Debates of 31 Mar 2014

MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
PRAYERS 11:25 a.m.
ANNOUNCEMENTS 11:25 a.m.
COMMUNICATION FROM THE 11:25 a.m.
PRESIDENT 11:25 a.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Hon Members, there is a communication from the Office of the President dated 31st March, 2014 and addressed to the Rt Hon Speaker, Office of Parliament, Parliament House, Accra.
“31st March, 2014
THE RT. HON. SPEAKER
OFFICE OF PARLIAMENT 11:25 a.m.
PARLIAMENT HOUSE 11:25 a.m.
ACCRA 11:25 a.m.
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC 11:25 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 11:25 a.m.
  • [No correction was made to the Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 28th March, 2014.]
    • Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Hon Members, we have the Official Report for Wednesday, the 19th of March, 2014 for correction.
    Ms Ursula Owusu 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, my name is spelt wrongly in column 1876. Seeing that I have not officially communicated my change in status to the Clerk, I would rather the Official Report reported me as being “Ursula Owusu”. If they must, then the correct spelling of the “Akufo” is E-k-u-f-u-l. It is also wrongly spelt in the Hansard. [Hear! Hear!]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Hon Member, if you have not officially communicated to this House about the change of name, I believe we have to stick to what we have, the original name.
    Ms Owusu 11:25 a.m.
    That is what I would prefer, until such time as I do communicate to the Office of the Clerk.
    Mr Frank Annoh-Dompreh 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, on column 1889, my name has been spelt wrongly. It is supposed to be
    “Frank Annoh-Dompreh.” The last one as it is spelt is also spelt wrongly. “Annoh” is supposed to end with “h”; it is “A-n-n-o-h.”
    Mr Kwame Asafu-Adjei 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, on column 1891, paragraph (5): “I want to know;” they wrote “It wants….” [Interruption.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Because you did not give us the paragraph. I see, anyway. [Pause]
    Hon Members, in the absence of any further corrections, I direct that the Official Report as corrected for Wednesday, 19th March, 2014 be adopted as a true reflection of the proceedings for that day.
    Hon Members, two different Statements on basically the same subject matter have been admitted, and we would like to start with that by the Hon Member for Akim Swedru, Mr Kennedy Nyarko Osei.
    STATEMENTS 11:35 a.m.
    Mr Kennedy N. Osei (NPP -- Akim Swedru) 11:35 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to make this Statement and draw the attention of the House to the murders or seemingly contract killings going on in the country recently.
    Mr Speaker, the intention of making this Statement is not to remind the family of those who have lost their loved ones but to bring to the attention of the House the callous, barbaric and most inhumane
    way some people have resorted to eliminate some innocent people they have issues with.
    It would be recalled that about five months ago, Miss Rosemond Nyampong, a 32-year-old employee of Stanbic Bank was found dead in her home at Baatsona in Accra after she had gone missing for a while.
    The family of Rosemond found the body of their daughter in a pool of blood on 21st November, 2013 after she had failed to report for work that fateful day.
    Mr Speaker, an autopsy was undertaken at the Police Hospital in Accra and the report has been made available to the Sakumono and Community 18 Police. However, till date not even the family of Rosemond knows the specific reasons someone will murder their daughter in cold blood.
    It appears the era of such gruesome murders is not yet receding. Last Thursday, 13th March, 2014, Mr Fennec Okyere, Manager of Hiplife artiste, Kwaw Kese was murdered by unknown assailants at his Manet Gardens residence on the Spintex road, Accra.
    Media reports indicate that the killers entered his house through the back wall during a blackout around 11.00 p.m.; they were able to cut the razor wire and made their way into the house. They ransacked the house, breaking into different rooms before finally finding him in a third room where he was apparently sleeping.
    Mr Speaker, I can go on to mention a lot of such barbaric killings in this country in recent times but time will not permit. The point is that everybody's life is at stake and as politicians, we are not immune.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    Hon Members, there is a second Statement, which stands in the name of Hon Ursula Owusu, Hon Member of Parliament for Ablekuma West.
    Recent Spate of Gruesome Murders in Ghana
    Ms Ursula Owusu (NPP -- Ablekuma West) 11:35 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity given me to make a Statement on the recent spate of gruesome murders in Ghana.
    Mr Speaker, Ghana has gained prominence in the sub-region as a peaceful country where democracy and the rule of law thrive. We have provided refuge for our neighbours who have suffered civil unrest and conflict and take pride in being
    an oasis of peace in a troubled region. However, over the last few months, the country has witnessed a series of gruesome murders which occurred under bizarre circumstances that are mind - boggling. This is a threat to our national security.
    In March, 2014 alone, three (3) major murder cases were reported in the media, including that of an enterprising young man, Fennec Okyere, who was stabbed to death by unknown assailant(s) in his bedroom as he lay asleep on 13th March, 2014. Fennec worked for the Jospon Group of Companies and was also the manager for Kwaw Kesse, a famous musician. Fennec was my adopted son. He was just 30 years old; hardworking, caring and generous to a fault.
    Three days earlier, on 10th March, 2014, the Chief of Joma, a village near Ablekuma in Accra, Nii Ayitey Noyaatse I, was shot dead in his bedroom. He was 40 years old and happened to be a promising hiplife musician as well. Mr Speaker, last week, there was also another gruesome murder in Tema of a 55- year -old businessman who was shot dead in his car at home.
    Other gruesome murders include that of the 34-year-old Akosombo Branch Manager of Zenith Bank, Mr Kwesi Sakyi Prah, shot and killed in his home at Tema, and Mr Emmanuel Asante Akuffo, a 41- year old banker with Fidelity Bank, who was also shot and robbed in February this year. An officer of the Ghana Immigration Service was also killed early this year.
    Mr Speaker, in December 2013, Rosemond Nyampong, a 32-year-old woman who worked with Stanbic Bank, was murdered in her house. Other recent murders include the Chief of Seikwa in the Brong Ahafo Region, Nana Kwaku Dwoma Ankoana, who was also shot in his house;
    26-year-old vulcaniser, Rashid Mustapha, whose body was found in the Aboabo forest in Tamale and a 29-year-old network engineer, who was shot several times at his residence in Tamale.
    My condolences to the families of all these victims.
    Mr Speaker, while we cannot be certain about the actual causes of these crimes as many are still under investigation and no arrests have been made, some of these recent murder cases bear the semblance of contract killings, where people who have scores to settle with others, hire people to kill them. Some of the perpetrators could also be armed robbers who assault their victims before or after robbing them.
    The rising tension in our society, “get r ich quick” syndrome, as well as impatience and intolerance among some young people and their unwillingness to use established processes and procedures to resolve differences, could also be the cause of this phenomenon.
    Mr Speaker, the question is, how prepared and equipped are the police to provide protection to us? You and I could be the next victims and we are all at risk! Dr Kwesi Anning, a security expert and a director with the Kofi Annan Peace Keeping Training Centre, recently observed that this rising spate of dramatic and brutal killings will continue as criminals will always want to exploit tensions that arise in rapidly transforming societies.
    Mr Speaker, I therefore, call on the law enforcement agencies to conduct thorough investigations, arrest and successfully prosecute the killers as well as the instigators and organisers of these crimes.
    Mr Speaker, the Police should also expand their night patrol coverage and intensify public education on how these criminals operate and what the public should do when faced with dangerous situations. Police hotlines and emergency numbers should be publicised more and prompt action should be taken on incidents reported to them.
    They should also be equipped with the requisite technology and resources to combat crimes, as most criminals have become more sophisticated. Neighbour- hood watch dog committees should be encouraged in all communities. They should be well-trained by the Police and their activities backed by law.
    Mr Speaker, we should find a lasting solution to the current power outages as some of these murder cases happen when there is power outage.
    My Speaker, I wish to conclude by reiterating the need for all Hon Members of Parliament to be provided with personal security detail just as the Executive and Judiciary are. Our work exposes us to danger from disgruntled opponents, constituents and the general public and we need the assurance of our personal safety to enable us continue serving the nation with peace of mind.
    Let us not wait till one of us falls victim to these marauding “criminals for hire” before we act. The work of the Legislature is just as important as that of the other arms of government and we need to be provided with similar conditions of service not as a favour but as of right.
    I thank you very much, Mr Speaker, once again for the opportunity given me.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    Thank you very much.
    Hon Members, we will take contribu- tions.
    Mr Kwabena M. Akandoh (NDC -- Juaboso) 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, let me first and foremost, commend the Ghana Police Service for the good work done these days, especially for the visibility exercise.
    Mr Speaker, as a matter of fact, everybody would agree with me that this type of crime is alien to this country. Ghana is known to be a peaceful and democratic country. Mr Speaker, if care is not taken, these types of criminal activities would erode the type of enviable reputation Ghana has won for herself. Therefore, I wish to suggest that as a matter of urgency, the security agencies should find an antidote to these activities going on in this country.
    Mr Speaker, you would be surprised to hear that some of us, even in this House, have narrowly escaped these types of attacks. Therefore, as my Hon Colleague indicated, we should not sit down until a Colleague is lost before we attempt to find the solution to this kind of criminal activity.
    With these few words, I support the Statement.
    Mr Frank Annoh-Dompreh (NPP -- Nsawam-Adoagyiri) 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to support the makers of these Statements. In supporting these Statements, I wish to quickly make a few comments.
    Mr Speaker, I am hoping that the making of these Statements would elicit the rightful concerns from the powers that be and the concerned institutions of State who are supposed to deal with such matters.
    I am particularly happy about the point made by the Hon Ursula Owusu on community policing. I wish to suggest to the Office of the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and then the Office of the
    Minister for the Interior, that we need to revisit community policing to ensure that we deal with this menace which is haunting us day in, day out. Mr Speaker, all of us are at risk, including your goodself and it is important that we deal with this matter on its merits and demerits.
    Mr Speaker, Ghana Television (GTV) as we are all told, is the station of the nation. In these hard times and in these difficult times, I would want to make a passionate appeal to the management of GTV that they need to help in dealing with this crime-wave, in ensuring that they begin to stage good education practices, public relations in educating the citizenry, the average Ghanaian on how we can deal with such basic crime. That can be done in collaboration with the Office of the IGP.
    Mr Speaker, I am also worried about the availability of guns in our dear country. It is worrisome; it is threatening our democracy and it is strange. I wish to suggest that the authorities concerned in issuing licences to people to use guns in this country, should step up their activities and do a retrospection and ask themselves a few questions -- if indeed, there are some loopholes that need to be dealt with; these guys who are committing the crimes are using guns and that is the danger.
    Finally, Mr Speaker, let me make a passionate appeal to the Minister for the Interior. If it is possible, he should come to this House and brief us in terms of arrangements that are being put in place to combat and deal with this crime-wave.
    Mr Speaker, with these few words, I thank you for the opportunity.
    Mr Dominic A. Azumah (NDC -- Garu) 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is a very important Statement and it has come at the right time; right time in the sense that we should not allow more murders to be
    committed before we start talking about them. So, I would want to commend the two makers of these Statements for their foresight.
    Mr Speaker, it is important as citizens, for us to play our role and play it responsibly. Information is critical when it comes to some of these murders, either by volunteering information or giving leads that would assist the Police in tracking these hardened criminals. The criminals attempt to be a step ahead of the Police and it is only through the co- operation of the citizens, through such information that we can nip some of these activities in the bud.
    Mr Speaker, as the Statement said, sometimes we have to find out whether our Police need further training, how come that such situations can happen in other countries and the Police are quick enough to get them through all the means and when it does happen to us in Ghana, it takes us years, not months? Is it that our Police need more training, is it that they need more equipment?
    These are things that we should look at and the Government should try to support them.
    Mr Speaker, a critical issue the Statements raised, was the issue of security for Members of Parliament. About a few months ago, at about 2.00 a.m., I was in my room when I got a call from a Police detach which normally passes behind our house, that one of the Members of Parliament had been attacked -- and that was the Member of Parliament for Akan.
    So, I left my house at about 2.30 a.m. and went to the hospital to meet him. I met this gentleman full of blood right on the stomach, the intestines had gushed
    out and they were trying to push them back. The doctors worked on him that night.
    The Police who invited me told me that we should warn Members of Parliament because these crooks or murderers are people who are targeting Members of Parliament; they have a perception that Members of Parliament have resources in their houses and are rich and so, they can target them. This was the advice the policeman gave me to caution our Colleagues. As Members of Parliament, what can we do more except to report to the Police when such things happen?
    Also, not too long ago, Hon Gbediame, who is staying very close to me had a similar experience, where armed robbers took control of his house, standing right in front of the house and firing in the air, broke into his house and took some money, laptops, mobile phones, et cetera. As we speak, the case is with the Police. He was lucky to have survived. According to him, when we rushed there, the robbers were virtually at a gunpoint on his head to disclose where the property was.
    With these situations, Mr Speaker, the Police need to work and work extra; information needs to flow. So, I think that these Statements had called us to rise to the occasion. The Police should do something different to convince us that they are really on top of affairs. It is a real wake-up call. The Police should see what best they can do --
    The incident of Tema as we read in the newspapers, there is a gentleman who lost his life just for nothing. Not even did they pick anything. It appeared he had spotted the armed robbers when he was reversing his car to enter his garage, and the armed robbers felt that he had spotted them, so they came back and shot him dead.
    We cannot be seen to be living in a country like that. We used to hear these things from somewhere but today, it is virtually coming into our own homes. So, something must be done and done very fast.

    We would want to call on the Government to support the Police, at least, to provide the needed security, so that citizens can be assured that they are in safe hands.

    On that note, Mr Speaker, I thank you so much.
    Mr Kofi Frimpong (NPP -- Kwabre East) 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that we must commend the makers of these Statements. This is because the phenomenon of murder in the country is assuming some proportions that are unbelievable. Formerly, we could hardly hear of somebody being murdered in this country of ours.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hon Member, are you up on a point of order?
    Mr Akandoh 11:55 a.m.
    Exactly so.
    Mr Speaker, we must be very careful contributing to this Statement because investigations have not been concluded yet. So, we cannot determine whether those committing those crimes are indeed, Ghanaians. We must be very cautious here.
    Mr Frimpong 11:55 a.m.
    These new ones must learn. They must wait and learn. He is seriously out of order.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hon Member, proceed with your presentation.
    Mr Frimpong 11:55 a.m.
    I said they live with us and they have not come from a different planet. They live with us. Some live with us in the same houses. So, like other contributors said, the information that the Police need to be able to combat this crime is very important; it cannot be overemphasised. We must let the Police get information.
    In fact, Mr Speaker, in Europe, when we see these old ladies and old men peeping through their windows, every information, everybody with suspicious character, they call the Police to inform them. But this is not what is going on in Ghana and we must try to learn that culture. We must learn that culture, so that we can combat that crime. The Police alone cannot combat these heinous crimes.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hon Member, are you up on a point or order?
    Ms Sulemana 11:55 a.m.
    Rightly so. Thank you for the opportunity.
    When one Hon Member raised a point of order, and the Hon Member on the floor said, “These new ones must wait and learn.” I find this statement an indictment on all of us. So, he must be made to withdraw it and apologise to us.
    Mr Frimpong 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, this lady -- [Laughter] -- Hon Member there used the left finger to point at me. I think in her own culture, it is a taboo for a woman to use her left hand --
    Mr Frist Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hon Member, be careful where you are treading. [Laughter.]
    Mr Frimpong 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if she wants me to withdraw the statement, she must withdraw the left hand. [Interruption.]
    Mr Fritz F. Baffour 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to correct the Hon Member for a statement he just made, that it is only the Police that handle the AK 47. The AK 47 is an assault weapon and it is used by the security services, not only the Police. I think that what he should suggest is that assault weapons in the hands of private citizens should be totally and utterly outlawed.
    Mr Frimpong 11:55 a.m.
    You are in level 200, eh? [Laughter.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hon Frimpong, please, begin to wind up.
    Mr Frimpong 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, my Hon good Friend did not listen to me well. I said the security agencies must take stock of --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hon Member, I heard you use “the Police.”
    Just begin to wind up.
    Mr Frimpong 11:55 a.m.
    I meant the security agencies. I believe that if we are able to track the movement of our weapons, especially the AK 47, which are being widely used by the criminals, we can go a long way to curb the activities of these criminals.
    Mr Speaker, apart from that, the Police, I know, are doing their best. They are doing very well but they have also been killing people. Look at that gentleman at the Aviation land or Adjei Kodjo. The Police must also be careful the way they murder people in cold blood.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hon Member, I think you are going too far. You do not have the evidence to back what you are saying; just retract and then let us make progress.
    Mr Frimpong 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to put it this way. Some of the policemen must be a bit careful the way they fire at civilians, the stray bullets that go to kill people. I was so fortunate that in my constituency, quite recently, at Kenyase --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hon Member, that matter has been dealt with by this House; a report is in; it has been referred to the Attorney-General's Department, so, let it be--
    Mr Frimpong 11:55 a.m.
    So, Mr Speaker, in short, I would want to say that this is a very good Statement and I believe this Honourable House must do something about it, so that it should not happen to any one of us. We have been calling for security for Hon Members of Parliament and the authorities do not seem to do anything about that. Let somebody metamorphose into a Minister today, and today, he would be given a police guard. Let him be stripped of his ministerial appointment, and they take the police guard from him.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that all Hon Members of Parliament need some form of security --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hon Member for Old Tafo, were you up on a point of order?
    Dr Anthony A. Osei 11:55 a.m.
    Yes, I was on a point of order to correct him.
    We have evidence here of former Ministers who still have police guards.
    Mr Frimpong 12:05 p.m.
    Including you?
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:05 p.m.
    I do not have a police guard. So, he should just correct himself.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Gershon K. B. Gbediame (NDC -- Nkwanta South) 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for this opportunity and let me also commend the makers of these Statements.
    Mr Speaker, I am just coming from Court 1, the Criminal Court, where some of the people who attacked me on the 11th of January in my house at 2.30 a.m. have been apprehended and are in court. I pray that nobody goes through this very experience. It is so traumatic that in your own house, physically, you see people breaking into your house and you are helpless and because of the warning shots that they have given, the neighbours around are watching what is happening live and they cannot do anything but to call the Police.
    Mr Speaker, since then I have made several appeals, that as Hon Members of Parliament, we are so vulnerable and we need protection. What was running through my mind this morning when I was at the court and the Judge asked who the complainant was, was whether I should stand to be identified by the very people.
    Knowing that there are so many people who came and only some of them are within the police grips, am I not exposing myself to more danger? But I had to stand up and show to the Judge that I was present, to show that I was serious about the case.
    Mr Speaker, I live in Community 17, but by virtue of a gadget which was among the items that were stolen, these people were apprehended at Labadi. I asked

    Nii Lantey Vanderpuye: Mr Speaker, we do not have any place called “Labadi” in the Greater Accra. We have La.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Thank you for the correction.
    Mr Gbediame 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, how they got the information and the rooms they even started attacking, was so suspicious. Mr Speaker, I am saying that the impression has been created in the minds -- [Interruption.]
    Mr Osei B. Amoah 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member said that he is coming from court. I believe the matter is in court; the persons are on trial, so he should be very cautious in the statements he makes and even the lead he gives to people. Indeed, it is not too wise to even stand here and mention where he lives and all those things. So, the Hon Member should be guided accordingly.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon Member, should take note.
    Mr Gbediame 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would conclude, except that this story was published and all these information have been given. But I thank the Hon Member for what he said.
    All I am saying is that, what has happened to me has taught me a number of lessons, and I would want to share some of them with Hon Colleagues as far as our security is concerned.
    Mr Speaker, when you are under attack and even if you manage to make a call or a neighbour makes a call, the problem is, how to even describe your location, where is the house for the Police to identify where you are living as our streets are not named. Therefore, by the time the people have finished describing your house or location, within ten, fifteen minutes, the operation would have ended.
    So, I know the Government is on course trying to do street naming. I think that if we are able to carry out this street naming exercise very well, it would go a long way to help the Police in identifying a particular spot which is under siege and they would respond appropriately.
    Let me also say that the Police are doing well, but we need to also help them. We need to help them by living friendly with our neighbours. There are people within an area and all they do is to say “good morning”; they do not even know their neighbours' names and it is nobody's business.
    But I think that when there is any attack, you are not the only person exposed. After my incident, there have been about four other cases within the locality. Therefore, we must take our destiny first into our hands with that of our neighbours, so that we would be concerned.
    Anytime we see any strange figure moving round anybody's house, we should quickly draw the person's attention. For that matter, it calls for the sharing of phone numbers with our neighbours, so that when there is any issue, we can easily give a call and then they would respond. At that time, when you are under attack, you may not be able to do anything. But if you know your neighbour's number, it would also help.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to say that the issue of Members of Parliament being given security is very important. We are so much exposed and we do not know who is targeting us, either to come and rob us or even to kill us or we have other enemies. I can cite a number of Members of Parliament (MPs), about six or eight who, when mine happened, they also said that at one point or the other, they had also experienced this.
    Therefore, as we are all contributing to these Statements, we hope it would be referred to the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), so that he can consider giving the Members of Parliament some police protection. We know that the Ministers are given and some of them are Members of Parliament. For that matter, we are not talking about 275 Members of Parliament, but we are talking about Members of Parliament who are not Ministers but who also need protection.
    Maj. Derek Oduro (retd) (NPP -- Nkoranza North): Mr Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to commend the two Hon Members who made the Statements, for bringing to life these very important Statements.
    Mr Speaker, the recent killings are threats to peace, security and development of this nation. What is more important is that these killings come about as a result of the use of weapons -- small arms. Some of these weapons are locally manufactured; others are imported, automatic and semi- automatic weapons -- automatic ones like AK47 and semi-automatic ones like American pump action guns.
    From where do we acquire these weapons? They are in the wrong hands, and most of these weapons that are used are not the ones used by the Police or the Armed Forces. They are wrongly acquired ones which are with the people. We have the Police visibility in place but these killings are going on. In Tema, we have
    Mr Gbediame 12:05 p.m.


    heard there were attacks on so many suburbs for so many minutes and hours before even the Police intervened. Why should we allow these people to live in our midst with these weapons and terrorise us?

    One of the Hon Members who made the Statement said some of them kill because they bear grudge with other people. Why should they bear grudge with people and go and take their lives? That is unacceptable.

    Mr Speaker, we have a Police department where they register these small arms; go there now -- The last time I went there to renew my weapon licence, I saw that they had imperial 66 typewriter which was unserviceable. They use manuscript; the registration is done with pen and paper. There is no computer. This is very serious.

    What is the linkage? What is the relationship between that outfit in the Police and the Small Arms Commission? Do we know the number of weapons registered in this country? This is very serious.

    Mr Speaker, our own security in Parliament here; I have always been talking about it. We do not have security in Parliament here. If we are not very careful, one day, one of these gunmen would sneak his way into the Chamber or one of the Galleries here and when he begins to fire -- If we are lucky and he has a locally made weapon, then maybe, we may get second round. If it is an automatic weapon, depending on the number of rounds in the magazine, he would spray and all of us would go down.

    Mr Speaker, I am wearing a very simple coat; you are in a robe. Mr Speaker, before you get to the centre here and proceed to the door here, I am gone -- [Uproar.] If

    you are not lucky and you are hooked by any of the chairs around here and you fall down, you will be cleared before you go out. So, everybody is at risk. You are at risk; I am also at risk; the Leaders are all at risk.

    So, we need to take great care and decisions because at the end of this Statement, I would want to suggest that we come out with concrete measures -- If there is a need to call the Hon Minister for the Interior to come and brief the House on how to control these killings, I will be very happy.

    Mr Speaker, I hope a lot of my Hon Colleagues would want to contribute. So, I would thank you for giving me this opportunity.
    Mr Joe K. Gidisu (NDC -- Central Tongu) 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is the need for us to keep in focus some very important issues raised by the Hon Members who made the Statements. Mr Speaker, among other things, they drew attention to the fact that some of these things may be contract killings, looking at the nature and form they took. Mr Speaker, other Hon Members have drawn attention to things that we could do as a nation to curb or to unravel the situation surrounding most of these killings.
    Mr Speaker, we were all in this country and before the 2000 elections, there were series of very heinous killings which everybody knew might have been contracted in one way or the other. Looking at the track record of some of the killings in various communities where they have occurred, we cannot run away especially from the last comment made by Hon Gbediame that some of these killings can be traced to people who might have monitored the victims who had been in close relationship with them in various ways and had indirectly taken advantage
    of the type of relationship that they might have either cultivated with these victims or their other family members.
    So, it is now a very crucial situation for us as a country to realise that as we grow in terms of the various groups that we associate with, either politically or socially, various issues will come up and people may be following us into committing some of the types of crimes resulting in the death of others. So, as this has come up, everyone turns to the Police as the main focal point on which the security of the State, especially the civilian aspect hinges.
    This is a very noble expectation but others have also drawn attention to the part that we, as citizens, ought to play in helping the Police achieve the outcomes that are expected out of these crimes. So, I would want to appeal to us as legislators to review some of the laws and other things that we have. As of now, some of our Colleagues who have been going to court and others who might have been sent to court earlier, the processes and at times the eventual punishment that come out, are they sufficiently deterrent to prevent others from committing such crimes?
    So, there is a need for us to sit up. Others have said that it is a wake-up call and I would want to associate myself with that assertion and call on all of us to review our outlook, or expectations from the Police and see how best we can co-operate with them in addressing these crimes.
    With these comments, Mr Speaker, I thank you.
    Mr Justice Joe Appiah (NPP -- Ablekuma North) 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, contract killings and armed robbery are becoming the order of the day.
    Mr Speaker, those of us who have become victims -- In fact, when I was attacked by armed robbers, it was very terrible. At that time there was nobody except God who was going to help me. Mr Speaker, when the armed robbers came to me, I said a simple prayer-- Issiah 54:17-- that no weapon fashioned against me shall prosper. It really worked. Mr Speaker, we need protection in this House.
    If for example, an armed robber or gun- men enter this august House, how many of us can recite Issiah 54: 17, so that God in His own mercy will save us? Mr Speaker, it is very important. God made man in his own image and those armed robbers and killers must bow their heads in shame.
    Mr Speaker, why am I saying that? Mr Speaker, I crave your indulgence to read from article 13 (1) of the 1992 Constitution:
    “1. No person shall be deprived of his life intentionally except in the exercise of the execution of a sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence under the laws of Ghana of which he has been convicted.”
    Mr Speaker, we need protection in this country. The Ministry of the Interior should be able to give us full protection by the Police, so that Mr Speaker, it is not only the Executive who need protection; the Legislature, all the arms of Government and even all Ghanaians need full protection by this Government.
    Mr Speaker, with these few words, I thank you very much.
    [MAJ. ODURO (RETD)] [MR J. K. GIDISU]

    Nii Lantey Vanderpuye (NDC -- Odododiodioo): Thank you Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the Statement made by Hon Members on this very important issue.

    Mr Speaker, for some time now, the Police have begun a system of profiling criminals in this country. As Hon Members of Parliament, we live in communities; we live with people; some of us are privy to information about such individuals.

    It is even a fact that some of us who are in this House virtually patronise these individuals and it is important that we assist the Police in working assiduously in this profiling of criminals. This will help the Police to identify and narrow in on criminals when such incidents happen. Two, there have been instances when some of us have frustrated the Police in their work.

    How many of us in this House have not turned to the Policemen or gone to the police station to virtually plead or influence the Policemen to release such criminals when they are arrested? When the Police decide to embark or crack down on criminals and criminal gangs, some of us, especially some of our brothers who believe so much and are always pontificating on human abuses, will always come to the fore to virtually go at the Police.

    Instead of supporting the Police in order to make our security better, we go at them and cite various clauses on human rights abuse to virtually stifle and crumble them.

    It is important for us to critically support the Ghana Police Service in the way they embark on -- They are handicapped; we understand they have

    challenges. But the little they do, it is incumbent upon us to support the Police to achieve the best of results. The situation where we are always ready, eager, and hasty to condemn the Police when they embark on such operations, should be a thing of the past.

    The other aspect of it also has to do with our attitude towards community policing. Sometimes we read politics into everything and we virtually criminalise wonderful concepts like community police. People call them “vigilantes”, “ACDRs” and that cripples them. It destroys their credibility and they are unable to really police our areas.

    I am happy one of the Hon Members who contributed to the Statement comes from Dansoman where the community policing system helped to bring down criminal activities for sometime. This was because they virtually created their own barriers to the community, and if a person does not live in the community, at a particular time, that person wants to enter that community, that person would have to give information who the person the one is visiting and what the person is doing in the community.

    Mr Speaker, I urge the Ghana Police Service to have a little more interface with the citizenry and the community leaders, opinion leaders, chiefs and political heads like Hon Members of Parliament (MP's), so that we once again, take up the community policing idea serious, and contribute to it as individuals in order to bring peace and security to our people.

    I also totally support the idea that Hon Members of Parliament should be considered in the provision of security; it is important.

    Today, I may be privileged to enjoy the services of security personnel, but

    tomorrow, maybe, somebody -- It is important that the Legislature is seen as real contributors to the development of the nation and also be accorded the same privilege.

    With these few words, I support the Statement and also thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Hon Members, we have had enough on this subject matter; I will bring the debate to a close.
    I will direct that the Statements, together with the contributions of Members of Parliament be sent to the Minister for the Interior. When we reconvene after the recess, I will further direct that the Hon Minister for the Interior presents to this House, a policy Statement on these recent murders, what steps are being taken to control the situation and so on and so forth.
    Hon Members, this brings us to the end of the Statements.
    Hon Majority Leader?
    Dr Benjamin B. Kunbuor 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, item six on the Order Paper.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Item 6 Hon Chairman of the Committee? [Pause.]
    Mr Gabriel K. Essilfie 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman has given me the permission to move the Motion on his behalf since I worked on and signed the Report.
    Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to move the Motion.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, really, I am not minded to intervene but if you want me to intervene, I would do so.
    Mr Speaker, any member of the Committee has the capability to present the Report of the Committee to the House. So, if the Hon Member, in whatever capacity -- He is the Vice Chairman, so, he is not presenting the Report on behalf of the Hon Chairman but on behalf of the honourable Committee. The Committee is not the preserve of the Hon Chairman. In fact, it is not his Committee; they are committees of this House.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Probably, the Hon Member was minded to make that introduction because, the Hon Chairman is in the House and he probably thought that he needed to explain.
    Hon Vice Chairman, go ahead.
    MOTIONS 12:25 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee) 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that this Honourable House adopts the Report of the Finance Committee on the Contract Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana and Authentix, U.S.A. for the procurement of a Tax Stamp System.
    Mr Speaker, in doing so, I crave your indulgence to present the Report of your Committee.
    Introduction
    The Contract Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana and Authentix, USA for the procurement of Tax Stamp System was presented to Parliament on behalf of the Minister for Finance by the Hon Deputy Minister for

    Finance, Mr Cassiel Ato Baah Forson on Wednesday, 19th March, 2014 and referred to the Finance Committee for consideration and report in accordance with article 181 (5) of the 1992 Constitution and Order 169 of the Standing Orders of the Parliament of Ghana.

    Pursuant to the referral, the Committee met with the Hon Deputy Minister for Finance, Mr Cassiel Ato Baah Forson and officials of the Ministry of Finance and the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) to consider the referral.

    The Committee is grateful to the Hon Deputy Minister, officials of the Ministry and GRA for attending upon it.

    Reference

    The Committee referred to the following additional documents during the deliberations:

    The 1992 Constitution of Ghana.

    The Standing Orders of the Parliament of Ghana.

    Background

    Ghana has lost considerable revenue over the years through illicit trade. Illegal operators smuggle tobacco products and other excisable products into the country as well as indulge in the sale of counterfeit products.

    Goods in transit, particularly cigarettes and spirits are often diverted or smuggled back into the country and sold on the market. The current inspection, verification and monitoring procedures make it difficult to detect these goods in

    the market. These illegal activities put legitimate brand owners and businesses at a competitive disadvantage and undermine the local economy. Counterfeited products could be extremely dangerous to consumers as these goods are usually of much lower quality and may contain substances which could adversely affect the health of consumers.

    These developments which result in revenue loss to the state have necessitated the introduction of measures to improve current inspection, verification and monitoring procedures as part of efforts to increase revenue collection, reduce tax evasion and address other challenges.

    The use of tax stamps and banderols on such selected excisable products has therefore been identified as an effective means to addressing these challenges.

    The procurement of tax stamp system will provide solution through the use of the tax stamp with detection gadget and database administration system for monitoring, tracking and reconciliation. The technology provides overt, covert and forensic secure Identification features that are incorporated into the tax stamp to be applied on selected products at the point of manufacture and importation into the commerce of the Republic of Ghana.

    The design of the tax stamp shall be such that it will distinguish between locally manufactured and imported products, and product categories. I

    It is envisaged that this system will create strong stakeholder relationships between manufacturers, importers and the revenue authority. It would further promote consumer confidence and improve public health through the consumption of legitimate and wholesome products.

    The technology will interface with existing management systems of the Ghana Revenue Authority and will further enhance and complement existing risk assessments to promote effective intelligence led audits and inspections associated with revenue collection.

    Following the passage of the Excise Tax Stamp 2013 Act, (Act 873), in December 2013, the Ministry of Finance has entered into a contract agreement with Authentix, Inc. USA, for the procurement of the tax stamp system to help implement the tax stamp policy.

    Purpose of the Agreement

    The House may recall that, Parliament in December 2013 passed the Excise Tax Stamp Act, 2013 (Act 873), to give legal backing to the Tax Stamp policy of Government. To actualise the implemen- tation of the provisions in the Act, the Ministry of Finance has entered into a contract agreement with Authentix, Inc. USA, for the procurement of the tax stamp system. The Agreement seeks to engage the services and expertise of Authentix Inc. U.S.A in the implementation of the tax stamp system in Ghana.

    Responsibilities of the contractor

    By the terms of the Agreement, Authentix Inc. USA (the contractor) is responsible for:

    a. The installation of the System Web based portal for the implementation of the Tax Stamp System.

    b. Operational and Production testing.

    c. Installation of the appropriate stamp affixing machinery where necessary on production lines of manufacturers;

    d. Testing, validation and accep- tance of machinery and system.

    e. Training of officers in the use of monitoring and detection devices.

    The supplier of the fiscal tax stamp will be expected to have adequate stock levels of stamps at all times and provide customer support and maintenance throughout the duration of the project.

    Payment terms

    In accordance with the Agreement, the Government of Ghana is expected to pay the supplier the sum of US$11,790,000 per year (exclusive of duties and taxes) for five years for its services. Government will pay a monthly installment of US$982,500 for four years after an initial payment for delivery, installation and final acceptance. Details of the payment schedules for the duration of the 5 year programme are summarised below.
    Chairman of the Committee) 12:35 p.m.
    The Committee was further informed that in 2010, the GRA collected the sum of GH¢330 million from excise Duties. Based on the 2010 actual excise duty figures, the GRA would have increased its revenue collection by GH¢33.3 to GH¢66.6 million if it had implemented the Tax Stamp policy.
    The policy also does not intend to introduce any new levies and taxes or pre- finance the project. The cost of the entire system, its maintenance and continued operation shall be covered by the expected increases in revenue above current levels.
    The cost of the stamp is also not expected to have any significant impact on prices. Though the cost of the machinery to be used in affixing the tax stamps for very high speed production plants may be significant to merit some form of price adjustments, but government will allow a two year period for companies to deduct verified and approved costs from income before tax.
    Tax waiver
    The Committee noted that clause 20.1 of the special condition of the contract exempts all payments made to the supplier from statutory taxes, levies, duties or withholding tax of any kind (including taxes on income of personnel). Further, clause 20.2 exempts the suppliers from the payment of import duties or import taxes on all materials imported for the Tax Stamp System.
    The Committee was informed that the exemptions will not extend to local contractors or sub-contractors engaged by the supplier under the project. Furthermore, all sub-contractors working on the project will be subject to the necessary taxes in Ghana including income tax of personnel.
    The Committee is of the view that the approval of the Contract Agreement does not amount to granting of tax waiver and that the waiver, when appropriately assessed should be presented for parliamentary approval in accordance with article 174(2) of the 1992 Constitution.
    Conclusion
    The Committee upon a thorough examination of the Agreement is satisfied that the Agreement delivers value for money as it will help increase revenue generated from Excise Duties.
    The Committee therefore recommends to the House to adopt its report and ratify the contract agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana And Authentix, USA for the procurement of Tax Stamp System in accordance with article 181 (5) of the 1992 Constitution.
    Respectfully submitted.
    Ranking Member (Dr Anthony A. Osei): Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.
    The Hon Deputy Ranking Member was pencilled to second the Motion. Un- fortunately he is physically not here, so, I yield my contribution to my senior Colleague, Hon Papa Owusu-Ankomah.

    Question proposed.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah (NPP -- Sekondi) 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
    Mr Speaker, this contract is in respect of the procurement ofTax Stamps that will be used on excisable goods. Mr Speaker, it is supposed to be a revenue enhancing measure. In the course of the briefing given to the Committee, the Ministry of Finance intimated that the current revenue that is likely to be recovered when this project is implemented will be in the region of GH¢386 million from the current level of GH¢336 million.
    Mr Speaker, I ask the House to take note of this, so that in terms of revenue, if the effectiveness of this programme is lost, we will hold Government to this. Tax stamps or banderoles have been used in various countries -- North America, South America -- and have helped in increasing revenues. But that one in itself is not enough. There must be other policing measures to ensure that producers and importers of excisable goods duly declare the volumes that they produce.
    I consider this project and the production of this tax system to be quite a technical project in terms of monitoring.
    In this country, we have had many systems which have been implemented and later we have had problems. I know, for instance, when it comes to imputing of data, the Accountant-General's Department, particularly the Ministry of Education, when it comes to teachers' salaries, we are always told that they were given a window of opportunity, let us say, four days to input information and information has never been regular.
    So, we have a situation where in some cases, teachers may have been recruited for over eight months, but they might not receive their salary. I recall that in my time

    in Government, some years ago, it became so important that a Cabinet sub-committee was set up to investigate it. Surprisingly, the situation still exists. In this case, we are told that under the contract, clause 13(11), there is an obligation on the part of the supplier to appoint an experienced representative to manage its performance. But a particular provision which I find strange is that, the representative may be replaced only with the prior written consent of the purchaser.

    We have a contract with a supplier and part of the supplier's obligation is to appoint an experienced representative to manage its performance of the contract. It also says that, a representative may be replaced only with the prior written consent of Government.

    It is very strange; no explanation has been given and I am urging the Hon Minister, in responding or in contributing to explain why. Is it Government repre- sentative or the supplier 's represen- tative? One would have assumed that the supplier's representative is the supplier's representative. But if the supplier 's representative can only be replaced with the prior written consent of the purchaser, there must be a reason.

    With these few words, I urge the Honourable House to approve the Report. But then, I urge the Finance Committee to monitor the implementation of this project, so that the undertakings given by the Ministry, that this will enhance revenue, we will be sure that it has achieved the purpose.

    I thank you,Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Thank you very much.
    Hon Members, I just want some clarification.
    Hon Member for Old Tafo, do I understand that you have seconded the Motion? He has seconded the Motion. Very well. So it is for the consideration of the House.
    Any more contributions?
    Mr Kwaku Agyeman Kwarteng (NPP -- Obuasi West) 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I wish to, for the records, emphasise a point that came up at the Committee's deliberations but which in my respectful opinion, has not been captured adequately by the Report.
    There is a covenant that grants tax exemption to Authentix and the way that clause was worded suggested that the tax exemption covered personnel and income and by agents that will be contracted by Authentix -- agents or personnel.
    Mr James K. Avedzi 12:35 p.m.
    — rose —
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, are you up on a point of order?
    Mr Avedzi 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, exactly so.
    I would want to inform the House and my Hon Colleagues that if you read page 6 of the Report, under Tax Waiver, line 5, we will see clearly that the Committee was informed that the exemption will not extend to local contractors or sub- contractors engaged by the supplier under the project.
    Furthermore, all sub-contractors working on the project will be subject to the necessary taxes in Ghana, including income tax of personnel. So, it has been adequately captured in the Report.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Hon Member, are you satisfied?
    Mr Kwarteng 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am satisfied except to add a point that we are not just talking about contractors, but also contractors in the corporate sense of
    the word. We are also talking about personnel and that expatriates that will be engaged by Authentix would not be covered by any exemptions other than those provided under our general tax laws. I hope that this will go on the records.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member, after that I will put the Question.
    Mr Govers Kwame Agbodza (NDC -- Adaklu) 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this Motion.
    On page 4 of the Report, under 6.0 “OBSERVATIONS”: “The Contractor”. I beg to read the sentence which says that Authentix Incorporated USA presented the lowest financial proposal for which reason they were awarded the contract. I do not think the lowest bidder in every bid is necessarily the best.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that information cannot be correct.
    The issue is not about the lowest bid. De la Rue, which prints currency, does not have the technology to do tax stamps. Tax stamps have a different feature than printing currency and the information that we got also shows that Authentix have
    done several of these -- the technology is -- They have the patent right and that is the main reason, not because they were the lowest bidder.
    Mr Agbodza 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am just reading from what is in the Report. I am not part of the Committee. So, I am just saying that normally, if we want to capture this, we say “lowest responsible bidder” because we would have seen other things that the general public might not have seen.
    rose
    Mr Agbodza 12:45 p.m.
    We should find another way of doing it because, I find it quite disheartening that when for instance, Mr “K”, a Ghanaian wholly-owned company gets a contract to construct 160 kilometre of road in a territory somewhere --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Hon Minister for Lands and Natural Resources, are you up on a point of order?
    Alhaji Fuseini 12:45 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I heard my Hon Colleague and Friend saying that companies come to this House for tax exemptions. That is quite misleading. It creates the impression that when companies need tax exemptions, they walk to this House. They do not do that. They have to come through the Ministry of Finance, which would first be convinced that those tax exemptions are appropriate and necessary and within the contract.
    Mr Agbodza 12:45 p.m.
    Thank you very much for the correction.
    Normally, the companies themselves do not come here to seek tax exemption but we do give tax exemption on behalf of these companies.
    rose
    Mr Agbodza 12:45 p.m.
    We always say that the Ghanaian contractors cannot do it. Of course, why would they be able to do it if all the things that can cushion them are passed on to the foreigner. They come to do it and quickly go away? So, as a country moving on, it is the people who matter --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Minister for Roads and Highways, are you on a point of order?
    Alhaji Sulemani 12:45 p.m.
    On a point of order. Mr Speaker, my Hon good Friend is still misleading the House.
    Foreign companies that ask for tax waivers -- In this very Parliament, loans are agreed on here and it is contained as part of the loan agreements that we have given them tax waivers -- They do not just come.
    rose
    Mr Agbodza 12:45 p.m.
    So; if the Ghanaian companies also get such a contract, they are entitled to such waivers? It is the loan agreements that give room for that?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Old Tafo --
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my Hon good Friend, the Hon Minister is misleading this House.
    He is giving the impression that all road agreements must come with loans; that is not correct. Those that are with loan agreements, yes. He cannot give the impression that every road agreement comes with a particular loan. That is not true.
    The point he is making, we should pay attention to. We are making our businesses uncompetitive and that is all the point he is making. We should pay attention to it.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Hon Member, are you through?
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee
    -- 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Avedzi 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the issue about granting exemption or tax waiver to companies has been debated over and over in this House. It is an issue we need more education on.
    I would want to suggest that if there could be a way that we could have a workshop for Hon Members and have a thorough education on this issue -- It is an issue that when we are well educated, we will realise that there is the need for us to go the way we are going rather than just to say that we do not need it or we need to collect the tax.
    So, we need education on it. It is just a proposal I am making, that we need a one-day workshop for Hon Members, so that we can all be educated on why there is the need to grant exemption or waiver to companies.
    Mr Agbodza 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just to conclude.

    Maj. (Alhaji)(Dr) Mustapha Ahmed (retd.) -- rose --
    Mr Agbodza 12:45 p.m.
    I am not against tax exemptions but I am saying that even if it is schools under trees and they can get even 100 Ghana cedis, I will be happy for that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Hon Minister, are you on a point of order?
    Maj (Alhaji)(Dr) Ahmed (retd.): Yes, Mr Speaker.
    I would want my Hon Colleague to know that indeed, a number of Ghanaian companies have been brought here and requests for tax exemption have been granted them in the past. And if he is interested, we can mention a few companies for him to know.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in my contribution, I raised a couple of issues about clause 13(1), about the obligation of the supplier, particularly the local representative who can be replaced only with the prior written consent. I wanted an explanation.
    I just think that that particular portion should be deleted. If it can be deleted without problems, fine. But if it is there, I presume there must be a good reason for it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Hon Minister, can you respond to that?
    Mr Cassiel A. B. Forson 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in responding to what the Hon Member for Sekondi just talked about, I would like to state that, yes, this matter came up at the Committee. But Mr Speaker, the
    understanding was, indeed, the Government of Ghana needs to be appraised with the fact that if the contractor is actually changing the sub- contractor, we do not want the sub- contractor to be changed without the Government being aware of it and that is why the clause was there. We have taken note of his concerns and we would address them appropriately.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    His point is not to do with sub-contractors and so on. He is saying that in the Agreement, the supplier is given the mandate to appoint this person. So, if that person should be changed, it should be with the prior consent of the supplier.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I said the supplier shall appoint an experienced representative to manage the performance of the contract. The representative may be replaced only with the prior written consent of the purchaser, which is the Government.
    I believe that “the representative may be replaced only with the prior written consent of the purchaser,” should be deleted, unless we have a good reason.
    Why should the supplier's represen- tative and his relationship with the supplier be governed by Government? Is it the Government that is appointing the representative? If that is the case, then we need to know.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Hon Deputy Minister, can you address that issue?
    Mr Forson 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as I said, I am of the view that there is the need for the purchaser to understand that the sub- contractor is going to be changed and that indeed, we know that the responsibility is on the main contractor to appoint the sub- contractor. But if they want to change it
    Mr Forson 12:45 p.m.


    then the Government of Ghana needs to be in the know. Mr Speaker, at the Committee level, this matter came up and we have picked it and accepted that we would work on that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Probably, the problem is to do with “prior written consent”. You could notify Government that you are changing this person and so on. But prior written consent connotes something else. So, take a look at it. We can seriously take a look at it and see.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, how can we approve the contract if, as you know, this very critical provision has not been resolved. Unless of course, Government just lifted it from somewhere and placed it here. I do not understand it. What sort of obligation is Government taking upon itself? -- Suppliers agent -- and the suppliers' agent can be changed only with the prior written consent -- It baffles my mind.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    The problem has to do with prior written consent. You could notify Government that I am changing this person, blah, blah. But prior written consent connotes something else. So take a look at it. You can seriously take a look at it and see how
    -- 12:55 p.m.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, how can we approve the contract if, as you know, this very critical provision has not been resolved? Unless of course, Government just lifted it from somewhere and placed it in there. I do not understand it. What sort of obligation is Government taking upon itself? Suppliers' agent and the suppliers' agent can be changed only with the prior -- It boggles my mind.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Hon Minister, is it possible for us to delete that portion which gives Government an obligation as far as changing the suppliers' agent is concerned? Otherwise, we would be selling ourselves unnecessary problems.
    Mr Forsson 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in fact, it does not change anything and we accept that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    So, that portion will be deleted.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to read it for the record. That is clause 13 (2), the last line: “The representative may be replaced only with the prior written consent of the purchaser.” That is going to be deleted.
    Dr Kunbuor 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have handled this matter in this House before. When bilateral Agreements are entered into and the State contracting parties have agreed to it and has to come through for parliamentary approval, the issue is whether when the matter comes to Parliament, the substance and terms of conditions of that Agreement can be changed.
    Mr Speaker, in relation to the West African Gas Pipeline, it was ruled in this House that we had already initialled that Agreement, and tenuous as the terms might be, it could only be a subject of renegotiations in future. So, literally, when these things come, it is like a fait accompli in terms of the substance and terms of what we have entered into.
    Perhaps, attention can be drawn to the fact that, some of those onerous clauses should subsequently be avoided in negotiations. But we cannot correct and change the terms of a contract that the
    State opened its own eyes and entered into without duress or coaxing and it will be altered here, because there are policy matters that are involved in it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    I want to believe that, it is possible, especially, with this particular kind of clause which does not bring an obligation onto the supplier, but an obligation on Government. We think that we are taking on too much, therefore, if we relieve ourselves of that onerous responsibility, all the better for us.
    Mr Joe Ghartey 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Majority Leader was not in Parliament in 2008 where a different view was taken. Mr Speaker, the view was taken and it is supported by the Supreme Court, that when Parliament enters into an Agreement with any other party, which is subject to parliamentary approval, it is not enforceable unless it has been approved by Parliament. And Parliament is not a rubber-stamp. [Some Hon Members: Thank you.]
    So, the obligation lies on Government to explain to the parties it is entering the contract with, that what I am entering into with you is not a contract. It is an intention to create a legal relationship, which manifests into a contract when it receives parliamentary approval.
    Mr Speaker, in the Vodafone case, the Minority at the time, spearheaded by the Hon Member for Tamale South, Mr Haruna Iddrisu and then the now President who was also very instrumental, argued that certain changes should be made. Based on their arguments, another meeting of the Committee was called in the Speaker's conference room. What they suggested should be changed was changed before the Agreement was brought back.
    So, this Parliament has changed Agreements which Government has entered into with third parties. We take the view that the Agreements are not in the nature of Legislative Instruments. It is Legislative Instruments that we can either approve as they are or we cannot do anything about them.
    Dr Kunbuor 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we seem to be confusing the Constitutional power of approval and non-approval with actually redrafting and changing the terms. Even if you change a particular provision in an Agreement, and say it is subject to that change, it is a question of approval and you are approving in totality. If you think that the particular term that you do not accept is so fundamental, you reject it. But you cannot go into the clauses of an Agreement that has been entered into and change it.
    But let me correct the impression that has been made. I was in the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs that considered that particular Agreement on Vodafone and that is not exactly what happened. [Interruption.] Vodafone, yes, we were the first Committee to meet on it. The sale of Vodafone, in which some clauses were subsequently changed, faxed and sent --
    That was because the difficulty that we had at the time was how we could handle the preliminary agreement to an Agreement.
    What they had at that time they had initialled an Agreement to have an agreement for the sale. So, the substantive agreement itself was what they incorporated the changes in, but not a concluded and finalised one.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is inconceivable that, a constitutional power, granted this House to approve an Agreement before it comes into force, prevents this House from redrafting. No! It is against legal principles and even, excuse me to say, common sense. Is it “accept” or “reject”? No! Certainly, we can amend and we approve subject to that.
    Mr Speaker, we ought to bear in mind that while the Executive has the power to enter into Agreements -- Agreements only come into force upon the terms and conditions having been approved by Parliament. What is a term? What is a condition; what is an obligation? So, it is inconceivable. All that it means is that, this Agreement, subject to the deletion, is approved by this House. So, that particular term that has been deleted has no operation under the Agreement. That is all it means.
    I beg to differ very strongly with the interpretation being given by the Hon Majority Leader. But if it means that, well you cannot even amend, you can only reject, I do not think that really enhances governance, particularly when it comes to business transactions between Government and other persons.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am surprised where we are getting into, long winded constitutional issues. The Hon
    Minister is here, he can correct me if I am wrong. When this matter came up, he was asked specifically: “Do you insist on this? He said, no.” It is a problem between you and the Authentix? He said, no. So, the presumption is that, what the Hon Member for Sekondi, Papa Owusu- Ankomah is saying, is what is prevailing. I thought that before we came, they would have taken it out. But he admitted that it was not on their insistence and that it was not relevant to this contract.
    Subject to what Papa Owusu-Ankomah is saying, I think it confirms what he told the Committee. So, I thought that was what he was going to say and to make it simple and then we move on. Essentially, that is what he admitted at the Committee and he was asked to go and talk to the Authentix local representative. That was not something important to them either. So, I thought it was agreed by us.
    In some cases, like the Chinese case, they were able to, in the middle of the night, change the terms and brought it back. That is what we did in the Chinese loan case. But in this case, I thought they would confirm, so that we go on record. Then we hold you to it.
    Mr Alban S. K. Bagbin 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the argument put forward by the Hon Member for Sekondi, Papa Owusu- Ankomah is in respect of Agreements under article 181. And in that respect, Parliament can -- and we have on a number of occasions amended such Agreements.
    Under article 67, which are Agreements in the form of Treaties, that Parliament cannot -- because we ratify them.
    When we see problems with them, we send them back because Treaties deal with nations and others. They are not like common parties. So, there is a diffe- rence --
    So, what the Hon Majority Leader said is in respect of agreements in the nature of Treaties. But what the Hon Member for Sekondi is talking about are in the form of financial Agreements under article 181 dealing with the economy and other things. That one, we can do. We have done a number of them.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Hon Members, we have had enough debate on this matter.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, he referred us to article 67. That cannot be article 67.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    It is article
    75.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:05 p.m.
    So, I wanted him to make the correction.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Very well. Point well taken.
    I believe we can, in the circumstances, effect this amendment and insist that, subject to that amendment, the Agreement is approved. Right?
    I think the Hon Deputy Minister agrees to that. So, I do not think we have too much of a problem.
    It was while I was putting the Question that this issue came up. So, I will go back and put the Question.
    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Dr Kunbuor 1:05 p.m.
    Item 7, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Hon Minister for Finance?
    Dr Kunbuor 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we would ask for your indulgence for the Hon Deputy Minister to move the Resolution.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:05 p.m.
    I do not have any problem.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, he is asking for permission for one of the Hon Deputy Ministers for Finance to move the Resolution in the absence of the substantive Hon Minister.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my response was that there should not be any problem.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Deputy Minister?
    RESOLUTIONS 1:05 p.m.
    Minister for Finance) 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that
    WHEREAS by the provisions of article 181(5) of the Constitution the terms and conditions of any international business or economic transaction to which the Govern- ment of Ghana is a party shall not come into operation unless the said terms and conditions have been laid before Parliament and approved by Parliament by a Resolution sup- ported by the votes of a majority of all Members of Parliament;
    THIS HONOURABLE HOUSE 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Gabriel K. Essilfie (NDC -- Shama) 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.
    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    Resolved accordingly.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Dr Kunbuor 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we now have the Hon Deputy Attorney-General, so we can go to item 11.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Item 11 -- Trademarks (Amendment) Bill, 2013 at the Consideration Stage.
    Hon Second Deputy Speaker to take the Chair.
    BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 1:05 p.m.
    STAGE 1:05 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee (Mr Alban S. K. Bagbin) 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1, line 2 of opening statement, delete “in section 1”.
    So, Mr Speaker, clause 1, we are also proposing a second amendment. But we may take this first proposed amendment to clause 1, then I can move to the second one, because the first one is dealing with just the opening statement.
    “The Trademarks Act, 2004 (Act 664) referred to as the principal enact- ment is amended in section 1 by the substitution for section 1 of ”
    We are requesting that we delete the first “in section 1”. So, it will now read:
    “The Trademarks Act, 2004 (Act 664) referred to as the principal enactment is amended by the substitution for section 1 of”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    I understand. After that we can take the second amendment of section 1.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bagbin 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1, subclause (2), paragraph (a), delete and substitute the following:
    “(2) A trademark may consist of
    (a) words, personal names, designs, letters, colours, numerals, shapes, holograms, sounds or a combination of any of these elements.”
    MR SECOND DEPUTY SPEAKER
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    I will put the Question.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Yes?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, first in respect of subclause (2), since we are not supposed to end at “a” which the amendment is on, I should think that the word “or” will still have to appear after “elements” in subclause 2. I believe the word “or” which has been taken out will have to be reinstated, so that it conjoins with (b) because there is a (b) that we are not taking out; unless the effect of “a” is to take out (b); but (b) is not being taken out.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Without the “or” or with the “or,” does it change the meaning?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there are two matters that we are dealing with. I think he has reconstructed what we have in (2) (a) and in addition to that, it
    is going to go to “slogans.”That is why I am saying that the word “or” would have to be reinstated. I believe that it was done unconsciously. That is number one.
    Number two, Mr Speaker, in the original, what constitutes a trademark may involve the “shape of goods” but in the reconstruction, we have just “shapes”. I am wondering if the meaning would come out well if we strand out the word “shape” and it becomes a stand alone. This is because, my understanding is that, we could have the “shape of an umbrella” for instance, which the NDC has adopted, cocoa, which a party may adopt, an elephant, which another party may adopt.
    This is the shape of goods that they are referring to, but we are talking about “shapes.” In the context, the meaning does not come out well if we just state the word “shapes” and it is not linked to any noun.
    Mr Joseph Yieleh Chireh 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the amendment as it stands. This is because all it attempts to do is to re-arrange these things properly. Instead of the original one where the combination of colours and other things were in between the various things that distinguish a trademark, what I think has been done, is to make sure that we mention all these things and then state “or a combination of them,” and it is neater this way than where if we say, the original one the combination came and then they started mentioning minerals.
    But each of these things that have been mentioned, “words, personal names, design, letters, colours, minerals, shapes, holograms, sounds”, they can stand on their own as trademarks or when we combine them. This is why I think that we should support this amendment as it stands now.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Yes, Chairman of the Committee, the “or” versus the “shape of goods.”
    Mr Bagbin 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the “or” is correct because we used the word “delete” deleting the whole “a,” which meant that, we are deleting the “or.” But in the rendition here, they failed to capture the “or”; so the Minority Leader is right.
    It is the second point that we disagree with him, dealing with “shapes of goods.” Mr Speaker, because the meaning of a trademark as now defined, means “a sign or a combination of signs capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from the goods and services of another undertaking.”, If we restrict the “shapes” to only “goods”, that would be right because, services do not have shapes. But you know “colours” would also refer to goods because services do not have colours.
    So, there are words there which when we use, we know that the words are referring to goods and not to services; that is why we just left out the “goods.” If not, then we would have to string it with all the other words, because reading it, -- “a trademark may consist of” -- and we decided to say “may consist of” because this list is non-exhaustive. We do not want to limit it because as we develop, there are more additions that are coming. So, we say:
    “A trademark may consist of words, personal names, designs, letters, colours, minerals, shapes, holo- grams, sounds…”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Chairman, is there a difference between a “shape” and a “shape of goods”? Is there a difference?
    Mr Bagbin 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am saying that a number of the words refer to goods.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    So we could have said “symbols of goods, goods, colour of goods”?
    Mr Bagbin 1:25 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker. And so, if you want us to add them, then we would not only restrict it to “shapes”, it means we have to add “colours” and the rest, so that they would deal with goods and then the rest are separated for services. But we just decided that once people are aware that we can deal with “shapes of goods” because services do not have shapes, we have just decided not to add it. But if the House is minded, there is no harm in adding the goods. But we have to add the “colours”. We have to add the “shapes”. We have to add the “designs”. All those words before we come to “goods.”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I appreciate the point that is being made by the Chairman of the Committee, except to say that in the context, he is rather referring to, “symbols” not “shapes”, shape of what? Shape of services? If the “shapes” is in respect of goods, why do you not say that it should be “shapes” -- That is why I am saying that in that case you are talking about “symbols” and not “shapes.”
    Deputy Attorney-General, you are shaking your head.
    In the context, what is the meaning of “shape”?
    Dr Dominic A. Ayine 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the use of “shapes” here, is meant for both service marks and then marks meant for goods. So, if you say “shapes of
    goods,” then as the Chairman of the Hon Committee pointed out, you have to also say “shapes of services” because service marks also have shapes.
    The amendment as it is now,is a better rendition than what is being proposed by the Hon Minority Leader.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    I think the Chairman of the Committee has agreed to the “or”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 1 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 2 -- Section 2 of Act 664 amended.
    Mr Bagbin 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before I move clause 2, it looks like there is a printer's devil. The “5” there should be “2” and not “5”. In fact, that is what we submitted in the Report. But I think it is the printer's devil. So, with your kind permission, we change that.
    The next, clause 5, they also put “2” there instead of “5”.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2 -- Opening phrase, delete and substitute the following: “The principal enactment is amended by the substitution for section 1 of”
    Mr Speaker, that is the proposal and it is a better rendition.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Minority Leader, you are not happy? Are you
    happy? But you waited for me to put the Question. Or I put it too fast?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not have anything. I was just looking at the format in respect of amendments as provided for by the Standing Orders. That is what I was looking at. I wanted to see if it is in conformity with what is being proposed, otherwise, I would not have anything. But let us look at it whether the language follows what obtains in the Standing Orders when we come to amendments. Just that.
    Clause 2 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 5 -- Section 5 of Act 664 amended.
    Mr Bagbin 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5 -- Opening phrase, delete and substitute the following: “The principal enactment is amended by the substitution for section 5 of”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 5 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this really is a matter of drafting style. I think what we have been doing in respect of the use of the word “if,” we have rather preferred the word “where.” “A trademark shall not be registered where . . .” This is the first time I am seeing this. But as I said, it is a drafting style, so maybe, we can live it to the draftspersons. However, I am not familiar with this construction at all.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon Yieleh Chireh, are you familiar with this construction, “if” rather than “where”?
    Mr Chireh 1:35 p.m.
    Well, both of them are usable. But when you say “where”, it looks as if the condition -- “If” is more conditional than “where” we are talking about.Unless you distinguish between the two, you can use “if” and in that case, it must be -- “Where” is more liberal. It is not as strict as “if.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, is it not conditional? I have just been advised by the Clerks-at- the-Table that it is conditional. I do not know.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is why I said it had to do with the drafting style. This is because, in previous pieces of legislation that we have crafted, we have preferred the word “where”. Of course, it means the same thing, but “where” has been the language that we have employed. Really, this is the first time I am seeing the use of the word “if” in these constructions. But if the sponsors feel that, that is what it should be, well, I do not have any difficulty.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 5 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice, you are a Member of Parliament. Are you not?
    Dr Dominic A. Ayine 1:35 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    I have noticed you are not voting.
    Dr Ayine 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am voting.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    All right.
    Clause 7 -- Section 15 of Act 664 amended.
    Mr Bagbin 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 7 deals with some printer's devil and I think that it is a matter of just deleting the figure that is there, which is (6) and substituting it with (5). It says that:
    “Section 15 of the principal enactment is amended by the insertion after subsection (6) of …”
    But in the principal enactment, that is subsection (5) not subsection (6). So, it follows through other numbers. We have (5), then we have (6) and then (7). That is why the other amendments are proposed. So, we are saying that the opening phrase of clause 7 in line 2, we delete “(6) and substitute it with “(5)”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Well, go to the next.
    Mr Bagbin 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the next one, we delete “(7) and substitute with “(6)”. And the next one, we delete “(8)” and substitute it with “(7)”. But they are there for us to move.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    So, I am putting the Question on the amendments proposed in (v), (vi) and (vii). Can I put it that way or I should take it one by one? Equity looks at the substance not the form. But in Parliament, we insist on this long laborious -- All right.
    Mr Bagbin 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 7, opening phrase, line 2, delete (6)” and substitute “(5)”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bagbin 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 7, Subclause (7), line 1, delete “(7)” and substitute “(6)
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bagbin 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 7 -- subclause (8) line 1, delete “(8)” and substitute “(7)”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon Member for Suhum, you are not happy about something?
    Mr Frederick Opare-Ansah 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the Question is normally put on the amendment and when it is carried then a Question is put on the clause, whether it should stand part of the Bill, if I am not mistaking.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    You are not mistaking. So, what we have done is that, we have put the Question now on the three amendments -- individually. I am going to put the Question on the whole clause. I agree with you.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, but I heard the Question being put was that the amendment stands part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon Member, how they put it -- they put it as amendment proposed, subclause (7) line 1, delete “(7)” and substitute “(6)”.
    Instead of saying the whole sentence, I said that the amendment advertised as (vi) of clause 7. This is because clause 7
    has three advertised amendments; one is (v), one is (vi), one is (vii). So, the amendment advertised -- But when I see that you are not happy, I will call you.
    So, I will put the Question or you want to say something Hon Yieleh Chireh?
    Mr Chireh 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, when we made the correction in clause 2, instead of the drafting style that was used in the Bill, we said that “The principal enactment is”. I would like you to direct that it is consequential because the others, we were not taking them through.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, do you agree with him?
    Mr Bagbin 1:35 p.m.
    That is so, Mr Speaker. Since we changed the drafting style by starting with “The principal enactment” then it means it should be consequential throughout the Bill. In fact, the technical people, at the Committee level, stated that, that is the new drafting style.
    I am not a technical draftsperson, so there is no way I could challenge that. That is why I agree with him that it should be consequential.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Thank you. I will put the Question on clause 7.
    Clause 7 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    As was suggested by the Chairman of the Committee, the draftspersons should take note of the new drafting style and include the phrase “The principal enactment is amended by…”.
    Clause 8 -- Section 16 of Act 664 amended.
    Mr Bagbin 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, subclause (4), delete and substitute the following:
    “(4) A licence contract is not valid if
    (a) that licence contract does not provide for quality control; or
    (b) the quality control is not effectively carried out.”
    Mr Speaker, as we have it now, clause 8, subclause (4) says 1:45 p.m.
    “A licence contract is not valid if
    (a) that licence contract does not provide for the quality control;
    (b) the quality control is not effectively carried out and a court may declare the mark as abandoned by the owner”.
    And then the last one:
    (5) An owner may plead abandonment
    . . . ”
    But that is not under subclause (4). So, Mr Speaker, we are breaking it down into a more elegant and apt drafting. That is why from (b) where we have “and a court” becomes a different issue altogether and that would come in as subclause (5) which is proposed in (ix).
    So, we would take the (viii) where we are just starting the re-drafting by proposing that you delete the existing subclause 4 and substitute it with what I have just read -- a licence contract is not valid if (a) that licence contract does not provide for quality control; or (b) the quality control is not effectively carried out.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bagbin 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, subclause (5), delete and substitute the following:
    “(5) A court may declare the mark as abandoned by the owner.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee.
    Mr Bagin 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8 -- add the following new subclause:
    “(6) An owner may plead aban- donment as a personal defence in infringement proceedings.”
    In reality, it is already there, but it is stated as subclause 5; it now becomes subclause 6.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my worry is whether it is important or even necessary to legislate pleadings in a legislation such as this. I am not too sure that we need this.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Minority Leader, I knew you were worried. That is why I recognised you and I share a similar worry -- Deputy Attorney-General -- that when you are drafting a substantive law on a substantive matter, do we add pleadings -- how you will go to court? I do not know. It just struck me, but may be, it is a new drafting style. Is it a new drafting style? We have rules of court, High Court rules and so on.
    Mr Bagbin 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, even though you called the Deputy Minister --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    You have taken over --
    Mr Bagbin 1:45 p.m.
    No! He will be speaking.
    Mr Speaker, it struck all of us but what is the harm that is caused by its inclusion?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    The harm perhaps, is starting a trend that is unknown in our law.
    Mr Bagbin 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, now, the drafting style is to make the laws as simple as possible, even to be understood by the ordinary people, that as they go through it themselves, they would know what their rights are, what their obligations are -- that is there and so, when that explanation was given, there was nothing wrong with including it. So, we just accepted that it should go on because the ordinary person can read it and say, “ah! I have some defence here”. So, in their dealings, they can keep on without coming to Mr Speaker's firm for advice on this matter [Laughter].
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    In this case, I will not say you should not bring me into the argument, bring me into the argument, because you are seeking to impoverish all lawyers. On a more serious note, when a non lawyer reads and sees pleadings and believes that by that word “pleadings”, he has suddenly become a lawyer or -- we are leading people astray.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was just seeking your guidance if through that process, I can become a lawyer.
    Mr Chireh 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we do not want to use the word “pleadings”, we can say “abandonment” is a defence. But of course, in talking about pleadings as the Chairman explained, it is to indicate that you have the right to plead, but we could as well say that “abandonment” is a defence in infringement proceedings.
    Dr Matthew O. Prempeh 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is very interesting that we are doing Trademarks things which have to do with trade and the Deputy Minister for Trade and Industry has just left. Other relevant Ministries should take much interest in these things. It is not the Attorney-General who will be pursing these things, it is the Ministry.
    Mr Speaker, I do not know the time but as the Ministry of Trade and Industry officials are not here, are we sure that they are really interested in this Trademarks Bill? It is not for the Attorney-General's Department -- [Interruption] yes, they must be shepherding this Bill through Parliament but the relevant agency [Interruption] Yes, we will find trade donors for you to come and register our patents but trade is trade, it is not the Attorney-General's Department.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    But the office for registration of trademarks is under the Attorney-General's Department.
    Dr Ayine 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not see the point being made by my Hon Colleague. The fact is, Trademarks are under the Attorney-General's Department. This Bill is being sponsored by the Attorney- General's Department. We have the representatives of the Registrar-Generals Department and in fact, we have bureaucrats from the intellectual property division of the Ministry of Trade and Industry in this House supporting us. So, I do not see the point the Hon Member is making.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I guess we should not allow ourselves to be swayed and the issue now relates to legislating for a particular pleading.
    Mr Speaker, I am struggling to find its importance. First of all, is it the only pleading that a person could access? If, no, why this particular? -- In my view, it has no significance. What is the peculiar
    Dr Ayine 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not see the point also being made by the Hon Minority Leader regarding the inclusion of the statutory defence of the plea of abandonment in any proceedings on infringement. As the Chairman of the Committee has pointed out, if the Statute does not provide the basis for such a plea, it cannot be raised in a court of competent jurisdiction. That is why we are providing for it in this Bill.
    Mr William O. Boafo 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, having regard to what the Deputy Attorney-General has said, is he trying to accept that a lawyer cannot use his ingenuity to put up a defence if that defence is not provided in the Statute? Why do you legislate for that in particular? Is it because you want to give a statutory defence or what? [Interruptions.] You have to leave it to the courts to decide whether it is an automatic defence.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Minority Leader, I give you another bite of the cherry; make your point again, forcefully.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as I said, there are two things; I said it was not the only resort and that being the case, I do not find its relevance here. It is not intended to exclude other
    resorts. So, why this? And in any event, what is the peculiar significance of this? I do not see it. I am struggling to see the point that is being made by the Deputy Attorney-General and the former Minority and Majority Leader.
    Mr Bagbin 1:55 p.m.
    My good Friend, the Minority Leader just in a private conversation, I asked him what do we use self defence as a statutory defence for? Murder! Now, if you do not put that there, it does not automatically inure to your defence when you are charged with murder. You cannot; it is the same thing. If you go through the Agreement, abandonment is not a defence and so, we are providing for it as a defence. What is the problem with that? [Interruptions.] If it is a small problem, then ignore it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, Hon Yileh Chireh made the same point that we can achieve the same effect by re-wording it to remove the word “plea” and then say for example, that “abandonment is a defence in infringement proceedings”. Because what you are seeking to achieve is that, if you do not provide for abandonment as a defence under the Statute, it may not be available to the person. At first, you said that everybody would know it is a defence.
    But you have shifted the position in saying that it may not be available. I am not in a position to argue with you; the Minority Leader too is also concerned about introducing pleading into it. So, if you agree that perhaps, we should rephrase it that “abandonment is a defence in infringement proceedings,” you will achieve the same aim.
    Yes, Deputy Majority Leader.
    Mr Alfred K. Agbesi 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I tempted to agree with that definition, that “abandonment is a defence.” So, if you
    go and plead and it amounts to abandonment, it is a defence in your cause. So, we should agree to the proposal by Hon Yieleh Chireh and then we move on.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    I want the Chairman of the Committee to couch it and then we move it.
    Chairman of the Committee, I do not think I should couch it. I think you should couch it.
    Mr Bagbin 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as a style of drafting, we may consider the following in replacement of what we are proposing as subclause (6) -- “abandonment may be pleaded as a personal defence in infringement proceedings”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    You have not made any change. You have just added “ed” to “plead”.
    Mr Bagbin 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “abandonment is a personal defence in infringement proceedings”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Yes.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, looking at what was done in clause 8(5), I wonder whether that is not an exercise in superfluity if we should add (6), because you have said “…a court may declare the mark as abandoned by the owner.” It provides the resort. Now, you come and say that “an owner may plead abandonment as a personal defence in infringement proceedings.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    What you are saying is that, the fact that the court may declare the mark as abandoned by the owner, means that the defendant in the action may plead that it has been abandoned and based on clause (5), the
    court can make the order or declaration that the Trademark has been abandoned and so, your right has been extinguished.
    So, what the Minority Leader is saying is that, having regard to -- does clause (5) standing by itself not create the opportunity to plead abandonment as a defence? That is what he is saying and I am about to call Hon Banda who is looking at me closely for his view on the matter in a second.
    Hon Chairman, the Minority Leader did not raise this until we had argued for about an hour and now, he is saying that even clause 5 standing alone says that: “.. .court may declare the mark as abandoned by the owner --” If you are a lawyer who is defending somebody, that alone gives you the opportunity to plead abandonment because you will draw the court's attention to the fact that, you can declare the mark as abandoned. So it is a defence. Why are we adding (6)? That is the question we now ask after we have debated clause (6) for about one hour.
    Mr Bagbin 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the court can only make that declaration on evidence and we are simply drawing the attention by Statute that the owner is entitled to lead that defence for the court to make the declaration. If the person does not lead that evidence before the court, the court cannot make that declaration. That is all what we are saying. If you are talking about the --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Sorry. It is not the owner who leads evidence that he has abandoned his trademark.
    Mr Bagbin 1:55 p.m.
    Where would the court get the evidence to declare that it has been abandoned?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    The other party, not the owner.
    Mr Bagbin 2:05 p.m.
    No!
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    I am the owner of the trademark --
    Mr Bagbin 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you cannot lead evidence to say that I have abandoned something, until I say that I have abandoned it. But if you lead evidence, I can come and counter your evidence and say, no, I have not abandoned it for one, two, three reasons. I am not —I have not abandoned it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, I am not arguing with you but is that not the whole purpose of court? Let us say for the sake of argument that I own a trademark and you come and say that I have abandoned my trademark and I lead evidence to say that I have not abandoned it. So, based on the evidence that both parties would lead, the court on the balance of probabilities would decide that either the trademark has been abandoned or not. Am I correct? So, it is the party who is claiming a right to the trademark when he has not registered it.
    It is the party who says that the other man has no right even though he has registered it, because he has abandoned it. So, abandonment is a defence to a person who is seeking to use a trademark which he has not registered. Am I correct or I am wrong? Let us be careful about this thing.
    Hon Banda, then the distinguished Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice.
    Mr Ben Abdallah Banda 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much for th is opportunity —
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    Sorry.
    Having regard to the state of business, I direct that Sitting is extended beyond the prescribed time and I direct also that the necessary arrangements be made.
    Mr Banda 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for this opportunity.
    I think that when we talk about abandonment, it presupposes that the matter is in court and two parties are litigating over the right. And who takes the matter to court? In this particular case, it is the owner of the right who takes the matter to court, alleging that his right has been infringed upon. And in this particular case, the defendant may plead that having regard to the circumstances surrounding your rights, you are deemed to have abandoned it, that is why I am also using your trademark.
    So, abandonment as a defence is rather not pleaded by the owner of the right but it is pleaded by the person who has been sued by the owner of the right. So, Mr Speaker, I turn to share your position as regards who pleads abandonment. Is it the owner of the right or the person who is being sued or who is alleged to have infringed upon the right of the owner?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    I am sorry if we seem to be taking time about this Bill but we all agree that intellectual property is a little technical and we want to do the right thing, that is why we are seeking quite a number of views.
    Hon Bagbin, you wanted to speak earlier or you will hold your horses for the time being?
    Hon Banda, have you finished?
    Mr Banda 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have finished.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    Thank you.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    Mr Bagbin 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the rendition is quite clear. It says an owner may plead abandonment as a personal defence in infringement procedures. Now, he is saying that it is not the owner that will plead the abandonment but the person
    taking the owner to court. That is not what the Bill is intended to do. We want to give that defence to the owner of the trademark to plead and I think the person pleading the abandonment is now the— in the registration process, one would have registered a trademark, then after a period of time, the Deputy Attorney- General and Deputy Minister for Justice goes to register the same trademark.
    Now, for some reason, the registration goes through and the owner of the trademark is now pleading that he had registered that trademark because it had been abandoned and that is the defence when the person is taken to court.
    When the person is taken to court, he would now say that I have abandoned the trademark, so he is the owner of the trademark. Is that what you were explaining? So, that is the situation. It is a new person, and that is what the law is now saying. This is because he had been registered as the owner, so, he is now pleading that the first person who registered it had abandoned it and that was why he registered it and so, he is using that as a defence.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    So, let me put the Question. Which Question? What is the Question? The Question is that clause 6 —
    Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu — rose
    —
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, that does not change anything.
    The Question is that the amendment that was proposed to clause 6 by the Hon Chairman of the Committee, based on our earlier interruption that “abandonment” is a defence in infringement procedures.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 8 as amended ordered to stand as part of the Bill.
    Clause 9 -- Section 26 of Act 664 amended.
    Mr Bagbin 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 9, subclause (5), line 1, delete “with a view to” and substitute “for the purpose of”.
    Mr Speaker, so that it now reads 2:05 p.m.
    “a person who for the purpose of gain for that person or any other person or with intent to cause loss to any other person and without the consent of the owner of a registered trademark…”
    Then (a) (b) (c).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    I will put the Question. The amendment as moved by the Hon Chairman of the Committee —
    Yes, Hon Minority Leader, the expression that shows on your face--
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is not very clear to me what the purpose of mind is and if we strand out the “gain” -- so, if the Hon Chairman could go over it again. I think the construction is a bit cumbersome.[Pause.]
    Mr Bagbin 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what I did say is that, we are deleting “with a view to” and substituting it with “for the purpose of”. So, when you delete” with a view to”, “gain” is still there. Not “again.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    So, just read out that first sentence. What the amendment —
    Mr Bagbin 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the new one reads:
    “a person who for the purpose of gain for that person or any other person” -- [Interruption] Ordinary English, one would say, “for the purpose of a gain.” In legal finesse, it is “for the purpose of gain”. You do not put “a gain” any more. Do not put “a gain”. “A person who for the purpose of gain for that person or any other person” and you are saying I should now put “for the purpose for a gain.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    I will put the Question as it is.
    Hon Minority Leader, have you arrested my Question?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    You have arrested me?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “a gain”, it is not for gain.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, you have arrested me?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “again” yes, but it is not for “gain.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    You have arrested me again -- [Laughter.]
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the Hon Chairman says that we should not insert the indefinite article, it makes it a bit difficult reading and appreciating what he wants to say. I think we should have “a” before the “gain”.
    But following after that, on the next line --
    “A person who for the purpose of making a gain for that person or any other person or with the intent to cause loss to any other person and without the consent of the owner of a registered trademark…”
    Mr Speaker, we could also have situations where a person could make a loss to himself. He could make a loss to himself for the purpose of maybe, securing some insurance or whatever.
    So, if he strands them out as he has done, then -- because in the first line, he is referring to himself making a gain to himself or making a gain for another person. In much the same way, the intent could be to cause a loss to himself superficially, at least, or to another person. But ultimately, he must tend to do it somewhere. So, why not that application -- “to himself and another person” but in the first line, we are doing so; but as far as “loss” is concerned, it just applies to one body or one person.
    Mr Bagbin 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the word “make” is not in the clause and clearly, it started with “A person.” If you say --
    “A person for the purpose of gain for that person...”
    You cannot be saying --
    “A person, who for the purpose of a gain for that person...”
    It is not clear.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bagbin 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 9, subclause (7), delete.
    That was where we had the debate with subclause (7) and then the subclause (5) that we just finished, to show the difference. That in subclause (7), clearly, they are pleading and that is not the place to put it and so, we are requesting that that be deleted. But in the one we considered early on, it has to be a statutory defence; and that is why we accepted it there. So, we are asking that the subclause (7) be deleted.
    Mr Boafo 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to find out from the Hon Chairman why he is trying to deny such a person this type of defence and allow abandonment as a defence to another person? Is it fair?
    Mr Bagbin 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, he completed by asking “Is it fair?”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mr Bagbin 2:15 p.m.
    It is fair.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Why?
    Mr Bagbin 2:15 p.m.
    In subclause (7), we are talking about a person leading evidence to show that he believes there are reasonable grounds -- that the use of the registered trademark in the manner in which it was used and was to be used, was not an infringement of the registered trademark. That is leading evidence; and that we cannot legislate here.
    But trying to provide a statutory defence, which would be properly rendered, is different from this one -- [Interruption] -- on reasonable grounds.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    So, are you suggesting that this defence is available whether it is here?
    Mr Bagbin 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, talking about reasonable grounds, we are saying that it cannot be any defence because who determines the “reasonableness”; is it you?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    It is the court.
    Mr Bagbin 2:15 p.m.
    It is the court, yes. So, that one cannot be used as a statutory defence. But in the case of abandonment, one can use it. The person himself is coming to use it. But this is not the same.
    Mr Boafo 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not see the difference following the reasoning of the Hon Chairman of the Committee. This is because in each case, there would be an evaluation of evidence by the court. If you put up the defence of abandonment,
    the court would have to evaluate whether what you have pleaded so far and the evidence you have led constitutes abandonment. The same thing applies to when you put up a defence of reasonable grounds. The court would have to evaluate the evidence to see whether the type of defence on reasonable grounds can be sustained. So, I do not see the difference being drawn.
    Mr Bagbin 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my Hon Senior at the Bar is just pulling my leg. This is because in this clause, he knows well that we are talking about a crime; that is criminal offence. So, the reasonableness or otherwise of the grounds, is not determined by statute; it is determined by evidence in court.
    But the one that we are dealing with abandonment is a civil matter -- it is a statutory defence in a civil case. So, I need not go into these kinds of details. They are different; very different.
    Mr Agbesi 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the person charged may believe what he has done, but it is for the court to say his belief is reasonable. So, reasonability is for the determination of the court and not the person charged. So, what is provided for is the correct position. That the person charged, whether he believes it, is reasonable or not, is for the court to decide.
    Therefore, the amendment proposed to delete this one -- because it is not for the person to decide that he reasonably believes. It is for the court to say “yes, your belief is reasonable.”
    So, deletion of it is right, Mr Speaker.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 9, subclause (5), the sanctions regime that is proposed, we have listed five, from (a) to (e) and we are saying that any person who engages in these--
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, I understand your view.
    Chairman of the Committee, admittedly, the court may decide just to impose the fine because it is “or”; -- “a fine or a term of imprisonment”. But the term of imprisonment -- when it decides to impose the term of imprisonment, it cannot impose less than 15 years. Is it not a little harsh; a small trader who has done something little and gets 15 years minimum? I wonder.
    Mr Bagbin 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, ordinarily, the term of imprisonment is quite high. I do not know whether it is because it has to do with trading, businesses and industry, that they have made it that high. So, I am just trying to get clarification from the technical people. It might be one of the -
    - 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Can you make it a maximum of 25 years without having a minimum, so that the court has the opportunity to impose one year, six months, two years, three years, and five years? You can have a maximum but not have a minimum; can we do that?
    Mr Bagbin 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the explanation from the technical people is that, the type of goods we are dealing with could affect human life. For example, if it has to deal with pharmaceuticals where there is counterfeit and people take them and they get the effect and die or they rather poison the person to death -- by using those kinds of things.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    That is one possibility; another possibility is cloth. Somebody has gone to buy one or two cloths, using somebody's trademark. Pharmaceutical is a serious matter; I agree with you. But there can be other non- fatal abuse of trademark. If you look at manufactured goods, which are identical or designed to deceive or to be mistaken for a registered trademark; if somebody goes to design a watch, for example, which is passed off as a Rolex--
    Mr Bagbin 2:25 p.m.
    I think the Ministry seems to agree with you in that respect, that maybe, not more than 15 years maximum. So, that should be the maximum depending on the type. And then you could impose the maximum or just a few months or years, depending on what it is. I think that would be acceptable once it is not in breach of the TRIPS Agreement;
    we do not need to impose such severe sentences and we know the consequences on the economy and everything. So, I think we should agree with that.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my worry really was in respect of (b): “A person is found in possession of goods with the same mark or design which is identical or likely to be taken for a registered trademark with the intent to sell, with the intent to offer, with the intent to expose for sale, with the intent to hire, with the intent to distribute”. Perhaps, the person may want to distribute it to charity; that was my worry.
    But if you take it from the opening paragraph of subclause (5), then I guess one would get the import of it. This is because it provides that a person whom with a view to doing -- [Interruption.] Yes, for that person or any other person with the intent to cause loss. Now, this wilful expression should be established and I think if we take it from subclause (5), the opening paragraph, then it makes more sense than letting it stand alone.
    So, in that case, maybe, we could lower it to about 10 years, but 15 years, I thought -- Of course, it would also have to affect the penalty units any way. But I think it makes more sense if we take it from sub- clause (5) and read the entire construction.
    I was reading subclause (5) (b) in isolation; that is why I got concerned. But I think if we put the two together, it makes more sense even though I still would want to plead we would lower the floor a bit from 15 years and scale it a bit downwards and then consequentially, it would affect the penalty units.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, what is your response?
    Mr Bagbin 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as I mentioned early on, we are very concerned about long custodial sentences. Instead of the maximum being 25 years, the maximum should rather be the 15 years.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    And no minimum?
    Mr Bagbin 2:25 p.m.
    We can leave that. If you want minimum, then five years. To a term not less than five years and not more than 15 years or to both.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Why do we not just set a maximum and leave the court -- I have not been a Judge before, but there are Judges in the House and I can see them nodding their heads. But if you give a Judge that the minimum he can impose is five years, he may decide just to impose the fine and leave out the sentence. This is because five years is a long sentence. So, why do we not just say “maximum of 15 years” or whatever number of years and leave it to the Judges to decide whether this should attract three years, two years, six months, five years, rather than this minimum?
    Mr Bagbin 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the intention of the proposers of the Bill is very clear. That they would want a minimum and a maximum. This is because they believe that these offences are quite serious that we cannot just leave them to the discretion of the Judge. There should be some minimum.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    The minimum is zero.
    Mr Bagbin 2:25 p.m.
    But that is no punishment. So, why not; if you are minded to reducing it, at least, we should give a minimum of five years and then the maximum 15 years.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    I am not allowed to engage in debate.
    Mr Bagbin 2:35 p.m.
    I am just reading the intention; the intendment here is to have a minimum and a maximum.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    So, would you propose an amendment then? Even though it is not advertised, would you propose an amendment to clause 9, subclause (5) (e) by the insertion of:
    “...after term of imprisonment ...”
    Mr Bagbin 2:35 p.m.
    That is so.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 9, paragraph (e), after “imprisonment of not less than” delete “fifteen” and insert “five” and after “not more than” delete “twenty-five” and insert “fifteen”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    “Or to both”?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just on that, I was saying that in that case, consequentially, it would affect the penalty units as well.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Not necessarily. This is because penalty units have equivalence in sentences -- What is the equivalence under the Interpretation Act?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, they are not tied but they are commensurate.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    By necessary implication or by an Act of Parliament?
    Mr Banda 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that was the point I was about to raise. This is because if the term of imprisonment is being reduced, then it is only fair that the penalty units should also be reduced. -- [Interruption.] -- But the point is that
    even the way the provision has been couched, it is either a term of imprisonment or a fine. So, it means the Judge still has the discretion to either impose a custodian sentence, a fine or both. So, the fines should also be reduced.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, I agree with what you said, not for the record. I agree with it. As for the matter, I agree.
    Mr Bagbin 2:35 p.m.
    It is money matter; it is business, trade, industry -- because if you want to cheat your colleague, you should be prepared to pay. But to incastrate you, that one is dealing with physical restriction; we are a bit more hesitatant in adding the years. That is why I agreed that we should reduce it. But when it comes to finance, the Hon Minority Leader is rich. [Laughter.]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Why do we not proceed? The Clerk-at-the-Table is advising me on the correspondence. So, we have agreed in principle to the term of imprisonment. As we progress, he would advise us on whether it is by statutes or something, so that we can look at that as well.
    So, let us abandon clause 9 for the time being. I will not put the Question on the entire clause 9. Let us go to clause 10.
    Clause 10 -- Section 32A inserted.
    Mr Bagbin 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, headnote, after “32A” insert “of Act 664”.
    Mr Speaker, in clause 10, we are proposing that the principal enactment be amended.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bagbin 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, subclause (3), paragraph (a), line 3, at end, delete “or” and substitute “and”.
    So, clause 10, subclause (3) would now read:
    “Where an application is made under this section, the court shall make an order for:
    (a) the forfeiture of the goods, materials or articles if it is satisfied that a relevant offence has been committed in relation to goods, materials or articles; and
    (b) the destruction of the goods, materials or articles in accordance with a specified directive.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in respect of the new Headnote, the “32 A”, the Hon Chairman is proposing that we add “of Act 664”. We are not inserting a new “32 A” from Act 664."
    It is a new thing that we are proposing. So, I thought that at that point, the Head note could stay. That is “Section 32A inserted.” It is a new one that is being proposed. It is not part of the original Act 664 that is being inserted.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Should we leave it to the draftspersons?
    The point you are making is that if it is a new clause, we should not bring “of Act 664,” Let us leave it to the draftsperson. Now, I will put the Question on the second proposed amendment to clause 10.
    Mr Boafo 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, after your Question has been put --
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Boafo 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I wanted to find out from the Hon Chairman what he meant by this “specified directive”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Where is that, please?
    Mr Boafo 2:35 p.m.
    Clause 10 (3) (b), the last line.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Hon Chairman,
    “Where an application is made under this section, the court shall make an order for
    (b) the destruction of the goods, materials or articles in accordance with a specified directive.”
    Mr Boafo 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I wanted to find out from the Hon Chairman, whether they intend to provide special directive in the Regulations under the Trademarks Act or he is referring to special directives by the court?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, do you want to define “specified directive”? Or it is not necessary to define “specified directive”?
    Mr Bagbin 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 32 is dealing with the principal enactment. It is dealing with forfeiture of unclaimed goods and the powers of the Commissioner. And the reference to the phrase “specified directive” would be the directives from the Commissioner or maybe, the preferred word should be “specific” but the word “specified” which meant that it was earlier given, published and known. That is why it is “specified directive” and that would be from the Commissioner.
    And the Commissioner here is defined -- it means the division dealing with Customs now under the Ghana Revenue Authority. But it used to be the Commissioner of the Customs, Excise and Preventive Service.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Hon W. O. Boafo, does it help us?
    Mr Boafo 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, by the explanation which the Hon Chairman has given, it means it takes away any discretion or initiative from the court. The court would have to give the directive as specified by the Commissioner by the circumstances at the time of the trial and would require the court to vary the directive.
    Mr Bagbin 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not know whether the Hon Member is trying to propose an amendment. If he wants to, he should propose it to clarify it. What we are simply saying is that -- the thing is talking about an application made to the court and we say the order of the court should be complied. If he wants the court to vary, then he should propose an amendment. But we believe the orders of the courts should conform to the law. I do not think he should be varying what the law has clearly stated.
    Now, there would be some regulations and powers as we are giving now to the Commissioner and the Commissioner would now issue directives which are known in the business. Now, if he wants the court to vary those directives, then they should propose an amendment.
    Mr Boafo 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the Hon Chairman is requesting for a proposed amendment, I would suggest that then the destruction should be done in accordance with the directives given by the court, so that the court would take into account the submissions by the Commissioner's representative at the trial, including how these materials should be destroyed.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Then it means the amendment you are proposing is that where an application is made under this section, the court shall make an order
    for the destruction of “the goods, material or articles”. So, we will delete “in accordance with the specified directive.” The court is the person who would make the order. For example, cases such as narcotics, it is the court that makes the order; it says, burn it in the court's premises here, do this.
    So, we are saying that we should end at “.. .the destruction of the goods, materials or articles”, which means that it is the court that would direct how the destruction should be done rather than a special directive.
    Is that what you are suggesting, Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Bagbin 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are dealing with so many items which would have different ways and means of destruction. And so, the technical people in the field gives a specific order how those goods could be destroyed and that is why they say the order should be in accordance with that specified directive.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    But instead of “specified directive” I guess his problem is that --
    Mr Bagbin 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, unless you want to say “appropriate” or something else but one would have to lead evidence for the court to know how those items could be destroyed.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Yes, in accordance with “as appropriate.” You see, if I understand you Chairman of the Committee, the technical people would be in court and they would lead evidence that these particular good are destroyed in this manner and then the court would make the order. Am I correct?
    Mr Bagbin 2:45 p.m.
    That is so, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Is that a special directive?
    Mr Bagbin 2:45 p.m.
    No, not special. “Specified.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Is that a directive?
    Mr Bagbin 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the fear also is that if we leave it to the court and the court does not give the right directive, then if something is for example, to be buried 20ft and the court says because of its maybe, greening or bio or toxicity and all those things, the Commissioner would specify clearly what methods of destruction or what -- the details of the order, so that it could be clearly implemented. Some could be the use of acid.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Would you call it a directive or advice or technical advice?
    Mr Bagbin 2:45 p.m.
    Not advice, directives from the --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    So, now, the Commissioner gives a directive to the court?
    Mr Bagbin 2:45 p.m.
    No, Mr Speaker. It is an existing directive how those things should be disposed of.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    So, the existing directives?
    Mr Bagbin 2:45 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker. Which would be given to the industry; and so, when the case goes to court and the court then finds that yes, this thing has to be destroyed, the court cannot depart from the existing directive.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    That directive is a directive given under the regulations -- By way of regulations?
    Mr Bagbin 2:45 p.m.
    Regulations! They would be Regulations. So, we can put it there as “specified by the Commissioner”, but it is the same thing as “specified directive”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with the Chairman of the Committee. If we are not going to go the whole hog, I would rather we delete the indefinite article and rather insert the definite article because that directive would be specified elsewhere. So, it should be in accord with “the specified directive”.
    But I agree that we may not necessarily have to have that long construction “as specified in the Regulations by the Commissioner and so on and so forth. If it is there “the specified directive”, the authority to specify the directive would be known.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, he is suggesting a deletion of the word “a” and the substitution of “the”, which in his words, an indefinite to a definite article. This is because when we say, “the specified directive”, then it means there is a specified directive. It takes out, in the Minority Leader's view, the possibility of us becoming confused what the nature of specified directive is.
    Mr Bagbin 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I need to consult the technical people because --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    The draftspersons are here; they will take this discussion into context and if they think they should change “a specified directive” to “the specified directive”, they would do that.
    Hon Minority Leader, are you happy with that?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am happy with it. But there is something that we decided on earlier which we should revisit. It is in respect of the proposal submitted by the Chairman of the Committee. Mr Speaker, we have already voted on that but I would plead that we
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Why?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is wrong because, the forfeiture is different from the destruction and the two do not have to go together. So, the court may call for the forfeiture of it and subsequently, they may order for the destruction. Mr Speaker, this is reinforced by subclause (4) following:
    “Subject to subsection 3 (b) the court may release the goods, materials or articles to a person on condition …”
    Which means that if we conjunct it to say that it should be “and” then necessarily, there should be a destruction after the forfeiture; but that is not the intendment of it. So, what we did earlier was a mistake; we should revisit it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    So, how do we revisit it?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that we rescind that decision taken and allow the status quo to hold.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, what is the position on rescission? The Motion is not filed; we just -- What Order are we coming under?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, because we are at the Consideration Stage, I guess you may relax the rules.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    We may?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:55 p.m.
    Yes, you may relax the rules.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    No, I have not relaxed them. What Order are you coming under? I refuse to relax them. What is the Order?
    Mr Chireh 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am saying that once you have not put the Question on the whole clause, you can relax the rules for this one.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    Yes, I can. I agree, and I can also decide not to relax them -- [Interruption] -- They say Speakers behave normally but I want to behave abnormally today.
    The Minority Leader is a doyen of the rules, so I want him to show me the rule that allows me to relax the rules. I will relax the rules.
    Minority Leader, abandon your search. I have relaxed the rules.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, they are suggesting that we should rescind the previous one, the “or” and I think Hon Yieleh Chireh also agrees to the Minority Leader that division, (xiv), they are saying that we should not have passed the amendment proposed.
    Mr Bagbin 2:55 p.m.
    I have gone through all the literature before me and there is that proposal there. But after Second Reading, I do agree with them that it should not have been proposed. But it is in the Committee's Report. I cannot recollect why we are proposing that amendment. In fact, when I was moving it, I was even raising the issue with my Hon Colleague here, that “but why are we making it
    “and”? But that is what is proposed. But I now agree with them that it should be “or” and not “and”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    So, a Motion has been moved for us to rescind --
    Mr Bagbin 2:55 p.m.
    So, I support the Motion.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    So, you support the Motion to rescind the amendment that was passed relating to (xiv)?
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    Hon Boafo, do you want to rescind our rescission again?
    Mr Boafo 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, not at all.
    Mr Speaker, I just wanted to make another observation, but I have been asked to give way to the Hon Chairman to withdraw his earlier proposed amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    Which one is that?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the one on (xiv), would now have to be abandoned by the Hon Chairman, which would then mean that the status quo will hold.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    When we rescind the earlier decision, is that not the end of the matter?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, technically, I have called for a rescission of that Motion. Now that we have rescinded the Motion, it will be for the
    Chairman now to abandon it. If he does not abandon it, we will still be stacked. So, it is for him to abandon it and then we can move on.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, do you agree to this?
    Mr Bagbin 2:55 p.m.
    That is so. After we have rescinded the decision, it means that the clause 10, subclause 3, proposed amendment still stands. I agree with him. I have to withdraw it. With your kind permission and the leave of the House, we withdraw that proposed amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    I can give my permission. As for the House giving its leave, I cannot give the leave of the House. I can? So, Minority Leader, will you speak for the House? Will you give your leave? I have given my permission.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the position of the Hon Chairman of the Committee, that it will not be moved and that you may accordingly then not put any Question on that.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    The sense of the House shows that the House has given its leave. So, with my permission and the leave of the House, Chairman of the Committee, we agree that you withdraw item (xiv), clause 10.
    Mr Boafo 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to refer to clause 10 (4) (b). In a sum, subclause 4, deals with the power of the court to order release of the goods on certain conditions. Mr Speaker,
    (a) is so clear about the eraser, removal or obliteration;
    (b) confines itself to only the payment of costs.
    I would want to find out from the Hon Chairman whether non-compliance with any other directives contained in the order of the court will not allow the release of the goods.
    Mr Boafo 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am just envisaging a situation where the court may give other orders. It depends upon the case before the court. But I do not understand why he should single out the payment of costs as condition precedence for the release of the goods, if other orders have been made by the court which the person has not complied with.
    Mr Bagbin 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I disagree with my very good Friend because this is an application before the court. The court could order the destruction. In fact, let us start with forfeiture or destruction and then this clause is simply saying subject to those the court could also order the release but in ordering release, it should order some costs to be paid.
    At least, some steps have been taken. Some costs would have been incurred. They have gone to court and all those things. So, it says”, subject to the payment of costs”. I do not know why he is against that.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    Hon Banda agrees with you -- costs would have been incurred -- legal fees and all those.
    Clause 10 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    Another arrest?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, no. You have put the Question but a harmless question in respect of “goods”. Clause 10, is in respect of “goods”, but I am trying to look at the general remit of what you are doing because the trademarks apply to goods and services. The clause 10 that we have done applies to goods.
    That is the issue that I just wanted to -- [Interruption] -- This is because the remit of it, the trademark is just an application to both goods and services, so, why are we limiting ourselves when it comes to sanction to only goods? I just wanted to think through it because the application is to both goods and services, the trademarks. So, why are we limiting ourselves to just that?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    I have already put the Question and then I think the Ayes have it. Do they not?
    Clause 11 -- Section 51 of Act 664 amended.
    Mr Bagbin 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 11, delete and substitute the following:
    “The principal enactment is amended in section 51 by the addition of a new subsection (3):
    (3) Regulation made under this section may make provision for giving effect to the provisions of the Madrid Protocol and may in particular provide for:
    (a) applications for international registrations by way of the Trademark Office as Office of origin;
    (b) procedures to be followed where the basic applica- tion or registration fails or ceases to be in force;
    (c) procedure to be followed where the office receives from the International Bureau, a request for extension of protection to Ghana;
    (d) effect of a successful request for extension of protection in Ghana;
    (e) transformation of an application for an interna- tional registration, into a national application for registration;
    (f) communication of informa- tion to the International Bureau; and
    (g) payment of fees and amounts prescribed in respect of applications for international registration, extensions of protection and renewals”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    Hon Members, Standing Order 129 (c) states:
    “where an amendment appears on the Order Paper and exceeds four lines it shall not be necessary for the Member moving it or Mr Speaker in putting it to read out the amendment, provided that the place in the Order Paper where it appears is pointed out”.
    So, the Question is, the amendment as advertised as item (xv) stands part of the Bill --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with respect, the traditional way of formulating such provisions is to entrust responsibility into the hands of a Minister to make Regulations.
    But here, even though the original Bill captures it as such, that the Minister may make Regulations, in your amendments, the provision is that Regulations made under this section may be made or may make provision for -- If there is, let us draw attention to it because the authority should be in the hands of a Minister.
    I thought that was why clause 11(3), has so captured it. If it is provided for elsewhere, let us leave it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    Yes. I agree with the Hon Minority Leader.
    MrBagbin 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the main enactment, it is there; so, there is no need to repeat it in this subclause. It is at section 51 -- Regulations. It says:
    “The Minister may by Legislative Instrument make Regulations”.
    That is why we are not repeating it in this.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    But it also says somewhere that “Minister means Minister responsible for Trade”. Is that not?
    Mr Bagbin 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, sorry?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    In the Interpretation section, it says that: “Minister means Minister responsible for Trade”?
    Mr Bagbin 3:05 p.m.
    That is so.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    They must say that.
    Mr Bagbin 3:05 p.m.
    It is there.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    All right.
    So, I will direct that the draftsperson looks at the main Act as well as the proposed amendment.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 11 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 12 -- Section 52 of Act 664 amended.
    Mr Bagbin 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 12, add the following new interpretation:
    “‘Well-known trademark' means the trademark of a person who is:
    (a) a national of a country that is a party to the Paris Conven- tion; or
    (b) domiciled in or has a real and effective commercial esta- blishment in a country that is a party to the Paris Conven- tion, and the trademark is recognised or known in the relevant public sector as belonging to that person.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    I will put the Question on clause 12 --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, do I understand it to mean that the amendment captured as clause 12 on page 9 of the amendment Bill still stands? We agree to that and further to that, we are making this proposal. I thought we were rather deleting and rephrasing.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    Thank you. So, I will put the Question on clause
    12 --
    Mr Boafo 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to find out from the Chairman what the meaning of “real and effective commercial establishment” as it appears on the new proposed amendment (b), lines one and two is:
    “(b) domiciled in or has a real and effective commercial establish- ment …”
    What is the meaning of “real and effective”?
    Mr Bagbin 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “real and effective” means it is in actual operation, not a phony establishment. That is all that they want to say. It is live and it is kicking. It is operational; that is “real and effective” --
    “domiciled in or has a real and effective commercial establishment in a country that is a party to the Paris Convention…”
    It is not just phony company or something. No! It should be operational.
    Mr Boafo 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the reason I asked this question is that at times, the use of so many words gives problems to interpretation -- “real and effective commercial”. I would propose the deletion of “real and effective” and leave it at “commercial establishment” so that it would depend upon the weight of the evidence.
    Mr Speaker, if I would borrow his words, it should be “operational commercial establishment”.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    Hon Member for New Juaben South, do you have a point of order?
    Mr Chireh 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the proposed amendment that we have here, it is talking about Protocol. I believe that these words are used in that Protocol, and by way of domesticating, they want to use what is in the Protocol. That is why when we say the words are many, they may just be conforming to what is originally in the Protocol instead of using a different word like “operational”.
    But of course, we have the right to change it if we think it is so. Unless the meaning is lost by these so many words, we should maintain what has been brought before us.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    So, what is the sense of the House? Should we go with “real and effective” or we should go with “operational” or we should go neither of the above? Real and effective -- All right, I will put the Question. That is the sense of the House --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought the explanation given by the Hon Member for Wa West, that if it conforms to the Paris Convention, then we should leave it as that. If it is not and we are crafting it ourselves, then it is better we use a familiar language, that is “operational”.
    Let us leave it to the draftspersons; let them check, if it is part of that language, then we use “real and effective”. Otherwise, we should use “operational”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    The advice that was just given by Hon Yieleh Chireh was given many years ago in a law class by B. J. Da Rocha of blessed memory. He said when the law has stated something, do not use your own words; just use what the law says.
    So, if Paris Convention gives the words “real and effective” then we should keep it as such. I think the draftspersons would look at it and see what the Paris Convention says.
    Chairman, do you agree with me?
    Mr Bagbin 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I totally agree with you but this is from the drafts- persons. It is a new terminology that is being used; it is from the new development and has to be defined. That is why we are adding it to the definition section and that definition is a “well known trademark”. What does it mean? This is coming from the draftspersons.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 12 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 14 -- Section 54 inserted.
    Mr Bagbin 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, lines 1 and 2, delete “The Trademarks Act, 2004 (Act 664) is amended by the insertion of a new section 54” and substitute the following: “The principal enactment is amended by the addition of a new section
    54”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 14 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 15 -- Third Schedule of Act 54 inserted.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in respect of what we did earlier, the Chairman said that we should insert a new section, Act 2004 (Act 664), when I said that it will not be necessary to do that.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:15 p.m.


    For consistency, you will realise that in respect of 14, there is no such word, that is section 54. So, it should apply to what we did earlier.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    Thank you. The draftspersons will note.
    Clause 15, the Chairman of Committee has not given me the proposed amendment. Has he?
    Mr Boafo 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am more familiar with the expression “add the following new clause” instead of this winding one.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    Which one?
    Mr Boafo 3:15 p.m.
    Clause 14.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    We are still on clause 14.
    Mr Boafo 3:15 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    We have not put the Question on clause 14?
    Mr Boafo 3:15 p.m.
    No, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    We have done that and moved to clause 15?
    Mr Boafo 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, do you not agree with me?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    You want to draw me into the debate --
    Mr Boafo 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am not drawing you into the debate but you see we are more familiar with “add the following new clause”--
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    The draftspersons will take note. We have come to clause 15, have we not?
    Clause 15?
    Mr Bagbin 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, line 1, delete “insertion” and substitute “addition”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    MrBagbin 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, Third Schedule, paragraph 1A, line 1, delete “shall apply” and substitute “applies”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are talking about provisions. It is plural; so, if we have to delete” shall” it should be “apply” not “applies”.
    Mr Bagbin 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is ‘s' there, so it is “provisions”. “The provisions of this Act apply to international applications.” That is correct; “apply” not “applies”. That is correct.
    Mr Boafo 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want the Chairman to retain “applies” and instead delete the preceding words: “the provisions of” and just start with “this part applies” instead of “the provisions of this part”.
    Mr Bagbin 3:15 p.m.
    The part we are dealing with is a schedule to clause 15 and so, it is not like a part of a law. It is just a schedule and so, when you use this part, you know in the Act, it means a whole number of clauses. But with this, we are dealing with a schedule, that is why it is saying “the provisions of this part” or maybe we can say “the provisions of this Schedule apply to”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    So, Chairman of Committee, should we take it as it is or you agree? Two friendly amendments have been proposed. What is the position?
    Mr Bagbin 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my instructions are that it should be “the provisions of this part apply to international…”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bagbin 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, third schedule, paragraph IE, subparagraph (2), line 4, delete “he” and substitute “be”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bagbin 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, third schedule, paragraph IE, subparagraph (6), line 2, delete “designated” and substitute “that designates”
    It would now read:
    “Where a registered proprietor of a Trademark makes an international registration of that Trademark that designates Ghana..”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, again, I guess it is a drafting style, but I am not too familiar with the use of the word “should” in this context. I thought that it rather should read “shall”, what we just did, line (3) 1E (2) line (3).
    Where after recording the particulars of any international registration referred to in subsection (1):
    “the registrar is satisfied that in the circumstances of the case the protection of the Trademark in Ghana shall not be granted or such protection shall be granted subject to conditions...”
    I am referring to 1E (2), lines (3) and (4).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    This is a different amendment you are proposing.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am just drawing the attention of the Hon Chairman of the Committee and for that matter, the draftspersons whether “shall” is more appropriate.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    The draftspersons would take that into consideration, replace “should” with “shall”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:25 p.m.
    It should be “shall”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    Thank you.
    Clause 15 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    We come back to clause 9 before we take the Long Title. Clause 9, the question is, we have reduced the term of imprisonment, should we reduce the penalty units? The Chairman of the Committee argues vigorously that since it is business, we should retain the penalty units and reduce the term of imprisonment.
    Then, Hon Nana on the other hand, supported by the Minority Leader, argues vigorously that there should be some relationship between “imprisonment” and the “fine”. So, if you have reduced “imprisonment”, you should also reduce the “fine”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I guess this is one of the issues that we can flag and leave it with the draftspersons to appropriately advise. I am convinced and persuaded that there should be a commensurate reduction in the penalty units. But let us flag it and leave it to the draftspersons.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    Indeed, the Table Office was also persuaded and they brought to me, some documentation. But the documentation they brought to me unfortunately, did not persuade me. So, their position, I must confess, was in vein. The-Clerk-at-Table, Mr Ebenezer Ahumah Djietror is still gesticulating wildly but I am still not convinced.
    Mr Bagbin 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have just been told that there is a relationship; they would correspond in the reduction.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    In what action?
    Mr Bagbin 3:25 p.m.
    In the Penalty Units Act which we passed.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    But it is wrong because --
    Mr Bagbin 3:25 p.m.
    Well, that is the law now.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    When did we pass it?
    Mr Bagbin 3:25 p.m.
    We passed it in this House around 2006/2007.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, at the time you were the Attorney-General. [Laughter.]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    Why I am saying there is no relationship is this -- why we change fines to penalty units, finds expression finally in the Interpretation Act for a very simple reason, that you would state an amount, and when you state that amount, sometimes, it becomes valueless after a certain period of time.
    So, instead of stating a definite amount, we use penalty units and when we use penalty units, we give the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice the power to determine how much one penalty unit is. Just now, one penalty unit is GH¢12 under our law.
    But there is no relationship in law that I know between penalty units and prison terms. It does not say for example, that one year is equal to five penalty units and two years is equal ten penalty units. I am not aware of any such relationship. Penalty unit relates to money.
    Mr Chireh 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is an equivalence. The Attorney-General's Department has equivalence in terms of penalty units. When you are given for example, two years, the amount in penalty units is equivalent.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    So it is administrative.
    Mr Chireh 3:25 p.m.
    Yes. It is in the Legislative Instrument (L.I.). When we were passing the L. I. on the value of the penalty units, that is the one that you can always amend by regulation to say that it is now GH¢12 or an amount; there, the equivalence has been developed.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    Hon Yieleh Chireh, I will not argue with you because I have always had a lot of confidence in the technical personnel in the Attorney-General's Office. So, if you tell me they say there is equivalency, I would not argue with you. I will put the Question on clause 9 --
    Hon Banda?
    Mr Banda 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I still think that the penalty unit to a large extent is determined by the term of imprisonment because the more years are imposed on a convicted person, the more fines are also imposed on a convicted person. Where the Judge is minded to impose both custodian sentence and a fine, Mr Speaker, at the end of the day, the punishment would be too harsh.
    It is based on this that I say that if the term of imprisonment has been reduced, then it is fair in practical terms that the penalty units also be reduced, so that it will commensurate with the reduced term of imprisonment.
    If the term of imprisonment is high--
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:35 p.m.
    I think we have agreed on that and we would leave it to the draftspersons to find its equivalence, having regard to the proposed reduction that has been agreed upon by this House; there is a reduction of 15 to a minimum of (5) and of 25 to a maximum of 15. The draftspersons should look at it and reduce the fines accordingly.
    Hon Chairman, am I right?
    So the question is that, clause 9 (5) (e) —[Interruption] the conversation is too much. The conversation is a little too much. Clause 9 (5) (e) be amended by the reduction of the term of imprisonment to a term of imprisonment of not less than five years and not more than fifteen years, subject to the draftsperson reducing the penalty units accordingly.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 9 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:35 p.m.
    Hon Asiamah says Ayes with a loud Ayee.
    Hon Members, now, we go to the Long Title.
    The Long Title ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:35 p.m.
    That brings us to the end of the Consideration Stage.
    Hon Deputy Majority Leader, there is no other Business for today. Is there?
    Mr Alfred K. Agbesi 3:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, other Businesses which have been advertised stand deferred till tomorrow.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:35 p.m.
    All right.
    Thank you.
    ADJOURNMENT 3:35 p.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 3.40 p.m. till Tuesday, 1st April, 2014 at 10.00 a.m.