Debates of 8 Feb 2012

MADAM SPEAKER
PRAYERS
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT
Madam Speaker
Hon Members, Correction of Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday the 7th of February, 2012.
Page l...12
Mr Joseph B. Aidoo
Mr Speaker, page 12, paragraph 2 - "The following Hon Members were Present" (iv), my middle name has been spelt wrongly. It comes without "e" The "Boahen" is captured as -o-a-h-e-n.
Madam Speaker
Thank you.
No "e" at the end?
Page 13 -
Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah--Bonsu
Madam Speaker, sorry to take us back.
Page (9), clause 1 subclause (2); we deleted ."person elected as President" and substituted it with "President elect." "President elect" is spaced, hyphenated. But we agreed that wherever we have that construction, we should have same reflect, which then would mean that, we would have to go back to clause 1(1) (b), which should ‘have been on page (8). To begin from that clause, that is the person elected as President; that then should also read: "The President-elect shall appoint ..."

and it follows like that. Consequentially, wherever it appears, we have to capture it in that new construction.
Madam Speaker
Hon. Members, the Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, the 7th of February, 2012 as corrected are adopted as the true record of proceedings.
Hon Leader, shall we move on to the Commencement of Public Business?
There is no Statement. So we move on to Public Business, which is item 4.
MOTIONS
Mr Dominic Azimbe Azumah
Madam Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.
Question put and Motion agreed to.
BILLS - SECOND READING
Minister for Local Government and Rural Development (Mr Samuel Ofosu Ampofo)
Madam Speaker, I beg to move, that the Local Government (Amendment) Bill, 2012 be now read a Second time.
Minister for Local Government and Rural Development (Mr Samuel Ofosu Ampofo)
Madam Speaker, the rationale behind the Motion is to simply remove sub- section 4(l) of Section 1 of Act 462 of 1993; It talks about the definition of a Municipality and it defines ‘Municipality' as "a single, compact, geographical settlement".
Madam Speaker, when the decentralization process started and Assemblies were created, according to the law, we had Districts, Municipalities and Metropolis. A district was defined as a settlement with a population of over 75,000; that of a municipality had a population of over 95,000 but must consist of a single compact geographical settlement.
For that matter, the six municipalities that were created during those times were all single compact settlements, for example, Techiman Municipality, Sunyani Municipality, Tema Municipality. These municipalities were named after the main communities around which the districts were created. .
Along the line, between 2000 and 2009, a number of municipalities were created and were not in conformity with this requirement of single compact geographical settlement. In order to remove that obstacle, we are coming up with this amendment to remove the single compact settlement and then allow contiguous settlement areas also to be considered as municipalities. In that case, all the other municipalities that have been created would then fall in line.
Again, it will make the law very consistent. The determinant factor now would be the population of the districts, municipalities and metropolis. Again, the aspect will stand, which requires that other factors such as economic viability,

geographical contiguity, et cetera are also considered. If that is done, it would remove that obstacle which does not fit into the single compact geographical areas. That can be problematic because when it is contested in court and challenged that those communities are not single compact settlements, we may have problems with it.

Madam Speaker, that is the basic reasons we want to come up with this amendment, so that we can remove that aspect.

Thank you

Question proposed.
Chairman of the Committee (Mr Dominic A. Azumah)
Madam Speaker, I rise to support the Motion and to present the Report of the Committee.
Madam Speaker, with your kind permission, I would want to read the introduction, the object of the Bill and background, and its observations with its recommendations.
But before I do that, Madam Speaker, at the concluding stage, the Committee made some recommendations but there was some omission and the omission is the proposed amendment to be captured as part of our Report. The proposed amendment would read as follows:
"The Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462) is amended in paragraph (a)(2) of sub-section 4 of Section 1, by the deletion of the expression that the geographical area consists of a single compact settlement."
That will be the addition to the concluding part of the Report.
Madam Speaker, I proceed to present your Report.
Chairman of the Committee (Mr Dominic A. Azumah)
1.0 Introduction
The Local Government (Amendment) Bill, 2012 was laid before Parliament on Thursday, 2" February, 2012 and referred to the Committee on Local Government and Rural Development for consideration and report. This is in accordance with articles 103 and 106 of the Constitution of Ghana and Standing Orders 125 and 181 of the House.
The Committee was mandated to determine whether the Bill was of an urgent nature and could be taken under a certificate of urgency. The Committee after deliberating on the issue referred to Order l 19 and found it necessary to take the Bill under a certificate of urgency since the it has not fulfilled the requirement of a fourteen-day Gazette notification before being introduced to the House
Moreover, Government intends to lay a number of Legislative Instruments to legalise the creation of some new districts and the elevation of some districts to Municipal Assemblies status.
Government also considers that the time at its disposal for the above processes was rather short and therefore the Bill should be taken under a certificate of urgency.
2.0 Deliberations
The Committee met with the Minister for Local Government and Rural Development the Deputy Minister, Hon. Aquinas T. Quansah and officials from the Ministry. The Committee appreciates their immense contributions and co-operation.
3.0 References In discussing the Bill, the Committee made reference to the following:

a. The l9l92 Constitution of Ghana.

b. The Standing Order; of the House.

c. The Local Government Act, l993 (Act

462).

4.0 Object of the Bill

The Bill is seeking to amend the Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462) to make‘ it possible for geographical areas which are-not single compact settlement to be declared municipalities.

5.0 Background

The Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462) in providing for the creation of districts in Section l and recommendations to be made by the Electoral Commission to the President in that regard in subsection (4) of Section 1, requires that the Electoral Commission in making recommendations for the establishment of a municipality has to consider whether the geographical area to be declared a municipality consists of a single compact settlement with a minimum population of ninety-five thousand (95,000) people.

This implies that where a geographical area is a single compact settlement but does not have a population of ninety-five thousand (that area cannot be declared a municipality.

This is compounded where a geographical area consists of a number of contiguous single compact settlements which together have a population far in excess of the ninety-five thousand (95,000). Although the single compact areas are contiguous and together have a population in excess of ninety-five thousand (95,000), they do not constitute a single compact settlement
Chairman of the Committee (Mr Dominic A. Azumah)
This requirement is, therefore, an impediment to the creation of municipalities and limits the geographical areas which can be declared municipalities- It creates a situation where for effective administration, infrastructural and other developments, contiguous compact settlements which will be best managed as municipalities are deprived of municipal status. The provision is thus inimical to the development and progress of decentralization in this country.
To remove this obstacle, it is being proposed that part of subsection (4) of Section 1 of Act 462 which. requires that in making recommendations for the declaration of a municipality by the Electoral Commission whether the geographical area is a single compact settlement should be deleted.
6.0 Observations
The following observations were made:
6.1 Incompatibility between existing reality and the law
The Committee was informed that the amendment is being proposed to create eight (8) new municipalities and also cater for eight (8) existing municipalities created in 2004 and 2007 to streamline issues. If the amendment is not made, a number of municipalities created in 2004 and 2007 could be declared null and void.
This is due to the fact that these municipalities which were created were not single "compact settlements"; and did not fulfill the strict legal requirements and therefore, rendered illegal. Until Section 1 (4) (a) (ii) is amended to bring the law in harmony with existing reality, these municipalities will continue to be seen to be illegal.

Besides, the successful operations of the existing municipalities, have demonstrated that the single compact settlement requirement is legally restrictive, sociologically unjustifiable and developmentally unrealistic.

6.2 Internal inconsistencies in the scheme of the Legislation

It was also revealed that if the deletion is effected, the population factor could be used to define a municipality so as to be consistent with the definitions of district and metropolitan areas. Currently, there are three tiers of Assemblies - the Metropolitan, Municipal and District The key and consistent distinction among them is population size.

The degree of geographical dispersion is not consistent in the status of Assemblies in Ghana. While each metropolis has a minimum population of two hundred and fifty thousand (250,000) each Municipal Assembly has ninety-five thousand (95,000) people and each District Assembly seventy-five thousand (75,000) people. Strangely, and against the norm of consistency, the Municipal Assembly alone is expected to have in addition to the population size, a certain distinction of geographical dispersion which must constitute a single compact settlement.

This distorts the frame _ of differentiation and makes the legislative scheme inconsistent. The amendment will ensure that all tiers of Assemblies in Ghana are differentiated by a common denominator which is population.

7.0 Conclution

To enable the Electoral Commission remove the geographical limitation on the declaration of an area as a municipality, the Committee recommends to the House the deletion of subsection (4) of the Section 1 of the Local Government Act, l993 (Act 462).
Madam Speaker
Hon Members, pursuant to Standing Order 127, a full debate shall arise on the principle of the Bill on the basis of the explanatory memorandum and the Report from the Committee.
Ranking Member of the Committee (Mr Maxwell K. Jumah): Madam Speaker, I rise to support the amendment, but in doing so I would want to draw attention to the fact that this amendment is really not necessary.
Madam- Speaker, the definition of a "single compact settlement" depends on who you are talking to. Let us take Accra as an example. Accra has so many neighbourhoods that could easily be considered as a single compact settlement, eventually grouped together and made Accra as one single compact settlement.
Another example is, Adabraka - I remember when I lived at Mc-Carthy Hill. From Mc-Carthy Hill to Mallam Junction, it was all bush; that was a few years ago. Lam talking about the seventies. I also remember "Mile 7" where we have the Pharmaceuticals. Between Achimota and Mile 7, it was all bush. So it would depend on who you are talking to. A forest could be part of a settlement; a river could be part of a settlement. Those natural features cannot be considered as separation of settlements.

So in defining what a single compact settlement is, you probably would have to rely on what is probably accepted by' technical" people like surveyors, architects, urban planners and engineers or use what the layman will consider as single compact settlement. At any rate, in practice, depending on whoever is making the decision, it has been accepted, and it has not prevented anybody or any authority from making a district a municipality.

Madam Speaker, what should rather happen is that instead of making snap decisions, we should consider the feeling or the thinking of residents when it comes to creating districts or elevating districts to municipalities. We do not do it. In fact, in creating districts, 1 do not remember us making the proper technical and viability studies. It is always based on making political points and the illusion that in creating the districts, you are going to have development in the area.

Madam Speaker, I wil1 let go as far as this particular amendment is and wait for what will happen after that.

'With this, I would want to thank you for giving me that opportunity."
Madam Speaker
Thank you, Hon Member for your contribution.
Mr Joseph B. Aidoo (NPP - Amenfi East)
Madam Speaker, in principle, I support the amendment but then in practice, I do not support the proposed amendment, that is, the request to repeal some aspect of the existing provision.
Madam Speaker, in legislating, particularly when we are undertaking an amendment, whatever we do, should have effect, that is, at the end of the day, the provision ‘that we arrive at, should have effect. The moment we repeal the phrase
Madam Speaker
But it is not automatic, anyway. It will have to go through processes.
Mr J. B. Aidoo
Madam Speaker, but the point I am making is, what they are saying is that, when the Electoral Commission is recommending to the President for a municipality to be created, that area in question should have a population of not less than 95,000. And I am saying that we have a number of

settlements that if you put them together, will have the 95,00 population threshold and this will introduce an ambiguity in the existing provision. But we know that when you are introducing any law, there should be no ambiguity.

Madam Speaker, _the Hon Minister mentioned that the previous Administration created certain municipalities which did not qualify. But the point is that, those municipalities were created with the view to taking the nucleus of the municipalities and the nucleus of those areas were selected based on certain factors.

Madam Speaker, we know when you- take a place like Cape Coast, from the colonial era, it had been a very important administrative capital. Take for instance, its education. It is an area which by itself is also a single compact settlement and can constitute a municipality. But if the population of Cape Coast is not up to 95,000, then you look for other settlements around to join to make it a municipality, with Cape Coast being the nucleus of that municipality.

The point I am trying to make is that, we can identify a number of such nuclei, that is, settlements which have nuclei, for instance, Tarkwa. Tarkwa is an old mining town. If you take Obuasi, it is an old mining town. Obuasi can qualify to become a municipality, but then, given its size or population alone, it may not qualify as a municipality because of population size.

Then we have to bring in the distinct geographical expression that the single compactness of Obuasi, yes, you add the population which it cannot get, but then you have to select a number of settlements around Obuasi, add to Obuasi to get the 95,000 which Will qualify it to become a municipality.
Madam Speaker
Thank you, Hon Member.
Mr Joseph Yieleh Chireh (NDC - Wa West)
Madam Speaker, I support this amendment and it is important in several ways.
When we make a law in this country, I mean in this House, we expect the Judiciary to interpret the words that we use to mean something. So, if you say single and compact, it must be given one meaning. Therefore, if you want to create a municipality like Techiman with Techiman North as part of that municipality, it is one rural area attached to an urban or a compact urban area called Techiman.
Of course, this amendment now makes any other settlements that are contiguous with Techiman to be part of the municipality. If you do not do that, it means, strictly speaking, anybody who takes the case to court will have a case and that is why this amendment should even be said to be long overdue.
It is recognizing that; first of all, We do not plan as in other places; we have settlements springing up around and therefore, to be able to capture all this, this contiguous arrangement that we are talking about in terms of this particular amendment is important.
I also believe that it is for us to tidy up; otherwise, if we say we should not make any distinction between a Municipal Assembly and Metropolitan Assembly, just because Accra is large and it is sprawling, that is not a fair thing to do.
I believe that all of us should vote for this Motion and make sure that we are consistent. Nobody is raising the issue backwards but it is important for us to be consistent with the law and be clear in what we ask the Judiciary to interpret in case somebody wants to test it.
Finally, I believe that the amendment that the Hon Chairman is proposing is appropriate, in the sense that instead of
Madam Speaker
Thank you, Hon Member.
Yes, Hon Papa Owusu-Ankornah. Papa Owusu-Ankomah (NPP -- Sekondi): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
The object of the Bill, we are told, is to amend the Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462) to enable geographical areas which are not single compact settlements to be declared municipalities. I believe the object is in the right direction.
However, is it the intention to make all contiguous geographical areas irrespective of historical, political or so, history to be made municipalities provided it can get the necessary numbers‘? I do not believe so. This is because it is possible to have districts whose sizes may be over 95,000 but which may not necessarily be deemed to be given municipal status. I think we should try and preserve this
I am sure the Hon Minister for Local Government and Rural Development agrees with me because if it is just to make contiguous, then any group of contiguous settlements with a population of 95,000 may be made. A group of hamlets may be made a municipality but that should not be the essence.

That is Why I believe the arguments raised by the Hon Member for Amenfi East (Mr Joseph B. Aidoo) ought to be considered because I know that for instance, the Hon Member for Ketu North (Mr James Klutse Avedzi), if he decides to add some settlements to Ketu North to get 95,000, it may not be practical to make it a municipality.

However, if for instance, you Want to create Aflao, get an Aflao municipality, it may be possible to get some other settlements to come together. Why? It is because Aflao is a major commercial centre, a border town.

You talk about Techiman. Historically, Techiman has been a major trading centre. Historically, you talk about Axim. Axim had a District Commissioner long even before independence. So I am saying that, while I agree in principle to the deletion of that expression, we should not also by that amendment create a situation where you can put together small hamlets spanning an area of 50 or 60 kilometres and say it is a municipality. If it is done that Way, then municipality loses its essence.

So like earlier contributors, I believe that with this amendment, the principle is right but when it comes to the Consideration Stage, probably, We must give salt to the arguments that have been raised earlier. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Alhaji Abdul-Rashid Pelpuo (NDC -- Wa Central)
Madam Speaker, I also rise to support the Motion and to suggest that this is a very important amendment that, according to the Report before us, will correct an earlier decision taken between 2004 and 2007 when eight municipalities without recourse to the- existing legal flame.
Madam Speaker
Thank you Hon Member.
Hon Members, it is time to put the Question now -
rose
Madam Speaker
Hon Minority Leader, were you going to make a contribution?
Minority Leader Mr (Osei Kyei- Mensah-Bonsu)
Madam Speaker, I am sorry. I saw the Hon Member for Juabuso, so I thought you were going to call him. That was why I did not get up. However, I would also want to make some contribution here on this amendment.
Madam Speaker, the Bill before us is calling for an amendment to paragraph (a) (ii) of subsection (4) of Section I of Act 462. Madam Speaker, we are told that reference is being made to something, a construction, or a phrase in the Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462) and it reads as follows "that the geographical area consists of a single compact settlement and". That is what is intended to be deleted.
Madam Speaker, I have combed through the Act, there is no word like "settlement." as appears in this Bill in the Act. So I do not know what is being referred to- So if the Hon Minister can educate us. There is no word like that in Act 462. So what are they referring to? Madam Speaker, I would not want to proceed until I hear from the Hon Minister
Madam Speaker
I am not following. You are saying that the Bill does not quote the proper repeal? Is that it, Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
Madam Speaker, they are referring to -
Madam Speaker
Yes, Act 462 -
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
Madam Speaker, I have seen it, there is no word like that there.
Madam Speaker
Hon Member, the Act is 462. Is it not it?
Mr Klyei-Mensah-Bonsu
That is so, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker
Thank you for your Contribution.
Let us have one more and let us move on.

Attorney-General and Minister for Justice (Dr Benjamin Kunbuor): Madam Speaker, under normal circumstances, I have seen the consensus that has been built around this particular amendment. But once very, very serious legal questions have been raised by the Hon Minority Leader, it is important that, for the richness of our Official Report, we are able to present some cogent legal arguments not only for this House but also because of the years of misinterpretation of these particular articles, that is, article 241(1) to (3) and it is to be made very, very clear, so that we can all understand it

l appreciate exactly the correctness of the position the Hon Minority Leader indicated. If you do not isolate one clause of a constitutional provision, you are likely not to understand the import. There are three clauses in article 241; the first clause maintains all existing districts before the coming into force of the Constitution.

The next logical step is that, does the Constitution envisage that new districts can been created by reconstitution or by re-demarcation? So clause 2 immediately provides how future additional constituencies or reconstitution and demarcation has to be done and that is why it directs that, that has to be done and provided for by Parliament. That has been done already by Parliament and that is Act 462.

This is the sequence of how we should interpret that particular article and respectfully, Madam Speaker, this matter has been pronounced on and analysed sufficiently by no other court than the Supreme Court of the country in the Biakoye case.

In fact, for the first time, the Supreme Court has set out all the parameters and constitutional issues that are involved in the President passing the Executive Instruments (E.I.), in the Minister laying the Legislative Instruments (L.L.) - all are emanating from article 241 of the Constitution. If you were to have the absurd situation in which you are saying that every district that has to be created, is by an Act of Parliament, we have never, never had an Act of Parliament that has created a district.

All our districts we have under the 1992 Constitution have been created by E.I.s and L.I.s. If we Were to lean to the interpretation that We should now be creating them by Acts of Parliament, then it means automatically, all the districts since 1993 till 2007 are null and void.
rose
Madam Speaker
I thought you had 4 washed your hands em [Laughter]
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
Madam Speaker, unfortunately not, and it cannot be said that this situation is an absurdity at all. [Inz‘errupti0n.] It cannot be said that this situation is an absurdity.
Dr Kunbuor
I did not mean that the statement was an absurdity. I said, were we to lean to an interpretation, that districts now have to be created by Acts of Parliament, it will lead to an absurdity. This is because we have always created our districts by L.I.s. [Interruption] Yes.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
Madam Speaker, if a process is unconstitutional, it cannot be said that because it has been done 100 times already, it legitimises the situation. It will be very convoluted, Madam Speaker, if we go on that path.
Madam Speaker
Hon Members, I think this is the end of the debate. Can I put the Question now? [Pause.]
Question put and Motion agreed to.
'The Local Government (Amendment) Bill, 2012 was duly read a Second time.
Madam Speaker
Yes, shall we move to item number (6) then, Hon Minister? Suspension of Standing Order 128(1) . Mr Samuel Ofosu Ampofoz Madam Speaker, I beg to move, that notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 128 (.1) which require that When a Bill has been read a Second time, it shall pass through a Consideration Stage, which shall not be taken until at least, forty-eight hours have elapsed, the Consideration Stage of the Local Government (Amendment) Bill, 2012 may be taken today.
Mr Dominic A. Azumah
Madam Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.
Question put and Motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
BILLS - CONSIDERATION STAGE
Chairman of the Committee (Mr Dominic A. Azumah)
Madam Speaker, l beg to move, -that the Local Government Act,1993, (Act 462) is amended in paragraph A2 of subsection 4 of section 1 by the deletion of the expression "that the geographical area consists of a single compact settlement"; insert "settlement" and "the repeal" is deleted to read -- "deletion of the expression".
Mr William Ofori Boafo Madam Speaker, I rise to support the amendment proposed by the Chairman.
Madam Speaker, if you look at the memorandum to the Bill, page (1), the last paragraph, reference to the deletion is made in the last line. If you look at page (2) of the Memorandum also, the expression "deleting" is equally repeated in line (2) of that paragraph.
Madam Speaker, the purpose of the Memorandum is to seek to delete and not to repeal.
Madam Speaker, the second reason is that, we are all familiar with the fact that we use the word "repeal" when we are dealing with substantive issues like the repeal of Acts of Parliament and sections of the Act, but when we come to expressions within the Bill or the Act, we normally use "deletion".
Madam Speaker, I support the amendment.
rose
Madam Speaker
Hon Member, are you standing? Do you want to make a contribution?
Mr J. B. Aidoo
Yes Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the amendment and to propose an alternative amendment.
Madam Speaker, if we go by the amendment that had been proposed by the Chairman, the provision will lose its essence. I have already indicated that. My proposed amendment is this, that section 4 (a) (ii); we delete the entire provision there and substitute with- and with your kind indulgence, I beg to read:
"A municipality, that there is a minimum of95,000 people and that the nucleus of the municipality shall consist of a single -compact settlement which is known for cultural, educational, economic or political purpose".
Madam Speaker, with this provision, it will satisfy all municipalities that have some historical significance in terms of their economic purposes, their educational purposes and their cultural purposes. Madam Speaker, if you take Axim as the Hon Member for Sekondi indicated, we know historically, was a very important mechanised port If you take Techiman, we know is -- because of - The importance of Techiman lies in its market, that is, weekly market.
Madam Speaker, if you take Obuasi as I indicated, it is an old mining town and of course, every municipality has a nucleus, every municipality should have an urbanness, it should have an urban identity. So the urban identity plus its pre-urban area -
Madam Speaker
Hon Member, there was a first amendment; we ‘did not finish with it. That is another amendment.
Mr J. B. Aidoo
Madam Speaker, rightly so. I am proposing the first one and then introducing -
Madam Speaker
I thought we should put the Question on the first amendment to see whether it is agreed to and then you move again. This is because your amendment is quite different from what was proposed.
Mr J. B. Aidoo
Madam Speaker, in that case, my amendment which is coming second would be taken first for voting and if it is lost, then we take the original amendment. That is why -
Madam Speaker
We normally take it as it comes. Is it not it?
Mr J. B. Aidoo
No! We take the last one and if they are even four, you take the last one and then -
Madam Speaker
How will I know? They come - when he came in, you did not suggest he was going to make an amendment. So he has suggested amendment and supported it and I am saying, we have to decide whether it is agreed to or disagreed to. Then your amendment will come in. This is because at that stage, we did not know you were going to also- This will happen if there are so many amendments listed, and when we come here, knowing some amendments. Is it not it?
Mr J.B. Aidoo
Madam Speaker,at the Consideration Stage, the alternative amendments will have to be considered. Otherwise, if you take the original amendment and it is passed, it means that all other amendments have been lost in the process. So, if any Hon Member has an alternative amendment, it should be brought for Consideration first before
Alhaji Haruna Iddrisu
Madam Speaker, thank you very much.
I rise to support the Motion well ably tabled by the Chairman of the Committee on Local Government. And in doing so, to oppose the alternate amendment that has been proposed by the Hon Member for Amenfi East and Madam Speaker to persuade him to step the proposed amendment down for us to make progress.
Madam Speaker, the issue to which he is speaking, whether nucleus, of a municipality or population of 95,000 or 75,000, are matters that a Legislative Instrument by the Hon Minister will address in the future. We should get this amendment through. So I will persuade him that these matters and the concerns he has raised can legitimately be addressed when the Hon Minister is exercising, his mandate under the Local Government Act, in bringing an L.I. to define.
Madam Speaker, the truth is, we can never compare our District Assemblies to look unique and be the same. You cannot compare Tema Municipal Assembly to maybe, Bongo, neither can you compare Takoradi nor Accra Metropolitan Assembly to Sefwi Assembly. Madam Speaker, these are matters that a Legislative Instrument will address. I, therefore, oppose his amendment but I will plead with him that, for purpose of making progress, he should step it down and let us get this amendment through.
I thank you. I
Madam Speaker
Continue, because the two are the same. We will put the Questions on the two later on.
Your amendment is to delete?
Mr J. B. Aidoo
My amendment is to delete the entire provision in (ii) and then substitute with the following:
"A municipality, that there is a minimum of 95 ,0O0 people and that the nucleus of the municipality shall consist of a single compact " settlement which is known for cultural, educational, economic or political purpose".
Madam Speaker, I am saying that with this amendment, it will satisfy the population threshold of 95 ,000 and at the same time, give identity to the municipality. But if you take the original amendment that had been proposed by the Chairman and the Hon Minister, the identity of the municipality would be lost; once you remove the single compact settlement, it would be lost. And I have also indicated that municipalities should have urban identity.
The urban nucleus plus its periphery, that is the pre-urban area together, then it becomes the single compact settlement. Then you can bring in other settlements for it to get the population threshold of 95 ,O0O. And I would want to believe that my proposed amendment satisfies the rationale behind the originators of this particular law. The moment you remove the single compact settlement as they are trying to do, Madam Speaker, that rationale will be lost and it will even introduce ambiguity.
In essence, if you have so many hamlets, for instance, in Lawra, so many hamlets put together and you get 95,000 people and then you say it is a municipality, it is wrong. Hamlets which
Mr J. B. Aidoo


Madam Speaker, every municipality should have an urban - because if you look at the definition bra municipality, it is just an urban administrative unit. Of course, in what we are trying to do, the geographical area being defined as a municipality may not necessarily have 95,000 but there should be that single compactness to give it that urban identity and then we can add other settlements to it

Therefore, my proposition is that, the single compact sphere is the nucleus and then it should have some economic purpose, it should have some cultural purpose; it can be an educational purpose like Cape Coast. And I think, Madam Speaker, in that case, we will be satisfying the provision of this particular amendment we are seeking to do.

l2.10p.m.
Mr Joseph Y. Chireh
Madam Speaker, in creating a municipality, you would also still have sub-divisions --you have urban councils within the municipality. Therefore, what he is talking about, you cannot just go and collect settlements and create a municipality. The urbanness is the one that defines the municipality. But in our p'a11i'cular case, you have a town or an urban area, and there are very close to that urban area or farfaway, similar settlements which are growing towards becoming a one big settlement by the development and that is what we are talking about.

So, it is not again proper for us to begin to introduce culture, economic activity into a historical -- Indeed, urban areas and municipalities are so spontaneously being created that all kinds of cultures can be there. Now, if you create such a municipality, who is going to interpret whether you have conformed to the cultural needs, the economic needs or the definition? Which court is going to do that?

So please, let us reject this further amendment and take the original one proposed by the Chairman of the Committee.
Dr Kunbuor
Madam Speaker, I see the significance of the amendment that the Hon Member is bringing inasmuch as it is going to give us a number of indicators in. the decentralization programme. But why I would plead with the Hon Member to discard the amendment is that, we are dealing first with an Act of Parliament. If you ask the draftspersons, they would tell you very clearly that, as you begin to choose words for a provision in a legislation, you should anticipate that it is likely to be a subject of interpretation. The many more fluid and highly contestable words that you introduce into a provision, the more interpretational challenges for the future.
Just here, we had a difficulty in ascertaining what exactly is a single compact settlement. I can assure you that there are as different meanings of what constitutes culture as different people who are telling their stories on culture. What is economic and what is not economic is another tall order and it is dangerous to go and put these matters in an Act of Parliament that is likely to come for interpretation.
Mr Benito Owusu-Bio
Madam Speaker, I rise to support the Hon Member for Amenfi East, Mr Joseph Aidoo's amendment that he has proposed.
Madam Speaker, he is asking that we amend the provision from the Ministry to stand as a municipality that there is a minimum of 95,000 people and that the nucleus of the municipality shall consist of a single compact settlement which is known for cultural, educational, economic or political purposes.
Yes, Madam Speaker, I wish to supp oit this. Why I am saying this is because, as the law stands now, there are single compact settlements which on their own have a population of more than 95,000 people. They already have that and these have not been upgraded to municipalities. Madam Speaker, so I do not see why we would have any problem with having it being amended as the Hon Member is asking us to do.
So Madam Speaker, on that note, I end here.
Mrs Akosua Frema Osiei-Opare
Madam Speaker, I rise to support the further amendment proposed by the Hon Member for Amenfi East.
Madam Speaker, we should not leave things in a nebulous fashion. What is the difference between a district and a municipality? There must be some clarity and we have been given guidance in the original law.
Therefore, this amendment should seek to take into consideration the original intent plus other developments that we all recognise; such that we are saying that we should not simply look at the 95,000 as the yardstick but looking at the totality of a municipality made up of -a single compact area plus other satellite areas that culturally, educationally or politically can constitute a municipality.
Ithink this is avery important provision and we must be able to distinguish which is a municipality and which is a district. We must be able - otherwise, When we come to East Legon, I will demand a municipality. Is there any boundaries that guide the authorities who are supposed to propose municipalities or districts that they can use? What this law should not do is to make it an open-ended thing such that anywhere, _any place becomes a municipality. Then let us delete those clauses and let us decide - today, if we want to call Abokyiman a municipality, I would be very happy to propose that idea.
But if we are Sitting here to make a law in relation to the Constitution, let us make it in such a way that there is guidance for the authorities to know Where a municipality can be created or where it cannot.
I rest my case, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker
Let us have one last contributor before I put the Question.
Alhaji AbduI-Rashid Pelpuo
Madam Speaker, it is easy to appreciate where my Hon Friend from Amenfi East is coming from. The truth is that, more and more, we are in a country that is becoming more cosmopolitan. Cosmopolitan, meaning that we have people coming from all over the world, all over the country with different kinds of cultures and attitudes and identity and all those who come to settle at a point and who want development.
Now, supposing you have such a cosmopolitan area with 100,000 people without a nucleus cultural identity as he is talking about. Is he saying there cannot be a municipality?
So Madam Speaker, I think that the heart of this amendment is about extending development to a people. It is about ensuring that when people are together and have reached a certain number, we can bring development to them. It is not about education, it is not about culture, it is not about any other identity he is talking about. We are talking about numbers and we are talking about geographical contiguity.
So I think that the amendment can come as.Hon Haruna Iddrisu has said, when we come to Legislative Instruments, spelling out specific areas where we would Want a decision to be made but not in an Act which is talking of a general nature and specifying kinds of developments we want to see happen in our particular -
So, Madam Speaker, I would want to call on my Friends to support the Motion, so that we do not spend much more time on this debate.
rose
Madam Speaker
I thought I said last contributor? We are spending too much time. Two hundred and thirty people can speak today and we will have no work done. I am apportioning time.

Hon Members, let us move on. We have had two amendments to the clause; let us deal with the second amendment first.

The second amendment says, to put in place of the first amendment, that is, a municipality, that there is a minimum of 95,000 people and that the nucleus of the municipality shall consist of a single compact settlement, which is known for cultural, educational, economic and political purpose. I will put the Question on that first -- that is the second amendment.

Like I said, the amendment is that we should delete what is in the Bill before us and replace it with this new amendment which I have just read.

Question put and amendment negatived.
Madam Speaker
The amendment is negatived, which takes us to the first amendment contained in the Bill before us.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause l as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Long Title ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Madam Speaker
This ends the Consideration Stage of the Local Government (Amendment) Bill, 2012.
Yes, shall we move on then to Motion number 8?
Hon Minister?

Suspension of Standing Order 131(1)
Mr Samuel 0. Ampofo
Madam Speaker, I beg to move, that notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 13 1(1), which require that when a Bill has passed through the Consideration Stage, the Third Reading thereof shall not be taken until at least, twenty-four hours have elapsed, the Motion for the Third Reading of the Lo cal Government (Amendment) Bill, 2012 may be moved today.
Mr Dominic A. Azumah
Madam Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.
Question put and Motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
BILLS - THIRD READING
Mr Avoka
Madam Speaker, I thank all Hon Colleagues for the support and co- operation in taking this ‘amendment Bill through today.
Madam Speaker, we can go to item number 10 on the Order Paper. We are still at the Consideration Stage of the Presidential (Transition) Bill, 2010.
Madam Speaker
Hon Members, the Hon First Deputy Speaker will take the Chair and continue with the Consideration Stage of the Presidential (Transition) Bill, 2010.
  • [MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER IN THE CHAIR] -
    • BILLS -CONSIDERATION STAGE
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Members, Presidential (Transition) Bill, 2010 at the Consideration Stage.
    Clause 4 - Sub- committees
    Chairman of the Committee (Mr Emmanuel K. Bandua)
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (1), line 1, delete "out of" and insert "from among".
    Mr Speaker, this is a better rendition.
    Alhaji Haruna Iddrisu
    Mr Speaker, I support the Chairman's amendment, but I would seek your leave that apart from the insertion of "from among", "members of the team", in my view, should not be -- We cannot have "the team shall establish from among members of the team". You have already said "team" . So if he has no objection, it should read:
    "The team shall establish from among its members -
    (a) an inauguration sub-committee ……"
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    What is the difference between yours and the Chairman's, Hon Minister?
    Alhaji H. Iddrisu
    Mr Speaker, mine is elegance. How can we say:
    "The team shall establish from among members of the team"?
    I have some difficulty with it.
    Mr Chireh
    Mr Speaker, the correct thing is what the Hon Chairman said. It is because in drafting," we do not use "its" or "yours" or something. We have to repeat what we mean. And that means from that team, "its members" is not
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Minister, do you still insist on your amendment?
    Alhaji H. Iddrisu
    Not really. I can abandon it. But I know that even as a practice here, we normally would have created the sub-committees before identifying them. "The team shall establish such sub-committees. . ." as art of the introductory word. But I would abandon mine and go with the Hon Chairman's.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Minority Leader, the Hon Minister says we should have set up sub-committees or the sub-teams, to make it clearer before becoming What do you say to that? I just want your input before I put the Question.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, we are talking about sub-committees of the team. We must establish the team, the functions and the schedule for the team. And we are now into the establishment of sub-committees. I think it is appropriate the Way it has been captured. l) thought when he got up, because he is speaking about elegance, we could have a construction like this:
    "The team shall establish from among members .. ."
    And we do not repeat the team. But I think it is elegant and more concise the Way it has been structured; so we can go with that.
    Mr Chireh
    Mr Speaker, in order not to have a doubt about what-he said earlier, in providing for- In fact, this is why the first line of this clause says: "There shall be. . ." It means that is the enabling provision making room for the sub- committees. So there should not be any problem of having to put it earlier. That is the only thing I wanted to explain.
    Question put and amendment agreed to
    Mr Bandua
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4 subclause (1), paragraph (a), line 4, after "office" insert "by the person elected as President and the person elected as Vice-President" and before "January" insert "of".
    In the case of the first amendment, this is necessary because the oath of office is taken by both the President and the Vice President. So there is the need for us to bring in the two here. And before "Parliament on the 7th of January," I think it is a better rendition, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Chairman, how would the new rendition be like?
    Mr Bandua
    Let me take the new rendition -
    "An inauguration sub-committee which shall be responsible for the organisation of the inauguration of the person elected as President into office and for the taking of oath of office by the person elected as President and the person elected as Vice President before Parliament on the 7th of January."
    Mr Speaker, that is how it should read.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsuz Mr Speaker, by way of further improvement, we agreed yesterday that the person elected as President should now read: "the President-elect". The same description should affect the "Vice President. So it should read: "Vice President elect"
    Mr Bandua
    I think We agreed that it should be consequential. So throughout the Bill, anywhere we have "the person elected as President," it should be "President-elect." That one has been agreed on. So I think the draftspersons may have to take note of that. I support what he has just said.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Members, which is a better rendition? Is it "President-elect" or "person elected as President? I am looking at certain consequential actions that may happen.
    Alhaji H. Iddrisu
    Mr Speaker, I would go for "President-elect".
    Mr Avokaz Mr Speaker, yesterday, after a lengthy debate on this subject, we agreed on the rendition of "President- elect".
    Alhaji H. Iddrisu
    Mr Speaker, I have just been looking at page 185 of the abridged version of the 1992 Constitution, to guide me into accepting that oaths - before We put the Question on that pardcular clause. Page 185, in particular, the Second Schedule - forms of oath - I do not see an "s" there; But in our case, we are importing "oaths".
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    What particular article are you referring to?
    Alhaji H. Iddrisu
    lam sure under the Miscellaneous Provisions, section -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    The Miscellaneous Provisions should have an article. What article of the Constitution? 1992 are you referring to?
    Alhaji H. Iddrisu
    I would convey that shortly, Mr Speaker. But mine is with the spelling and the inclusion of "s" as in "oaths".
    Mr Chireh
    Mr Speaker, we are talking about "oaths" here. This is because on that day the President is taking two different oaths. The official oath, oath of secrecy and anybody who is taking - There are oaths. I do not think there is any problem about having a plural form of it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Members, the point raised by the Hon Minister for Communications is whether it should be "path" or "oaths".
    Hon Minister, what does the 1992 Constitution say?
    Alhaji H. Iddrisu
    Mr Speaker, it is not actually a specific - it is just the Second Schedule to the Constitution - "Forms of Oath" - It says the "Oath of Allegiance, Presidential Oath, the Oath of the Vice President, the Judicial Oath and others."
    Mr Avoka
    Mr Speaker, it is "Oath" here because it refers to the "forms" - "Forms of Oath". But when we come to the Bill that we are dealing with, there are several oaths that the President will take, like the Hon Member for Wa West is trying to lead us. I think that the "oaths" here will suffice; rather than "oath".
    Mr Chireh
    Mr Speaker, you know that in law making, one oath represents several oaths. So we can go along with the "oath" Without the "'s"; but it would also include the plural -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    The single includes the plural; that is the point you are making?
    Mr Chireh
    Yes. So I revert to what he said earlier.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, we are referring to more than one personality - different oaths and more than one personality. Do not forget we are including the Vice President-elect. So I believe the "oaths" in this context would be more appropriate.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Very well. Yes, Hon Member for Ayawaso-West Wuogon, you have the floor.
    Mrs Osei-Opare
    Mr Speaker, I tend to support the use of the word "oath" rather than "oaths". Even though there
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Members, what the 1992 Constitution provides in article 57(3) is that -
    "Before assuming office the President shall take and subscribe before Parliament the Oath of Allegiance and the Presidential Oath set out in the Second Schedule to this Constitution."
    So they mention the two. That is the way the 1992 Constitution captured it.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, to support that, Appendix C of our Standing Orders, captured on page 136, talks about "Forms of Oaths" There are different oaths. So Mr Speaker, I do not see why we should be splitting hairs over this. I guess we can make much more progress than the -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Which Schedule are you referring to? You said "Forms of Oaths"?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    I am talking About Appendix C of our Standing Orders.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    But the 1992 Constitution is here
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    I am talking about the "Form of Oaths"
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Yes. But the Second Schedule of the 1992 Constitution says "Forms of Oath".
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    The Constitution?
    I Mr First Deputy Speaker: Yes, Second Schedule.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Well, I have seen that one.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    "Forms of Oath".
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    And in this case, the Constitution supersedes the Standing Orders?
    Mr FirstDeputy Speaker". [Laughter]- Yes -
    Mrs Osei-Opare
    Mr Speaker, I am looking at the Constitution and the Bill. It says, "Taking the Oath of Office". The Oath of Office is the Oath of Allegiance, the Presidential Oath. Is it not so? So in my view, I think it is one -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Yes, they used the word; it should be "The Oath of Office" -
    Mrs Osei-Opare
    The Oath of Office is one -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Yes.
    Mrs Osei-Opare
    And there are many forms.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    The Presidential Oath and the Oath of Allegiance.
    Mrs Osei-Opare
    Yes. So I think it is right to say "Oath" rather than "Oaths".
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Members, I think what I will do is that, I will put the Question "on this amendment subject to the further amendment to change it to "President-elect".
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    With regard to the issue of "Oath" or "Oaths", I direct that the draftspersons take a look at it and put the proper rendition in the Bill.
    I so direct.
    Hon Chairman, we are still on clause 4
    Mr Bandua
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (1), paragraph (b), line 4, before "department", delete "its" and insert "the".
    So it reads:
    ". . . including the Ministries and the Departments and Agencies under the Ministries".
    I think that is a more appropriate rendition. '
    Alhaji H. Iddrisu
    Mr Speaker, having gone through the budget cycle year, I have become very familiar with the words "Ministries, Departments and Agencies". Prof Gyan-B affour, having Worked at the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, I would want to be guided by him; he has some expertise. So we should use the known words - "Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs)" - that is what we are told. So let the Words reflect MDAs --' Ministries, Departments and Agencies - and it should be capital letters. I should think so.
    Prof. Gyan-Baff0ur
    Mr Speaker, I think he has drawn me in and I think I support what he is saying. That will be in consonance with the various descriptions of these departments and agencies of Government.
    Mr Speaker, there is nothing wrong with this but that this is in line, in conformity with what is known. That is all that he is-
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Minister, that is different from the amendment that you are trying to - What has been moved is different. But more importantly, if you want to amend it to be "Ministries, Departments and Agencies", then you have to do further amendments there.
    So I do not know whether you are pushing that line of amendment because if you do that, then if you say "Ministries, Departments and Agencies", you cannot go back and say "under the Ministries". Are you all right? Do you get What I -
    Alhaji H. Iddrisu
    I will go With the Hon Chairman.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bandua
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (1), paragraph (d), line 1, delete "Committee" and insert "Team".
    I think that it is the transition team that is expected to form the sub-committees and not the committee as is- captured here. So "Committee" is out of place, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Members, this is a straightforward amendment.
    Question put and amendment agreed to
    Mr W. O. Boafo
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (1), paragraph (d), line 3, delete "Committee" and insert "Team".
    Mr Speaker, this amendment follows the same reasons given by the Hon Chairman.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    So it is virtually the same amendment?
    Mr Boafo
    Yes; but different -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    It is the same? It is consequential?
    Mr Boafo
    Mr Speaker, yes, it is consequential.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bandua
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (3), line 1, delete "determine" and insert "follow" and in line 2, delete "sub-committee" and insert "Team".
    Mr Speaker, for the first amendment, the -sub-committee is expected to follow the procedure and not to determine the procedure for its meetings. That is the rationale behind the first amendment. The second amendment is consequential.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Is there a provision in the Bill that makes room for the team to adopt a procedure? Hon Chairman, if there is a provision in the Bill that the team shall adopt its procedure, then it means therefore, that the sub- committee will have to follow-
    Mr Bandua
    Mr Speaker, I think it is there.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    It is not a matter of "I think it is there." Show me where it is, then I can put your Question.
    Mr Bandua
    Mr Speaker, I think it is clause 3 (5).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Therefore, I will now put the Question on your amendment.
    Question put and amendment agreed to
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Members, I will now put the Question on clause 4.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, I was going to move for the deletion of a word in clause 4 (2.) that I thought was superfluous even though, if it is maintained, it will still do no harm to the construction.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Which subclause?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsuz Mr Speaker, clause 4 (2), the deletion of the word "relevant" in line 3.
    "A sub-committee shall consist of not more than five persons who shall select one of their number to preside at the meetings of the sub- committee."
    It is not of the "relevant sub-committee." It is the sub-committee. We should delete the word "relevant".
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    So which one do you want to delete? Where do you want us to end it?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah Bonsu
    The word "relevant".
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    I agree with you, but does it cause any harm?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, it is superfluous.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Minority Leader, move the amendment properly now.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (2) line 3, delete the word "relevant".
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    I will now put the Question on clause 4.
    Mrs Osei-Opare
    Mr Speaker, under subclause (3), the amendments moved by the Hon Chairman and the subsequent one, there is_ something missing. This is because I do share the amendment to delete the word "determine" and to substitute "follow" but it is incomplete - - the words "a sub-committee shall follow procedures for the meetings of the team" are not correct. I think it should be "determined" - by the team.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    I agree with you. That is why earlier, I asked the question whether there are a provision in the Bill that said that the team shall determine procedure, so they will follow the procedure that have been determined by the team, so that they will not have their own procedure and the team too has a separate procedure.
    Move the amendment and let me put the Question.
    Mrs Osei-Opare
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (3), line 2, insert "Procedure for the meetings determined by the team".
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, that construction is rather worse.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    She has a point so let us help her to get the proper rendition.
    Mrs Osei-Opare
    All right "A sub-committee shall follow the procedure for the meetings as determined by the team"
    We have that already in clause 3 (5). So I think it is a good rendition.
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour
    Mr Speaker, I do not fnd the rationale behind why the sub- committee should follow the procedure of the team -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Member for Wenchi, the rationale behind the amendment is that, a sub-conm1ittee is a sub-committee and therefore, they have to operate within the ambit of the appointing authority, which will be for purposes of discussion by the team. So they do not adopt a procedure that is absolutely different from the one that the team is using.
    It is just like our practice here, like committees of this House as much as practicable follow the Standing Orders of this House, so that they do not import Standing Orders from Iraq and adopt them at the Standing Committee meetings. That is the spirit behind the amendment.
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour
    Mr Speaker, I really appreciate your explanation but you said "as much as practicable." That means we are not going to use the same procedure that we use in this House in the committees. So We do not have to have the same procedures here as we have in the Public Accounts Committee maybe, within the context of our procedures but they are not maybe, the same.
    But this one says we should follow the same rules. If you have given a sub- committee some function that does not require that we use the procedure, What happens? Do they have to use the procedure?
    Mr-Bandua
    Mr Speaker, even in the Bill, there is no provision for the sub- committee determining the procedure.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    There is a procedure. ‘That is what we are amending. A standing committee shall determine the procedure for the meetings.
    Mr Bandua
    The team determines the procedure but the sub-committee -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    There is a provision in the Bill which we are changing, that they should not have their procedure different from that of the team which is in clause 3 (5), now that we have agreed as a House that as much as possible, they should follow the procedure of the team. That is the spirit behind your amendment and she is saying that the sentence there is incomplete.
    Now, the Hon Member for Wenchi is suggesting that why should they have to follow exactly -- If there is need for the sub-committee to make a departure for them to transact their business, why are we restricting them from following that procedure? That is the nature of the discussion so far. I hope I am right.
    l.00 p.m.
    Mr Chireh
    Mr Speaker, you are right. So what I will suggest we should do is to make sure that we add "as much as practicable follow the procedure determined by the team". I further suggest, if they agree with this amendment for it to be so determined.
    Mr Kwasi Amoako-Attah
    Mr Speaker, I tend to associate myself with what was expressed by Hon Prof. Gyan-Baffour. This is because in practice, as soon as a sub-cornmittee is set up, it presupposes that a special reference is made to it. And it could be even of a technical nature. So

    if we restrict ourselves to a fundamental view that a general procedure established by a team should automatically be formed by such a sub-committee, we may be creating practical difficulties.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    You are right.
    Mr Amoako-Attah
    Mr Speaker, so, we should be flexible and allow any sub- committee to adopt its own procedure to deal with matters depending upon what has been referred to it, otherwise, we may create problems in practice.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    You have a point there.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu Mr Speaker, it is the team that will be delegating authority to the sub-committee; so the sub-committee is supposed to operate Within the ambit of the committee itself. S0 the general authority should be the remit of the sub-committee. That is why in Parliament, for instance, in committees, the committees are supposed to be regulated by the rules and procedure regarding plenary. But we have to provide some room to allow for some amount of respect.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Flexibility?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, or flexibility. In which case, Mr Speaker, I will propose that we have these renditions -
    "In sub-committees, the procedure for the meetings of the team shall ‘be observed so far as may be applicable. It will be on the lines of our own Standing Orders".
    Mrs Osei-Opare
    Mr Speaker - [Interruption]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Members, 'we have all agreed that we should make room for some level of flexibility.
    Mrs Osei-Opare
    Mr Speaker, all right.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Now, what is left is to get the right rendition, so that we are all ad idem that we should inject a certain sense of flexibility into the provisions made. Otherwise, if the team decides that the quorum shall be seven, then they go to a sub-committee that says that the total membership is five, then they do not have the number. and they will have a problem. That is why we al1 agree that we should inject a certain sense of flexibility.
    Now what We have to agree on for me to put the Question 1S the rendition to capture the sense of the House.
    Let me hear yours. I
    Mrs Osei-Opare
    Mr Speaker, I took an earlier cue from my Hon Minority Leader and so I am coming up with this rendition -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    There is only one Hon Minority Leader in this House.
    Mrs Osei-Opare
    Mr Speaker, yes, we know and -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    So, you cannot take the cue from your Hon Minority Leader.
    Mrs Osei-Opare
    Mr Speaker, all right. The Hon Minority Leader.
    Thank you.
    Mr Speaker. I propose this rendition
    "A subcommittee shall follow as much as possible the procedure determined by the team for the meetings"
    I said its meetings but let me just go over again and it can be polished up -
    "A subcommittee shall follow as much as possible the procedure determined by the team for the conduct of the meetings."
    Or "of the work that has been assigned".

    Hon Leader, you form a subcommittee to perform a certain function or assignment. At least, this is how far I have gone -

    "A subcommittee shall follow as much as possible the procedure determined by the team for the conduct of its work".

    Mr Speaker, this is for consideration.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, as you said, we are talking about the same issue. Let me try something else on the same lines. Once we ‘agree with the principle, if we do not agree, then perhaps, We may ultimately leave it with the draftspersons to capture as --- but I have -
    "In subcommittees, the procedure for the meetings of the team shall as far as practicable apply".
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    I think that is a better rendition that resolves the matter. Take it again for the Table Office to get it.
    So, in effect, you are reviewing the decision of the House because - Or you are bringing your amendment --The way you are couching it now, you have to bring it before the committee. So, move it and move it professionally. You are starting with "as much as possible . . ." What you have just read.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, what I read is "In subcommittees, the procedure for the meetings of the team shall as far as practicable apply". Mr Speaker, alternatively -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Again.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, alternatively, we could go to clause 3 (5) and amend that one. That one reads:
    "The members of the team unless otherwise, provided by this section, shall determine the procedure for the meetings of the team and the subcommittees of the team".
    Mr, First Deputy Speaker
    I thought you gave some rendition that sounded so well. You got confused somewhere.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu No, I did not get confused.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Let us hear that one.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu That one reads
    "in sub-committees, the procedure for the meetings of the team shall as far as practicable apply".
    That is what I read the first time.
    Prof. Gyan Baffour
    Mr Speaker, I think I agree with that rendition-
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    So Hon Minority Leader, you loaow you have to delete the "a", that started the sentence and then start with "in". Yes, very well "in"
    Hon Members, we all agree that on this matter, we want to inject some flexibility into this amendment.
    Mrs Osei-Opare
    Mr Speaker, I thought that it was clear---his rendition is very good. I believe that in the same way, the second amendment he made under 3 (5) is still relevant.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    No, we are not talking about 3 (5). We are now on 4 -
    Mrs Osei-Opare
    "Shall apply" means, then apply (5)
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    No, no. We are referring to subcommittees here.
    Question put and amendment agreed to:
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    If there is any further polishing that will be done, the draftsperson should do it and do it accordingly.
    I so direct.
    Clause 4 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 5 -Advisory Council
    Mr Bandua
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, delete and insert the following:
    (1) There is established by this Act an Advisory Council consisting of: (a) one eminent citizen appointed by the incumbent President; (b) one eminent citizen appointed by the person elected as the President, and (c) one eminent citizen appointed as the chairperson of the Advisory council by the eminent citizens referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b).
    (2) Where the eminent citizens referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) fail to appoint the chairperson of the Advisory Council, they shall so inform the Speaker of Parliament who shall then become the chairperson of the Advisory Council.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, have you moved your amendment?
    Mr Bandua
    Mr Speaker, I have
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Very well
    Mr Bandua
    What I said was that we have to delete the whole clause 5 and we have provided a new formulation that is to make it more elaborate. [Interruptions]
    It is there, can you not read it yourself?
    Mr Chireh
    Mr Speaker, I am saying he should read what he wants us to substitute and he says I should read it myself. If I am reading it myself, how can I make any correction?
    Mr Bandua
    So I will take the new rendition.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, I would want to save the breath of my Colleague.
    The Hon Chireh is a very experienced Member of Parliament and what the Chairman of the Committee did is perfectly right. Mr Speaker, I refer him to our Standing Orders, Order I29 (c).

    "At the Consideration Stage of a Bill-

    (a)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",

    Mr Speaker, so he is perfectly right. This amendment exceeds four lines. So if he says that he is drawing attention to that to save this House precious time, he cannot compel him to read it out. Mr Speaker, the Chairman is correct and I support the line that he has taken.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Members, any comments on the amendment? I have an issue to throw to the House to look at -- [Interruption] - I am guiding the House. Hon Members we have putt e word "eminent". Have you defined it in the Bill? If you have not, can somebody not raise a question that that particular person who is appointed is not an eminent person?
    Is the Hon Minority Leader an eminent person if he is put there? Is the Majority Leader or a Member of Parliament an eminent person? Is a former Minister an eminent person? Do you want to leave it there and define it or you delete it completely and leave it to the discretion of the appointing authority'). That is an issue I want to throw to the House before I put the Question on the amendment.
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour Mr Speaker, even before you put the Question and before this is resolved, I can see that there are three eminent persons here instead of two in this amendment. It says:
    (a) one eminent -person appointed by the incumbent President; (b) one eminent person appointed by the person elected as the President; and (c) one eminent person appointed as the Chairperson of the Advisory Council by the eminent citizens referred to paragraphs (a) and (b).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Members, What happens if there is a disagreement between the two persons they have provided for?
    Mr Chireh
    Mr Speaker, I really do not agree with the way this eminent persons are appointed. First and foremost, the incumbent President gets one eminent person, then the President- elect gets an eminent person, then you are saying, one eminent citizen appointed as the Chairperson of the Advisory Council by the eminent citizens referred to. First, you have not appointed three persons. You have only appointed two - [Interruption] -- that is not proper.
    We must invest this matter with somebody to take the action; two people cannot come and sit down and appoint one person. Indeed, let us limit it to a range that they can look at. I even think that we should be looking at any of these other offices where somebody automatically comes in. This is because if you say two people should come and sit down and nominate a third person, in case they went to the same school like me and the Minority Leader and I, we can decide that this man was also in Kwame Nkmmah University of Science and Technology, he should come and join us.
    There must be something wrong. Let us look at it very well. I think there is a problem about it
    Prof. Gyan-Baff0ur
    Mr Speaker, I think I share this view. Probably, that person should be an ex-officio Member, maybe, the Chief Justice or somebody. But to say that two people, one appointed by the current President, one by the one

    coming in, bring two people there and those two people are the ones going to elect the Chairman of the Committee, I do not think that is right.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Those two people are going to nominate somebody who is going to be the Chairperson of the Advisory Council?
    Kwasi Amoako-Attah: Mr Speaker, I think this position, in my view, with all due respect, is perfect. Perfect in the sense that two people would have already been nominated, serving the respective interests of the President and the President-elect. If the two of them mutually agree to appoint a third person, I think that it would stand the test of time and it would be the best arrangement.
    It means that that person mutually appointed would enjoy the confidence of both of them and I believe it will create compatibility and they will be able to work together as a team. So I think this position should not be changed.
    Mr Chireh
    Mr Speaker, the argument he is making, if it is the same hut that comes to power, the problem will not be there. But if it is another party, you know that -- people are labelled in a way. So that was why I wanted us to look at an ex- officio position, like we do in the Council of State appointments where we say, former Inspector-General of Police (IGP), former Chief Justice or something. If We can categorise these offices, which seem to be neutral from all points of view, anyone of them, we limit the range for these two people to be able to appoint.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Member, there is a provision for where there is disagreement -- [Interruption] There is a provision in the Bill that where there is a disagreement between those two people nominated by the President- elect and then the incumbent President, the Speaker of Parliament becomes the Chairperson.
    Mr Chireh
    ‘The Speaker? I think that we should rather limit the category of people that should be Chairperson for this occasion. Either as I said, the former Chief Justice or -- The Hon Member is nodding his head, so I do not know. [Interruption]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Members, the point is that in fact, what is in the Bill itself is what they are trying to recapture here and they are trying to, in my view, improve upon it by bringing in the Speaker of Parliament when there is case of disagreement.
    So maybe, we may have to polish the rendition there a bit. But it is clear what they Wanted to do .
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, as you rightly observed, this attempt was to recapture what indeed, obtains in the Bil1,_ that is the original form, trying to make it more comprehensive and if you like, more reader-friendly. But Mr Speaker, I agree that to provide a very smooth take- off, we need to have a situation Where from the very outset, a platform would be created for effective bonding together.
    That is why if you provide the opportunity to the two persons nominated by the sitting President and the President- elect, it would provide a useful platform for us, once they are able to agree.
    But we could have a practical problem where it becomes difficult for the two of them to agree, and that is where we have provided that if they failed in that exercise, then the Speaker of Parliament could then assume the Chairship of the Advisory Council.
    Mr Speaker, the difficulty that I have is, which period are we talking about, that is the period of disagreement? We have not given ourselves any time frame. So if we are not careful, that itself could also continue ad. infinitum and it creates a very serious problem. So either we define the period or -- Let us not forget that all through we were dealing with 24-hour period, 48-hour period and so on and so forth. If we have to come to make a similar determination, it would be all right.
    I, however, would want to propose a further amendment because in all these, we would want somebody who would be adjudged or be perceived as a neutral person even though I know certain people may not want some institutional representation. The Hon Member for Wa West (Hon YI6l6h Chireh) mentioned some personalities, the former Inspector- General of Police (IGP), former Chief Justice and so on.
    Mr Speaker, I would propose that in place of the Speaker of Parliament, we just say that after the nomination by the two persons, the President of the National House of Chiefs becomes the third person to chair. The Speaker is shaking head-
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Member, you do not look and describe the movement of the Speaker's head- [Laughter]
    Hon Minority Leader, you are out of order;
    Mr Avoka
    Mr Speaker, this provision or issue engaged our attention during the winnowing of the Bill and the Hon
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Members, should we defer this clause? Should we defer this clause and look at it‘? The reason I am saying that we should defer this clause and take a closer look at it is because the Hon Minority Leader raised a very critical point in terms of the time frame. When we talk about time frame, then it becomes relevant in relation to the incumbent President and the President- elect and even the Speaker of Parliament that we are putting there. It becomes very, very critical because the incumbent President might not even be in office when the ‘Speaker of Parliament is sworn-in. So
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Member, you are on your feet I am saying that we should defer it and take a second look at it.
    Mr Avoka
    Mr Speaker, well, I do not mind but I thought the period in question was quite clear- We have completed, election results have been declared, there is a President-elect and then he has not yet handed over; the incumbent President has not yet handed over to the President- elect. That is the period we are talking about; that is the transition period So the period is clear. But I agree that given its sensitive nature and very important and critical nature we can defer -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    But that is the point the Hon Member is making.
    Alhaji Inusah A. B. Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, I think that your observations are right, the time period is quite clear but still critical. The time period is between the time that the person has been so declared as elected and the time he is sworn-in. This is because immediately he is sworn- in, he becomes the President and he becomes an incumbent now.
    So the period is quite clear, except that it is relevant in determining when the decisions would be taken to -elect the third person to chair. It is still relevant within the time period context.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    But do the Members of Parliament who are making the law have a certain category of people in view?
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Yes, MI Speaker;
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Is the Hon Minority Leader an eminent person?
    Alhaji Fuseini
    He is. Clearly, in my view -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Is he an eminent person?
    Alhaji Fuseini
    He is an eminent person.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    What about the Hon Majority Leader?
    Alhaji Fuseini
    He is.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    What about the Hon Deputy Minister for Energy?
    Alhaji Fuseini
    No, he is not. [ Laughter. ] Mr Speaker, clearly-
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, on a point of information. Mr Speaker, this is just information, which would be relevant to the Hon Member on the floor.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Member, you are also out of order. [Laughter] Let me hear from the Hon Member for Ayawaso West Wuogon, she has been on her feet -
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker-
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Member, you have not concluded?
    Alhaji Fuseini
    No, I have not concluded.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    All right. Wind up.
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, I agreed and I have learnt my lessons very well.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Do you understand the point that -he made and you have agreed that you are not an eminent person?
    Alhaji Fuseini
    I have agreed. [Laughter]
    Mr Speaker, on a more serious note, I think that the word "eminent citizen" if I may be allowed to look into the choice of these two words -- what motivated the promoters of this amendment to choose these two words, was looking at people
    Mrs Osei-Opare
    Mr Speaker, I appreciate the word "eminent". However, in this law, it cannot be used. For good reason, there is no "eminent citizens" list in Ghana which has been developed out of the kind of criterion that the Hon Member is proposing. We do not have it and therefore we cannot put this in the law - [Interruption.]
    rose
    Mrs Osei-Opare
    Wait, I have not finished.
    Owing to this, even look at the States Awards, the Order of the Volta, Order of so and so, all of us have got reason to question even the qualification of some of those who have received it.
    So we cannot in this country really and objectively, in the law, determine who an "eminent citizen" is, even though like the Hon Member said, the Majority Leader, the Minority Leader can be "eminent" a Deputy Minister will not be eminent. We have it in our minds that we cannot define it in law.
    So let us not go there. All I will suggest and I agree with Mr Speaker is that, we should go and sleep over it and think about the whole process. What I would

    like to throw in is that, we should not create a situation whereby the Advisory Board itself becomes a conflict situation; whereby two people cannot agree and therefore, now, we bring in the Speaker. Let the construction be such that it becomes a respectable body which is devoid of controversy in such a manner that they can actually play their role. But if they become the subject of controversy, for which then a Speaker has to be brought in, then where lies their "Advisory" nature and "eminence"?

    So Mr Speaker, I would agree with you, let us go and sleep over this, let us reflect who we have in mind and find some construction that will give us the kind of Advisory Council that would be a respectable Council that the whole nation can look up to.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Let me hear from Hon Yileh Chireh, the Member for Akropong, then the Member for Wenchi andthen I will come back to you.
    Mr Chireh
    Mr Speaker, I still agree with you but I would want us to narrow down this whole matter to people who have occupied some prominent offices in the land. In all this, if the Chief Justice was appointed by one party or one President, we will know. So once you give a list and say that a former Chief Justice, a former Chairman of the Council of State, they will all have inclinations, I should say. But what we are looking for is a very small and temporary job, which must be done very quickly also.
    So if you have debate as to who is the third person, you will never get there. I think that we should designate these offices, the possible range and I- I may also be bringing in that case some suggestions how we can fl‘3.Hl6 it and get
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Member for Akropong.
    Mr Avoka
    Mr Speaker, if I may intervene for us to make progress, given the controversy, I think gradually, we are arriving at something. So we can defer this one and meet outside the Chamber, to look at it and come back with a better suggestion for adoption, so that we can make progress in the other areas, subject to your approval.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Very well. We will defer clause (5) but if you go to have the discussion, look at the head- note, whether it is proper. "Advisory Council". But it is for dispute resolution. So you should find out whether it is or it is really an Advisory Council for purposes of resolving disputes. If it is Advisory Council, whom are they advising? Meanwhile, what they are supposed to do is to resolve disputes. So you look at all these things when you go back.
    Very well, Clause 5 -- accordingly deferred.

    Clause 6 - Handing-over Notes
    Mr Bandua
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 6, subclause (2), paragraph (b), subparagraph (ii), line l, delete "of State and of the"
    The new rendition will be:
    "the Ministries, Departments and Agencies under the portfolio of Ministers, and".
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, before we get there, we should look at clause 6 (1) and I thought when you referred to:
    "The Office of the President shall prepare a set of comprehensive handing-over notes covering 'the term of office of the President as the executive authority under article 5 8 of the Constitution"
    Earlier, we had used the Words "the Presidency". I do not know Whether We would not want to look at that. But if we maintain 6 (1) as it is then for 6 (2), we necessarily have to include the Vice President.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    The Notes shall include?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    "(2) The notes prepared under subsection (1) shall include : (a) the handing over notes received by the President, the Vice President and the Ministers on assuming office." This is because Mr Speaker, in subclause (4), we have captured the sense that includes the Vice President.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Minority Leader, if you look at (i), the notes on the activities of the Vice President is there. By mentioning article 58, they want to make it clear that the executive authority is vested in the President. But then they want to make sure that it gives better and further particulars and by so doing , they brought in the President, the Office of the Vice President and then in (b) (i).
    Mr Kyei-Mensah
    None

    "The notes prepared under sub- section l shall include:

    (a)the handing-over notes received by the President, the Vice President and the

    Ministers: on assuming office"
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Minority Leader, the Vice President is subsumed under the President, so he does not normally receive -
    Mr Avoka
    Mr Speaker, practically, the Ministers report to the President, they do not report to the Vice President. So in matters of this nature, if they prepare handing over notes, et cetera, they should go to the President- The Vice President does not have a role to play in this.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Otherwise, somebody will argue that you should bring in the Deputy Ministers too. So l do not know.
    Mr Boafo Mr Speaker, I heard you saying that they should bring in the Deputy Ministers.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    No!
    Mr Boafo
    If you go to the definition of "Minister", the extended definition is also to Deputy Ministers. But I quite appreciate the fact that the Office of the Vice President is within the expression of "Office of the President".
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Yes, the 6(2) (a) that the Hon Minority Leader is talking about, the question to ask ourselves to resolve the matter is whether the Vice President receives handing-over notes from the outgoing Vice President. The answer is, no. If the answer is no, then the rendition there is all right. If the answer is yes, then you have to bring in the Vice President. So that is the way to resolve the matter.
    Mr Chireh
    Mr Speaker, you have already ruled- We do not need the Vice President in this case but the amendment that the Chairman has proposed is to the effect that we remove "of the State and" but we should add comma (,) to the "Ministries" before We talk about the departments and agencies. Further amendment, the comma (,) must be added.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Minority Leader, are you all right?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu Mr Speaker, I have not had the experience before, I was a Minister for a short period but it was in the dying embers of injury time. Mr Speaker, he has had the occasion to be a Minister at the very outset. So if he speaks to the issue that no handing over notes, properly so-called, are given to the Vice President, well, I am inclined to believe him.
    The Hon Majority Leader is saying that he is telling me on authority but he started --- but even before the whistle could be blown for the first corner kick, he was out. He would not have the requisite experience. So Mr Speaker, I guess I will drop that amendment.
    Mr Speaker, as we did early on, if we delete -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    The "the" should be there.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    So it will then read: "The Ministries, Departments and Agencies", not "under the portfolio of the Ministers", just to be in sync with what we did earlier.
    Mr Chireh
    I think that I support the further amendment, so that We stop at the "Agencies", rather than say "under the portfolio" because it is Agencies (MDAs) and we are talking about departments and agencies under Ministries.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Members, the earlier rendition that we agreed to is "Ministries and the Departments and Agencies under the Ministries. That was what we agreed to. So if you want it, then we use the same terminology there.
    Mr Chireh
    Mr Speaker, what we are talking about is 2 (b) (ii). Now, the amendment is saying that it is "Ministries, Departments and Agencies under the portfolio of the Ministers". The whole idea is that we should stop at "Agencies" and not bring the portfolio and being under Ministers. So it stops at "Agencies".
    So the rendition will now be "notes on the activities of the Ministries, Departments and Agencies"; and then the "and" follows.
    Mr Bandua
    If you say "and Agencies" which Agencies? You are assuming that Agencies under the Ministries. But it is an assumption. But if you say "and Agencies", if you leave it there, I wonder if it is complete-
    Mr Chireh
    Mr Speaker, we have already in clause 4,-departments and agencies. So it is already classified and we are restricting this to this law. The "agencies" here is mentioned because of what we are doing.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Members, What we are saying there is that the notes should include activities of Ministries, Departments and, Agencies and we are talking about the Office of the President. So we know the Ministries, Departments and Agencies when we use that terminology. So that I do not think that it would result in any controversy. Hon Members, the further amendment is to delete all the words after "Agencies" in line 2 of clause 6, subclause (2), paragraph (b), subparagraph (ii).
    -Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bandua
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 6, subclause (2), paragraph (b), add the following new subparagraph:
    "(iv) political appointees".
    I think that this amendment is necessary, so that when a President-elect assumes office, he would be apprised of the state of the whole nation, because if we leave out "political appointees", I think -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Members are we - how can you give a report on all political appointees? Who is a political appointee, Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Bandua
    Apolitical appointee is somebody who has been appointed and leaves office with the President. Those who have been appointed by the President and leave office with the President. I think they are political appointees. That is the way I understand it, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    It does not include the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers -- [Laughter] -- No, I heard a comment that it includes the Deputy Speaker - [Laughter]
    Mr Chireh
    I do not think that we should add this. We are talking about the Executive and the Executive is seen as starting from the District Chief Executive, Regional Ministers, to the Ministers at the centre. But if we now say political appointees, it would also include those political appointees who are sent out as Ambassadors. Are we going to report on that too?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    It is there in the definition.
    Mr Chireh
    Yes, but I am saying that is why we should not add it because you see, the notes will cover from here to -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Members, if you look at our political Ambassadors or High Commissioners, they are under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration and you are reporting on the Ministries, Departments and Agencies.
    Mr Chireh
    Mr Speaker, I thoroughly oppose this amendment where we are adding "political appointees". What is listed here, We should leave it because these are people who hold offices unless -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Government appointees in the District Assemblies too.
    Mr Chireh
    Mr Speaker, or even some Board members say that they are direct appointees of the President. Are we also going to report on them? So I think that we should delete it. We should reject this amendment. It is not good.
    Mr Avokaz Mr Speaker, well, I was part of the committee that proposed the inclusion of political appointees. But upon a second thought, I think it would be so open-ended that it is safer to leave it than to retain it. The definition is here but it covers a lot of people. I think that the Executive or those We have already captured in the Bill can take care of those who are their subordinates.
    So if We have a Minister for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration, then his briefing or his handing-over notes would include information he has received from "Ambassadors, whether they are political Ambassadors or career Ambassadors. It would include those.
    Mr Bandua
    Mr Speaker, on this note the amendment is withdrawn.
    Mrs Osei-Opare
    Mr Speaker, I do share - it has been abandoned. But at the same time, I believe that there are some officers that legitimately should -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Member, if you are talking about Board members, they are also political appointees. And then you are reporting on the agencies, so each agency would report on who the Board members were Within the period and all those things. If you are talking about Ambassadors who are not career diplomats, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration would report on them.
    Mrs Osei-Opare
    I agree, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Yes, if you are talking about District Chief Executives, in the reports of the District Chief Executives, you would report on the Government appointees during that period.
    Mrs Osei-Opare
    Mr Speaker, I think if you had allowed me to finish, you would have seen the angle I am coming from. The angle I am coming from is not so much those political appointees, like maybe, Stan Dogbe or whatever. That is not the people I am talking about. But I do see a big hole. The Office of the Council of State, these are serious offices provided for in the Constitution but there is no
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Are they part of the Executive? This is a Presidential Transition Bill; are they art of the Executive properly so-called? "They are not.
    Mrs Osei-Opare
    No- Mr Speaker, we are looking at a transition from one government to another. This is the point and the point I am getting at is, the Constitution has" set up certain specific bodies whereby the State spent money legitimately on these offices. These offices are not under the Presidency as such, it would not be reported on under any Ministry or department or agency, yet they are bodies set up by the Constitution, such as the Council of State, CHRAJ, the Electoral Commission. Where are the Handing-over-notes -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Members, I direct that we Sit outside the prescribed period, so that we can finish with this clause 6.
    Mrs Osei-Opare
    Mr Speaker, my point is for us to look at the status of these people in terms of handing-over notes. What work have they done to the office that has set them up, so that proper handing-over notes can be given to the President-elect come 2013 - [Interruption.]
    Mr Chireh
    Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As we are saying, we are talking about transition arrangements for one President called the Executive to hand over to another. These other bodies that she is talking about have offices and they leave behind all the records, the things they have done there, then people are appointed to take over.
    In the case of the Judiciary, the CHRAJ and all these other bodies, they are people who are to bring their reports to this House and they report on their activities -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Moreover, they are not people that leave with the President. if you look at the definition, they are not people who leave office with the President. They would continue and the reporting mechanism - Please -
    Mrs Osei-Opare
    Mr Speaker, the Council of State does leave office after a new President -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Please, because of the mandate of the Constitution but it is not everybody on the Council of State that has been appointed by the President. The President of the National House of Chiefs is not appointed by the President. A former Chief Justice is there by virtue of his former position. A former Inspector- General of Police is there by virtue of his previous position.
    The Chief of Defence Staff is there because of his previous position. They are not people who are brought in because the Constitution says they should be there. So, they are not political appointees properly so-called.
    Mr Avoka
    Mr Speaker, if I may add the referral to the Council of State. The Council of State exists to advise the President- It does not have executive functions to do any other thing. If you look at article 89, it says and I beg to quote:
    "There shall be a Council of State to counsel the President in the A performance of his functions."
    So, what handing-over notes do they need to prepare when they are only advising the President? They do not need to.

    So, I think that all those they are talking about are those who perform executive fi1nctions.- will come under the Executive - either a Minister or the President, et cetera. We do not need to add the political appointees there.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    The Hon Member who proposed the amendment has abandoned the proposed amendment
    Mrs Osei-Opare
    Mr Speaker, I have not. [Laughter]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Member, if you say you have not, what do you mean? You do not have any amendment to argue on. There is no amendment again.
    Mrs Osei-Opare
    Mr Speaker, with all seriousness, I believe not every political appointee needs to report and I agree with the withdrawal. But I am proposing that in addition to the Ministries, Departments and Agencies, there - are certain institutions or establishments which we should include to give handing-over notes. That is all I am saying. And I am citing, for instance, the Council of State which dissolves after -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Member, are they going to put in there the advice that they have given the President, which the President has not taken or has taken - are those the things that they are going to put there?
    Mrs Osei-Opare
    Well, Mr Speaker, we have not given any format upon which Ministries, Departments and Agencies are to report. Have we‘? So, I would not, in the same vein, give the format.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Member for West Ayawaso West Wuogon, "what" we are dealing with "notes on the activities of' -- the area that we are dealing With-- Is the President in the handing-over notes, going to state that in our activities, these are the pieces of advice the Council of the State has given me but I have taken three. I decided not to take the rest.
    Mrs Osei-Opare
    Mr Speaker, all I will say is that, they should be given the space to determine what information they put just like any others.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Member for West Ayawaso Wuogon, if you feel strongly about some categories that should be there, I want you to come back during the Second Consideration Stage, so that we can then include it because the Hon Member who moved the proposed amendment has abandoned the proposed amendment.
    But if you feel strongly that there are some areas that ought to be brought here, then think about it, so that I can put the Question on the clause 6, then you can come properly during the Second Consideration Stage. I do not know.
    Mrs Osei-Opare
    Mr Speaker, I thank you for that advice and I am urging Hon Members to reflect upon it, so that when it comes on the floor, they will co-operate and be supportive for the good of the country.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, I think in principle, I agree with the Hon Chairman withdrawing the amendment. Even though I also believe that there are some persons operating at various levels - appointees who need to account for their stewardship.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Whose stewardship should be included in the handing-over notes -- not account? The Auditor-General audits their books but the activities must be included.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, I do not mean "accounting" in the order of the Accountant-General or whoever but I am talking about some responsibility to account for their activities

    Mr Speaker, if you look at how we have captured the Presidency -- we are talking about the Office of the President and the Office of the Vice President, in which case, we could safely include people operating within that office under both the President and the Vice President.

    So, we could effectively capture those people because of how we have couched it here. Maybe, what she is perhaps directing attention to is what of those others who operate with the ‘Ministers, maybe, Regional Ministers, District Chief Executives (DCEs) and so on. Is there a way of capturing it? If there is a way, so be it. Otherwise, as I said, basically, I agree with the withdrawal of the amendment but if there is a way to also capture the activities of some people at some levels who we deem to be very important, we can also look at that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Well, at the appropriate time- As of now, there is no amendment there.
    So, Hon Members, I would put the Question on clause 6; not the proposed amendment.
    The first proposed amendment, which we further amended has been carried.
    The second proposed amendment has been withdrawn.
    But let me put the Question on the clause 6.
    , Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu: Mr Speaker, just a little thing - clause 6 (3)
    "The handing-over notes shall reflect the accurate developments which have taken place during the relevant tenure of office and the projections of development to take place before the end of the full tenure."
    Again, Mr Speaker, I believe the word "relevant." in line 2 is superfluous and may have to be deleted.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Move the amendment.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, I so move.
    Mr Osei-Owusu
    Mr Speaker, I beg to second the amendment moved by the Hon Minority Leader.
    Mr Speaker, as soon as we leave a matter which is open to interpretation and sometimes left to the idiosyncrasies of the person interpreting it, then we leave room for ambiguity. Who determines what is relevant and-what is not. So, I guess it will help the cause of this Bill if we remove that word "relevant". -
    Alhaj i Fuseini: Mr Speaker, I opposed the proposed amendment.
    A And I do so on the fact that "relevant" in the place is an adjective that qualifies the tenure of office. It is not standing on its own. And it can happen in a situation Where a person is appointed a Minister and changed to another Ministry within the same term. And so What this "relevant" is there to do, in my opinion, is to say that the handing-over notes must be relevant to the "tenure of office immediately coterminous to the time that the person is handing over. That is what it intends to do.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Deputy Minister, we are talking about the President's handing-over notes. And it is the President's handing-over notes that will include that of the Hon Ministers.
    Alhaji Fuseini
    No, it is everybody's. It says that the
    "The handing over notes shall reflect the accurate developments which have taken place during the relevant tenure of office and the projections of development to take place before the end of the full tenure."
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Members, we are talking of the handing- over notes of the President and the activities that should be reported on. They are not going to be like -- and in it, the Ministries, Departments and Agencies are going to be part of the Office of the President handing-over notes. And we are talking about the tenure of the President and the President alone -- This is because the executive authority is vested in him under article 58.
    So, all the Ministers that have held positions are all his Ministers. Whether they were there for only one year or two years, they are all his Ministers during this tenure. And that is what we are talking about. If you look at it, they said:
    "The notes prepared under subsection (I) shall include -
    (a) the handing-over notes received by the President and the Ministers on assuming office; and
    (b) notes on the activities of. . ."
    So the notes on your activities in your Ministry.
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Precisely so, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    So, during that tenure, the Ministers are Ministers of the President.
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Precisely so, Mr Speaker. I get the impression- I might be wrong- but I get the impression that the relevant tenure of office 1S not limited to the President alone. It extends to include his appointees and the tenure of office or handing-over notes must relate as to an appointee, the relevant time that he was in the office. That is the impression I get.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Well, my understanding is that, this is a President's handing-over notes. We are only elaborating what should be included in his handing-over notes. We are only
    Alhaji Fuseini
    No, Mr Speaker, l withdraw my opposition to the amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Member, have you been intimidated? [Laughter] Have you been intimidated in withdrawing your amendment?
    Alhaji Fuseini
    No. Mr Speaker, indeed, you have added further and better particulars to what is here, because, actually, you have said and I heard you clear, that even if they were ten Ministers at the Ministry of Energy, the President is obliged to report on their activities during his tenure of office. It means, where the Minister was removed before the end of the tenure of office of the President, the President is obliged to report. That is the impression I am getting from your intervention. And I am saying -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Member, that is the impression that is in the Bill.. Once they want to put emphasis on article 58 of the Constitution, which is in subclause (1), then they want to say that you are the President; all executive authority that is being exercised, they are exercising it on your behalf, and therefore, you are reporting on the activities of your appointees and all of them.
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, that is exactly what motivated me to oppose the amendment, because that would be an exercise in futility. This is because the first Minister would have handed over to another Minister, which Minister would have continued with the work of the Minister who has so handed over, up to the time that the President would be reporting. And the first one's activities at the Ministry will no longer be relevant to the President's handing-over notes because they would not be -- [Interruptions.]
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour
    Mr Speaker, I do not understand what the Hon Member is saying. It is actually the President's handing-over notes; and if the President appointed 20 Ministers during his tenure of office, so be it. It is the notes from the President. So it is not about you giving it to another one and another one giving it to another one - -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Do not Worry, they are not going to hold you responsible for - [Laughter]
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, I am not talking- Actually, to be honest with you, I was thinking that it would be an exercise in futility. If you so think that the President, having been appointed President will have to report on all Ministers from the first one he has appointed to the last one, if he is serving an eight-year period, so be it. I was just thinking that -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Member, we are talking about the President and his tenure and his handing- over notes. I do not know whether there could be any different interpretation from What Hon Members are saying, and that motivated the amendment there and I entirely agree with them I do not know-
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, we are talking about the same thing, handing - over notes.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Yes, of the President.
    Alhaji Fuseini
    But the issue is the content of the handing-over notes; that is what I was talking about. [Interruptions] We are talking about the handing-over notes. But what must go into the handing-over notes is what has motivated me to oppose the amendment, which is asking for the removal of -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Member, if the President is giving handing- over notes for four years in office, does it matter how many Ministers that worked during the period at a particular Ministry?
    Alhaji Fuseini
    It does not really matter. But which Ministers' work would be part of his handing-over notes is what I was talking about.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    If during that period he worked with ten Ministers in a particular Ministry, he would indicate all of them. That is all.
    Alhaji Fuseini
    ‘Very well, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker, but I have not been intimidated at all.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Very well.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, as you rightly indicated to the Hon Member, who has been very laborious about making his points-- Mr Speaker, fancy a situation where the President maybe, creates a Ministry, but in the course of his tenure, the Ministry becomes extinct; let us say Ministry for Parliamentary Affairs, two years into the President's administration, it becomes
    extinct. Nobody is saying that, that activities which were conducted there would not have to be reported on, because it is part of the tenure of the President. So if you agree and indeed, Mr Speaker, as you said, article 58 (3), every Minister is a subordinate to the Presidency, he is responsible to the President. So I did not see the grounds for the litigation -
    Question put and amendment agreed to
    Clause 6 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Clause 7- - There is no amendment there; that is why I am putting it. Unless somebody Wants to file an amendment, in that case, I would not put the Question at all. There is no amendment that has been advertised there, so that we would continue with clause8 tomorrow.
    Mr Joseph Darko-Mensah
    Mr Speaker-
    Mr Speaker
    If you have an amendment, then I would. end the Consideration of the Bill here. Kindly file your amendment, so that other Hon Members Would be availed of the nature of the amendment, even though the rules allow you to do the amendment now.
    Mr Avoka
    Mr Speaker, I wish he was given a minute's opportunity to say what he Wants to say, so that we can dispose of it and know that we are done with clause 7. What he is doing now is an alter- thought and I am not sure it will carry the day.
    Mr Darko-Mensah
    Mr Speaker, if we take clause 7 (2) (b) (i), I would like to delete "the Speaker" and replace it with "Parliament", the distribution of the handing-over notes.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Why are you deleting the "Speaker"?
    Mr Darko-Mensah
    Mr Speaker, I believe that if we make it Parliament, it is understood that even if the correspondence was sent to the Speaker, it would end up on the floor of the House. But if it is Madam Speaker or Mr Speaker, it might end up on the shelf of the Speaker and nobody might have access to that information. And if you take the time that these notes are supposed to be sent to the Administrator-General, it is supposed to be 30 clear days before the election and it is very important that, maybe other people might be interested in the handing-over notes.
    If we take the Council of State, they never said the Chairman of the Council of State, they said the Council of State. That means that the copies have to be made available to virtually everybody in the Council and I strongly believe that we should be able to do same.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Members, let us go and think through that amendment and then we come back and look at it.
    Mr Avoka
    Mr Speaker, but if you look at that section he is referring to, they are talking about offices, the Speaker, the

    Chief Justice; they did not say the Judiciary or the Chairman of the Council of State or the Director of the National Archives. They are talking about the office holders. So it is possible that if the Speaker gets a copy Parliament has got a copy.
    Bonsraz Mr Speaker, I thought you had given your advice or ruling that we go and think through, so
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Then he should file his amendment and then we look at it.
    Bonsra Yes. So I was wondering why the Majority Leader still wanted to prolong
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Members, that brings us to the end of the Consideration Stage of the Presidential (Transition) Bill, 2010 for today.
    Hon Members, it is past two o'clock. The House is adjourned till tomorrow at 10' in the forenoon,
    ADJOURNMENT
  • The House was adjourned at 2.22 p.m. till Thursday, 91/1 February, 201.2 at 10.00 a.m.