Debates of 19 Feb 2014

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 11 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon Minority Leader, is the Hon Member in the House?
Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, she was here a few moments ago; I think she stepped out. If you may indulge me, we would go fishing for her, and I guess in the next few moments, she should be with us.
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon Members, while we wait for the Hon Member, do we move to item number 4, if those reports are ready to be laid?
Hon Majority Chief Whip?
Alhaji Mohammed-Mubarak Muntaka 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, as a member of the Committee, I can say that item number 4(i) can be laid, but item number 4 (ii), we are yet to finish.
As a member, if you permit me, with the indulgence of the House, I would want to lay it on behalf of the Chairman.
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon Members, Presentation of Papers -- By the Chairman of the Committee.
PAPERS 11 a.m.
Dr Anthony A. Osei 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, may I know from the Hon Majority Chief Whip, if there are enough copies available for distribution really? He just said as far as he was concerned, that one was ready. So
-- 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon Members, it has been laid and it is for distribution.
Hon Member, do you have enough copies? The Hon Member for Old Tafo wants to know. You laid it?
Alhaji Muntaka 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to be sure that there are enough copies.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Chief Whip laid the Paper in his capacity as a member --
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
On behalf of the Chairman?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11 a.m.
No, Mr Speaker --
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
He made an application first.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am saying that he could even do so as a member of the Committee.
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
Yes.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, but I am not too sure what is meant by “NMS”. What is that? NMS Infrastructure Limited?
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon Minority Leader, a Paper has been laid for distribution; when it comes to the debate, we would ask what “NMS” stands for.
Hon Members, I have admitted one Statement today standing in the name of Hon Patricia Appiagyei.
Hon Member, you have the floor.
STATEMENTS 11:10 a.m.
Ms Patricia Appiagyei (NPP -- Asokwa) 11:10 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to make a Statement on the issue of climate change and the role of Parliament.
Mr Speaker, our life support systems are being destroyed and the effects of climate change are being felt: What should be done by the Ghanaian Parliament?
Mr Speaker, there are lots of environmental problems which we need to know and seek solutions for this country. It would not be out of place for Parliament to engage itself to understanding environmental problems of the country to enable us defend legislations that protect the environment for our own and other Ghanaians' well- being.
Mr Speaker, this country is endowed with knowledge residing in the individuals and institutions which we can benefit from through interactions. The issue of
climate change and its effect on the biological systems that power our lives is in focus. The biological systems that constitute our agricultural fields, forests, mountains, fresh water and salt water ecology are coming under stress as a result of anthropogenic factors, many of which have culminated in extreme changes of the climate.
Our attention is being drawn to the fact that it is from these biological systems that we are able to secure food and nutrition, good health, good living and enjoy other social and economic benefits which are part of God's creation for mankind.
Mr Speaker, water sources are dwindling and in many cases, drying up; watershed areas including mountains, which are considered as water towers, are denuded of vegetation; wetlands are drained and turned into other land-uses; mining is taking place at otherwise unauthorised places; harvesting of natural resources from water and land, done at unsustainable levels. Pollution of land, water and air by various substances; uncontrolled urbanisation is taking place at alarming proportions. In some places, particularly on slopes and near water courses, exposing soil surfaces to erosion, leading to sedimentation in river beds and in dams; and landslides to mention just a few potential disasters.
Consequences
Mr Speaker, the consequences of doing nothing about the problems mentioned above are:
i. water availability is impaired, people are searching for water everywhere and some resorting to various ways including water abstraction from underground water reservoirs/aquifers which
Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Thank you, Hon Member.
Mr Simon Edem Asimah (NDC -- South Dayi) 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to associate myself with the Statement made by my Hon Colleague, and in doing so, I would want to draw the attention of this House to the need for us legislators to make policies, programmes and ensure that the environment is kept for generations yet unborn.
Mr Speaker, it is for this reason that Globe International has been put in place and that efforts are being made to actually establish the national chapter of Globe in Ghana.
Mr Speaker, it is true that temperatures are changing, rainfall patterns are changing, deforestation is taking place, erosion is taking place and for us as a country, it is important to put in place measures to support the Government in ensuring that the environment that has been given to us by the Almighty God is protected -- The r ivers must be protected, the environment must be protected and deforestation must be put on the agenda.
Mr Speaker, currently, we can see a lot of deforestation taking place; charcoal burning is taking place, and our forests are being destroyed. Cars are now using gas, which is actually meant for domestic use and we as legislators need to ensure that the Government puts in place laws and policies that will enhance the usage of gas, and the price of gas must be brought down to actually reduce the use of charcoal in the system.
Mr Speaker, it is for this reason that it will not be long when the Globe National Chapter will be put in place in Ghana for legislators like us to get involved in making policies and programmes for our
dear country to enhance environmental protection.
I thank you very much for the opportunity.
Mr Frank Annoh-Dompreh (NPP-- Nsawam-Adoagyiri) 11:10 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to the Statement ably made by the Hon Member.
Mr Speaker, I wish to start by congratulating the Hon Member for a well- thought out Statement as drafted.
Mr Speaker, climate change is gaining, not just a national concern, but international concern, to the extent that the United Nations as a body has shown consistent concern about it, to the extent that it is a new terminology now called “Global Warming” which increasingly, is turning out of climate change.
Mr Speaker, it is so important that we, as a nation, revert our minds to climate change, in other words, global warming.
Mr Speaker, let me say that on many occasions, -- we tend to say or yield to the temptations of saying Parliament, as a body, needs to draft relevant legislations and laws. I dare say that this country has enough laws, enough legislative bodies, enough instruments to deal with climate change and largely, global warming.
Mr Speaker, as a country, we have an environmental policy. All we need to do, is to make sure that we make do with the provisions of this policy as we have drafted. On many occasions, the policies have been drafted, yet we have not respected the provisions of this policy to the letter.
So, I would want to say that we need to respect the provisions of the policies that we have sat down and well-thought out and respect these policies.
Mr Albert Abongo 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Member is saying that he does not know where the forestry plantation programme is. That is not true. He is a member of the Committee and he knows that we have some allocations for forestry plantations in the Ministry's budget. So, he knows where that programme is.
Mr Annoh-Dompreh 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, with respect to the Chairman of my Committee, what I, indeed, said was that, little have we seen, and that is my point of view. The Chairman may disagree with me but little have we seen of the tree-planting exercise that is being embarked upon by the Forestry Commission. More action needs to be seen from the Forestry Commission as a bid in ensuring that we plant more trees to control desertification --
Mr Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Hon Member, your comments must be brief. That is what our rules say. I have given you enough time.
Mr Annoh-Dompreh 11:20 a.m.
Respectfully, Mr Speaker, if I can just wind up.
We need to control our borders --
Mr Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Please, conclude your statement.
Mr Annoh-Dompreh 11:20 a.m.
In conclusion, we need to control our borders as far as the importation of electrical appliances is concerned. Mr Speaker, some of these electrical appliances are outmoded and when they come into this country, they rather add to the temperatures of our country and contribute to the depletion of the ozone layer. So, that is an aspect, as a country, that we need to watch our borders on.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I would want to thank you for the opportunity.
Mr Mutawakilu Adam (NDC -- Damongo) 11:20 a.m.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the Statement ably made by the Hon Member.
Mr Speaker, truly, climate change has taken a global dimension and I would like to quote the International Panel on Climate Change, which includes more than 1,300 scientists from the United States of America and other countries:
“Temperatures will r ise from between 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.”
In relation to Africa, it says:
“By 2020, between 75 and 250 people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress and yield from agriculture is likely to reduce to 50 per cent in some regions in Africa.”
Therefore, Ghana, which is a country in Africa must be very cautious and take proactive measures to ensure that we are able to curb climate change and global warming.
Mr Speaker, in doing this, we need to consider degradation of the environment through illegal lumbering, illegal mining as well as the type and age of cars we use. This is because all these contribute significantly to global warming and therefore, climate change.
In short, Mr Speaker, as Parliament, we need to make sure that various institutions come to answer questions in respect of what they are doing, to ensure that climate change is reduced to the barest minimum.
On this note, Mr Speaker, I support the Statement and thank you very much for giving me this opportunity.
Dr Stephen Nana Ato Arthur (NPP -- Komenda/Edina/Eguafo/Ebrem) 11:20 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to comment on the Statement made by the Hon Member.
Mr Speaker, climate change is real and used to be only a conjecture but since it is real, it calls for our attention.
Mr Speaker, this is manifest in high temperature, erratic rainfall patterns, severe period of drought and the relationship that climate change has to other development sectors are numerous. You can make mention of agriculture and food security, natural resource management, poverty and vulnerability, governance, health gender, finance and others.
Mr Speaker, what is even more important is that the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) predicts that climate change may cause decline between 9 and 21 per cent in agriculture productivity and developing countries by the year 2050.
Mr Speaker, this will impact on human wellbeing, food security, decline in cocoa and other food crops, when it comes to Ghana -- and pressure on municipal services.
Mr Speaker, what has been our response to climate change so far? It has been so technical. At the national level, everybody says that we understand climate change. But Mr Speaker, when you go lower, you ask people about climate change, and they are talking about the fact that today, it is the will of God, the end is near, meaning, our understanding of climate change is anecdotal.
Mr Speaker, what do we need to do? I think as Members of Parliament, as politicians, we need to mention climate change on our political platforms; everywhere that we go, we talk about climate change; we should let the local actors and institutions understand the importance of climate change.
Mr Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Hon Members, the background noise is too much.
Please, continue, Hon Member.
Dr Stephen Nana Ato Arthur 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I was talking about the fact that there is the need to build capacities of Members of Parliament. This is because we need to understand the issues, the relationships and the causal effects. It is only through this that we would be able to talk about climate change.
Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to add that we must be more local any time we are talking about climate change, not only at the level of the Ministries and others.
With these few words, I support the Motion and I thank you for the opportunity, Mr Speaker.
Mr Albert Abongo (NDC - Bongo) 11:30 a.m.
Thank you Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to associate myself with the Statement on climate change made by the Hon Member.
Mr Speaker, indeed, climate change has come and can be seen as a kind of a global war that is raging.
Mr Speaker, I say it is a kind of global war because, it has come to affect our lives in several ways. It is now becoming difficult for farmers to be able to predict the time of rainfall and its intensity. So, it is indirectly or directly affecting our agricultural sector. So, food production is seriously being affected and that is becoming a global threat.
Mr Speaker, it is also seen in several ways, the vegetation is getting drier, our rain forests are turning savannah and the savannah grasslands are becoming deserts. That is a serious challenge that we need to address.
I think that it is in this light that the Governments of this country in the past and today, have embarked on the tree plantation programme under the National Forest Plantation Programme.
Mr Ignatius Baffuor Awuah 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, my Colleague, Hon Abongo just said that one of the ways we are using to check the effect of climate change is tree planting and he says it is going on successfully.
My constituency happens to be a beneficiary of the tree planting exercise. But for the past two/three years, the programme has been stopped and it is no longer working. So, I do not know what he means by the programme being successful.
Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
He is expressing his opinion. [Laughter]
Mr Abongo 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, like he said, yes, in some of the areas, trees have been planted and those trees will have to be maintained. As the Chairman of the Committee, I am using this platform to ask Government to provide more resources for those that have been planted to be maintained and for new plantations to be put up.
The SADA Afforestation Programme was also a very laudable one. I believe that if that is strengthened and made to work better, it will go a long way to improving the vegetation in the northern part of the country, the dry savannah grassland will be rejuvenated.
I would use this opportunity to ask community leaders and individuals to also go into private forest plantations in the various communities that they come from. That will go a long way to support Government in its bid to improve the vegetation cover of this country -- [Interruption]]
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
-- rose --
Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Point of order?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, a clarification from the Hon Member.
Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Is it a point of order or clarification? The rules are different. Hon Minority Leader, the rules are different. Is it clarification or point of order? Once it is clarification or information, it is almost like point of information. In that case —
Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Pardon?
Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Then, he must yield to you.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is elucidation.
Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
He must yield to you.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Member has indicated that the purpose of the SADA is to rejuvenate the savannah grasslands. I thought it was meant to reafforest the region, but he says to us that it is to rejuvenate the savannah grasslands.
Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Hon Member, is that what you said?
Mr Abongo 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, exactly so. But I am not too sure if I am wrong if I say that —
Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Hon Member, how do you plant trees to rejuvenate savannah grasslands?
Mr Abongo 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, well, let me replace that by saying that to improve upon the greenery in the savannah grassland areas, if that is acceptable to the Hon Member.
Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Anyway, conclude.
Mr Abongo 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, on this note, I would say that I urge community leaders, particularly traditional authorities to help in this direction. A typical example is my own paramount chief, Naba Baba Salifu, the paramount chief of Bongo, who is
spearheading tree planting in his communities. He has also banned the burning of the farmlands before rainfall. This used to be the practice in the past. The Ministry of Food and Agriculture having advised farmers not to be practising such old method. Some of them have become recalcitrant and continue to burn their farmlands. The Chief on several occasions has summoned people to his paramountcy to charge them for burning on their farms. I think that this is a positive direction.
On this note, Mr Speaker, I associate myself with the Statement.
Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Last comment.
Mr Emmanuel Akwasi Gyamfi (NPP - - Odotobri) 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much. I rise to associate myself with the Statement made by the Hon Member for Asokwa.
Mr Speaker, we must all admit that climate change, which is as a result of global warming, is not caused by nature, it is caused by human beings. And we have to decide from today that we need to change our attitude before we can fight the climate change menace that we are having now.
The maker of the Statement made mention of some causal factors of the global warming resulting in climate change. My interest is in illegal galamsey operations and also excessive deforestation. The Government did so well when it launched the “Operation Stop Galamsey Operation.”
Mr Abongo 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want further clarification to what my Colleague meant by illegal galamsey operation. Is there any legal galamsey operation?
Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Hon Member, continue.
Mr Gyamfi 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, illegal galamsey operation, it is a menace and it is everywhere in the country. The Government made a serious effort to stop this and I commend it for doing that. But the situation now is that illegal galamsey operations are still going on and Government -- [Interruptions.]
Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Hon Members, why the noise?
Mr Gyamfi 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, illegal mining is going on everywhere and the Government did so well to regulate this activity. But the issue is that illegal mining is still ongoing and Government should take note to help resolve this issue.
What happened after the illegal miners have been pushed from their con- cessions? The open pits are still left in those areas and what is happening now is that they are a death trap for most of the people living around those mining areas.
I would want to take this opportunity also to suggest to Government to make attempts to see how best those open pits can be covered, so that it will become safe for the people around those areas.
Mr Speaker, deforestation is also another issue which is causing this global warming and climate change. The usage of charcoal as fuel is on the increase; it is very much on the increase. The alternative, which is the usage of LPG gas, is quite expensive as we speak now. And I would want to request Government to do something about the price of LPG gas, so that the excessive cutting of forests for charcoal and fuel will also be taken care of.

Mr Speaker, the impact on the small- holder farmer is so great. We are talking about food security but it is not just about food security, it is also about the incomes to the smallholder farmers. As one of our Hon Colleagues just said, by 2020/2025, the yield per output of farmers is going to be reduced drastically because of climate change.

So, as a nation, we need to look at this particular problem very serious, so that we can also protect our smallholder farmers who are trying as much as possible to grow food for us and also earn some income for their living.

Mr Speaker, I would want to end my contribution by asking, as the Hon Member who made the Statement asked -- what is Parliament doing about this climate change? What we need to do as Parliament is to resource our committees, so that they can undertake their oversight responsibilities effectively.

The Committee on Environment, Science and Technology and the Committee on Lands and Forestry need to be given enough budgetary allocation, so that they can effectively undertake their oversight responsibilities. When moneys are given for a specific project, these committees should go ahead and see moneys have been used for the purpose for which they have been allocated.

Mr Speaker, I conclude by saying that we all have a stake in protecting the environment that we live in. The environment has suffered so much because of our own activities and we should all be careful of how we treat the environment. If we do not treat the environment well, we are going to be a mess some days to come.

Thank you, very much Mr Speaker.
Mr Kwabena O. Darko-Mensah (NPP-- Takoradi) 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this Statement ably made by Hon Patricia Appiagyei.
Mr Speaker, issues of climate change are real and there is no way that one can doubt its effect. Mr Speaker, however, currently, what is more important on climate change is not about awareness creation, but its adaptation.
It is on this note that the world body has encouraged all countries to integrate issues of climate change adaptation in their development plans.
Mr Speaker, how are we, as a nation, preparing?Are we adapting to issues of climate change? On annual basis, we hear of cases of floods in our major cities, especially here in our capital city, Accra. We have been told that the yield of our crops, especially cash crops like cocoa is going down. This is because of the effect of climate change.
Mr Speaker, are we going to sit down to see this annual flood year after year without doing something about it? What is it that we are doing, as a result of perennial drought, which has an effect on the yield of our farmers?
How best are we, as a country, looking at an alternative of rainfall as a way of making water available to our farmers?
How seriously are we taking issues of irrigation?
Mr Speaker, it is true, that as a nation, for some time now, we have taken the issue of tree planting as a serious one. But even the few that we have planted, how best are we keeping them; and are they not also falling prey to illegal lumbers?
There is a credit called carbon-credit. Let us ask ourselves, how many Ghanaians are aware of carbon-credit? And how many Ghanaian companies or individuals have accessed this carbon-credit? So, as we raise the issue of climate change, I would want us to draw our attention not only to the causes of climate change and its effects, but to also take this opportunity to create awareness.
Especially, as policy makers, how best we can evolve policies that would make us adapt to issues of climate change which are real and which we cannot run away from.
On this note, Mr Speaker, I would want to congratulate the Hon Member who made the Statement and say that, as a House, we have to take the issue of climate change and its adaptation serious.
Mr Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon Members, that brings us to the end of Statements.
Where is the Majority Leadership?
Mr Sampson Ahi 11:40 a.m.
The Hon Majority Leader is coming.
Dr Benjamin B. Kunbuor 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we take item 5.
Mr Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon Members, the Anti- Money Laundering (Amendment) Bill, 2013 at the Consideration Stage.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 11:40 a.m.
STAGE 11:40 a.m.
Chairman of the Committee (Mr Alban S. K. Bagbin) 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1, renumber the clauses from page 3 to 8 of the Bill consecutively -- starting with clause 1 on page 3 of the Bill renumbered as clause 2
So, it will be from clause 3 to 8 now.
Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Hon Members, those of you who have the Bill, I want us to finish with this exercise.
The clause 1 on page 3 becomes clause
2.
The clause 2 becomes 3.
The clause 3 becomes 4.
The clause 4 becomes 5 at page 4.
Clause 5 becomes 6.
Clause 6 becomes clause 7.
Then clause 7 becomes clause 8 in that order
You will notice that we do not have clause 8.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 1 to 7 on page 3 to 8 of the Bill accordingly re-numbered.
Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Actually, this amendment is to re-number the clauses of the Bill.
The new clause 2 -- section 5 of Act 745 amended.
rose
Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Hon Member, I think the Table Office delayed when I mentioned the clause.
Mr Chireh 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am saying that, once we have re-numbered the clauses, we can then go and take clause
1.
Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.
The amendment that I put the Question on did not mention clause --
Any amendment to the new clause 2 at page 3?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, first of all, I would want to associate myself with the application which I thought the Hon Yieleh Chireh was making in respect of going back to the original clause 1. But perhaps, we can come back later after we have --
Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.
I would suggest that we take it at the Second Consideration Stage.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:50 a.m.
All right. But in respect of this new clause 2, I would want to proffer two amendments. Unfortunately, I thought maybe, the Hon Chairman and I could meet to discuss this. But because it is not featuring on the Order Paper, if I may just render it. That is for (b). I propose that we have a new sub- clause. It provides:
“Assist in the combat, (i) money- laundering activities, (ii) financing of terrorism, (iii) financing of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and (iv) other transnational organised crime.”
Mr Speaker, I wanted to enquire from the Chairman of the Committee what really is “transnational organised crime,” whether it has been defined by a convention. Otherwise, I thought it was most ungrammatical, whether it should not be “transnationally organised crime.” But now, we have “transnational organised crime.” That is the first thing.
Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.
I know we normally refer to transnational crime. But whether we have defined it is another matter. The normal terminology is “transnational crime.”
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:50 a.m.
Yes, if we are qualifying it further with “organised” I thought the proper rendition would be “transnationally organised crime.” But that is maybe, for the Hon Chairman to check to see whether the convention that they are referring to, uses that construction.
Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Should it be “any other transnational crime” or “other transnational crime”?
Hon Members, the point he is raising, let us clear it. Should it be “other transnational crime” or “any other transnational crime”?
Mr Bagbin 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is true that yesterday I wanted to have a tete-a-tete with the Hon Minority Leader on some of those issues he is raising, but unfortunately, other matters took us away.
I crosschecked on some of the issues he raised from the technical persons and the offence is “transnational organised crime.” That is the phrase that is being used. Its definition, it has not been defined in the Act and the Bill; so what we could do, is to get a definition for it. But that is what is being used now -- “transnational organised crime”. This is because of the nature of the crime that we are talking about.
Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.
It is “transnational organised crime.” The most important point that he has raised is the issue of the definition to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution. That is something we may come to at the appropriate time of the Bill. So, I would want the Committee to take note of that.
But should it be, “any other transnational organised crime,” or it should be “other transnational crime”. This is because all those ones that he has mentioned earlier constitute part of what we call “transnational organised crime.” But when we say “other transnational organised crime,” what are we saying?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I noticed that, but I do not know whether they were reproducing the convention. This is because in subclause (2) above, the small (2) on top of page 3, they have used the same construction. On the third line, we have “or other transnational organised crime.” So, if it is not replicating what is in the convention, then we must insert “any” between “or” and “other” and then when we come to what I was just alluding to, we can do the same there; that is, if it is not the language of the convention.
Dr A. A. Osei 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I was just rising to agree with your recommendation.
The Hon Minority Leader has said that there is a consequential amendment in sub- clause (2) above but I think “any other transnational organised crime” is more appropriate. If the Hon Chairman may agree, then we can move forward.
Mr Bagbin 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I need to crosscheck on that, because the Vienna Convention of 1988 and also the Palermo Convention of 2000 talked about “transnational organised crime.” In the Palermo Convention, they talked about 19 other predicated offences referred to as “transnational organised crime”. So, they are in the convention.
Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.
When you are domesticating an international convention, we have to reduce it in such a way that it is consistent with our normal domestic practice of legislation. There is a number of them as he rightly pointed out; he even mentioned that they are about 19 and three have been mentioned there. I have to refresh my memory of the convention. If they are 19, then there are others. So, we have to get all of them.
We have to use a language that would put the matter beyond doubt, that we are referring to all the other transnational organised crimes. But it is for the House to decide for me to put the Question.
Mr Bagbin 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, that is why I said, I really do not see much difference between “any other transnational organised crime” and “other transnational organised crime”, this is because I said that they identified about 19. We have tabulated just three of them. So, some are left.
Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.
When you look at the subclause (2) that the Hon Minority Leader referred to, getting to the tail end of that clause, they used “any of these matters”. They used the words at the concluding part because they want to make sure that any of these --
Mr Bagbin 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, that is why I said, I do not object to the use of “any other” --
Mr Speaker noon
Then it must be moved for me to put the Question.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that in the new clause 2, “Objects dealing with the objects of the Centre”, in (b) (4) before “other”, insert “any” so that the full complement will be “any other transnational organised crime”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
Mr Speaker, there is another amendment that I would want to propose. That is why I said that one would come under a new (v).
Mr Speaker noon
If it is a new subclause, you move it then the draftsperson will find where to locate it.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that we insert the following clause:
“Contravention of the laws regarding any of these matters”.
Mr Speaker, I am taking a cue from the (2) and that one relates to unlawful activity. “Unlawful activity” has been defined as constituting serious offence, is the financing of terrorism, money laundering, financing with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the last leg is, contravention of a law regarding any of these matters. I thought if we had that one as (v), it will register the full complement of the objects of the Centre as captured in (2) above.
Mr Speaker noon
Hon Chairman, do you get the point he is trying to make? The point is that anti-money laundering laws have to be drafted in a very tight manner. This is because it is difficult to investigate. So, if you leave loose ends, you can create a problem. That is why he is raising that point. What is your comment?
Mr Bagbin noon
Mr Speaker, he mentioned it to me yesterday. I crosschecked from the technical people. They differ from that opinion. They think that from (b), when we say: “Assist in the combat of” -- the objects of the Centre are to -- (b) “Assist in the combat of”. So, when we bring (v) and say:
“in the combat of contravention of a law regarding any of these matters…” --
Things that are mentioned in (i), (ii), (iii) are all dealing with contravention of the law on these matters. So, if we add “thing” again, it will be superfluous.
They think that it is well captured. Now that we have made any other transnational organised crime -- So, these are contraventions. If one contravenes any of the laws dealing with any other transnational organised crime, then it is part of the objects of the Centre. So, we do not need to add that at the end of (v). They will strongly disagree with that and I am opposed to the proposed amendment.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
Mr Speaker, I must admit that in proffering this amendment, I am not too sure whether it belongs to where I am putting it. As for its import, I think it comes without argument. This is because if you look at (2) above, it talks about what you have just spoken and then it goes on to add that leg. And if he thinks it is superfluous, then he is telling us that where it has been captured under (2) above, is also superfluous; but it is not superfluous.
Mr Speaker, as I am saying, we are talking about confronting or fighting the contravention of -- Maybe, he thinks the use of the word “combat” is too lousy a terminology but we are fighting the contravention of any other law relating to any of these. As I am saying, I am not too sure of its proper situation.
Mr Speaker noon
Let me ask this question. Would it cause any harm if you put it there? You say it is superfluous but when we put it there, will it cause any harm to the law that we are enacting? I would want you to address yourself to that point.
Mr Chireh noon
Mr Speaker, the danger is that he is referring to other laws but those laws already would have provision to deal with the offence. Now, are we going to subject the provisions of those laws to this one? It may be specific. We have passed a number of anti-money laundering or implied laws about things like that. I think we should leave it out because if it is superfluous, it can also create confusion as to --
Mr Speaker noon
I would want us to address the point that he is raising. He is saying that if you look at the clause 1, it talks about financing terrorism. You have repeated it under the objects of the Centre. So, if it is there, why did you put it here? He is saying that, because of that we should also repeat this one. So, that is the point that he is making and I think that is what you have to address to allay his fears.
Dr Dominic A. Ayine noon
Mr Speaker, if you look carefully at section 2, basically, what is done is to institute an unlawful activity and it is because we want to make it as broad as possible, so that it encompasses all kinds of activities that may qualify as money laundering activities. In that context, it is useful.
In the context of the objects of the Centre, we are dealing with the crimes that the Centre is supposed to combat and we do know that the Constitution under article 19 abhors ambiguity in the definition of crimes. So, if we put “contravention of any other law” that is a nebulous crime. It is a crime unknown to the law. Please, let me make it clear.
Dr Dominic A. Ayine noon


If you look at the objects, it is to assist in the combat of money laundering. We have already defined money laundering as an offence. We have defined the financing of terrorism as an offence. The financing or proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is clearly defined under the law. Now, to say that contravention of any law relating to these matters is an offence, is overboard and I believe that if it is challenged as unconstitutional, we will lose the case.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, first of all, it is important for the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice to capture what I said. I did not say “any other law”. I have not said so. Now, if you look at the fourth line of (2), it defines “unlawful activity”. And it is the same unlawful activity that the Centre is charged to combat. Is it not the case? And it comes on these four limbs, (i) is money laundering.
It is in (2). The (ii) is financing of terrorism; it is there. It is an unlawful activity. Financing of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is also captured there. Now, look at the last leg,
“Or contravention of a law regarding any of these matters”.
That is what I referred to. And I am saying that I did not say any other law. I did not say that. I said contravention of the laws in which case I used the definite article.
“...contravention of the laws regarding any of these matters”.
That is what is there. Unless you are telling us what is there is superfluous. But I am only suggesting. You are from the Attorney-General's Office, if you think it is superfluous, well, who am I to challenge you even though I disagree with you?
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you so much for the opportunity -
- 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker 12:10 p.m.
We are on a particular issue; that is why I called you.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is on the same issue.
Mr Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Very well.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, even before we come to --
Mr Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Hon Member, please. We are on a particular issue; we have to dispose of it before we move to another one.
So, are you abandoning your amendment?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am not. The Hon Majority Leader is in serious dialogue with the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice. I think they would come out to understand what I mean. [Laughter.] I am sure I am right.
Dr Kunbuor 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think we need to get this thing in context in relation to the definition of “unlawful activity” that is being given here. If you see the last end, which is talking about --
“...regarding any of these matters which occurs in this country or elsewhere”--
In our criminal law, it is not all crimes that are committed, which are known crimes in Ghana that are considered to be crimes outside the jurisdiction. It is not all the crimes.
They must be in respect of specific offences or within specific locations, like committing that crime outside Ghana, on board a Ghanaian ship in any of Ghana's High Commissions.
They are now trying to indicate that they want to extend these offences beyond just committing them in Ghana to elsewhere, so, that it would come. This is because it is not automatic that any act you do in any country, which would otherwise, be a crime in Ghana, automatically becomes a crime in Ghana.
Mr Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Let me ask you; this section is not the section creating the offence; this section is just about the objects. Where we should be worried about and go back and look at, is article 19 of the Constitution -- where the requirements are clear and where the point of ambiguity that you have raised.
We have to operate within those provisions. This is the object. This is not the section that creates the offence; it is just the object. So, in trying, as it were, we should not be too worried about the object because nobody is going to be charged under objects.
It just gives a broad idea of what the Centre is supposed to do and therefore, we should not be worried. If it has created an offence, then by the submission of the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice and the Hon Majority Leader, we have no choice but to make sure we observe str ict requirements of the Constitution which we cannot legislate outside.
So, I would want you to address me on those issues.
Dr Kunbuor 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, what you are seeing here is, if you see the nature of the definition of the offence, unlawfulness is central to it. So, you have now come to define what constitutes “unlawful” and what constitutes “unlawful” is a series of activities and where those activities take place. So, I am saying that, yes, you do
not have to bring what is seeking to amplify the definition of the offence and bring it down into the object of the offence as you yourself have said. It is as if the objects of the offence were the ones creating the offence --
Mr Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Object of the Centre.
Dr Kunbuor 12:10 p.m.
The objects of the Centre; I am sorry. It was the one creating the offence --
Mr Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Hon Members, in these types of offences-- transnational crimes --if you look at the object of the Centre - - if you look at the one that the Hon Minority Leader drew our attention to, that is contravention of a law regarding any of these matters -- What are these matters? They are matters relating to money laundering, matter relating to financing of terrorism and matters relating to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Those are the contraventions of those laws that they are talking about. So, if we are domesticating, the Geneva Convention, we have to do it in such a way that we cover those grounds. I do not see that it should create problems under the object of the Centre.
If you are creating an offence, then the arguments that we are raising on the floor would hold. But it is just the object -- So, as not to -- But I do not know; it is for the House to decide.
Dr Kunbuor 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, all that I am saying is because the Hon Minority Leader was saying you need consistency and once that physiology has been used earlier in the one that tries to explain what is unlawful activity, it should be the reason to bring it in. But you do not need that as the basis. If you want the ancient of information in relation to that activity to be an additional object, it can be done.
Dr Kunbuor 12:10 p.m.


But the premise for it should not be consistency because it had appeared in an earlier section that deals with a completely different matter. This is the issue that I am raising.

But if you want to expand the objects, I do not have a problem with that.
Mr Bagbin 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I still stand by my point, that when you come to (b), and (b) is specifically identifying the objects of the Centre, apart from the general one which is in (a), which says:
“...assist in the identification of proceeds of unlawful activity.”
Mr Speaker, “unlawful activity” is defined in clause 1 (2). Then, when you come to (b) where you are now talking about where the Centre would assist in combating a number of offences and the (iv), which we just amended, said: “Any other transnational organised crimes”.
We are talking about objects; to come and say “contravention of a law regarding any of these matters is an offence.” I find it difficult to put it as an object here, so, that we now have:
“Assist in the combat of contravention of a law regarding any of these matters which occur in this country --”
Mr Speaker 12:10 p.m.
If you read the full rendition, you have a point. But you should also get the spirit of what the Hon Minority Leader is saying. But let me put the Question; we can revisit it, so that we make progress.
Mr Bagbin 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, apart from that, when you look at (c) and (d) -- This is because when you are talking about “assist in the combat of a contravention of a law” -- (c) and (d) are talking about how they are going to do that by --
“making information available to investigating authorities, intelligence agencies and revenue agencies to facilitate administration enforcement of the laws of the Republic;”
and (d)
“exchange information with similar bodies in other countries as regards money laundering activities, terrorism financing and financing of the provision of weapons of mass destruction or other transnational organised crime”.
So, the essence of the “contravention of any law” in any of these countries, is what is captured in (c) and (d). I do not think we have to capture this again under (v).
Dr A. A. Osei 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the lawyers have been speaking, but I would want to be educated. How do we combat contravention of a law? Is there anything like that? [Interruption.] How do we do that? Can somebody educate me on how you can combat the contravention of --
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, you do not combat contravention of laws, but you combat laws. So, if the Hon Minority Leader is suggesting this amendment, it would not be out of place if we say “assist in the combat of laws regarding any of these matters”. [Interruption.]
Mr Bagbin 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to assist --
Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
I was carried by the spirit of the Hon Minority Leader but that spirit has abandoned me. So, I would want us to defer this matter but let me listen to the Hon Member for Effutu. Is it Effutu?
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is so.
Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Very well.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have a problem with the amendment, the (a) (b) and ( c), the “assist”. Mr Speaker, I say so because we enacted this law --
Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon Member, do you want to move an amendment? This is the Consideration Stage and you must get a specific amendment that you have to move. So, if you would want to move an amendment -- We have past the Second Reading Stage of the Bill. We are at the Consideration Stage, so, move your amendment. If you do not have an amendment, I will put the Question on clause 2.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I wanted to seek your guidance.
Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon Member, move your amendment before you seek my guidance -- [Interruptions] -- Hon Members, it is at the Consideration Stage -- A Member gets up to move an amendment.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, let me first seek your guidance and then -- Mr Speaker, if you grant me leave, I will seek your guidance, so that we come back to the amendment.
Mr Speaker, we have the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) which spells out the same function and we are also saying that the Centre is not an intelligence agency and it is not an investigative body.
Mr Speaker, so, the amendment being proposed,”to assist in the combat of crime” -- all will be coming from the angle where we have given such functions to the Centre and EOCO, which is an investigative body, have the same functions. There is going to be an enforcement challenge. Already, that is the challenge. So, I wanted to seek your
guidance on that, so that I draw the House's attention to the EOCO Act which came into being in 2010. This was in 2008. So, I wanted to do that, so that there would not be -- Already, there is, a conflict in enforcement. Maybe, the Hon Attorney- General and Minister for Justice has not --
Dr A. A. Osei 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the key word there is “assist;” it is not the person that is doing it. They are over -- I know somebody can misinterpret it -- But they are supposed to assist somebody, and as he said, it is in EOCO; they are not primarily responsible for doing this but they are assisting them. So, as long as we understand that, I think --
Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon Members, even at the Consideration Stage, you are entitled to move an amendment whether it has been advertised. But where you are a member of the Committee, you have a higher obligation to make sure that you assist the House by filing your amendment.
Hon Adjoa Safo, move your amendment.
Ms Sarah Adwoa Safo 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I happen to be a member of the Committee and I am not moving any amendment. I would want to contribute to the issue on the floor that was made --
Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
We have past there. I want to put the Question.
Ms Safo 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if you will hear me for a second, I will appreciate it.
Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Yes, go ahead.
Ms Safo 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the amendment that is being suggested by the Hon Minority Leader would be appropriate but if the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice accepts to put in the definition section, a definition for transnational crime, then it will be easy for us or for any other person who falls within the ambit or who commits an offence that is captured
Ms Safo 12:20 p.m.


under this Act to really put an interpretation to it. So, I am suggesting to the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice that since in the definition section, there is nothing like “transnational organised crime”, that is why the Hon Minority Leader is suggesting that we further amend it to state that contravention --
Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon Member, I have directed that at the appropriate time, we will look at that issue of definition. I have already directed.
Ms Safo 12:20 p.m.
You have, Mr Speaker but I am saying that it will cut the other discussions that we are having if that definition is provided.
Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Very well. The House has taken note of your concern.
Hon Members, I will put the Question on clause 2.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, a minor one in (c), the last but one line to facilitate the administration and enforcement of the laws of the Republic. He has failed to qualify that.
Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Which clause? Clause
2?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
Yes.
Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Clause 2 (c).
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
Yes, “make information available to investigating authorities, intelligence agencies and revenue agencies to facilitate the administration and enforcement of the laws of the Republic”. I thought we were talking about the Anti-Money Laundering laws. So, I thought maybe, we could qualify it by saying “the Anti-Money Laundering laws.”
Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, you know this issue of transnational crime is very complicated. At times, you will be investigating and you need certain information to guide their evidence. If you limit it to this, the challenge is that-- they cannot go and get that particular information to assist whoever or whichever body is doing the investigation and then we will be limiting them.
Mr Boafo 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I appreciate your position but the general enforcement of the law is in the hands of the police and we have been given special enforcement rights. So, it is better we relate it to unlawful activity as defined in the Act. That is on clause 2 (c ). At the end of the penultimate line, that is general reference to the laws of the Republic and I am saying that the enforcement of the general laws of the Republic is in the hands of the police.
Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon Members, I will suggest that we keep it the way it is for good reasons. I do not intend to take part in the debate on the floor but I think that it is better we keep it this way.
Mr Chireh 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that the amendment is not necessary because if you look at the Bank of Ghana Act and the Banking Act and related legislation that we have made here, all infringe upon this. So, we should not limit ourselves to only the Anti -Money Laundering Act. We should leave that as it is because the Banking Act and the others also prohibit some of the things that we are talking about.
It could not have been a specific offence under this law but under these other laws and we need a complete picture to be able to combat them. If you are experienced in combating --
Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon Member, let me just give you an example. I am sorry to say this. Recently, I was sent a bank statement from one of the commercial banks in this country and addressed to me as Speaker and the Speaker has no account with that particular bank. So, I asked the Accounts Department to give me the accounts of Parliament of Ghana.
The ones that they brought to me indicate that all our accounts are with the Bank of Ghana, which is the practice and I was wondering why there should be an account addressed to the Speaker of Parliament.
I fell on the Centre to provide this information to me and the Centre provided the information. Since then I got to know that it was an account that was opened long ago to administer the loans of Members of Parliament during the Third Parliament and the account was not closed and we have a certain balance there.
So, there are situations where you may need to fall on the Centre to assist. I am sorry to give this information at Plenary but it helps. So, if you are not careful and we limit them, certain information that would help various institutions to make certain decisions, will not be able to do it because it is not money laundering and it is not transnational organised crime.
So, I think it would be better for us to leave it the way it is. Just by falling on them, it has been able to resolve that matter within 24 hours.
rose
Mr Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Would you declare your interest in this matter, Hon Member for Effutu?
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would. Mr Speaker, I am a defence -- I am also a practitioner --
Mr Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Would you declare your interest because I have a list of the number of cases you have done in the courts with regard to these matters.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am a practitioner and in fact, I am doing my PhD --
Mr Speaker 12:30 p.m.
That is why I am saying that the rules say you should just declare your interest.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to as much as possible, assist the House with my knowledge in this area. In consistent with --
Mr Speaker 12:30 p.m.
That is why I gave you the floor.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am grateful.
Mr Bagbin 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as you rightly directed, the Hon Member should declare his interest first. He has not declared that interest. This is because it is part of the rules of ethics and conflict of interest. So, when you declare the interest, we know that this is where you are coming from, then we are assessing it to see whether it conflicts with this. This is because I know
Mr Bagbin 12:30 p.m.


he has discussed his interest with me and I know he is very much involved in the practice. So, we would want that to be declared, then it is known, so that later on, we would not say that his contributions are self-serving. It is just to protect his own interest; that is important.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if I may be very specific. My area of practice in law is financial crime. I deal with most of these cases, so, I am able to have a knowledge, not personal interest but professionally, this is my -- It was like when the Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice in private practice, he was dealing in narcotic cases --
Mr Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Do you take part in defending clients or you just provide information to assist the court? They are two separate things.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, what I am saying is that, since it is my area of practice, I am able to -- it is on record, Mr Speaker; it is not specific-- we are dealing with issues of law for all manner of persons; it is not for a client. So, I do not have an interest. This is because the contributions I am making here are contributions that would assist all of us.
Mr Bagbin 12:30 p.m.
I think my Hon Friend has got it all wrong. We are just saying, declare your interest as you are doing but it is not -- Please, if you look at the conflict of interest laws, you would understand what

Mr Speaker, we would want him to say that; we know the Hon Member has the his professional knowledge and experience but he is still in the field and he is doing this and earning some monetary consideration. So, he should just declare it and proceed. It is important for the practice of the House and for all professions.

The reference to the Deputy Attorney- General and Deputy Minister for Justice is wrong because when he was practising, he was handling those cases. Now, he is Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice, when those same cases come before him, he has to declare that interest and excuse himself.

He would not personally be handling those cases again because he was handling them in private practice. That is the interest we are talking about. We are not saying that by so declaring, you are indicting yourself. No!
Mr Joe Ghartey 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I find the argument interesting. The point being made by Hon Bagbin is interesting but a little difficult to support.
Mr Speaker, this is a constitutional provision that one cannot make a retroactive legislation. So, all the laws that we are making to deal with anti-money laundering would not affect the matters which my Hon Colleague is handling before the courts. Even if it is ongoing, when the law is passed, the persons charged would not change.
Mr Speaker, conflict of interest is when you have a personal benefit. So, for example, if there is a Petroleum Agreement before the House and you act for the professional company professionally and the Standing Orders provide for it, I believe Order 213, Employment of persons
in a professional capacity” -- if you do that, then you have to declare your interest.
My Hon Colleague Afenyo-Markin does not have any personal interest in the way we draft our laws. Indeed, like all Hon Members in this House, he is using his expertise as a result of his years of practice to assist us improve the law and he has said that “my interest in the matter is that I handle such matters before the courts”, he does not have a personal interest. What we decide would not affect the case before the courts.
So, my view is that, what he has said is sufficient. He has indicated to you his peculiar knowledge; he does not even have any interest for there to be a conflict.
Mr Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Hon Members, enough of issue of conflict; we are making laws. If there is no further amendment, I am going to put the Question.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:30 p.m.
I beg to move, clause 2 (a) “assist investigative authorities and intelligence agencies in the identification of proceeds of unlawful activity.”
Mr Speaker, why? I am saying so because --[Interruptions.] Mr Speaker, you have just given your personal example and I am saying that where we create ambiguity in the functions of the Centre, particularly so when the same law has given another body the power to investigate.
If we are not careful and we open it and allow ambiguity, as it is happening in our courts -- FIC has been going to court freezing accounts, Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) freezing accounts and there are rulings in the courts freezing accounts.
Judges have been complaining that because there seems to -- FIC says that they have the power to combat crime and they are to assist.
EOCO would be complaining that, well, we are the investigative authority, you are to give us the information for us to investigate. If you look at the functions of EOCO, it is a tall list and I have just cited it. So, I am only trying to guide --
Mr Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Hon Member, you know it is clear that to “assist in the identification of proceeds of unlawful activity” -- I think this is very clear.
Hon Members, I will want to put the Question but if you want to guide us, you can file your amendment for the Second Consideration Stage.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Dr A. A. Osei 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as far as I am concerned, there is no amendment.
Mr Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Any?
Dr A. A. Osei 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is alright.
Mr Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Any? Clause 3.
Dr A. A. Osei 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, should we not go back to do the consequential amendment in clause 1 (2) or —
Mr Speaker 12:40 p.m.
No, Second Consideration.
Clause 3 -- section 6 of Act 749 amended.
Mr Bagbin 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, subclause (1), paragraph (b), line 1, delete “on request”.
Mr Speaker, so it now reads 12:40 p.m.
“to achieve the objects, the Centre shall take measures that are necessary for the enforcement of the United Nations consolidated list”.
So, it would not be on request again. We shall take measures.
Mr Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Do you have the consolidated list defined in any law?
Mr Bagbin 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, we have United Nations consolidated list.
Mr Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Yes, which law?
Mr Bagbin 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is an amendment to define the United Nations consolidated list.
Mr Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Very well.
Hon Members —
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thought that if the Hon Chairman of the Committee was proposing the deletion of the words “on request” in (b), then appropriately, he should also be proposing for the deletion of the words “upon request” in clause 2. That is clause 6 (3) (2) but there is no such.
Mr Speaker, what it suggests in my opinion is that, the Centre could on its own request, receive, analyse, interpret and disseminate information. And (b) says that upon request, if they are requested to do so by the appropriate authority, they could do that. So, I am saying that —
Mr Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, why do we not take them one by one, so that when we deal with this one, we can go and look at the “upon request” in the subsequent subclause to see whether they are for different purposes or they are different.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, for clause 2, I have just drawn attention to the deletion in (b) and whether commensurately we may not have to delete “upon request” in clause 2. And then, there is another one, line 3 of clause 2 in the original Bill, we have “subject to reciprocity or mutual agreement and then subject to —”
Mr Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, let us deal with this issue of “upon request”. I think the “upon request” there in sub- clause (2) is proper. This is because if you look at the objects of the Centre-- Exchange information in similar bodies in other countries. If you look at the objects, to exchange information with similar bodies in other countries. So, those bodies can make request on the Ghanaian body for exchange of information for that purpose.
But where in the first one on request, it means that if they see a wrong going on, they cannot take action. That they would just be there like a lame duck. So, the “request” has to be interpreted in a different context.
Dr A. A. Osei 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just so, we follow them, can we finish with the amendments on subclause (1) before we get to subclause (2), so that we are clear in our minds?
Mr Speaker 12:40 p.m.
I have put the Question.
Dr A. A. Osei 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, but there are still further amendments on subclause
(1).
Mr Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Very well. Thank you very much, Hon Member for Old Tafo.
Mr Bagbin 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, subclause (1), add the following new paragraphs:
“(f) retain the information in the manner and for the period required under this Act; and
(g) inform, advise and co-operate with investigating authorities, supervisory bodies, the revenue agencies, the intelligence agencies and foreign counterparts”.
Mr Speaker, this is to give the Centre the authority to be able to keep and maintain the information and data that they gather for a period of time. There are issues on retention of information since in the existing law, we do not have any such provision and they were just assuming that they can keep the information.
So, we want to put this specifically that they have been mandated by the law to not just give out the information and have nothing in their records but also to retain the same information that they give out. That is the essence of this proposed new clause.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I appreciate the principle underpinning the amendment that the Hon Chairman is proffering. But why not say “keep” instead of “retain”. “Keep the information in the manner and for the period required under this Act.”
Mr Speaker 12:40 p.m.
What is the difference here between “keep” and “retain”?
Mr Bagbin 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the difference is that, when you keep, you do not give out. When you retain, you give part and you also maintain part. [Laughter.] It is like, you create and share. So, when you create and share, you retain some and share some. [Laughter.] But when you create and keep, it means you do not share.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think “keeping” would be a better word. Because if you go further downstream to page 8 of the Bill, they are talking about duration of keeping records, not retaining records. So, I think the principle is about the same and I thought that to synchronise in terminology you could rather use “keep”.
Dr A. A. Osei 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not think that can necessarily be the reason. Why we have this “keeping records” is that, in accounting sense, it goes with it. Records must be kept. I do not know if information must be kept. So, the rationale for the “keeping records” here is that because we are dealing with records, the word “keep” must come here. But here, it is “information” and it is necessarily true that we must keep information.
Mr Speaker 12:50 p.m.
I think that within the context, as explained by the Hon Chairman, “retain” might be the proper term to use. One gives out and then “retains”.
Hon Members, I would want to put the Question on the amendment moved by the Hon Chairman.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Hon Members, I will now put the Question on the new clause 3 --
Mr Boafo 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, following the insertion of the new clause, paragraph (g), I find the expression “supervisory bodies” in line 2, but at the same time, when one goes to paragraph (d), line 1, one sees that the Centre is charged with “co-ordinating and supervising”. I sense some conflict. Maybe, the Hon Chairman
Mr Bagbin 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the paragraphs are dealing with different things all together, even though they are all in clause 3. The one we just mentioned, that is paragraph (g), is talking about the functions of the Centre, just like the paragraph (g) that he is referring to. But the paragraph (g) is talking about other bodies which are involved in the investigation of these crimes. We are talking about bodies that are under the Financial Intelligence Centre.
Now, as it is, the Financial Intelligence Centre is under the Ministry of Finance. And under the Ministry of Finance, we have Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA), which also conducts investigation in some of these areas. I think when the Hon Member is talking about “supervisory bodies” maybe, the reference may be to some of these things.
Now, when one talks about “co- ordinate and supervise activities for the investigation and suppression of money
laundering” that deals with using their expertise and experience to assist other agencies. The Hon Member in particular was talking about the police being the main body responsible for enforcement of the law. The police might not have that technical knowledge and experience that the Financial Intelligence Centre would have.
So, they can supervise investigations by the police in those areas with their technical expertise. I do not see anything wrong with that. I think they are different things all together. This is because one is dealing with “bodies” and the other is dealing with “activities”.
Mr Speaker 12:50 p.m.
I think one important point that the Hon Member has raised is with regard to the amendment, that is when one is talking about revenue agencies, one knows what one is talking about. If one talks about the intelligence agencies, one will have an idea if it is about foreign counterparts, one would have an idea, if it is about “supervisory bodies”, what bodies are we referring to? If we mention “supervisory bodies” in the law, in this amendment --
Dr Ayine 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the “supervisory bodies” are many. We have the Ministry of Finance, which is the main Ministry in charge of the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC). We have the Attorney- General's Department, when it comes to the enforcement of the law and we currently supervise their activities when it comes to freezing of accounts and confiscation of property and so on. Then, we have the Bank of Ghana. So, there are a number of “supervisory bodies” that deal with the Financial Intelligence Centre.
Mr Speaker 12:50 p.m.
But is it apparent on the face of the Bill or the amendment itself?
Dr Ayine 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, you are right, it is not. It is not apparent at all.
Mr Speaker 12:50 p.m.
In other words, at the appropriate time, you must get it clear, so that we know the kind of supervisory bodies we are talking about.
Dr Ayine 12:50 p.m.
Very well taken.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just to add some few points to the submission by Hon W. O. Boafo.
Mr Speaker, the paragraph (d), which is talking about “co-ordinate and supervise activities” for the investigation -- there is so much ambiguity in there. The Hon Chairman of the Committee said that the Centre could use its expertise to supervise the activities of the place. Mr Speaker, I agree with the zeal. However, let us ensure that we enact laws that practically, their challenges would not rather hinder progress.
We know that FIC -- the Director of Criminal Investigations Department would not allow FIC to supervise its activity. The Economic and Organised Crime Organisation (EOCO) would not. National Security too would not allowFIC to supervise their activities. So, if we are talking about information dissemination and co-ordination -- now, we are talking about supervision.
Mr Speaker, with the greatest respect, we have challenges in enforcement. So, let us not give them wider powers. This is because in other jurisdictions for instance, in Nigeria, FIC is a unit under the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). If here we want to give them that independence -- and in the definition we have talked about, they being a body corporate with perpetual succession, that can sue and be sued.
If FIC which draws its source of funding from government is allowed to be independent to do its activities and they get it wrong and lose cases in court and the government becomes liable for their activities and they are the same body that is supervising, Mr Speaker, let us objectively look at that bit --
Mr Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Hon Member, if you looked at (d), the supervisory jurisdiction is limited to money laundering, terrorist financing and financing of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; they are limited to these. The FIC is supposed to combat. So, clearly, it is not general supervisory jurisdiction that is being conferred to them with regard to investigation. It is limited to the area that the Centre -- It is consistent with the object and function of the Centre.
So, if one looks at it, if it were broad, then your argument would have been persuasive. But it has been limited to activities dealing with money laundering. And to that extent, the point being made by the Hon Chairman of the Committee is quite convincing.
Dr A. A. Osei 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not want the lawyers to confuse me. But -- Mr Speaker, as I am reading it, the supervision is of the activities for the investigation. So, the question is, whose responsibility is it to investigate? If it is clear to us that they have that jurisdiction, then this is alright with the issue of supervision. But if somebody else is responsible for the investigation, then they cannot supervise them.
So, let us be clear in our mind who is responsible for the investigation of these crimes. Once that is made clear, then we have no problem.
Mr Speaker 1 p.m.
Hon Yieleh Chireh, look at subclause (d).
Mr Chireh 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think in terms of co-ordination, I do not know the powers we want to give to it. Supervise which agencies?
Mr Speaker 1 p.m.
So, it is with regard to the subclause (d). It is on the subclause (d) that the Hon Member for Akropong raised the issue.
Mr Bagbin 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this (d) is completely in accord with the objects of the Bill. It is the Centre that is to assist in the combat of these crimes, because it is transnational. So, it cannot only be that - - But so far, as the country is concerned, when you are dealing with terrorist financing for example, National Security could be involved.
They would have come across information on those areas and this Centre with its experience and knowledge and expertise, would be the one supervising and co-ordinating. This is because there are many agencies that would have access to information on these areas.
Mr Speaker 1 p.m.
So, are you saying that based on the example you are giving, if the National Security or any other investigative body is investigating, are they going to supervise that investigative body? That is the point.
Mr Bagbin 1 p.m.
No,they are co-ordinating and supervising the activities for the investigation. [Interruption.]
Dr A. A. Osei 1 p.m.
Available to investigating authorities? Look at subclause 2 (c), it cannot be consistent with the subclause (d).
Mr Bagbin 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the fact that you make information available to some investigative authorities, does not mean that you cannot also co-ordinate and supervise the investigation of others.
Mr Speaker 1 p.m.
But you must have the jurisdiction to investigate before you can supervise the investigation.
Hon Chairman of the Committee that is the point being made.
Mr Chireh 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, where we have put “supervise”, it should not be “supervise”, we should look for another thing which would be in accord or assist --
Mr Speaker 1 p.m.
I was trying to see whether we can put “assist” there, listening to the sense of the House. But I do not know whether that is the proper -
- 1 p.m.
Mr Chireh 1 p.m.
“Assist in the activities for the investigation”. Mr Speaker, it should be “assist” because if you say they should --
Mr Speaker 1 p.m.
Hon Chairman, the point made early on, on the floor is that, FIC, is not an investigative agency. So, if they are not an investigative agency; they do not have the jurisdiction to investigate. And if you do not have the jurisdiction to investigate, then how do they have the power to supervise investigation? That is the argument that is being made.
We may defer the Question and decide on the proper words that we would use, so that we also do not defeat the purpose of the enactment and then we can make progress.
Dr Ayine 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think what we are trying to do here, is to capture the essence of what is happening in practice. Currently, you are right. Under the Anti- Money Laundering Act of 2008, the FIC does not have investigating powers. So, it is the Economic and Organised Crimes Office (EOCO) that has the investigative. The FIC currently does not supervise the
EOCO. But what happens is that, normally, we put together a team under the auspices of the Attorney-General for purposes of doing this. But because they gather the intelligence, they have more technical competence than our people, and so, we are trying to give them the statutory power to be able to supervise investigation at that level, the level of the practical nitty-gritty of trying to unearth information for purposes of our prosecution. That is what we are trying to capture here. But it seems we have not done it with clarity for the House to be able to agree with us.
Mr Speaker 1 p.m.
I think this is a very important law, especially given the powers that we are giving to FIC and I would suggest that let us think through it and see whether we can come and resolve it tomorrow.
Hon Chairman, that is my suggestion to the House.
Jurisdiction is conferred by statutes, so the argument is that if they do not have the power to investigate, how do they supervise and it is a very fundamental legal point being raised.
Mr Bagbin 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this is not an amendment being moved by the Chairman. It is an amendment being moved by other persons. I moved clause 3 and that has been taken --
Mr Speaker 1 p.m.
You are the Chairman of the Committee and therefore, this is the point they have made. That is why I want your input on what I am suggesting, that we defer putting the Question on the entirety of the clause, so that tomorrow morning we will think through it.
Mr Bagbin 1 p.m.
That is so. I have no problem.
Mr Speaker 1 p.m.
Very well.
Mr Boafo 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with the observation you have made, there would be no need for my comment. But I would want to draw the Hon Chairman's attention to the fact that it is inconceivable for the Centre to supervise National Security. It is inconceivable, the almighty National Security.
Mr Speaker 1 p.m.
Hon Members, so, we would defer putting the final Question on clause 3. So, we move to clause 4.
First Deputy Speaker, to take the Chair.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, while we are on clause 3, I was suggesting to the Chair to look at how clause 3 (2) has been captured. In line 3, it reads:
“The Centre may on its own accord or upon request share information with any foreign counterpart agency that performs similar functions and is subject to reciprocity or mutual agreement, subject to similar secrecy obligations, regardless of the nature of agency.”
If we can look at the use of the second “subject to” but since you have indicated to defer it, I have discussed it with the Chairman and maybe, they can look at what better terminology to employ.
Mr Boafo 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause --
Mr Speaker 1 p.m.
The clause 4, I have mentioned is actually clause 3. The clause 3 I have mentioned is actually clause 4 in the Bill.
Mr W. O. Boafo 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is line 3. I do not know whether after two on line 3, we should insert “successive”.
Mr Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Which clause are you referring to?
Mr Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Which is clause 3 in the Bill?
Mr Boafo 1:10 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, line 3, that is before “terms,” if we can insert “successive”.
Mr Speaker 1:10 p.m.
They just want two terms; whether it is successive.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the Hon Member for Akropong is seriously in love with the “Putin” arrangement; the arrangement that ushered President Putin into office.
Mr Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Hon Members, I will put the Question --
Mr Bagbin 1:10 p.m.
Sorry, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, in clause 5(b), we identified some problem.
It says:
“The funds of the Centre include any other moneys that are approved by the Minister responsible for Finance”.
The Minister responsible for Finance cannot approve moneys that are not approved by Parliament for the Centre. So, I think it is just part of moneys approved by Parliament.
Mr Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Very well. What I will do is that, let me put the Question on clause
4.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 --
rose
Mr Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Chairman, do you want to move an amendment? Are you sure you do not want to earmark a special money at the Ministry of Finance for the Centre? This is because the Centre is under the Ministry but not in this language; not in this form because it is under that Ministry.
Mr Bagbin 1:10 p.m.
That is so. I am trying to get similar rendition and therefore, I would propose that we defer it, so that I can get similar rendition.
Mr Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Very well. Clause 5 accordingly deferred.
Clause 6 -- Section 23 A of Act 749 inserted.
MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:13 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Committee has advertised an amendment for clause 6(14). But before then, there are a few areas that I would want us to consider. The first one is in respect of clause 6(10). It says:
“The Centre shall advise an accountable institution of concerns about weaknesses in the Anti- Money Laundering, Counter Financing of Terrorism and Financing of Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction systems of other countries.”
I believe we can do away with concerns” in line 1. So, the rendition will read:
“The Centre shall advise an accountable institution about weaknesses in the Anti-Money Laundering …”
Rather than:
“…of concerns about weaknesses…”
This is at clause 6(10) line 1.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:13 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, do you want to delete the word “concerns”?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the words “of concerns”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:13 p.m.
Why?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is because I think it is an overcure. The Centre would advise an accountable institution about weaknesses in the system; not about “concerns about weaknesses”.
Mr Chireh 1:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if you look at it, the Committee itself has proposed under clause 6 a number of things which precede --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:13 p.m.
Can you come again? I am sorry.
Mr Chireh 1:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am saying the Committee itself has proposed amendments in some of the subclauses, so, we should do it orderly, so that -- The Hon Member has gone to clause -- [Interruption.]
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Committee's proposal is starting from clause 6(14), following this one, is clause
6(10).
Mr Chireh 1:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is not what I am reading. It starts with --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:13 p.m.
No! It starts from subclause (14). It is clause 6(14) and he is dealing with clause 6(10), which is earlier in time by way of sequence.
Mr Bagbin 1:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Member drew my attention to this yesterday and I totally agreed with him. It should read:
“The Centre shall advise an accountable institution about weaknesses in the Anti-Money Laundering, Counter Financing of Terrorism and Financing of Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction systems of other countries”.
Mr Speaker, not “institution of concerns about weaknesses…”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:13 p.m.
Very well. Can the Hon Minority Leader then frame his amendment, so that we capture it?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that in clause 6, subclause (1), line 1, delete the words “of concerns”.
So that the full complement now will read:
“The Centre shall advise an accountable institution about weaknesses in the Anti-Money Laundering, Counter Financing of Terrorism and Financing of Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction Systems of other countries”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, again, I discussed this with the Chairman of the Committee. I do not know whether we may not consider it. Clause 6(11), it says:
“The Centre shall examine the background and purpose of the transactions referred to in subsection (6) and record and maintain the findings according to this Act.”
I thought we could deal with the recording and either “keeping” or “retaining” as suggested by the Chairman in an earlier construction. I think that it should be “record and keep the findings according to this Act” instead of “maintaining”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:13 p.m.
Hon Chairman, what is your response?
Mr Bagbin 1:13 p.m.
That is so, Mr Speaker. It should be “record and keep the findings…” So, “maintain” should be deleted and then we insert “keep” -- “keep the findings according to this Act”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:13 p.m.
Very well.
Hon Minority Leader, by way of formality, can you just come out with your proposed amendment?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 6, subclause 11, line 2, delete “maintain” and substitute “keep”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:13 p.m.
Very well.
Question put and amendment agreed to
MrKyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in subclause (12), line 2, there was a construction that is used, “rely on” and I read subclause (12),

“Subject to the requirement prescribed by regulations an accountable institution may rely on an intermediary or a third party to perform some of the elements of customer due diligence measures referred to in subsection 2 or to introduce business.”

Mr Speaker, I believe “rely on” is not appropriate construction. I beg to move, delete the words “rely on” and substitute “appoint”. So the full complement will read:

“Subject to the requirements prescribed by the regulations, an accountable institution may appoint an intermediary or third party to perform some of the functions.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:13 p.m.
Hon Chairman, are you ad idem with him?
Mr Bagbin 1:13 p.m.
That is so, Mr Speaker. We discussed it yesterday and I think that is the best. If you look at the other clauses, we are talking of accountable institution appointing --
Question put and amendment agreed to
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:13 p.m.
Yes, any more, Minority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, subclause (13) “Despite subsection 9, the ultimate responsibility for customer identification and verification shall remain with the accountable institution relying on the third party.”
Mr Speaker, I thought this was really a giving and that in the context, it is superfluous. If you delegate authority, ultimate responsibility still lies with you.This one ensues from 12, which is saying that, even when you procure the services of an intermediary, the ultimate responsibility rests with you. I agree with
the principle, except that I think it is superfluous because it is a giving. Other than that, Mr Speaker, I do not have anything against that provision. But I think that it is superfluous in the circumstance.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:13 p.m.
It might appear superfluous but leaving it for the avoidance of doubt, you would want to be sure that --
Mr Boafo 1:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, maybe, it is now that my Leader has seen that, this provision is superfluous because it has been appearing in previous Bills -- [Interruption] -- and they have been endorsed in this House with his tacit consent -- [Laughter.] Mr Speaker, after you have put the Question, I will get up and come up with some amendments before the clause 14.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:13 p.m.
Very well. But before then, let me find out from the Chairman what his response is to the proposed amendment.
Mr Bagbin 1:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, he raised this yesterday but the technical people agreed with the position that Hon W. O. Boafo has just stated. For the purposes of clarity, to make assurance doubly sure for anybody who is not well-versed with law to know that the responsibility rests with the accountable institution. The accountable institutions are so many and many of them do not have knowledge in law-- So, they think that it is proper to state this and that is the new style of drafting. So, I am opposed to the amendment.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that it is an overkill. As I said, it ensues directly from 12. I know that we have been making laws in this House and repeating this. But it does not take anything away if you have made a discovery today and we want to change.
Mr Speaker, the issue that you raised in respect of 5 “any other moneys that are approved by the Minister responsible for Finance” you will realise that in the Acts that we have been passing, this one is also repeated. But then when we had the discussions, we realised that there was something wrong with it, and having so stumbled on it, we are thinking that we should have another look at that construction.
So, the fact that we have been doing it repeatedly in the House, does not mean anything. But like you said, if it is for the purposes of the avoidance of doubt, I have nothing against it.
Mr Chireh 1:13 p.m.
He has already conceded. So, I will not say anything. Otherwise, I was going to say that he would have inserted this, if we left it out -- [Interruptions]-- for the avoidance of doubt.
Mr Boafo 1:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, before you put the Question on paragraph (13) --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:13 p.m.
I am not going to put any Question.
Mr Boafo 1:13 p.m.
Sorry. But Mr Speaker, I will like to draw the Chairman's attention to an omission in paragraph (13). If you go back to paragraph (12), line 2, we have an intermediary or third party. But when you come to paragraph (13), the intermediary is left out. We only see reference to the third party and I do not know whether there is any good reason for leaving out the intermediary.
Mr Speaker, I could see the Chairman nodding his head.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:13 p.m.
I can see the Ranking Member also up. What do you have to say?
Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu 1:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are not objecting to the inclusion of the third party, but I am also looking at what flows from the amendment we have done “relying on” being changed to “ a ppoint” and then using “relying on” in the subsequent subclause. I was going to propose that instead of using “relying on the third party” we may use “with the accountable institution appointing a third party or an intermediary.”
Mr Bagbin 1:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think both proposals are quite in order to give details. Intermediaries are also third party anyway. But once we have used it in the main clause, there is nothing wrong repeating it. “Third party, or an intermediary” instead of using “relying on.” Now that we say “appoint”, it is proper we use “appoint”.
So, it will read:
“Despite subsection 9, the ultimate responsibility for customer identification or verification shall remain with the accountable institution appointing the third party or intermediary.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:13 p.m.
Very well.
Question put and amendment agreed to
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:13 p.m.
Now, before we go to subclause (14), Hon Boafo?
Mr Boafo 1:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to draw the Chairman's attention to clause 6, subclause (5).
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:13 p.m.
What is there?
Mr Boafo 1:13 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in line 2, I find it very discriminatory for politically -- exposed people to be singled out. I do not know why the Deputy Attorney General and Deputy Minister for Justice is doing that.
Mr Speaker, it is very discriminatory because there are other persons who will equally be so exposed. So, Mr Speaker, I prefer that in the new rendition, we leave out “politically-exposed” and rather go this way:
“An accountable institution shall put in place measures to identify persons whose activities will pose high risk of money laundering...”
Mr Bagbin 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is focus on “Politically Exposed Person” (PEP) because of the risk of that position and in fact, we went head to define “politically exposed persons”. It is in the definition. By nature of the trust that is put on you by the public, you are opened to high risk and so, this is to make sure that they are identified and taken care of.
When you look at the definition at page 23, it is clearly there, “politically exposed person” includes
(a) a person who is, or has been entrusted with a prominent public function in this country or a foreign country, including
(i) a Head of State or of government,
(ii) a senior political, government, judicial or military official;
(iii) a person who is, or has been an executive in a foreign country of a State- owned company; and
(b) a person who is or has been a senior political party official in a foreign country, and includes any immediate family members or
close associates of such persons;”
It is clear that such persons are opened to high risks and specific mention should be made of them. The clause that the Hon Member referred to, (6) is dealing with “customer due diligence” and subclause (5) is what he is referring to “an accountable institution shall put in place measures to identify” because of the “due diligence”. “An accountable institution” is like him, the Hon Member, a lawyer in practice; that is an accountable institution.
So, we have to put in measures to identify them as they appear before you. This is because they are “exposed” and you think that their activities may pose high risk of money laundering. Clients are coming to him, they would be paying, as well as terrorism financing. So, with that, you can manage the risk that is associated with your activities or functions. That is why it is put there. It is not open to any other person; that is the problem.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
Very well.
Hon Afenyo-Markin; after that Hon Yieleh Chireh.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, “accountable institution” also includes the financial institutions. Mr Speaker, if we maintain “politically exposed” and we look at a wide definition, I support the submission that it is discriminatory. We have to be careful in enacting laws that would not be subject to abuse.
This is because the ultimate thing is that, when the information is in the data - - base of these institutions, it goes to FIC. So far, there is no clear definition of which body supervises the activities of FIC, but we know from the provisions that FIC would disseminate the information to the intelligence agencies, investigative authorities, Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) and all that.
So, if we limit it to only “politically exposed persons”; and from the explanation that is being proffered by the Hon Chairman of the Commitee to the rationale for this, Mr Speaker, relatives of politicians may be harassed unduly for their genuine businesses -- those of us who have done private business before, when you are tagged “PEP”, for you to access loans or any credit facility, it is not easy. So, we should not give too much room for people to be tagged.
If you are talking about anti-money laundering, terrorism financing and then we extend the scope to include individuals who may be doing their own regular business, because their father or great grandfather or uncle are chairman of a political party, as soon as they fill the form and they indicate as such, they are tagged as “PEP”. When they are being given a facility, when they are doing any transaction, “PEP” then they track them. Anybody can abuse that and we have to be very careful.
That is my submission to that.
Mr Chireh 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that we should retain “politically exposed” and it is also because, if we look at the protocols, the emphasis is always on the “politically exposed people”. That is because we control public resources. The most important question is, why would we not want the discrimination when it is in favour of protecting the public purse or any other thing? There is no discrimination; they are just mentioning you specifically and it is because we are the highest risk persons in this whole business of money laundering.
First, you control public purse; second, we have power to travel and do all kinds of things, to command; et cetera. So you must be exposed; in fact, it is not discriminatory; it says “politically exposed and other persons”; so, I think that we should keep it as it is.
Mr Chireh 1:30 p.m.


The more we try to remove these things for our convenience, the less it would qualify for us to maintain a standard and the record of these protocols that we are making this law to conform to. I think that, for the first time, we should not say that it is discriminatory against us, it is in support of us.
Dr Ayine 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as the Hon Chairman has pointed out, this is about customer due diligence and the fact that “politically exposed persons” have been listed, is not discriminatory. The basis of discrimination under article 17 of the Constitution is where similarly situated persons are treated differently on the basis of certain suspect criteria such as your ethnic affiliation, political affiliation and so on.
Here, that is not what is happening. What is happening is that, a group of persons who have the power to control public resources as Hon Yieleh Chireh has pointed out, and the power to be able to move money with just the stroke of a pen, or some verbal phone call and so on and so forth, customer due diligence must be conducted on those persons before accountable institutions would be able to take action as far as their accounts are concerned.
I have a personal experience trying to open a foreign account with Standard Chartered Bank. I was told that I was “politically exposed” and it took me about three months before the account was opened.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
Yes, Hon Afenyo-Markin and then, Hon Minister for Information and Media Relations, followed by Hon Osei-Owusu.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if you come to the definition, a “politically exposed persons” also includes close associates. Mr Speaker, who are close associates of -- because they have defined “family members” or “close associates”. Mr Speaker, that is the problem, and I am also saying that, I am also speaking from the practical point of view.
I remember when I was an Assemblyman, I was doing a transport business and my facility had been approved. Immediately I got the letter, I was tagged “politically exposed persons” and the bank declined the facility though we had executed it.
Mr Speaker, if we are now singling out; because it is the use of the information, it is not just tagging you “politically exposed person”. It is not everybody who gets into politics, who gets access to money or all the goodies of power. That you would say that because the person is a politician, he has a family member not forgetting --
Sometime ago, the former UN Secretary- General, Kofi Annan was so embarrassed because his son who was working with a reputable company, because of this Food for Aid programme, he was brought to the spotlight and the man personally felt affected.
I am saying that, getting these laws - I have no problem if we say, politically, we will limit the definition, I have no problem. But if we say, somebody is a friend to Mr Speaker, and you see the person moving around with Mr Speaker, or an Ambassador has a friend, you meet them at clubs and the managing director of a bank knows that they meet at a certain place, that is a close associate, he gives information and immediately, it becomes an issue.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, to draw the attention of my Colleague, the happy news for him is that, the (b) that he relates to is in respect of political party officials in foreign countries, not in Ghana. It says:
“a person who is or has been a senior political party official in a foreign country and it includes any immediate family members or close associates or such persons.”
In foreign countries, not in Ghana.
Mr Mahama Ayariga 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, on the simple question of whether it is discriminatory, I think that, on the face of it, it is clearly discriminatory, that customers are going to be given differential treatment on the basis of their profession, their occupation, et cetera. Other people who are associated to them are also going to be given differential treatment on the basis of their close association to specific political figures. So, it is clearly discriminatory.
The question really is whether there is a good public policy reason in a legislation that seeks to mount surveillance over financial transactions, with the view to combating money laundering. Whether there is a reasonable basis for wanting to discriminate for the purposes of enabling surveillance to take place.
I think that clearly, when you look at money laundering, and the categories of people that generally, over the years, have been suspected, and have been convicted for money laundering, or if you look at the history of money laundering, and the class of people that generally have been involved in money laundering, people in the political class, who are controlling
resources as the Hon Member indicated, have been found to have been involved in money laundering activities. Also those who have the tendency to hide financial transactions.
Business people doing legitimate business generally do not have a motive to hide their financial transactions. The same way that people in narcotics trade et cetera, which are illegal transactions have a very good reason they want to hide their financial transactions and want to use proxies to be able to carry out these transactions.
The same way, it has also been proved over the years, from publications, investigations et cetera, that people in certain political classes who have access to State resources and move them around,very often want to also hide their financial transactions and they try to use proxies, be they family members or very close associates.
Therefore, we need a legislation, tailor- made to give us that power to be able to mount surveillance of all these people. I think that clearly, this is adequately designed to capture this kind of situation and address the ills of money laundering.
Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have very little to add. All the arguments made are fair points to argue. But to allay my Colleagues' fears, this clause, if passed, may be prone to abuse, just like any other law we make may be misapplied somehow. More importantly, in my view, this allows a clear distinction between politically exposed people who are abusing their offices as against lumping all politicians together saying they are this or that.
To enable those applying the law to track the activities of politically exposed persons and to bring out those who are abusing their offices -- As for the danger of it being abused, all of us should stand
Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu 1:40 p.m.


together to make sure that politically exposed persons are not abused merely because we are trying to lay ourselves bare to assure our transparency.

Thank you Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Well, I think that it is quite clear that, it might appear discriminatory but there is a reason for it. As a public policy, we must as much as possible try to fight this particular type of crime. As he rightly said, there is a likelihood of abuse, but we need to maintain it, so that we can satisfy certain international requirements and things like that. I think it is only fair.
Mr Bagbin 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the summary. It is important for us to point out that, the law is not totally against discrimination. It is the type of discrimination that the law is against, not all discrimination. In fact, I hear people arguing when we go to the Independence Square, where seats are reserved for people to sit, they say that this one is discrimination, it is against the Constitution.
We cannot extend it to that way, there is positive discrimination which is good. It is the negative discrimination that the law is against. The one that is singling you out for punishment, which is against public policy or public interest. That is what the law is against.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Very well. Can we then move on to subclause 14?
Sorry, you have some more comments to make. Very well, Hon W. O. Boafo.
Mr Boafo 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, subclause 6, paragraph (a), line 3. There is reference to economic or lawful purpose. I am wondering whether if something is being done for economic expediency. But it is
unlawful, whether that would qualify. Why do we not delete “economic” or/ and just retain “lawful purpose.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Hon Boafo, can you tell us why you think that “economic” is not necessary in that context?
Mr Boafo 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, they have mentioned “economic” or “lawful purpose”. I do not see the need to single out economic because assuming that something is unlawful but it is economically expedient to do it.
Mr Chireh 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that the way the Hon Member is reading the subclause, if you read it thoroughly, it says: “complex and unusual large transaction and unusual pattern of transaction which do not have an apparent or visible economic or lawful act”.
So, the qualification here is the transaction. Is it economic? And when I say “economic”, does it make sense to do that? Is there any economic reason for doing this or is it lawful? That is why it is qualifying the transactions. The visible apparent economic gains. So, economic is not out of place there.
Mr Bagbin 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are dealing with money here. So, we are talking about transactions dealing with money. So, the term “economic” is very appropriate. The other thing is that, is it lawful or unlawful, it might not be for our economic purpose, maybe, for a political purpose but is this for a lawful political purpose or unlawful political purpose? That is why they used the ward “economic” and as we say, visible, one should from the transactions just see that this is meant for that.
That is why those terminologies are used there. So, I think it is appropriate. There is no need for an amendment and I oppose any proposed amendment in this direction.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
Hon Afenyo- Markin, do you have any point?
Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 6, subclause 7. I would have preferred the Hon Chairman to look at the requirement for a person to give his full details when he is depositing.
I have no problem with the withdrawal because, that is the practice. But the depositing, somebody may not have an identification (ID) card, but may be sent by another person to deposit GH¢100 or GH¢50. Is it that we want the banks -- I have discussed my view on that with the Hon Chairman -- There may be some cases where somebody may prefer that another person depositing funds in his or her accounts would not have to give his full name. So, it is depositing, not about transfer.
If it is transfer from one bank to the other or from one jurisdiction to the other, that one, it is fair, but in our situation, we have somebody in Winneba or Bolgatanga who may not have an ID card. Urgently, one wants him to deposit some money into one's account. He is working somewhere. He does have an ID card. He goes to the bank and the bank could require that he does not have -- This is because that is the import. Requiring full details would mean proof of identity.
So, if we could look at that one. Before one deposits money into an account -- Maybe, we can cap it, but exceeding a certain amount, we could look at it. Other than that, I do not see --
Mr Bagbin 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this is really very, necessary because one has to trace to know who deposited the money. One may have an account, and the next day, they send an alert to you that somebody
had deposited GH¢100,000 into your accounts. Then, you ask, who deposited it in my account? The records do not show. Then, you will be held accountable because that is your account, and we are dealing with money laundering. So, it is important that they state.
In fact, in the forms, when one is depositing, there is a space to state the name and the telephone numbers, that one fills, so that they can trace the person. Even with that, they are still having a difficulty and now, people want to go further than that. When one is paying in, there may be some cameras that could capture one in case one gives wrong name, wrong telephone number and the rest but the face would show.
This is because of this kind of crime in the society. And it is also to sanitise our way of doing business and inject integrity into Leadership and politics and the rest. So, I am totally against any other rendition than this.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
Yes, I think so too. I think it is necessary that, one is able to identify whoever is paying such an amount of money into a particular account. This is because getting an account number will not be too difficult but the question is, who paid the money into that account? Did that person have the authorisation of the owner of the account for such an amount to be paid into it? So, I think we need to cover those tracks.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have two issues. Issue one is where the person does not have an ID card. And in ordinary sense, one wants him or her to deposit money into one's account. People often send people to deposit money into their son's account and all that. Where the person does not have -- I agree that we have to bring sanity and transparency
Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:50 p.m.


into the activities of people's banking transactions. But let us also look at the practical challenges that we might face.

So, if we can introduce a cap. Are we saying that, when depositing, we would be just be asking for the person's details without proof of ID card? If they are saying that we do not need a proof of ID and the person would only have to give his or her details, that is fine. But where we know majority of the people do not have reliable ID --We have a chunk in the informal sector. Somebody doing business in Suame Magazine.
Mr Bagbin 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not understand what the Hon Member is saying because, what is on the ID card is what they are simply saying should be put on the form. They do not say produce ID card. That is not what this clause is saying. It says, just put your personal details. So, we do not say bring your ID card or your passport -- Put your personal details. That is all that they are requesting. If he is talking about the rural people who do not have ID cards and passports, et cetera, they should put their names and addresses. That is all that they are asking for.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if the Hon Chairman has explained it, that is not what the rendition is saying. In ordinary sense, if I say, give your full details, the banks would demand an ID card before. They would not just say fill forms.
For now, the banks have a requirement, when one is depositing, that person deposits with a name. They do not require proof of ID before one deposits. So, my worry is that if the banks, in interpreting this law, then moves a step to say that, before one deposits cash, one should bring an ID and one does not have, can
one do that? But if the banks would just allow one to just fill like what is being done now, then I do not have a problem.
I am looking at the informal sector because, this law applies to -- When we say accountable institutions, we mean all the banks -- rural banks, money lending institutions and micro-finance companies. So, let us be very specific to avoid any ambiguity when it comes to enforcement
-- 1:50 p.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
Hon Members, I direct that, having regard to the state of business, we Sit outside the prescribed period in accordance with Order 40 (3) of the Standing Orders. But it is only for the purpose of concluding debate on subclause 6.
Mr Chireh 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the concerns that my Hon Colleague is raising are interesting. Currently, the Bank of Ghana requires the banks with guidelines, what they call KYC -- “Know Your Customer”. Almost every year, they ask us to update our records. Now, these are all part of the reasons we are saying this. But for the depositing, as is being explained, if somebody goes to deposit GH¢100 in your account, why would somebody be asking for the ID card? It is not the ID card; the banks already know how to do this.
The concern he is raising is actually the practice in the bank that would inform. We can pass the law, but the banks know how they can let things flow. He is pre- judging the issue.
In fact, if we do not do that, we being politically exposed, somebody can just go, without any identity, put money in our account and damage our reputation. That is why one needs to give the details of the person depositing. It is in one's favour.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I really do not have anything against that clause as such. My worry is how the construction is being captured:
“An accountable institution shall require the full personal details of the person who makes a deposit into or withdrawal from account on behalf of another person.”
If I issued a cheque to Hon Afenyo- Markin to deposit in the account of Hon W. O. Boafo, who is making the deposit? I consider that I am the person making the deposit. The Hon Afenyo-Markin who goes to the bank with it is only my agent, even though he has physical presence in the bank. So, who is required to give the details? Is it me the person or the agent?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
I think here it is the agent. They are concerned about the agent. Like was said early on, somebody could seriously use this to discredit a politically-exposed person, just pay a huge amount into their account, no details who paid the money into the account and then later the same bank will be enquiring from you the source of that particular deposit. So, it is the agent we are talking about, to a large extent.
Mr Ayariga 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is important for us to appreciate what this is seeking to do. This is seeking to maintain surveillance on certain accounts and the purpose of maintaining surveillance has to do with both depositing and withdrawing funds, and it is important that we maintain accurate information about who is putting what money and who is withdrawing how much money from these accounts.
Like Hon Members have stated, it is for the protection of people who are the subject of surveillance that we have evidence to show who actually put the
money. If it becomes an evidential matter, you will have some protection. So I think that we should maintain these provisions. Indeed, if it is about the informal sector, I think that we should be moving towards encouraging documentation and formalisation. And if you are in the informal sector and your work involves putting money in banks, it is important for you to get the education.
But it is important for you to get some form of identification, and given that we already have a national identification programme, I do not think that that should be a problem. In any case, many people have resorted to the use of their Electoral Commission registration ID as a basis for identification. So, I think that those in the informal sector perhaps, even better than many of us are more committed to their various identification documents because they need to be identified while you and I can always easily be identified in public by institutions.
Tthey are even usually more loyal to their ID cards than we are. So, I do not think that even there, there is really going to be a challenge. I think that it is important that the records should show who put the money there for the purposes of the protection of the people who are being surveiled on.
Mr Boafo 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my worry is about the quantum of the deposit. Somebody goes to the bank and deposits about GH¢100, GH¢200 on behalf of the Majority Chief Whip. Are the person's details also to be taken? I think we have to qualify it. “Some suspicious deposit” will do.
Alhaji Muntaka 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my worry is that, to deposit money into my account, you are not talking about millions, you are talking about GH¢200 and GH¢100. Why does he want to relate me to poverty?
Mr Bagbin 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is very difficult to limit it because the society is dynamic, currencies change, values change. But what is even more important is that -- There was a particular case that came to my attention where the owner of the account was alleging that he had kept savings under his mattress for many years and that he fell sick and was rushed to hospital and he thought he was going to die.
So, he called his eldest son and said, “Go and look under my mattress, I have been keeping money there. Take it and go and put into my account. All right?” Now, this was done. Fortunately, he did not die. And so, he came back and said he wanted to withdraw money from that account. Then the person who deposited the account left his particulars. So, he had to be invited to say, “the money you brought, were they old in terms of dirty and this or brand new currencies”.
The person testified “that the money I brought were fresh brand new notes, they could not have been notes that had been saved for many years under a mattress. Do you understand?” So, even that that is an issue for you to be able to identify the person who came and deposited the money to get that evidence. So, it became suspicious.
While he was saying that he gave notes that he had kept under his mattress for many years, which would have crumpled, dir ty or something, the man who deposited said they were fresh notes. So, whatever amount, it is important for you to have the person putting his details, so that you can identify the person who actually came and deposited the money.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
Hon Afenyo-Markin, you want to say something more?
I think I get the sense of the House that we should keep it as it is, without effecting any amendment.
Hon Boafo, unless you were talking about subclause 6, my direction was to the effect that we will sit beyond the stipulated time only in respect of completing what we have to do with clause 6. If you have anything more, we can discuss it tomorrow, otherwise, it is clause 6, that we are looking at.
Mr Boafo 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is on subclause 6, paragraph (b), line 2. There is reference to legal persons and I would want to find out from the Chairman what exactly that means. “Business relations, transactions and legal arrangements with persons including legal persons and other financial businesses” and I would want to find out what this means. “Legal persons”, is he referring to persons in legal practice?
Mr Bagbin 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think he has a point there. It is not referring to people with legal practice. I think it is just referring to persons as we know being defined to include legal persons like companies and other things not human beings. So, I think the term “legal” there is misplaced. It should just be “including persons”. But if you say “a legal arrangement with persons -- including persons”, we should just leave it at “legal arrangements with persons and other financial businesses”. So “including legal persons” should be deleted.
Mr Anthony O. Boakye 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 6 (c), line 4 --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
Let us complete this one. He has made reference to clause 6 subclause 6 (b), so let us finish with that one, then you can also come in with subclause 6 (c). Do you understand me? Otherwise, we will jumble it all up.
So, are we in agreement that we delete the “legal persons including legal persons”?
Mr Bagbin 2:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I see my Hon Colleague Minority Leader shaking his head. But when we talk about legal arrangements with persons, “persons” there is defined to include human beings and other corporate bodies recognised by law.
So, the sense here, “including legal persons” is talking about those corporate bodies which is defined in “persons”. So, we should delete that. That is why I am saying so.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
This is because it takes care of corporation, sole and aggregate.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, when he says to us that we should delete “legal persons”, the other matter also relates to “other financial businesses”. So, it “includes legal persons and other financial businesses”. Are you deleting the “other financial”? Why?
Mr Bagbin 2:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, other financial businesses might not be persons recognised by law. When you have an enterprise, “enterprise” is not a legal person because it is not an incorporated company. It is a sole proprietorship and that is just what it is. It is not recognised by law. That is it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
Thank you very much. So,we put the Question. Right?
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Boafo 2:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker subclause (8)
-- 2:10 p.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
Hon Boafo, we are not going that far.
Mr Boafo 2:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is clause 6, subclause (8).
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
Yes. What I am saying is, my direction still stands. We are Sitting beyond the stipulated time just to complete what we have to do with clause 6, subclause (6).
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we got to subclause (13) before Hon Boafo and Hon Afenyo-Markin conspired to bring us back. So, we got to subclause (13). So, if we have --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
We can look at whatever we want to look at with regard to subclause (13) tomorrow.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we have finished with that.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
Yes. We were going to move on to subclause (14) when we were taken back.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:10 p.m.
Precisely. So, we would leave it here.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
Yes, and then tomorrow, we take it up from subclause (14).
Mr Afenyo-Markin 2:10 p.m.
But Mr Speaker, I would wish to draw your attention that there are still some issues which Hon W. O. Boafo said on subclause (8). So, it is not that we are jumping but --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
He should remember when we Sit tomorrow to raise the issue.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, while we are at this, this whole Anti- Money Laundering Bill recognises reciprocity; so, in our definition of “politically exposed persons”, I think we have made some distinctions. In one breath, we are relating to politically- exposed persons in the country, but when
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:10 p.m.


we refer to politically-exposed persons in foreign countries, we include close associates and family members, whereas for those in the country, we do not have that association or inclusion. If we are dealing with reciprocity, would it be good if we make such a distinction? So, we could leave it to --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, it is something worth considering, but we can do that tomorrow.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am just drawing the attention of the Chairman.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
Very well, Thank you very much.
Hon Members, this brings us to the end of the proceedings for today. The
House accordingly stands adjourned till tomorrow at ten o'clock in the forenoon.

Hon Members, I am sorry that the Mace was not upstanding when I gave the direction.

Hon Members, the House stands adjourned till tomorrow at ten o'clock in the forenoon.

Thank you.
ADJOURNMENT 2:10 p.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 2.15 p.m. till Thursday, 20th February, 2014 at 10.00 a.m.