.”
    I want it replaced with “matter” because third party interest may arise and I believe that “matter” will cater for third party interest instead of “question” which relates particularly to this interest which is here.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bandua 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 46, subclause (8), line 3, after “court” insert “forfeiting the immovable property” and in line 4, delete “forfeiting the immovable property” and insert “and”.
    The new rendition will be:
    “where the property which has vested in the Republic is immovable property, the vesting shall be
    registered in the name of the Republic on the production of the order on the court forfeiting the immovable property”
    The second amendment is, delete the “ forfeiting the immovable property” and insert “and”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    It is more of re-arrangement.
    Mr Bandua 12:20 p.m.
    It is a re-arrangement.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Does it make it clearer?
    Mr Bandua 12:20 p.m.
    It makes it clearer.
    Mr Boafo 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I prefer that you put the Question because I am seeking further amendment to subclause (8) --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Will it not affect this amendment? If it will affect it, then I cannot put the Question because once the Question is put and it is agreed , we cannot move an amendment that is contradictory to what the House has agreed to. If it will not, let me put the Question.
    Mr Boafo 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I will come out with my amendment so that you will
    -- 12:20 p.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    I am going to put the Question.
    Mr Boafo 12:20 p.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Boafo 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, under subclause (8), it is being provided that in addition to the production of the certified order of the court, you have also to go to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice for another certificate and I do not

    think the additional certificate is necessary. The certified true copy of the order from the court should be sufficient.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, the point being made is that, you do not need component in the whole clause; because once the Executive Director is under you, he is even doing all these things on behalf of -- it is presumed that she is aware of what is happening. So why do we have to bring in again?
    Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice--
    Mr Ebo Barton-Odro 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is being done ex abudanti cautela because we have had instances, quite a number of them, where certified true copies of court orders have been tampered with.
    We have currently one case which we are appealing against and trying to set aside certain orders because they were tampered with. So it is just out of the abundance of caution.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon Member for Akropong (Mr W. O. Boafo), just for the avoidance of doubt.
    Mr Boafo 12:20 p.m.
    Very well, Mr Speaker, I accept it.
    Clause 46 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 47and 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 49 - Quashing of conviction not
    to discharge confiscation order.
    Mr Bandua 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 49, subclause (2), lines 3 and 4, delete “shall apply to the Executive Director for the court to order the transfer of the interest to the person” and insert the following:
    “may apply to the court for an order for the transfer of the interest to that person.”
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition is 12:20 p.m.
    “Where a confiscation order against property is not discharged, a person who had an interest in the property immediately before the confiscation order was made, may apply to the court for an order for the transfer of the interest to that person.”
    Mr Speaker, this is a better and neater provision.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Table Office, the draftpersons should take care of the omission of the “who” there. It is really a drafting omission.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Boafo 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 49 (2), line 2, I think there is something missing after “person” -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    That is, “who”. I have asked that the draftperson should take note. But you move it, maybe, for the record.
    Mr Boafo 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 49, subclause (2), line 2, after “person” insert “who”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 49 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 50 - Confiscation where a person dies or absconds.
    Mr Bandua 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 50, paragraph (a), after “tainted” insert “or”.
    So the new rendition will be as follows:
    “The court shall order that property be confiscated if --
    (a) the property is tainted or
    (b) proceedings in respect of a serious offence committed in relation to that property. . .”
    Then there is another amendment here. Let me take it also at once so that -- That is the second amendment on clause 50 paragraph (b).
    I beg to move, clause 50, paragraph (b), line 2, delete “were” and insert “have been”.
    So it means we insert “or” in paragraph
    (a) and in paragraph (b) we delete “were” and insert “have been”.
    So the new rendition will be as follows:
    “The court shall order that property be confiscated if:
    (a) the property is tainted or
    (b) proceedings in respect of a serious offence committed in relation to that property have been started . . .
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, are paragraphs (b) and (c) mutually inclusive?
    Mr Bandua 12:30 p.m.
    No. They are not. They
    stand separately.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Then why
    are you not using “or”?
    Mr Bandua 12:30 p.m.
    We used the “or”. The
    amendment proposed is “or”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    You used
    “or” for paragraph (a)?
    Mr Bandua 12:30 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Did you use “or” at the end of paragraph (b)?
    Mr Bandua 12:30 p.m.
    No.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    I am only

    In other words, are we to read paragraphs (b) and (c) together? In fact, the “or” is not originally in paragraph (a), so take your time and find out whether we are going to read the three together for the three events to happen or they are mutually exclusive before --

    Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, let us be very sure.
    Mr Bandua 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think we
    should leave the amendment as I have proposed it. The end is fine. So it will read as follows:
    “The court shall order that property be confiscated if --
    (a) the property is tainted or . . .”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, take your time and read that again. If you read that, it appears that three things must happen. If you take your time -
    Mr Bandua 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the decision is that each item should stand on its own. So we will abandon the “or”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    If you are abandoning the “or”, then it means the three things must happen. They are all related. The three events might have happened to allow for confiscation.
    Mr Bandua 12:30 p.m.
    That is so.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    So what do you have to do?
    Mr Bandua 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we will remove the “or”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    There is no “or” there; you are the one who is putting it there.
    Mr Bandua 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, so I have withdrawn that amendment. That amendment has been withdrawn.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Are we then doing any amendment to clause 50?
    Mr Bandua 12:30 p.m.
    No. So it will be as it
    was. So we withdraw the amendment, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Boafo 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it appears
    clause 50 does not take care of situations of insolvency or bankruptcy.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    It does
    not do what?
    Mr Boafo 12:30 p.m.
    It does not take care of
    situations of insolvency or bankruptcy of the person. It only concerns itself with the death and absconding.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    If you
    are broke, what is there to be confiscated?
    Mr Boafo 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you may be
    broke but you have property.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Pardon?
    Mr Boafo 12:30 p.m.
    You may be broke but the
    property will still be there.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    But the
    property is owned by third parties? People are interested in that property. Anyway, I do not know.
    Mr Boafo 12:30 p.m.
    That is why there is the
    need for a provision so that they can intervene and confiscate it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Then there
    is no amendment there. What I will do is that, if you feel strongly about it, you can hold consultation with the Chairman and the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and then we take it when we are looking at the outstanding matters at the appropriate time.
    Hon Members, in view of the fact
    that the Chairman has withdrawn his amendment to clause 50, I will put the Question -
    Hon Chairman, are you moving any of
    the amendments to clause 50?
    Mr Bandua 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clasue 50, paragraph (b), line 2, delete “were” and insert “have been”.
    So, in clause 50, paragraph (b), the new rendition will read as follows:
    “(b) proceedings in respect of a serious
    offence committed in relation to that property have been started.”
    So with that amendment, all the others are gone.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Is there any other amendment to clause 50? Are you abandoning that?
    Mr Bandua 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is a
    mistake. It should be clause 51 not clause 50. The following clause is clause 51 not clause 50.
    Clause 50 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 51 - Payment instead of a confiscation order.
    Mr Bandua 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 51, after paragraph (c), lines 2 and 3, before “equal” insert “to be” and also delete “of the person”.
    So, the new rendition will read as follows:
    “the court shall order the person to pay to the Republic an amount assessed by an accredited valuation officer to be equal to the value of the property instead of the confiscation.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon
    Chairman, I cannot get your amendment. But if you want me to put the Question, I will put it and you and Members who would respond to it will be responsible for the amendment. I am only pronouncing on the verdict. [Pause.] Chairman, I am waiting for you.
    Mr Bandua 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I will read it again. This is the new rendition -
    “the court shall order the person to pay to the Republic an amount assessed by an accredited valuation officer to be equal to the value of the property instead of the confiscation.”
    That is, instead of confiscating the property
    - 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Bandua 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 52, line 1, before “Where” insert “(1)”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Is that an amendment or a drafting issue? It is a drafting issue - Table Office to take note.
    Move the next amendment .
    Mr Bandua 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 52, paragraph (c), delete “the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30) related” and insert the following:
    “section 34 of the Prisons Service Act, 1972 (NRCD 46) and regulation 61 of the Prison Regulations, 1958 (L.N. 412) relating”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Is that the only law that deals with remission of sentence, Chairman?
    Mr Bandua 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that is the relevant law but there may be other laws.
    Mr First DeputySpeaker 12:40 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, is it not better just to refer to the Prisons Service Act and leave the particular section, once we know the particular area -- we are talking about remission of sentence, is it not better? If you do that, you would go and clash with section 34 and there is a provision there that you have to read together, then you will have a problem.
    Mr Bandua 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think your suggestion is well taken. It is better. So, we will refer to the Prisons Service Act and leave the regulations and others.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Are you sure that the provisions of the Constitution in relation to remission of sentence does not apply here? Are you sure of that? There is a provision in the Constitution which deals with remission of sentence too. Are you sure it does not apply here? Then will I put the Question. That is why I asked you the first question.
    Mr Bandua 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if even it applies, we cannot quote all the laws that would apply here. So, if we mention this one --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Very well. The statute cannot oust the provisions of the Constitution.
    Mr Boafo 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this may be for drafting but the reference is being made to the Prisons Service Act, 1972 (NRCD 46). I do not know why it is an Act and it is still --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Hon Member, that is what Justice V. C. R. C. Crabbe is doing. Some of us have our own reservation about it, whether he has the right to do that. But as of now, he has it under what is done and what has been supplied to us.
    We are all keeping quiet. Until we go and question it, that is what we all have been applying.
    Hon Member for Akropong?
    Mr Boafo 12:40 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, I understand.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Boafo 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we look at paragraph (a) of subclause (1), which imposes imprisonment in default of the payment of the assessed money, we do not see any alternate sanction against an entity, if the entity fails to pay the money. It only deals with individuals who fail to pay the assessed amount and they can be sentenced to imprisonment. But if an entity fails to pay the assessed amount, there is no sanction provided under clause
    52 (1) (a).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Very well, I have taken note. I am waiting for the response of the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice.
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “entity” is defined under the interpretation section here. “Entity” means a corporate body. What I was trying to find out is what penalties then apply to entities because Hon Boafo has been bringing that matter to our attention. And we understand - unfortunately, neither I nor the Director of Drafting has our Interpretation Act here.
    But there should be a cross-reference in the Interpretation Act, that the directors and other officers are liable to the sanctions which are meted out to the person, to the individual. So, we are just checking that. I have just got a copy of the Interpretation Act and the Drafter is checking that.
    I take his point though, that we should
    have sanction for the “entity” within the Bill. So, if you can just give us a minute and let us look at the Act, then we would be able to tell you. This can be stood down.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Chairman, there is another
    amendment.
    Mr Bandua 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want to
    withdraw this amendment and propose another amendment instead of what we have here.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Are you withdrawing that amendment?
    Mr Bandua 12:50 p.m.
    Yes and proposing a
    different one.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Write
    what you are proposing for me and let
    me look at it.
    Mr Bandua 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it should be
    “sections 44 to 46 apply”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Hon
    Chairman, I am not getting your point. What are you trying to do?
    Mr Bandua 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 52, subclause (2), line 1, delete “apply” and insert “applies”.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment we propose here is that, “sections 44 to 46 applies”. That is what has been proposed in the Order Paper. But I am saying that it should rather be “sections 44 to 46 apply”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Chairman, it is “sections 44 to
    46 -
    Mr Bandua 12:50 p.m.
    Yes, it should be “sections
    44 to 46” --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    So, the
    word “apply” should be there?
    Mr Bandua 12:50 p.m.
    That is what I said. I said
    “sections 44 to 46 apply”, that is why I am withdrawing the amendment on the Order Paper.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    So, are you
    withdrawing the amendment?
    Mr Bandua 12:50 p.m.
    Yes, and proposing a
    new one.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    What is
    the new one?
    Mr Bandua 12:50 p.m.
    The new one is that in the Bill, it is section not sections. I have section in the Bill, not sections.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    The
    draftsperson to take note.
    Mr J. B. Aidoo 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree
    with the Hon Chairman's new amendment because we are referring to sections 44, 45 and 46. So, it should be “sections” and “apply” should also remain. But my worry is with the words “with the necessary modification”. I think we have raised this issue before and it is appearing here again. What kind of modification are we calling on the court to decide?
    I believe that this particular rendition - I do not know whether it is a new introduction into the drafting of our laws -- We need some clarification on this matter. Because it appears that we are tying the hands - not even tying the hands of the court -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, I would let the Hon Attorney- General and Minister for Justice respond. But you know that we are doing Consideration Stage, so if you have a problem, what to do really, is to file an amendment. Otherwise, we are going back to the principles.
    Mr J. B. Aidoo 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would
    have wished that this particular section reads:
    “Sections 44 to 46 apply to this section where a person accused of a serious offence dies or absconds.”
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    believe the import of that is, section 44 talks about procedure against property where a person dies or absconds; section 45 is about effect of confiscation order - they are talking -- here also, it has to do with those who are living and those who are present in the jurisdiction. So, if the person dies or absconds, you have to modify the sections to apply to that particular situation. I believe it is clear English; it is straightforward grammatical English. The meaning is not obtuse in this
    particular instance. At least, that is my understanding of it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Hon
    Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, in the area of criminal jurisprudence, when sanctity is not there, it creates room for all kinds of things. And I think that is why the Hon Member for Amenfi East is - we are talking about serious offence, so we all have to be sure of what we are legislating. We want a certain level or as much as possible, a certain level of certainty injected into the law we are enacting. I think that is the point being made.
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 12:50 p.m.
    I am aware of that. And that is why we have so many amendments to try to inject clarity. But in this particular situation, it is a situation which is -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Anyway, I agree. Once the person absconds, I think that it will not create a problem.
    Mr J. B. Aidoo 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, rightly so. But my worry is that in this particular context, we are requesting the court to come out with the modification. And the issue or the question is, what kind of modification are we asking the court to do? And that is what I want the Hon Attorney- General and Minister for Justice to clarify.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    The point
    the Hon Attorney-General is making is that, those sections - you know, the person for example, is dead. So the issue of - there are certain orders you can make when the person is alive, which you cannot necessary make when the person is dead. That is the point that the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice is making.
    Mr Mould-Iddrisu 12:50 p.m.
    Yes, to assist,
    where it says “that person”, I think in section 46, it should say to the estate of that person and so on. Because if the property is to be confiscated, we also
    confiscate from estates of people who have been convicted and who have died or people who have absconded. I am interpreting it on my feet, so to speak.
    Mr J. B. Aidoo 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that being so, the tail end of the sentence has clearly specified that modification, because it says:
    “Where a person accused of serious offence dies or absconds . . .”
    So, why then do you request the court to also modify this whole sentence? I believe that it has already been stated there. So, what kind of further modification are we requesting the court to do?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Hon Member, let us flag it and continue, if you feel strongly, then bring an amendment and let us look at it. As of now, there is really no amendment there, so that we can all look at it critically.
    The Hon Member for Akropong, do you still want to take issue with paragraph (a) of clause 52?
    Mr Boafo 1 p.m.
    No, Mr Speaker. In view of the provisions in the Interpretation Act.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 52 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Hon Deputy Majority Leader, today is Friday, it is past 1.00 o'clock; how long do you want us to Sit?
    Mr Pelpuo 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I know that
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Hon Member, I just want to know, so that I will know how to organise myself. You know the normal practice of Fridays in this House? So, I am asking you, how long do you want us to go?
    Mr Pelpuo 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think we can go up to 2.00 o'clock.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Very well. Hon Members, let us continue
    .
    Mr Pelpuo 1 p.m.
    But Mr Speaker, we can
    be flexible; those who want to walk out and come back, they can do so.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Very well. Hon Members, let us continue. [Pause.]
    Mr Boafo 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if I may take the House back to page (4), item (7), which was left out. Mr Speaker, I do not intend pursuing that amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Very well. I would now put the Question on that clause.
    Hon Members, clause 28, he has
    abandoned it; so I would now put the Question on the entire clause.
    Clause 28 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 53, Pecuniary penalty orders.
    Mr Bandua 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 53, subclause (1), line 4, before “person” insert “convicted”.
    So the new rendition would be:

    “Where the Executive Director applies to court for a pecuniary penalty order against a person convicted of a serious offence, the court shall make an assessment based on evidence to determine the benefit derived by the convicted person from the serious offence.”

    Question put and amendment agreed

    to.
    Mr Bandua 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 53, subclause (3), paragraph (a), line 1, before “person” insert “convicted”
    Mr Speaker, this is consequential.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bandua 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 53, subclause (3), paragraph (b), lines 1 and 3, before “person” insert “convicted”.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment is also consequential.
    Question put and amendment agreed to
    Clause 53 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 54 - Lifting the Veil.
    Mr Bandua 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 54, subclause (1), line 1, before “person”, delete “the” and insert “a”.
    So the new rendition would be:
    “The court shall treat as property of a person, property that is in the opinion of the court, is subject to the effective control of the person, whether or not the person has . . .”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bandua 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 54, subclause (4), paragraph (a), line 1, before “Director” insert “Executive”.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 54 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Clause 55 - Enforcement of pecuniary
    penalty orders.
    Mr Bandua 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 55, line 2, delete “39” and insert “52”.
    So the new rendition is:
    “Where the court orders a person to pay an amount under a pecuniary penalty order, the provision of section 52 shall apply to empower
    . . . .”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 55 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 56 and 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 58 - Requirement for making a production order
    Mr Bandua 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 58, paragraph (a), after “person”, insert “specified in” and before “order” delete “specifies”.
    So the new rendition would be --
    “the person specified in the application for the order as being subject to the investigation”. This is for clarity.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bandua 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move,
    clause 58, paragraph (a), subparagraph (i), line 2, before “investigation”, insert “an”.
    So the new rendition would be --
    “has benefited from the commission of a serious offence, in the case of an investigation pending confiscation, or . . .”
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr Boafo 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was on
    my feet when you were about to put the Question on clause 58. I do not know whether you would permit me to point out something for correction.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Let me
    listen to you.
    Mr Boafo 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, under clause
    58, paragraph (a) (ii), the expression is “suspected of committing a serous offence”. And I intend to propose a substitution of “having committed” in place of “committing”.
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 1:10 p.m.
    We have no
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, clause 58, paragraph (a) (ii), after the word “of”, delete “committing” and insert “having committed”.
    So the new rendition would be:
    “suspected of having committed a serious offence”. Is that right?
    Mr Boafo 1:10 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr J. B. Aidoo 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am
    tempted to disagree with this proposal because having committed, means that there is commission of the act. But in this rendition, where it states that the person is suspected of committing a serious crime, it means that the act had not been done but the person is in the process of committing the offence.
    Therefore, this particular provision stands in a different context than the Hon Boafo wants us to believe. Here, the spirit behind this particular subclause is that the person is in the process of committing the crime and not a situation whereby he had already committed the crime. So, I want him to take that on board and reconsider his proposal.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, that was my initial understanding and that was why I called on the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and she said she had no objection to it. But that was my initial understanding and I thought that they were talking of somebody in the process of committing. So, I do not know; we may need some clarification and I will put the Question.
    Mr Boafo 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the section
    deals with production order; it is not arresting; it is production order. Producing documents -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Very well.

    I will put the Question.
    Mr J. B. Aidoo 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if that is
    the case, if you look at (a) (i), it captures the situation whereby the commission of the crime had already taken place. But (ii) is indicating where the process is taking place. So, they are two different issues altogether; the acts are different.
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    I believe that we can have both, “committing” and “having committed” to take care of both scenarios that the Hon Member and yourself have raised.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Hon
    Boafo, kindly move the amendment in the light of the position taken by the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice.
    Mr Boafo 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 58, paragraph (a) (ii), after the word “of” insert “having committed or”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Table
    Office, have you got the new amendment? Have you got it?
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 58 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 60 - Utilization of proceeds of
    realizable property
    Mr Bandua 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 60, subclause (3), delete “retain” and insert “until payment is made under subsection (2), retain the. . .”
    So the new rendition will be --
    “The Attorney-General shall until
    payment is made under subsection (2) retain the thirty per cent of the outstanding amount specified for the benefit of the institution of relevance and pay the rest into the Consolidated Fund.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 60 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the
    Bill.
    Clause 62 - Winding up of company
    holding realisable property.
    Mr Bandua 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 62, subclause (1), paragraph (a), delete “subject to a freezing order made before the relevant time, or” and insert the following:
    “the property, if the property is subject to a freezing order made before the order or resolution for winding up was made or passed.”
    Mr Speaker, it has explained the “relevant time” in the Bill; instead of looking for the interpretation of “relevant time”, it has been captured in this rendition.
    So the new rendition will be:
    “the property, if the property is subject to a freezing order made before the order or resolution for winding up was made or passed.”
    Mr Speaker, that should be it.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr Bandua 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 62, subclause (3), paragraph
    (a), delete “relevant time” and insert “order or resolution for winding up was passed”.
    Mr Speaker, it is consequential.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bandua 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 62, subclause (3), paragraph (b), line 2, delete “relevant time” and insert “the order or resolution for winding up was made or passed”.
    Mr Speaker, it is also consequential.
    Question put and amendment agreed.
    Mr Bandua 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 62, subclause (5), line 3, delete all text after “Act”.
    So Mr Speaker, we delete from “and up to “(c )”.
    Mr Speaker, the next three amendments, I do not know if I can take them together because (a) (b) and (c) have already been deleted under this first one.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    So I was
    wondering why you have it there in your name.
    Mr Bandua 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, they have
    all been deleted, so we should take note of that and let it go.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, so all the words from (a) (b) and (c) have been deleted.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 62 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Clause 63 - Establishment of Assets
    Management Unit.
    Mr Bandua 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are proposing an amendment which has not been captured on the Order Paper.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clauses 63
    to 69, delete.
    The Hon Attorney-General and Minster for Justice will offer explanation for these new amendments.
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    you would notice that clauses 63 to 69 make provision for the Establishment of an Assets Management Unit.
    Mr Speaker, the Attorney-General's
    Office is being reconstituted and their proposals are going before Cabinet. In order to make provision in line with the revision of the company's code; to make provision to have the Office of the Registrar of Companies, which would then take away, hive away all the other offices which are presently being administered by the Registrar-General.
    One of these is the administration of estates, which is a function of the Registrar General presently. We intend to bring this office to the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Justice will then administer the administration of estates and the registration of marriages. And the Intellectual Property Offices would be merged with the Copyright Office to make one office. In that respect, and also after consultation with officials of the Serious Fraud Office, it was decided that, management of assets should be maintained or should be held by the Minister of Justice in order also to preclude any diversion from the proposed Economic and Organised Crime Office.
    As to the core activity, we do not want them to be engaged in the management of assets as well. So, this is the current
    thinking of the Ministry and after consultation, we decided to delete these provisions in this present form in this Bill in order to cater for them in other re-organizations that are envisaged in the Ministry.
    Thank you very much for your indulgence, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Thank you very much Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice.
    Clause 63 -- Establishment of Assets Management Unit.
    Clause 64 - Object of the Unit.
    Clause 65 - Functions of the Unit.
    Clause 66 - Appointment of Director.
    Clause 67 - Appointment of Deputy. Director
    Clause 68 - Appointment of other staff.
    Clause 69 - Funds of the Unit.
    Question put and deletion agreed to.
    Clauses 63 to 69 deleted from the Bill.
    Clauses 70 and 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 72 - Confidentiality.
    Mr Bandua 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 72, subclause (2), lines 2 and 3, delete “more” and insert “less”
    So, the new rendition will be:
    “An authorised off icer who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not less than five hundred penalty units or to a term of imprisonment of not less
    Mr Bandua 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 73 -- before “compensation” insert “restitution to be made or” --
    So, the new rendition will be:
    “The court may order restitution to be made or compensation to be paid to a victim of a serious offence under this Act.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 73 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr J. B. Aidoo 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before we come to the Interpretation, I will crave your indulgence and that of the House for us to go to clause 71 (3), line 3. Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 71 (3), line 3, after “not” delete “more” and insert “less”.
    For purposes of consistency, the penalty there should read: “not less than 50 penalty units”. Instead of “not more than”; it should be “not less than 50 penalty units”. We delete “more” and then insert “less”.
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we
    will accept that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, clause 71 (3), line 3, after “not”
    delete “more” and insert “less”, and that also applies to line 4.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, if you continue, I will let you come through a Second Consideration Stage because I am relaxing the rules.
    Clause 71 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr J. B. Aidoo 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, since we are brushing up, I think a few things were left out. When we take clause 53 (4), line 1, again, for purposes of consistency, I beg to move, insert “convicted” before “person”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    That is consequential?
    Mr J. B. Aidoo 1:40 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, it is consequential.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 53 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 75 -- Interpretation.
    Mr Bandua 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 75, interpretation, “computer system”, line 4, after “being” insert “part of the device” and after “connected”, delete “thereto” and insert “to the device”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bandua 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 75, interpretation, “court”, delete “court” and insert “Court” and also delete “and” and insert “or”.
    So “Court” means “High Court or Circuit Court”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bandua 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 75, Interpretation, “currency”, paragraph (a), line 1, delete “money”.
    So, it will read:
    ‘“currency” means --
    (a) coins, or notes of the Republic,”
    That “money” there is deleted.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bandua 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 75, Interpretation, “currency”, paragraph (b), at end, add “or”
    So,
    (b) ‘travellers' cheques and other financial instruments denominated in the currency of Ghana or in foreign currency or”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bandua 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 75, Interpretation, definition of “cyber activity”, delete and insert the following:
    ‘“cyber activity' means an activity that involves the use of a computer system.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bandua 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 75, Interpretation, definition of” effective control”, delete
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bandua 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment to the interpretation of “entity” (clause 75) is abandoned. We are not deleting it; we are retaining it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    So you are withdrawing your amendment?
    Mr Bandua 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment is withdrawn.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Bandua 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 75, Interpretation, definition of “emergency”, delete.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bandua 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 75, Interpretation, definition of “Executive Director”, delete.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bandua 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 75, Interpretation, definition of “freezing”, delete.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bandua 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 75, Interpretation, definition of “gift”, line 2, after “indirectly” insert “before or”.
    So it will read: ‘“gift' includes a transfer of property by a person to another person directly or indirectly before or after the commission of a serious offence.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Hon Member, why the “before or”? If the man has not committed any offence, then why are we adding it?
    Mr Bandua 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “before or after the commission of the offence”. Let me take it again. Maybe, it becomes clearer after I have taken it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Explain it to us so that we will know exactly --
    Mr Bandua 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want to take it so that the explanation will become clear to all of us. We are saying that “gift”, line 2, after “indirectly”, insert “before or”. “Gift” includes a transfer of property by a person to another person directly or indirectly before or after -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, if I have not committed any serious offence, the subject matter of this Bill, then why are you including me before the commission? If 10 years ago, somebody made a gift to me and then after 10 years, the man goes to commit a serious offence, why should that one be included for purposes of this Bill? I want you to clarify that position to the House.
    Mr Bandua 1:50 p.m.
    “Gift” includes the transfer of property by a person to another person, directly or indirectly, before or after the commission of the offence.” So that if even before, there is a link between the property and the offence.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, what you want to establish before the commission of the offence, is not in this definition, is it there? Where is the link you want to establish? If there is a link, yes but where is the link? There should be a link between the gift and the serious offence.
    Hon Member for Akropong, before I call the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice.
    Mr Boafo 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you may call the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice.
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I seem to recall that this is coming out of the UN Convention against corruption; I seem to recall that this is the definition and I
    thought that including the amendment that we proposed would make it clearer, that a gift can be given before the commission of a serious offence. I am struggling to see where the objection is, maybe, you can assist me.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    All that I am saying is that if the gift that we are talking about has no relation with the commission of any offence-- It is not every gift that is being criminalised by the Bill. It is a gift that is deemed to be criminal. If I received a gift 10 years ago and somebody commits an offence, after that what has that got to do with my gift? If you want to domesticate the AU Convention against corruption, it is a different matter but I see it differently.
    Mr Boafo 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it may well be that the gift was made in contemplation of the commission of the offence.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon Members, to be very clear, the section in the Bill where the gift has been referred to, let us read that section and see whether the definition we are offering is right or wrong.
    Hon Second Deputy Speaker, I thought you wanted to make some submission?
    Mr Mike A. Oquaye 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was just nodding in agreement with your concern.
    Mr Boafo 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the proposed amendment is in order, because those of us who have handled criminal cases, we know how they scheme to evade detection.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Yes, I agree entirely with you but we must not criminalise every gift; there should be a certain linkage, so that we are clear in our minds. This is a definition column and that is what the courts are going to look at.
    Even under the AU and the UN Conventions, there are certain guidelines, it is not every gift, it should be a lavish gift and certain jurisdictions have made provisions in terms of the gift, the amount

    that can be involved, there are ceilings. So, if you want to bring it even under the AU or the UN Convention against corruption, we must be very clear in our minds.

    Yes, my Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice.
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 1:50 p.m.
    With respect, Mr Speaker, when I look at the proposed amendment, I just believe that it is actually making it more elegant because we all know that a gift can be given before the commission of the offence -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon Members, even though we agreed to adjourn by 2 o'clock, we have been caught by the rules, so in line with Standing Order 40 (3), we will Sit outside the prescribed period. Accordingly directed.
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu” Mr Speaker, I suggest that we stand this down for the meantime while we try and look for the appropriate section which governs this particular interpretation.
    Thank you.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Thank
    you very much, Hon Attorney-General and Minster for Justice.
    Mr Boafo 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I can find a provision relating to protection of third parties under clause 48.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon Member, why do we not defer it? [Pause.]
    Hon Members, what I want us to do is to flag it, let all of us go and look at it and when we look at it again, there might not be any issue with it at all. But we just want to be sure that we are doing the proper thing.
    Hon Chairman, we are still on your clause 75.
    Mr Bandua 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg
    to move, clause 75, Interpretation, “institution of relevance”, delete “parties” and insert “a party”
    So, if you go to the “institution of
    relevance”, “institution of relevance” means, a party to the action.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bandua 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 75, interpretation, “public debt”, line 1, delete “Consolidation” and insert “Consolidated”.
    Mr Speaker, I think the right word is “Consolidated”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bandua 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 75, Interpretation, “serious offence”, paragraph (c), line 1, delete “offence” and insert “similar offence or related prohibited activity”.
    So it will read as follows: “. . . any other similar offence or related prohibited activity punishable with imprisonment for a period of not less than twelve months.”
    Mr Boafo 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have a proposed amendment for the same paragraph (c).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    But it is not to negative this amendment?
    Mr Boafo 2 p.m.
    No, Mr Speaker. It is not to negative it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Then let him move his, then you can move yours. Let me put the Question, then after that you can move yours.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Boafo 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the term of imprisonment being referred to, to qualify as a serious offence, is too low and it would make some petty, petty offences qualify as serious offences.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, this your twelve-month proposal, some of us are not happy with it. This twelve- month proposal where somebody goes to steal and you look at his face and you say no, because of the person's face and because the offence is punishable by twelve months, we classify it as a serious offence. We have to defer it and take some look at it. The twelve month proposal is a bit wide.
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have taken note of what you said. We will come back to that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    So, we defer that definition of “serious offence”?
    Mr Bandua 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 75, Interpretation, add the following new definition:
    ‘“police officer' means a person not below the rank of Superintendent of Police.
    Mr Speaker, it is a new definition that is being added.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bandua 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 75, interpretation, add the following new definition:
    ‘“unit means' the Assets Management Unit established in section 63”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    They
    have deleted “Assets Management Unit” completely so you should abandon the amendment, if I should use your word.
    Mr Bandua 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment is withdrawn.
    Mr Bandua 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are getting back to -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, do you want us to take the new amendments?
    Mr Bandua 2 p.m.
    No, there is something we want to - we have withdrawn one amendment which we want to reinstate.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    You have withdrawn the new amendments?
    Mr Bandua 2 p.m.
    No. That one is in order; or you have not put the Question?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Which one?
    Mr Bandua 2 p.m.
    The Interpretation of “Executive Director”; we want to reinstate it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Is it in order?
    Mr Bandua 2 p.m.
    It is in order, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Chairman,
    what are you referring to? Where can it be found?
    Mr Bandua 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment on the “Executive Director”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Where is that amendment?
    Mr Bandua 2 p.m.
    It is on page 14. We have
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    The definition of “Executive Director”?
    Mr Bandua 2 p.m.
    Yes. We want to reinstate it. We want to bring it back.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Well, that is not the procedure but I will relax the rules.
    Mr Boafo 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the definition of “proceeds of unlawful activity” I recollect that when we were dealing with clause 3, we said that instead of “proceeds of unlawful activity”, we will make it “proceeds of crime”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    We will come to that later.
    Chairman, you have put me in a very tight corner. I do not know how to capture what you want me to do with regard to the “Executive Director”, as regards the rules. But what we will do is that you should move to restore the definition of “Executive Director” in the Bill, then I will put the Question. This is because you have moved earlier to delete it and the House has agreed, so if you want to restore it, since we are still dealing with that clause and the Question has not yet been put on the entire clause, then it is not meant for Second Consideration Stage.
    Mr Bandua 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 75, Intepretation, the definition of “Executive Director” means “the person appointed in section II”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Chairman, are you prepared for us to take -
    Mr Bandua 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before then,
    what about the amendment that Mr Boafo wants to propose?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Is it clause 75?
    Mr Boafo 2 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker. That is on page 35 of the Bill, under “proceeds of unlawful activity.”
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 75, delete “unlawful activity and insert “crime”.
    So that reference will be to “proceeds of crime”.
    Mr Bandua 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the amendment.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Table Office, have you got it?
    Chairman, do you want to take us through the new clauses?
    Mr Bandua 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes. Clause
    1 --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Are you taking all of them or some?
    Mr Bandua 2 p.m.
    The new ones? They are only three.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    They are only three?
    Mr Bandua 2 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Which of them? I want to be sure.
    Mr Bandua 2:10 p.m.
    We are taking all of
    them.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    You are taking all of them?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Are you taking all of them?
    Mr Bandua 2:10 p.m.
    That is so, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Then why do you say they are only 3: They are more than 3.
    Mr Bandua 2:10 p.m.
    No, they are only 3 - clause 1, clause 2 and clause 3.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Pardon?
    Mr Bandua 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have clause 1 --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Hon Member, I am talking about the new clauses.
    Mr Bandua 2:10 p.m.
    The new clauses, oh, at the back? I was thinking about the new amendments that were deferred. I thought we would take those ones first before --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Hon Member, are we taking the new clauses?
    Some Hon Members -- Yes.
    Mr Bandua 2:10 p.m.
    Yes - after we have taken the referred ones.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, I am the one in the Chair -- [Laughter.] The normal practice is that we deal with the new clauses before we go back to the deferred clauses.
    Mr Boafo 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want to appeal to the Hon Chairman to reconsider
    the new clauses and see whether it is not more fitting to be in the “Regulations”. If we go to clause 74, where the type of activities which should be covered by the regulation, it talks about --
    procedure for the seizure of tainted property;
    procedure for confiscation and pecuniary penalty orders;
    the management of seized, restrained or confiscated assets;
    the disposal of assets under this Act; and
    generally for the effective implemen- tation of the provisions of this Act.
    Mr Speaker, if you go through the new clauses, they all deal with procedure, procedure, procedure. I am wondering
    whether it should not go into the “Regulations”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Hon Member for Akropong, there are some of the provisions which I thought should be in the Bill. For example, “use of information contained in declaration of property and income”. It is such a substantial issue that if you do not put it in the Bill and it comes in the form of a regulation, people can question it.
    Mr Boafo 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, very well. We can consider that alone but the others should go into the regulations.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice -- do you want all the provisions to be in the Bill or you want some? I for example, have realized that “use of information
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.


    contained in declaration of property and income”, is such a substantial issue that it must be in a substantive law rather than a subsidiary legislation.
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 2:10 p.m.
    You are quite right, Mr Speaker. We would want all of these to be within the actual body of the law. They pertain to people's properties and to people's rights and their properties and we think it is important that they should be part of the parent law.
    Mr Bandua 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, then I will move the new amendments. So new clause, Mr Speaker - declaration of property and income --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, your new clauses do not start from there. Look at page 15, before clause 22.
    Mr Bandua 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that Part Two, before clause 22, insert the following new clause:
    “Application of Part Two to PNDCL
    236:
    22. This part applies to the Narcotic Drugs (Control Enforcement and Sanctions) Act 1990 (PNDCL 236) in relation to the proceeds from the sale, profit or income earned and property acquired or likely to have been earned or acquired through narcotic drug.”
    Mr Speaker, I move that this new clause be inserted.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Hon Members , before you move the amendment, my attention has been drawn to clauses 76 and 77 that I have not put the Question on them -- We have not finished clause 75, I have not put the Question, so you have an opportunity. I have not put the Question.
    You know, the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, there is one issue she said she was going to - and we decided that we have to defer for now.
    So we would come back to it. Let us make progress - Yes, we will come back to clause 75.
    Clauses 76 and 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Hon Members, I have been advised by my technical advisors, so we go back to clause 1.
    Clause 1 --
    Mr Bandua 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1, subclause (4), at end, add “and the cost shall be borne by the Office”
    So I will read it -
    “Where there is hindrance to the acquisition of property, the property may be acquired for the Office under the State Property and Contracts Act, 1960 (C.A. 6) or the State Lands Act, 1962 (Act 125) and the cost shall be borne by the Office.”
    Mr Speaker, the reason for this new amendment is that if even the amount is to be met from the Consolidated Fund, there is the need for a budget line to be provided by that office; so that it should be captured in their budget if even the cost is to come from the Consolidated Fund, Mr Speaker. That is the rationale for this proposed amendment.
    Mr Boafo 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Savannah Accelerated Development Authority (SADA) Bill we recently passed, contains similar provisions. So I think if we want to be consistent in legislation in this Chamber, we have to take --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Well, I do not see why a typical government department that relies on subvention from the Consolidated Fund should have such a clause. But if that is the thinking of
    the House, then I will put the Question. SADA, there is an aspect of an income there, if you look closely at it.
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 2:10 p.m.
    Just to explain, Mr Speaker. They are entitled to retention of part of the recovery of their proceeds of crime and they recover substantial amounts, Mr Speaker.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 1 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 3 -
    Mr Bandua 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, paragraph (a), subparagraph (i), line 1, delete “serious” and insert “substantial” and in line 2, delete “to any state” and insert “any State”.
    Mr Speaker, we are abandoning the first part of the amendment; we are withdrawing it. That is, paragraph (a), subparagraph (i), line 1, delete “serious” and insert “substantial” - that amendment is withdrawn.
    But instead of that, we want to delete “serious”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    You want to do what?
    Mr Bandua 2:20 p.m.
    That word “serious” there should be deleted. And then, I would continue to move the second part -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, I do not like the way you are moving your amendment. I have to be
    with you.
    Mr Bandua 2:20 p.m.
    First, the amendment here is that paragraph (a), sub-paragraph (i), line 1, delete “serious” and insert “substantial” - and I am saying that we are withdrawing this proposed amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    So, are we deleting “serious”?
    Mr Bandua 2:20 p.m.
    When I finish, I would read and you would see why I have deleted it. Let me finish and then when I take the whole clause, I think you would appreciate why it is being deleted.
    Then in line (2), delete “to any State” and insert “any State”. So I would take the whole clause, so that you may be able to appreciate it:
    “(a) The functions of the Office are to investigate and on the authority of the Attorney- General, to prosecute serious offences that involve:
    (i) financial or economic loss to the Republic or any State or institution in which the State has financial interest.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, if you are having problems with your amendment and I am saying that I am also having a problem here, you should understand me.
    Mr Bandua 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, now that I have put it rightly, I think that -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    You see, it is not as simple as you put it because the Table Office would have to get what is being deleted and what is being inserted so that they can go and do their homework well and then -
    Mr Bandua 2:20 p.m.
    I understand. So, let me take the first part, then I will leave it and come to the second portion.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mr Bandua 2:20 p.m.
    The first part is that - let me read it:
    “(a) The functions of the Office are to investigate and on the authority of the Attorney- General to prosecute offences that involve:
    (i) financial or economic loss to the Republic …”
    That is the first part. If that is all right, then I would move to the second section.
    In the second section, when we come to -
    Mr Boafo 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought the Hon Chairman was going to delete “in which the State has financial interest.” This is because there is no State entity or institution in which the State does not have financial interest. [Pause.]
    So those expressions are only surplusage.
    Mr Bandua 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if this is kept, I do not think it creates any problem. We may as well leave it there.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bandua 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if I may continue with the second portion of the same amendment.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3,
    subparagraph (1) line 2, delete “to any state” and insert “any State”.
    So, it will read:
    “(i) financial or economic lost to the Republic or any State or institution in which the State has financial interest.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bandua 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, paragraph (b), delete “crime” and insert “unlawful -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, the issue here -
    Mr Bandua 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this amendment, “proceeds of unlawful activity” will be replaced with “proceeds of crime”. So, we are withdrawing the amendment and retaining what is here.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    What you have just defined in clause 75 is “proceeds of crime”.
    Mr Bandua 2:20 p.m.
    Yes, so we are retaining what is here.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    So, you are withdrawing the amendment?
    Mr Bandua 2:20 p.m.
    We withdraw the amendment, Mr Speaker.
    Clause 3 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    Hon Members, do we take the amendments
    or we adjourn at this stage? The new amendments, should we take them? If they are not controversial and a lot of consultation has been done on them, then we can -
    Hon Chairman, has the Committee winnowed that clause?
    Mr Bandua 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes we have. Not all Hon Members of the Committee, but in consultation with the Hon Attorney- General and Minister for Justice and the Hon Chairman. We came to some understanding.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    Hon Member for Akropong, do you have any objection? I know you have been very much involved in this amendment? Do you have any objection to the rendition? If you agree in principle that the matters are quite substantial and they should be put in the Bill. Otherwise, we should just take them, if you do not have any serious objection to them. We take them and end it there, so that we can go and discuss the other ones.
    Mr Boafo 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we do not have any serious objections to them.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, you should move them one by one and I would put the Question on them.
    New Clause - Application of Part Two to PNDCL 236.
    Mr Bandua 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, Part Two, before clause 22, insert the following new clause:
    “Application of Part Two to PNDCL
    236:
    22. This part applies to the Narcotic Drugs (Control Enforcement and
    Sanctions) Act, 1990 (PNDCL 236) in relation to the proceeds from the sale, profit or income earned and property acquired or likely to have been earned or acquired through narcotic drug.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    New clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    New Clause -- Declaration of property and income.
    Mr Bandua 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, add the following new clauses:
    “Declaration of property and income
    41(1) Where a person has been charged with an offence under this Act, the Executive Director may serve on that person a notice to make a declaration of that person's property and income.
    (2) The accused person so charged and served shall lodge two signed copies of the declaration with the Auditor-General within twenty-eight days after receipt of the notice.
    (3) The Auditor-General shall not reveal the content of the declaration except in accordance with this Act or upon the order of a court.
    (4) The declaration of property and income shall contain the following information:
    (a) property received or expected to be received by the accused person;
    Mr Boafo 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, subclause (5) (e), lines (3) and (4). To be consistent with the earlier amendment, in place of “more than”, we substituted with “less than”. So I am proposing that on subclause (5), paragraph (a) -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Hon Members, this “less than” you are putting, do you know the implications? Because if you are saying “less than”, that means that that is the minimum. The way we are putting this “less than”, I do not want

    to interfere, but at this point, I have to, because it means that it can go up to life imprisonment. [Interruption.] That is what you want, up to life imprisonment? [Laughter.]
    Mr Boafo 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my understanding of the original version is that it could be one penalty unit up to the maximum. But I was just recalling what we had done earlier -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    I agree with you in terms of consistency, but we must also look at the implications. But if you want us to do it like that. I would put the Question, then we can come back and look at it, if you so wish.
    Mr Boafo 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would not push it but when we come -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    So I would put it with your “less than”. Because if you look at ordinary declaration -- if you fail to declare -- So are you withdrawing it?
    Mr Boafo 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am withdrawing this one.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Hon Members, I refer you to Order 129 (c) which says that:
    “where an amendment appears on the Order Paper and exceeds four lines, it shall not be necessary for the Member moving it or Mr Speaker in putting it, to read out the amendment, provided that the place in the Order Paper where it appears is pointed out.”
    Hon Members, on the basis of this provision of the Standing Orders, you will just point it out and move without reading the entire provisions there so that we can make progress in line with our Standing Orders. So I would now put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bandua 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, new clause:
    “Duty of Auditor-General to produce copies of declaration of property and income after conviction or acquittal:
    42 (1) Where the accused person is convicted of an offence charged under this Act, the Executive Director may require the Auditor- General to furnish the Executive Director and the court with a copy each of the declaration of property and income.
    (2) The Auditor-General shall comply with the request made within seven days after receipt of the request.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bandua 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, new clause --
    “Use of information contained in declaration of property and income --
    43 (1) The Executive Director may use information contained in a declaration of property and income for the purpose of the implementation of the provisions of this Act including the application for confiscation and pecuniary penalty orders and for any other lawful purpose.
    (2) The court shall take into account in format ion conta ined in a declaration of property and income when making a confiscation or pecuniary order.
    Mr Boafo 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, under clause 43, subclause (2), there is ambiguity
    to my mind which needs clarification. It provides that the court shall take into account information contained in declaration of property and income when making a confiscation or pecuniary order. Mr Speaker, I am seeking clarification from the Chairman whether the reference to income, is reference to income derived from the property or the income of the convicted person.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    If you look at the original - They said if you are charged, it is when you are charged; it is not necessarily when you are convicted.
    Anyway, Mr Chairman, clarify it.
    Mr Bandua 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think this is in respect of the information contained in the declaration of the person. That is the person's income, so that is what is relevant here.
    Mr Boafo 2:30 p.m.
    Then Mr Speaker, I am proposing an amendment that after “income” we insert “of the person” -- “Declaration of the property or income of the person”.
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 41(1) talks about declaration of property and income. Where a person has been charged with an offence under this Act, that is on the charge, the Executive Director may serve on that person a notice to make a declaration of that person's property and income. So it is clear from within the Act.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Maybe, for the avoidance of doubt, if you put it there, it does not really -- Are you pressing it, Hon Member for Akropong, after the explanation by the Attorney- General and Minister for Justice?
    Mr Boafo 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just to use the word of the Deputy Attorney-General and
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Hon Members, I am putting the additional amendment by the Hon Member for Akropong; that is the one I am putting the Question on. The Table Office to take note accordingly.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bandua 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, new clause
    “ Inaccu ra t e dec l a r a t i on o f property and income
    44 (1) Where the Executive Director is of the opinion at any time during proceedings under this Act that a declaration of property and income is inaccurate, the Executive Director may
    (a) serve notice on the accused person or convicted person, and
    (b) notify the court of the circumstances indicating in the notice, the property or income in question and evidence in support of the opinion.
    (2) The court shall decide whether the property or income should have been included in the declaration and if necessary direct that it be added within a given period after
    (a) receipt of the notice, and
    (b) hearing the declarant.
    (3) Where the court finds that any property or income was
    intentionally or negligently excluded by the declarant, the court shall make an order for the confiscation of the property or income to the Republic.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bandua 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, add the following new clause:
    “Presumption of acquisition of property and income:
    45(2) Where the court has to determine whether or not to make a confis- cation or pecuniary penalty order, the court shall presume that any property or income which is the subject of an application, including property and income indicated in the declaration of property and income was acquired as a result of the serious offence.
    (3) The burden of proof that property or income which is the subject of the application or as contained in a declaration of property and income is lawfully acquired property is on the convicted (of the offence which is the subject of the application) person.
    (4) The convicted person shall prove that the property or income was derived from a lawful source.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bandua 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the last amendment, consequential amendments. We are to add the following consequential amendments as indicated in clause 76.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Hon Member, that is less than four lines?
    Mr Bandua 2:40 p.m.
    I thought we were following a particular order.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    I read the Standings Orders to you, that one is less than four lines.
    Mr Bandua 2:40 p.m.
    Very well, oh! I did not take note of it; so I will take it.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, new clause “consequential amendments 2:40 p.m.
    76 The Narcotic Drugs (Control, Enforcement and Sanctions) Act, 1990 (PNDCL 236) is amended as specified in the Schedule.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Is that correct? “. . . is amended as specified in the Schedule”. Is it as amended?
    Mr Bandua 2:40 p.m.
    It should be:
    “The Narcotics Drugs (Control, Enforcement and Sanctions) Act, 1990 (PNDCL 236) as amended as specified in the Schedule”.
    Mr Boafo 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we want to
    find out which Schedule he is referring to, because under the Economic and Organised Crime Bill, we do not have any Schedule. So we want to know whether he is referring to -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Chairman, there is no Schedule, so what Schedule are you talking about?
    Mr Bandua 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, let me go through and see whether I can locate it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Hon Member, there is no Schedule; what are you talking about? If you cannot withdraw the amendment and then later on you want
    to bring it back-- you can bring it back. As of now, there is no Schedule.
    Hon Members, I think that we should defer it because if the plan is to have a Schedule, it must be properly done. We do not have it before us and therefore, we do not want to --
    Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, the issue of “gift”, have you clarified it?
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 2:40 p.m.
    We have, indeed. “Gift” is used in the definition of realisable property on page 35 of the Bill and it is also used under clause 59. It says:
    “59 (1) (e), order a person who holds an interest in the property to make payment to the Attorney-General in respect of a beneficial interest held by the respondent or the recipient of a gift specified in this Act as the court shall direct”.
    So that is the use of the word “gift” and therefore, I believe the interpretation, the amendment that we sought to move would be in order since we are looking at it in terms of the commission of an offence.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, if you do not commit an offence, why do they send you to court for the court to make an order?
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 2:40 p.m.
    Well, we were talking about whether a gift can be given or should be specified before the commission of an offence. Mr Speaker, if you recollect, that was the debate, whether or not a gift can be given before the commission of an offence and this is what we are seeking to explain now.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    The issue is whether the gift must be linked to an offence. That was the issue that cropped up and clearly, it must be linked. If you look at clause 59, it has to be linked, and that is why the person is charged and put before court. And it is then that the issue of gifts -- gifts that have been received
    will then come in. So there should be a linkage.
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you would recall, we were trying to move an amendment which included --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Before the commission of an offence?
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 2:40 p.m.
    Yes, may I read,
    Mr Speaker. It says 2:40 p.m.
    “Gift includes a transfer of property by a person to another person directly or indirectly before or after the commission of a serious offence by the first person . . . ”
    And I am not quite sure where this debate is going because it is quite clear that it is before or after the commission of a serious offence. I am not sure where your concern is, Mr Speaker, about the linkages -- in my opinion, it is self-explanatory or am I being enthused here?
    Mr Boafo 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it appears that the Friday diminishing returns have set in and if we can recess and come back on Monday and continue. I think the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, if she is to travel, the Chairman is here to handle it. We have almost finished; there are only one or two outstanding things to be done.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Hon Member, I entirely agree with you because the Hon Member for Amenfi East also wanted to make an amendment to clause 75 and I told him that we would come back to it. It will not be fair to him that after he left we have gone back to clause 75. We should keep our word. And the issue of the Schedule too, we still have to come and revisit it.
    Then from there, after we have done those things, we can move to the Long -- [Pause.] So we take the Long Title. It
    is only one Question, so we can take the Long Title and defer the rest of the matters. It is only one Question.
    Hon Members, let us look at page 15 of the Order Paper, the Long Title--
    “Long Title -- AN ACT to establish an Economic and Organised Crime Office as a specialised agency to monitor and investigate organised crime and on the authority of the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice prosecute these offences to recover the proceeds of crime and provide for related matters.”
    Mr Bandua 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, Long Title, line 2, delete “agency”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Are you pursuing the amendment or you are withdrawing it?
    Mr Bandua 2:40 p.m.
    We are withdrawing the amendment, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Hon Members, the amendment is accordingly withdrawn; I will put the Question.
    Mr Boafo 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Bill is Economic and Organised Crime, but it appears in the Long Title, there is only reference to an investigation into organised crime in line 2.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    There is no what?
    Mr Boafo 2:40 p.m.
    There is only a reference to an investigation into organised crime but the subject of the Bill is Economic and Organised Crime.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Yes, so move the amendment and let me put the Question.
    Mr Boafo 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move,“Long Title, line 2, after the word “investigate” insert “Economic and”.
    Mrs Mould-Iddrisu 2:40 p.m.
    We agree.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Long Title as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, thank you very much for your support and co-operation. We have done a lot of work today.
    Where is the Deputy Majority Leader?
    Mr Evans P. Aidoo 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in furtherance to what my Colleague on the other side said -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    You cannot move for adjournment.
    Mr E. P. Aidoo 2:40 p.m.
    I am suggesting.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    You cannot move, you cannot suggest but I thought that you recognised our performance yesterday and today.
    Hon Members, thank you very much for your support and co-operation.
    The House is accordingly adjourned till Monday at 10 o'clock in the forenoon.
    ADJOURNMENT 2:40 p.m.