Debates of 31 Mar 2014

MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
PRAYERS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
COMMUNICATION FROM THE
PRESIDENT
Mr First Deputy Speaker
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
PARLIAMENT HOUSE
ACCRA
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT
  • [No correction was made to the Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 28th March, 2014.]
    • Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Members, we have the Official Report for Wednesday, the 19th of March, 2014 for correction.
    Ms Ursula Owusu
    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
    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
    That is what I would prefer, until such time as I do communicate to the Office of the Clerk.
    Mr Frank Annoh-Dompreh
    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
    Mr Speaker, on column 1891, paragraph (5): “I want to know;” they wrote “It wants….” [Interruption.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    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
    Mr Kennedy N. Osei (NPP -- Akim Swedru)
    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
    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)
    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
    Thank you very much.
    Hon Members, we will take contribu- tions.
    Mr Kwabena M. Akandoh (NDC -- Juaboso)
    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)
    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 Kofi Frimpong (NPP -- Kwabre East)
    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
    Hon Member, are you up on a point of order?
    Mr Akandoh
    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
    These new ones must learn. They must wait and learn. He is seriously out of order.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Member, proceed with your presentation.
    Mr Frimpong
    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
    Hon Member, are you up on a point or order?
    Ms Sulemana
    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
    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
    Hon Member, be careful where you are treading. [Laughter.]
    Mr Frimpong
    Mr Speaker, if she wants me to withdraw the statement, she must withdraw the left hand. [Interruption.]
    Mr Fritz F. Baffour
    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
    You are in level 200, eh? [Laughter.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Frimpong, please, begin to wind up.
    Mr Frimpong
    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
    Hon Member, I heard you use “the Police.”
    Just begin to wind up.
    Mr Frimpong
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    Hon Member for Old Tafo, were you up on a point of order?
    Dr Anthony A. Osei
    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
    Including you?
    Dr A. A. Osei
    I do not have a police guard. So, he should just correct himself.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Very well.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Thank you for the correction.
    Mr Gbediame
    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
    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
    Hon Member, should take note.
    Mr Gbediame
    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


    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 First Deputy Speaker
    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
    Mr Speaker, item six on the Order Paper.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Item 6 Hon Chairman of the Committee? [Pause.]
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    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
    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
    Chairman of the Committee)
    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)
    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.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    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)
    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 First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, are you up on a point of order?
    Mr Avedzi
    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
    Hon Member, are you satisfied?
    Mr Kwarteng
    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
    Yes, Hon Member, after that I will put the Question.
    Mr Govers Kwame Agbodza (NDC -- Adaklu)
    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
    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
    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
    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
    Hon Minister for Lands and Natural Resources, are you up on a point of order?
    Mr Agbodza
    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
    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
    Yes, Hon Minister for Roads and Highways, are you on a point of order?
    Alhaji Sulemani
    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
    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
    Yes, Hon Member for Old Tafo --
    Dr A. A. Osei
    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
    Hon Member, are you through?
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee
    --
    Mr Avedzi
    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
    Mr Speaker, just to conclude.

    Maj. (Alhaji)(Dr) Mustapha Ahmed (retd.) -- rose --
    Mr Agbodza
    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
    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.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Minister, can you respond to that?
    Mr Cassiel A. B. Forson
    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
    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.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Deputy Minister, can you address that issue?
    Mr Forson
    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


    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
    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.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    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
    --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    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
    Mr Speaker, in fact, it does not change anything and we accept that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    So, that portion will be deleted.
    Dr Kunbuor
    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
    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
    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
    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.
    Dr A. A. Osei
    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.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Members, we have had enough debate on this matter.
    Dr A. A. Osei
    Mr Speaker, he referred us to article 67. That cannot be article 67.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    It is article
    75.
    Dr A. A. Osei
    So, I wanted him to make the correction.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    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
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Dr Kunbuor
    Item 7, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Minister for Finance?
    Dr Kunbuor
    Mr Speaker, we would ask for your indulgence for the Hon Deputy Minister to move the Resolution.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    I do not have any problem.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    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
    Mr Speaker, my response was that there should not be any problem.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Very well.
    Hon Deputy Minister?
    RESOLUTIONS
    Minister for Finance)
    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
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Dr Kunbuor
    Mr Speaker, we now have the Hon Deputy Attorney-General, so we can go to item 11.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    Item 11 -- Trademarks (Amendment) Bill, 2013 at the Consideration Stage.
    Hon Second Deputy Speaker to take the Chair.
    BILLS -- CONSIDERATION
    STAGE
    Mr First Deputy Speaker
    I understand. After that we can take the second amendment of section 1.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bagbin
    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
    I will put the Question.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Yes?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    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
    Without the “or” or with the “or,” does it change the meaning?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    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
    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
    Yes, Chairman of the Committee, the “or” versus the “shape of goods.”
    Mr Bagbin
    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
    Mr Chairman, is there a difference between a “shape” and a “shape of goods”? Is there a difference?
    Mr Bagbin
    Mr Speaker, I am saying that a number of the words refer to goods.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    So we could have said “symbols of goods, goods, colour of goods”?
    Mr Bagbin
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    Hon Yieleh Chireh, are you familiar with this construction, “if” rather than “where”?
    Mr Chireh
    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
    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
    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
    Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice, you are a Member of Parliament. Are you not?
    Dr Dominic A. Ayine
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    I have noticed you are not voting.
    Dr Ayine
    Mr Speaker, I am voting.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    All right.
    Clause 7 -- Section 15 of Act 664 amended.
    Mr Bagbin
    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
    Well, go to the next.
    Mr Bagbin
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    Hon Member for Suhum, you are not happy about something?
    Mr Frederick Opare-Ansah
    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
    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
    Mr Speaker, but I heard the Question being put was that the amendment stands part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    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
    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
    Chairman of the Committee, do you agree with him?
    Mr Bagbin
    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
    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
    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
    “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
    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
    Chairman of the Committee.
    Mr Bagin
    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
    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
    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
    Mr Speaker, even though you called the Deputy Minister --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    You have taken over --
    Mr Bagbin
    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
    The harm perhaps, is starting a trend that is unknown in our law.
    Mr Bagbin
    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
    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
    Mr Speaker, I was just seeking your guidance if through that process, I can become a lawyer.
    Mr Chireh
    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.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    But the office for registration of trademarks is under the Attorney-General's Department.
    Dr Ayine
    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
    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
    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 Second Deputy Speaker
    Minority Leader, I give you another bite of the cherry; make your point again, forcefully.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    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
    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
    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 Second Deputy Speaker
    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
    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
    You have not made any change. You have just added “ed” to “plead”.
    Mr Bagbin
    Mr Speaker, “abandonment is a personal defence in infringement proceedings”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Yes.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    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
    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
    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
    Sorry. It is not the owner who leads evidence that he has abandoned his trademark.
    Mr Bagbin
    Where would the court get the evidence to declare that it has been abandoned?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    The other party, not the owner.
    Mr Bagbin
    No!
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    I am the owner of the trademark --
    Mr Bagbin
    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
    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 Second Deputy Speaker
    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
    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
    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
    Mr Speaker, I have finished.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Thank you.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    Mr Bagbin
    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
    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
    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
    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
    “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
    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
    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
    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
    So, just read out that first sentence. What the amendment —
    Mr Bagbin
    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
    I will put the Question as it is.
    Hon Minority Leader, have you arrested my Question?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, yes.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    You have arrested me?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, “a gain”, it is not for gain.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Minority Leader, you have arrested me?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, “again” yes, but it is not for “gain.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    You have arrested me again -- [Laughter.]
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    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
    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
    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
    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
    Mr Speaker, he completed by asking “Is it fair?”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Yes.
    Mr Bagbin
    It is fair.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Why?
    Mr Bagbin
    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
    So, are you suggesting that this defence is available whether it is here?
    Mr Bagbin
    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
    It is the court.
    Mr Bagbin
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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 -
    -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    Chairman of the Committee, what is your response?
    Mr Bagbin
    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
    And no minimum?
    Mr Bagbin
    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
    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
    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
    The minimum is zero.
    Mr Bagbin
    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
    I am not allowed to engage in debate.
    Mr Bagbin
    I am just reading the intention; the intendment here is to have a minimum and a maximum.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    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
    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
    “Or to both”?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    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
    Not necessarily. This is because penalty units have equivalence in sentences -- What is the equivalence under the Interpretation Act?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, they are not tied but they are commensurate.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    By necessary implication or by an Act of Parliament?
    Mr Banda
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    Mr Speaker, after your Question has been put --
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Boafo
    Mr Speaker, I wanted to find out from the Hon Chairman what he meant by this “specified directive”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Where is that, please?
    Mr Boafo
    Clause 10 (3) (b), the last line.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    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
    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
    Hon Chairman, do you want to define “specified directive”? Or it is not necessary to define “specified directive”?
    Mr Bagbin
    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
    Hon W. O. Boafo, does it help us?
    Mr Boafo
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    But instead of “specified directive” I guess his problem is that --
    Mr Bagbin
    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
    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
    That is so, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Is that a special directive?
    Mr Bagbin
    No, not special. “Specified.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Is that a directive?
    Mr Bagbin
    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
    Would you call it a directive or advice or technical advice?
    Mr Bagbin
    Not advice, directives from the --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    So, now, the Commissioner gives a directive to the court?
    Mr Bagbin
    No, Mr Speaker. It is an existing directive how those things should be disposed of.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    So, the existing directives?
    Mr Bagbin
    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
    That directive is a directive given under the regulations -- By way of regulations?
    Mr Bagbin
    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
    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
    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
    Mr Speaker, I need to consult the technical people because --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    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
    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
    Why?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    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
    So, how do we revisit it?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that we rescind that decision taken and allow the status quo to hold.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    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
    Mr Speaker, because we are at the Consideration Stage, I guess you may relax the rules.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    We may?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Yes, you may relax the rules.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    No, I have not relaxed them. What Order are you coming under? I refuse to relax them. What is the Order?
    Mr Chireh
    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
    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
    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
    So, a Motion has been moved for us to rescind --
    Mr Bagbin
    So, I support the Motion.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    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
    Hon Boafo, do you want to rescind our rescission again?
    Mr Boafo
    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
    Which one is that?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    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
    When we rescind the earlier decision, is that not the end of the matter?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    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
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, do you agree to this?
    Mr Bagbin
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    Another arrest?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    Yes. I agree with the Hon Minority Leader.
    MrBagbin
    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
    But it also says somewhere that “Minister means Minister responsible for Trade”. Is that not?
    Mr Bagbin
    Mr Speaker, sorry?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    In the Interpretation section, it says that: “Minister means Minister responsible for Trade”?
    Mr Bagbin
    That is so.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    They must say that.
    Mr Bagbin
    It is there.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    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
    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
    I will put the Question on clause 12 --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    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
    Thank you. So, I will put the Question on clause
    12 --
    Mr Boafo
    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
    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
    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
    Hon Member for New Juaben South, do you have a point of order?
    Mr Chireh
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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


    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
    Thank you. The draftspersons will note.
    Clause 15, the Chairman of Committee has not given me the proposed amendment. Has he?
    Mr Boafo
    Mr Speaker, I am more familiar with the expression “add the following new clause” instead of this winding one.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Which one?
    Mr Boafo
    Clause 14.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    We are still on clause 14.
    Mr Boafo
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    We have not put the Question on clause 14?
    Mr Boafo
    No, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    We have done that and moved to clause 15?
    Mr Boafo
    Mr Speaker, do you not agree with me?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    You want to draw me into the debate --
    Mr Boafo
    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
    The draftspersons will take note. We have come to clause 15, have we not?
    Clause 15?
    Mr Bagbin
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, line 1, delete “insertion” and substitute “addition”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    MrBagbin
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, Third Schedule, paragraph 1A, line 1, delete “shall apply” and substitute “applies”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    This is a different amendment you are proposing.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    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
    The draftspersons would take that into consideration, replace “should” with “shall”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    It should be “shall”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    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
    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
    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
    Mr Speaker, I have just been told that there is a relationship; they would correspond in the reduction.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    In what action?
    Mr Bagbin
    In the Penalty Units Act which we passed.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    But it is wrong because --
    Mr Bagbin
    Well, that is the law now.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    When did we pass it?
    Mr Bagbin
    We passed it in this House around 2006/2007.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, at the time you were the Attorney-General. [Laughter.]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    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
    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
    So it is administrative.
    Mr Chireh
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    That brings us to the end of the Consideration Stage.
    Hon Deputy Majority Leader, there is no other Business for today. Is there?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    All right.
    Thank you.
    ADJOURNMENT
  • The House was adjourned at 3.40 p.m. till Tuesday, 1st April, 2014 at 10.00 a.m.