Debates of 26 May 2015

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:45 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Hon Members , Correction of Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 22nd May, 2015.
Page 1. . . 14 -
rose
Mr Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I noticed that some decisions were taken as recorded on page 9 of the Votes and Proceedings.
Mr Speaker 10:45 a.m.
H o n M e m b e r - [Interruption.]
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:45 a.m.
If I may land, Mr Speaker -- with respect - [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Hon Member, are you correcting something?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:45 a.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Which paragraph are you correcting?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is page 4, the Hon Members present totalled 130. I would want to believe that that figure is wrong, otherwise, decisions could not have been taken in the absence of half of the Members. That is why I am saying that we should have a look at that list.
Mr Speaker 10:45 a.m.
You referred me to page 4 but did not correct any particular paragraph or item there. This is the Correction of Votes and Proceedings. If there are any fundamental issues which you want to raise, then maybe - But they are saying that this is the record of what transpired on that day. Unless you could say that something there should not be there, then you correct it.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the point that I am making is that the list, in my view, is inexhaustive and they may have to look at it again; otherwise, it may seek to undermine whatever decision that might have been taken. I want to believe that the list is not conclusive and that is why I am referring it to the Table Office to have a second look at it. I believe that the number - [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Hon Member, until there is a particular - [Interruption.]
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:45 a.m.
To the extent that Questions were put and agreed to by the House, it was required that we had at least, half of the Members. I want to believe that they had that.
Mr Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Yes.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:45 a.m.
The person presiding observed that they were more than half of the Members present, that is why the Questions were put.
Mr Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Hon Minority Leader, no decision had been taken that required at least, half of the Members, and they had the quorum to transact Business under the rules. So, I am trying to look at exactly the point that you are making -- and nobody also raised the quorum. That is why at times it is important -- and as you rightly pointed out, once no quorum was raised, it means that they had the number to transact Business. And if you look at it, no decision was taken.
If you look at paragraph (5), which is the Votes and Proceedings -- paragraph (6), at page 9 that you referred me to in the Official Report; paragraph (7), in the Official Report; paragraph (8) of the Business Statement; paragraph (9) was Questions. Paragraphs (10) and (11) were Statements, apart from the Adjournment Motion.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, you are the Speaker and you have made an observation which I do not want to contradict.
Let me rest it for the time being. Maybe, we could talk subsequently.
Mr Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Seriously speaking, I am not getting the point you are making.
Yes, Hon Member?
Dr Anthony Akoto Osei 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I thought I heard you say no decisions were taken. Paragraph (5) says “were adopted”? So, I do not know if “adoption” is a decision. That is the point my Leader is making, so that from now on when it says “adopted”, we can interpret - [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Please, Hon Akoto Osei, is that a decision?
Dr A. A. Osei 10:55 a.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker. In fact, as far as I know, adopting as the true record of proceedings -- So, we stand guided.
Mr Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Well, I do not see it as a decision at all. Unless you can refer me to a particular rule of the House that says it is a decision, it is not.
Some of the corrections under our rules
can even take place outside the Chamber. So, when the House takes decisions, how do Hon Members go and correct them even outside the Chamber? Through the Hansard Department by seeing the Editor of Debates?
Hon Members, let us make progress.
The Votes and Proceeding of Friday, 22nd May, 2015 be adopted as the true record of Proceedings.
Mr Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Hon Members, Question time.
Hon Majority Leader, do we have the Minister for Education here?
Mr Alban S. K. Bagbin 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker,
the Minister for Education is on an official duty in China, and she accordingly mandated the Hon Deputy Minister to come and respond to the Questions as recorded on the Order Paper of today.
The Hon Deputy Minister is here, ready and willing to respond to the Questions.
With your kind permission and the indulgence of my Hon Colleagues, we may allow the Hon Deputy Minister to answer the Questions for and on behalf of the Hon Minister for Education.
Hon Members, we will start with Question number 353, standing in the name of the Hon Member of Parliament
ORAL ANSWERS TO 10:55 a.m.
QUESTIONS 10:55 a.m.
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION 10:55 a.m.
Minister for Education) 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Public Guideline on the absorption of private schools into the Public Education System clearly stipulates, among others, that the school must be capable of surviving for the next five years without any major GES - sponsored school project.
Mr Speaker, these guidelines are often provided for very good reason. Among these reasons, is to avoid the situation where critical initial expenditure on investment in schools is shifted to government immediately they are absorbed.
If not avoided, this could give rise to a situation where people would establish schools without the proper and the requisite foundation and expect Government to absorb and expand facilities in the school.
However, if there are major infrastruc- tural needs of the school due to increase in enrolment, a request is usually made to the Ministry for consideration. In the
case of Diamono SHS, the Ministry will send officers to assess the situation for consideration.
In the meantime, Government will continue to bear all other costs of running the school.
Mr Siaka 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, he said that the school must be capable of surviving for the next five years without any Ghana Education Service (GES)-sponsored school projects. Exactly what does he want to suggest?
I need further explanation on “to be able to survive”. The school is almost five years as we speak now.
Mr Kyeremeh 10:55 a.m.
M r S p e a k e r, as indicated, they went through the assessment and GES approved the school with the hope that they have the basic facilities to start a senior high school.
As already indicated, we are sending a team of officers from that district to the school to find out the needs of the school and we will respond appropriately.
Mr Siaka 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, would he again clearly specify what he actually meant by “Government will continue to bear all other costs of running the school”?
I am asking this because the Govern- ment is already paying the staff and other workers there; so, what does he want to suggest by that statement?
Mr Kyeremeh 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in response to the Question, I am saying that Government will absorb any other expenditure aside the salaries of the workers, such as the running cost of the school, the fuel, the provision of buses and any other expenditure that would come to the school.
The Government is ready to absorb these aside the infrastructural develop- ment in the school.
Mr Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Your last supplementary question?
Mr Siaka 11:05 a.m.
The school did not actually
start as a purely private school for an individual entrepreneur but a community day school, which is five years old.
Mr Speaker, would the Ministry consider giving the community one of the model schools that is currently the policy of the Government?
Mr Kyeremeh 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, as
indicated earlier, the school is to fend for itself for the next five years. The school is only two years. So, in the next three years, we would look at what we can do to help it.
We are poised to send a team of officers to the school to assess the situation, and we are ready to provide the necessary help to improve the school.
rose
Mr Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Hon Members, this is a constituency-specific Question, so I thought I should move on.
Hon Deputy Minority Whip?
Mr Ignatius Baffour Awuah 11:05 a.m.
I would like the Hon Deputy Minister to reconcile what he said in paragraph (3) with that of paragraph (4). Mr Speaker, in paragraph (3), the Hon Deputy Minister said that the school will have to be in operation for five years to avoid the situation where Government would have to absorb the cost of providing facilities for it.
Meanwhile, in paragraph (4), he goes further to say:
“However, if there are major infrastructural needs of the school due to increase in enrolment, a request is usually made to the Ministry for consideration.”
In one vein, he said that until it is five years, the Ministry will not provide facilities. Because if that is not done, people will take advantage of it and the burden on Government will be higher.
In another vein, he said that, yes, the Ministry will provide facilities. So, how do we reconcile the two statements?
Mr Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Hon Deputy Minister?
Mr Kyeremeh 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, as indicated earlier, I said in an extreme or unforeseen circumstance, a request can be made to the Ministry for consideration.
That was why we said that if there is an increase in enrolment - a school is supposed to have about 120 students -- 40 students in a classroom -- If we have an explosion of students in a school, there is the need to cater for them. That was why I said that if there are exceptional cases, we go ahead and consider them.
Mr Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Hon Member for Kumawu, Question number 355.
Mr Kwame Asafu-Adjei 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker,
with you permission, I would like to ask the Question on behalf of the Hon Member for Kumawu.
Mr Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Hon Member, I do not give you permission.
Mr Asafu-Adjei 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have been authorised -
Mr Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Yes, he must authorise you before I give you permission, so you can proceed.
Sekyere Kumawu District Education Office
(Cause of delay in completion)
Q. 355 Mr Kwame Asafu-Adjei (on
behalf of Mr Philip Basoah) asked the Deputy Minister for Education what was causing the delay in the completion of the Sekyere Kumawu District Education Office which started in 2009.
Mr Kyeremeh 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Sekyere Kumawu District Education Office Project was initiated and awarded in March, 2012 to be completed in February, 2013 at an original contract sum of GH¢
476,353.99.
This has been revised to GH¢ 942,898.05 due to variations in the contract. The project now stands at 62 per cent level of completion with total expenditure to date amounting to GH¢
475,600.95
The project has delayed mainly due to the variations and irregular funding. The contractor's current claim is being processed for payment and work is expected to resume by June this year. The outstanding works including painting, tiling, ceiling, plumbing and furnishing will be completed by the end of the year.
Mr Asafu-Adjei 11:05 a.m.
Hon Deputy Minister, over the years, you have had variation in prices, what is the guarantee that what you have said now will be adhered to?
Mr Kyeremeh 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we have made enough provision to complete all outstanding projects before we start new ones. We are sure we will be able to
complete the project this year.
Mr Asafu-Adjei 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, was this money budgeted for in the 2015 Budget?
Mr Kyeremeh 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have already indicated that we will complete it this academic year, 2015.
Mr Asafu-Adjei 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, how much has been utilised?
Mr Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Hon Member, your
question?
Mr Asafu-Adjei 11:05 a.m.
How much has been utilised for this year? How much have they spent this year?
Mr Kyeremeh 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I will crave your indulgence to give me notice before I will be able to answer this question.
Mr Asafu-Adjei 11:05 a.m.
No further questions, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 11:05 a.m.
In any case, you have exhausted your three supplementary questions.
Improvement of Infrastructure (Bankoman Senior High School)
Q.356. Mr Kwame Asafu-Adjei (on behalf of Mr Philip Basoah) asked the Deputy Minister for Education what plans the Ministry had to improve the infrastructure development at Bankoman Senior High School, which was taken over by Government from Banko Community a couple of years ago.
Mr Kyeremeh 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Ministry's policy is to improve and provide facilities in all senior high schools
and technical institutes with the view to making second cycle education more accessible and improve quality. Every year, provision is made in the Ministry's budget, including that of the GETFund to cater for senior high schools and technical institutes.
In allocating resources, emphasis is placed on deprived institutions such as community schools with major infrastruc- tural deficits. Due to lack of adequate resources to cater for all the schools in the country at the same time, the implementation of projects in schools is normally done in phases.
Government, through the 200 community senior high school project, has also started facilities and quality upgrade in 125 selected senior high schools under the World Bank's Secondary Education Improvement Project.
As part of the implementation of the
above policy, Government initiated and completed a 6-unit classroom block for Bankoman Senior High School in November, 2014.
Government also procured a 33-seater bus for the school in 2013.
Mr Asafu-Adjei 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the question is this. Is this school part of the 200 community senior high schools project initiated by Government for the upgrading?
Mr Kyeremeh 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we are going through the process of selecting the 125 schools. If Bankoman is lucky and they are selected, they will get the facilities.
Mr Asafo-Adjei 11:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, Bankoman is one of the deprived
Mr Speaker 11:15 a.m.
So, what is the question?
Mr Asafo-Adjei 11:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to ask the Hon Deputy Minister why he has not added Bankoman Senior High school, as one of the deprived schools.
Mr Kyeremeh 11:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we are in the process of selecting the schools. So, if it is a deprived school by all standards, then definitely, they would have the opportunity to benefit from the facility.
Mr Asafo-Adjei 11:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, when is the process going to begin, and complete?
Mr Kyeremeh 11:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the technical team is in place, and they are working very hard to come out with the full list, and if it is ready, we would inform the House.
Mr Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Hon Members, Question number 411 -
Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, there is a mix-up that I would want the Hon Deputy Minister to reconcile.
He said to us that the process of selecting the two hundred schools is ongoing, and yet, one goes to paragraph (3), and it says that, as part of the implementation of that policy - the selection -- they have already done this for Bankoman.
This means that as far as Bankoman is concerned, they have initiated the policy; they have started the implementation of the policy. So, it cannot be that they are now in the process of doing it, when the Hon Deputy Minister himself has admitted that they had already started it. So, Hon Deputy Minister, just do the

reconci- liation.
Mr Kyeremeh 11:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, before the World Bank Programme, we are providing them with a 6-unit classroom block which is different. The World Bank programme would also follow up. So, they are two different programmes.
Mr Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Hon Members, Question numbered 411 -

Hon Members, that brings us to the end of Question time.

Hon Deputy Minister for Education, we thank you for attending upon the House to respond to Questions from Hon Members.

At the Commencement of Public Business--

Hon Members, before I move to the Commencement of Public Business, the Hon Minority Leader raised an issue when we were correcting the Votes and Proceedings, and he referred me to paragraph (5) of page 9.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, with respect, I did not go through all the Motions, but because it came from you, and I did not want any further litigations, I sat down.
Mr Speaker 11:15 a.m.
That is one, because several times, there were mistakes in the numbers. So, that is one angle. But I have also looked at the Business transacted on that day and with the 130 Hon Members, there is no breach at all, either of the Constitution or the Standing Orders.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, with respect to the Chair, I thought that the matter had been laid to rest, but since you want to resurrect a ghost, then may I suggest that indeed, with respect to the Motion - [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Hon Minority Leader, you raised an issue, and I want to clear the doubt and that is my ruling on the matter. That is my ruling on the matter. If there is a disagreement, then you can take it further to the next level -- [Laughter] -- And as an experienced Member of Parliament, you are an authority on the procedure to use in that regard.
Hon Members, at the Commencement of Public Business -
Hon Majority Leader.
Mr Alban S. K. Bagbin 11:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that with your kind permission, we take the Consideration Stage of the Conduct of Public Officers Bill. We have item number (5) but I have not yet cited a copy of the Report, so, we cannot lay it. I am craving your indulgence for us to take item number 6, which is the Consideration Stage of the Conduct of Public Officers Bill, 2013.
Mr Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Hon Members, Conduct of Public Officers Bill, 2013, at the Consideration Stage.

Hon Majority Leader, which clause are we starting with?
Mr Bagbin 11:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have been informed, reliably, that we are now on clause 6.
Mr Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Clause 6?
Mr Bagbin 11:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, that is so.
Mr Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Clause 6 was deferred some time ago, but we are ready to take it now. Is that the understanding?
Mr Bagbin 11:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Chairman says, yes, we are ready to take clause 6 now.
Mr Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Very well.
BILLS - CONSIDERATION 11:25 a.m.
STAGE 11:25 a.m.
  • [Resumption of debate from 20-5- 2015]
    • Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Effutu, then the Hon Minister for Employment and Labour Relations.
    Mr Alexander K. Afenyo-Markin 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have a little issue. It is minor - I may be wrong, but I need the guidance of the Committee on this. “Any property or assets” - I was thinking that it should be “asset” instead of “assets”. I am not too sure, but I am positive that I am right.
    It should therefore, read, “Any property or asset...”
    Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Is that your only concern, whether it should be “assets” or “asset”? I want to know, so that if you have any other arguments, we can take them at a go.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, my concerns have been addressed. You want to invite me, Mr Speaker? I am alright.
    Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Any other comment? Otherwise, I will put the Question.
    rose
    Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Minister, then the Hon Minority Leader.
    Mr Haruna Iddrisu 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    I wanted to yield to the “Messi” or the “Ronaldo” as you -- Mr Speaker your word carries weight.
    When you said the Hon Minority Leader was a very experienced Member of Parliament (MP), I was minded to be reminded whether he was a “Messi” or a “Ronaldo” or a “Don Bortey” in some respect.
    Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Hon Minister, you are out of order! [Laughter.]
    Mr H. Iddrisu 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, on clause (6), I have heard the Hon Chairman of the Committee make a proposal and his ending words, say; “…shall be deemed to have been acquired in contravention of this Act.”
    Mr Speaker, tying it to the Constitu- tional provision, our first obligation will be to declare the action unlawful. So when he says “in contravention of this Act”, first of all, any property or asset which is acquired, the principle is that if it is not commensurate to one's income, was not reasonably or lawfully acquired, it has to be declared an unlawful acquisition.
    So, when he uses the words “in contravention of”, I have a difficulty, if he has no objection - [Interruption.] Absolutely, I will think that we have to import the word “unlawful” into the rendition as the Hon Chairman so suggested.
    I thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Are you suggesting that we should delete the “contravention of this Act”? -- [Pause.]
    Hon Minister, have you looked at article 286 (4) of the Constitution?
    Mr H. Iddrisu 11:25 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    They borrowed the words “ in contravention of this Constitution”
    and then they substituted it with “in contravention of this Act”. I still have a difficulty. This is because Mr Speaker, you know that by article 11 of the Constitution, any crime must be properly defined in law.
    We are talking of an economic criminality which is hidden in a property or asset being acquired illegally or unlawfully. Therefore, I will not go for just ending it with the words “in contravention of this Act”. No! It is “deemed to have been acquired...” -
    Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Hon Minister, where we have a provision in the Constitution which you are importing into an Act, is it not better to use the words of the Constitution? So that instead of saying “contravention of this Act” you can say “contravention of the Constitution” for the avoidance of doubt because that is even higher in relation to the Act of Parliament.
    So, whoever is looking at this will have to read the Constitution together with the Act to get the net effect of the legislation. Why do we not just import the words of the Constitution, which is the fundamental law, into the Act for the avoidance of doubt with regard to this, so that it serves a reminder that when you want to get the net effect, you must read this Act together with the Constitution?
    Mr H. Iddrisu 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if my thought was to be in harmony with yours, I would simply have requested that we substitute “Act” for “Constitution” and that would mean we are lifting, word, letter and spirit from the Constitution. But Mr Speaker, even as we make reference to the Constitution, I have strengthened my argument further that we need to look at article 11.
    Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Yes. So, when you
    mention the Constitution, then all those articles that you are mentioning and every other thing comes into play.
    Mr H. Iddrisu 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you will allow me some “safe landing,” I still will insist that the word “unlawful” either comes at the beginning of his rendition or it should find place within it even as we reference the Constitution. We are describing the conduct or the act to be unlawful, illegal even though a matter may contravene the Constitution but may not create a criminal offence -- [Interruption]. No! Wait! We are talking of a matter - For instance, if His Excellency the President is to travel and he does not bring a letter here, he has breached the Constitution but we cannot compare that to when we are defining an offence.
    Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Hon Minister, does that example you are giving apply here? Do we not have sanctions?
    Mr H. Iddrisu 11:25 a.m.
    I am just cautioning where we are comfortable with reference to the Constitution and I am saying that that is not enough because in this matter, we are talking of a conduct which is criminal or likely to be criminal and therefore, we should use -- Mr Speaker, you know you are my senior in the law? Let us use primary meaning of words which will not create any absurdity, and I am saying that the word “unlawful” must find place in what the Hon Chairman of the Committee seeks to do. I just think that we must agree that, that conduct is unlawful or illegal before reference is made to the Constitution.
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister said that he would have preferred replacing “Act” with “Constitution”; it will be wrong. Read it, “…in contravention of the Constitution of the Republic.” This is not the Constitution. But this thing about being unlawful, if it contravenes the Constitution, it is unlawful; I am not talking about criminality or otherwise.
    When it contravenes the Constitution, it is unlawful. So, it will be tautological. So, please, the Hon Minister's thinking is not in line with the Speaker, so, he should go the other direction.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah Bonsu 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have a different worry and it is in respect of the use of the word “reasonably” in line (3). However, I noticed that that is the language of the Constitution.
    Mr Speaker, clearly, it has no place there and if there is a wrong use of word in the Constitution, do we have to repeat it in any piece of legislation?
    Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Who determines whether the word in the Constitution is wrong? [Laughter.]
    Mr Kyei-Mensah Bonsu 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, you and I know that this is most ungrammatical because it is only the source that could be described as unreasonable; it is not the attribution which is unreasonable. It is the source of the acquisition that could be determined as unreasonable. So, it is unreasonable income and so on and so forth. But we cannot say -- Please, permit me, with your kind consideration, to quote:
    “Any property or assets acquired by public officer after the initial declaration required by section 4 of this Act and which is not reasonably attributable to income. . . “,
    It should be;
    “….which is not attributable to income, gift, loan, inheritance or any other reasonable source…”
    That “reasonably” there is most ungrammatical. I noticed that it is in the Constitution. Do we have to repeat the ungrammatical construction?
    11. 35 a.m.
    Mr Bagbin 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think
    Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    The other leg of the matter is, do we use the Constitution or we can still add the Act to the Constitution?
    Mr Bagbin 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are
    dealing with legislation now. So, I think “in contravention of the Act” is the right thing to do. We do not need to import the Constitution here. This is because the 1992 Constitution has already clearly stated that it is in contravention of the 1992 Constitution.
    Now, we are legislating and we want to make sure that it is also in contravention of the Act that we are dealing with. So, I have no problem in leaving it as it is.
    Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Hon Member for Effutu and then the Hon Minister?
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, these are seniors speaking but because you
    have given me the leave, I would want to seek a clarification. I am not too clear on the rendition where it is provided that “in contravention of this Act”.
    The Hon Majority Leader insists that it is the right way to go but I thought that in making reference to the Act, we should know which specific section of the Act that provision would be contravening if the person acquires the property after the initial declaration.
    This is because there should be some other provision in the law that one can refer to. This is because if we should maintain it as it is, obviously, we should have a reference point. So, I beg to get clarification on that from you, if there is any such other provision.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Let me hear from the Hon Majority Leader, then I will get to you and then to the Chairman.
    Mr Bagbin 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think it is right to maintain “in contravention of the Act”. This is because the Act is dealing with a number of issues and there are a number of provisions dealing with those issues. For example, “gifts” -- we have a provision dealing with gifts; “inheritance” -- we have provisions dealing with in- heritance.
    So, if we want to tabulate the number of provisions, then we would be mentioning the number of the sections of the Act. But when we talk about the “in contravention of the Act”, it means, as stated in the Con- stitution, there are a number of articles of the Constitution dealing with the subject matter.
    So, to make it simpler and direct, we would use --
    Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, on a few occasions, we refer to the Con- stitution as an Act. For example, if you look at the number of legislations that we
    have passed in this House, we normally -- with the appointment of the powers of the President into public office, article 195 of the 1992 Constitution, we try to read them, quote them and make reference to article 195 of the 1992 Constitution in a number of legislations that we have passed in this House.
    So, that is why I threw the issue to the House to look at, especially in view of the argument raised by the Hon Minister when he referred to article 11of the 1992 Con- stitution and a whole lot of things, so that we have a broader view of the legislation that we are undertaking now.
    Mr Bagbin 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I see the point you are raising but it is just a matter of rep- etition. Once constitutional provisions are clear, there is no need to be repeating them in the enabling legislation when we are taking our source from those provisions.
    But if for the general understanding of the people -- so, that we do not assume that they are all technical people -- in reading the Constitution and the law, then you can refer to it, so that they can be easily referenced by any person reading the law. Apart from that, there is the need to add the Constitution always.
    There is a likelihood of us repeating the Constitution in most of the sections --
    Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    That is so.
    Mr Bagbin 11:25 a.m.
    But they take their sourc- es from articles in the Constitution. So, I still maintain the position that we do not need to add the Constitution to the section. We should just say “this Act.”
    Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Hon Minister?
    Mr H. Iddrisu 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, just to
    agree with the Hon Majority Leader and to indicate that the emphasis should be on “in contravention of this Act”, or if there was a specific clause in this Bill, which dealt with the subject matter of declaring it unlawful, then we could reference it.
    Just to give you an example, if you read article 286 (2), it ends by saying, and Mr Speaker, I beg to quote.
    “Failure to declare or knowingly making false declaration shall be a contravention of this Constitution and shall be dealt with in accordance with article 287 of this Constitu- tion”.
    So, it means if within the provisions of the entire Bill there is a specific reference to a clause, we may go with that clause or we go with “in contravention of this Act.”
    But Mr Speaker, I am still driving fur- ther my earlier argument and the Chairman vindicates me. If you just peruse clause 6 (2), which is on the Order Paper, page 3 -- Mr Speaker, look at how it begins (2),
    “A person who acquires assets un- lawfully…”
    So, I am saying that, his earlier rendi-
    tion, with your leave, Mr Speaker, I would seek a further amendment. So, clause 6 should read -- “Any property or assets acquired --”
    Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Hon Minister, you cannot go there. It is a no go area. That is the point the Hon Majority Leader has made and I entirely agree with him. It is a no go area.
    Mr H. Iddrisu 11:25 a.m.
    Let me advance --
    Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    If the language of the Constitution is being imported into an Act and the Constitution is the fundamental law, how do you use a legislation to in- directly amend the Constitution? You are
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speak- er, the Hon Minister responsible for Em- ployment and Labour Relations raised a fundamental issue and I think it was at the instance of the matter raised by the Hon Member for Winneba, that --
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Member for where?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Mem- ber of Parliament for Effutu. The capital is Winneba. So, if I say he is the Hon Member of Parliament for Winneba, the value is the same.
    Mr Speaker, we are lifting this from article 286 (4) of the Constitution, which provides some sanctions regime if a default or breach occurs. If we then go further in clause 6 (2) -- we are not there
    yet -- it says that this is the penalty. What are we doing in respect of article 286 which itself provides its own sanction regime? That is the issue. We have not reached there and that is why we should then determine whether we are referring to the Constitution or this Act. If it is the Act, then we can go to the clause 6 (2) and that would be perfectly legitimate.
    However, if it is the Constitution that we have in mind, the Constitution has its own sanction regime as provided for in article 286, what processes would ensue when it is breached -- that is in respect of article 287? We should be a bit careful with the path that we are treading.
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just need some clarity from my Hon Minority Lead- er because article 286 has not specified any sanctions and I think he made reference to it. So, I am wondering which clause it is because that issue does not arise. There are no sanctions specified in article 286, -- [interruption.] This is different but it is not a sanction yet. It just says if one violates it, one goes here -- prescribed rule but we are specifying sanctions and that is where we need some clarification.
    Mr H. Iddrisu 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that your guidance in this matter is very important. I recall that Prof. Gyan-Baffour, in an earlier discussion on this subject, specifically referred to a quote in the Constitution, where he raised the objection and he thought that we should be careful in proceeding and in ensuring that there was harmony in words that are used in this Bill and what pertains within the Constitution.
    If you look at the Hansard, at that material moment, I recalled asking that he ought to have been given permission to give us the exact quote. This happened when we adjourned proceedings and it ties in with what the Hon Majority and Hon Minority Leaders have said, that going fur-

    ther with this Bill, we need to be guided by the explicit provisions in the Constitution, which is weightier than an Act, again, by virtue of the hierarchy of our laws.
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Members, there are some areas that you can add. For ex- ample, if you look at the existing law on asset declaration -- the number of people under that law -- if you look at article 286 (5) (j), it gives you permission to add a number of people. When that law was being passed, we took advantage of article 286 (5) (j) and added a number of public officers because the Constitution has given us the power to do so.
    So, I do not think that the sanction regime in the Constitution is different. So, we cannot add a sanction regime or criminalise it. I see the point that you are making but I do not think that prevents us from going ahead. That is my view.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 11:45 a.m.
    You have made a good point but I am at a loss because once we maintain that the acquisition after dec- laration would be in contravention of the Act, once we agree on that, then we need to move a step further to clarify whether that would amount to a criminal offence, or whether the State would go ahead and have civil forfeiture proceedings in con- fiscating such assets.
    My good brother --
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Member, that is precisely what clause 6 (2) seeks to do and we are not yet there. If you want to add confiscation and others to it, you can.
    That is what clause 6 (2) seeks to do. The point that you are making is what clause 6 (2) does but it proceeds further. In the amendment, that is what clause 6 (2) seeks to do and confiscation is also in 6 (3).
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    I would want to understand it further. I have read clause 6 (2) and (3) but we are still at the point where the presumption of unlawful acquisition is being maintained in a way.
    Would it be that in clause 6, as it is, if we say that the person is in contravention -- We have clauses 6 (2), 6 (3) and others. Would it trigger after trial and how --
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Member, you know that nobody under our law -- you know the rules because you have been doing a lot of de-confiscation in the courts; so, you know that you have to follow a certain process.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I know. So, are we saying that at trial, the commencement, the prosecution would be in the reverse order where the person who has been charged would be the first to get into the box to -- I would want to understand.
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    No, Hon Member. The procedures are clear. You have to estab- lish that those assets that were acquired cannot be attributed to legitimate source of income. The prosecution must do it. It is after that that they discharge that burden on them before they call on the accused person to come in to justify that he acquired them legitimately. Are you getting the point?
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if that is the case, then clause 6 deals with a presumption of unlawful acquisition.
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    So, that presumption has to be discharged by whoever is prosecut- ing that from one's income and everything; one could not have acquired that property through one's normal or legitimate source of income. The prosecution or whoever is making the case has to discharge that burden before we call on him to say that he has acquired those assets legitimately or lawfully.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 11:45 a.m.
    I do not think that the Committee members have that understanding because I have been argu- ing with my senior, the Hon Member for Akatsi South. Mr Speaker, your former constituency. We have been arguing on this with the Hon George Loh on this issue of presumption of unlawful acquisition and he holds the view that it is the duty of the public officer who has acquired the property to discharge that burden and not the prosecution.
    So, if this is your position -- That is why all along, I have been arguing that, is it the case that when this presumption is held, that one acquired same unlawfully, one would have to discharge that burden in the witness box or the prosecutor would still need --
    Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hon member for Effutu, the prosecution must prove that those assets cannot be attributed to one's le- gitimate source of income. They have to -- That one earn this much; you do that work and earn this much, yet one has ac- quired item “A”, “B”, or “C”. One would then come back and say, no, they have to establish that before the burden shifts to the accused person.
    Yes, Hon Member for Akatisi South, then Okaikoi Central.
    Mr Benard Ahiafor 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, for further clarity, my Hon Friend mentioned my name.
    What we discussed was that, there is still a burden on the prosecution under this particular Act.
    In the first place, the prosecution would have to prove that there is a property or asset, which was acquired by the Public Officer. And then, the acquisition was after the initial declaration and that particular
    acquisition was not supported by a known income of that particular Public Officer.
    It is only when the prosecution has been able to discharge this particular duty beyond reasonable doubt that the burden would then be on the Public Officer to prove.
    Furthermore, the issue whether the acquisition was from a known source, is in the exclusive knowledge of that par- ticular Public Officer. So, there is nothing absolutely wrong if the burden at that point shifts.
    We all know that in our criminal juris- prudence, he who asserts, must attempt to prove and the duty is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt. But that does not mean that we cannot have an instance where the burden will shift unto the accused person when the fact is in the exclusive knowledge of the accused person. And so, under this particular law, the prosecution really has the burden. Some ingredients would have to be dis- charged before the accused person would be called upon.
    Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Let me hear from the Hon Member for Okaikoi Central, then I will call the Hon Majority Leader, and then I will put the Question.
    Mr Patrick Boamah 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are in this Parliament to pass laws that are consistent with the Constitution. You rightly pointed out what article 286 (2) says with reference to a Public Officer and I beg quote:
    “Failure to declare or knowingly making false declaration shall be a contravention of this Constitution and shall be dealt with in accordance with article 287 of this Constitu- tion.”
    What does article 287 (1) and (2) say?
    Mr Speaker, I beg to quote 11:55 a.m.


    (1) “An allegation that a public officer has contravened or has not complied with a provision of this Chapter shall be made to the Commissioner for Human Rights and Administrative Justice and in the case of the Commissioner of Human Right and Adminis- tra- tive Justice, to the Chief Justice who shall, unless the person concerned makes a written ad- mission of the con- travention or non-compliance, cause the matter to be investigated.”

    (2) “The Commissioner for Human Rights and Administrative Jus- tice or the Chief Justice as the case may be, may take such ac- tion as he considers appro- priate in respect of the results of the investigation or the admission.”

    Mr Speaker, clause 6 (1), (2) and (3) --
    Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hon Member, we are not on clause 6 (2) and (3). Let me put the Question on the clause 6, which is virtually from the Constitution first. Then, we can take the subclause 2. I know the point you are raising, that the Constitution has pro- vided a certain mechanism in dealing with the matter and so, do we then use another mechanism or additional mechanism?
    Where do we go? Do we go to the police to initiate a process? Or we limit ourselves to the ambits of the Constitu- tion and no additional procedure should be allowed? It is a different argument altogether.
    So, let me put the Question on the language of the Constitution, which is in clause 6, before we move to the procedure to adopt, which is another matter from what clause 6 (2) and (3) deal with.
    Let me put the Question on clause 6
    now.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the connect is, if we restrict ourselves to this Act, are we restricting ourselves to this construction “in contravention of this Act”, or “in contravention of the Constitu- tion”? That provides the nexus.
    Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Initially, my view was that, it should be “the Constitution” but the Hon Majority Leader explained that when you are lifting verbatim from the Constitution, you would be repeating “the Constitution” and in my view, that is why I thought we should let it go.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we are lifting from the Constitution and it turns out to be very copious and expan- sive, as article 286 covered under clause 4 (2) provides, we may just mention “the Constitution” but we would be using the language of the Constitution to a purpose effect. So, why is it that it should not be in the Constitution? --
    Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, I posed this question and I even went fur- ther, that we had instances in this House where we have referred to the Constitution in a law that we enacted here. The Hon Majority Leader tried to explain why it should be so. At that point in time, nobody objected to it and we moved to another --
    We can have a Second Consideration Stage, but let us make progress with this Bill. Let us put the Question now. If you think that we should -- He says if we want to add it, he has no objection.
    Hon Minority Leader, the Hon Majority Leader says that if you want to add both the Constitution and the Act, he has no objection.
    I will put the Question and direct the draftsperson to do the necessary correc- tion. After all, the language is the same.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, so what are we doing?
    Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    This particular clause, the language is the same and the only thing is that we used “Act” instead of “Constitution”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speak- er, this is because the issue that they have raised, it has consequential effect when we get to --
    Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, let us use this. If we get back to the conse- quential clauses and we think that the use of “Constitution” would be more relevant, nothing prevents us from correcting it at the Second Consideration Stage. As for this one, we are masters of our own pro- cedure. So, let me put the Question.
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:55 a.m.
    The Hon Majority Leader says he does not mind us going the other way, particularly since we are anticipating consequential --
    Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Bagbin 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was taking some guidance from the Hon Chairman of the Committee. Sorry for not getting up early.
    Mr Speaker, I still partly believe that the correct thing to do, is to say, “in con- travention of this Act”. That is the correct thing to do.
    Mr Speaker, I initially said also that I have no problem with the addition of the word “Constitution”. But I cautioned the House against the repetition of the word “Constitution” in almost all the sections. This is because the Bill or Act is taken from the Constitution and so, if we would have to be adding “Constitution”, it means that in most of the provisions we would say, “Constitution” and there is no need. It would be so odious to be repeating the word “Constitution” in an enabling Act.
    I believe that it should be “in contra- vention of this Act” simplicita and then we move on.
    Question put amendment agreed to.
    Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hon Members, I think some interesting issues have been raised by the Hon Member for Okaikoi Central and I do not know whether we can take them.
    Hon Majority Leader, with regard to clause 6 (2) and (3), I do not know whether this issue cropped up at the winnowing and was discussed.
    Mr Bagbin 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I totally agree with those views expressed. Clearly, this would amount to an amendment of the Constitution and I do not think we can do so by such an Act which does not specifi- cally state that the Act is meant to amend the Constitution.
    The Constitution is clear on what hap- pens when there is that presumption of unlawful acquisition.
    that is in evidential burden The burden is shifted on the suspect to produce evidence, not the proof of guilt. So, if one goes through the Evidence Act, one would see that in such situations, the evidential burden shifts to the suspects. It is not the proof of guilt, which is still on the prosecution. The burden of producing evidence, that is what
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Those that are within the exclusive knowledge of the suspect.
    Mr Bagbin 12:05 p.m.
    Exactly, Mr Speaker and that is where the presumption is, but not the proof of guilt
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    There are matters that shift automatically
    Mr Bagbin 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want my Hon Colleague to get that clear. But the second point that he raised is valid. We cannot proceed to legislate this Act, now talking about criminalising, because clearly, article 287 (1) and (2) are clear as to what is to be done. It is in the remit of the Commissioner for Human Rights and Administrative Justice. It is just after that it goes to the Chief Justice.
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon Members, the rules
    are very clear -- where the Constitution has provided a certain procedure for dealing with any matter, we have to follow that procedure. We do not go and bring a different procedure, even including Parliament. If the procedure is outlined in the Constitution, Parliament cannot ignore that procedure and do otherwise
    Mr Bagbin 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I totally agree.
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, do the honourable thing.
    Mr Amoatey 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for the guidance.
    Mr Speaker, accordingly, we seek your leave to withdraw amendments 2 and (3) at clause 6.
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon Members, amend- ments (2) and (3), clause 6 accordingly withdrawn.
    Hon Members, so, should I put the Question on clause 6 as amended?
    Chairman, are you done with the amendment to clause 6? The clause 6 is the one that I just wanted to put the Question on?
    Mr Amoatey 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is so.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 6 as amended ordered to stand
    Mr Amoatey 12:05 p.m.


    part of the Bill.
    MR SECOND DEPUTY SPEAKER
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:08 p.m.
    Clause 11, Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Bagbin 12:08 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think before the Chairman comes in, we will need to reflect in the legislation -- the procedure that has been outlined in the Constitution. We cannot just leave it like that. So, the Committee would have to go and consider and lift the procedure that has been outlined in the Constitution, so that we adopt that in the enabling Act.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:08 p.m.
    For the records, could you please, state the article? I was following it You mentioned article 287
    Mr Bagbin 12:08 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the last issue that cropped up and he said they were withdrawing it-- They did not say anything, which means that, that is the end of clause 6. But clause 6 should proceed to adopt the procedure that has been outlined in the 1992 Constitution. Instead of criminalising it as proposed, which they have withdrawn. I am just drawing the attention of the Chairman, so that they would do that.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:08 p.m.
    And are you talking about the procedure in article 287 (1 and 2)?
    Mr Bagbin 12:08 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is so.
    Mr Amoatey 12:08 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in reacting to what the Leader has just submitted, I think we have a provision in clause 44. We can look at it in its entirety when we get there. We will also consider it at our next Consideration Stage.
    Mr Bagbin 12:08 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what is in clause 44 is completely different from what we are talking about. What is in clause 44 is dealing with “code of conduct” -- like the code of conduct recently passed in Parliament and that is the code being talked about, that if one had contravened that code But the clause 6 is talking about a different matter altogether. It is talking about a presumption of unlawful acquisition of assets or properties.
    Mr Amoatey 12:08 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we will take note and consider it accordingly.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:08 p.m.
    So, will we do it at the Second Consideration Stage?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:08 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was having an aside with the Hon Majority Leader. I agree that the Chairman could not simply abandon clause 6 (2) and (3). We need to look at the construction in the Constitution and see how to appropriately capture same. I thought it was wrong for him to have done what he did. I appreciate that upon reflection, he is saying that something needs to be done.
    Mr Speaker, he is referring us to clause 44, which in my view, does not satisfy the issues raised by the Hon Majority Leader. So, let us look at it and where best to situate it and the language to employ. We can then move from there.
    Clause 11 -- failure to submit a declaration or clarification.
    Mr Amoatey 12:08 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 11 - H e a d n o t e , delete and insert “Declaration”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:08 p.m.
    Hon Members, I will put the Question.
    Hon Members, are we paying attention? Did I put the Question too fast? I will now put the Question
    Mr Bagbin 12:08 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have clause 8, dealing with “clarification”, clause 9, dealing with “declaration”, and we are now at clause 11, which is talking about the failure to submit a declaration. But the proposal is for us to delete the whole “failure to submit a declaration” and just put “declaration”.
    Mr Speaker, I thought that is different, because clause 11 is specifically dealing with “failure to submit a declaration”. The headnote should be clear. It is talking about “failure to submit a declaration”. So, we should repeat it as; “failure to submit a declaration”, but not just a “declaration”. This is because clause 9 is dealing with “declaration” as evidence.
    Mr Amoatey 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we pro- posed to remove “or clarification” be- cause clarification has been taken care of in clause 8. We only thought we should simplify the subheading for clause 11 to make it clearer -- “declaration” then we moved on to the body of it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    But Hon Member, have you looked at clause 11 (a)?
    Mr Amoatey 12:15 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Clause 11 (a) says:
    “A public officer who fails to submit a declaration or clarification …”.
    So, that section --
    Mr Amoatey 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you look at clause 11 (b), it talks about something else other than failure to declare.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    It says:
    “A public officer who submits a declaration or clarification …”
    So in both clause 11, subclauses (a) and (b), they talk about “declaration” as well as “clarification”. Clause 11 (a) talks about “failure” and clause 11 (b) talks about “submission” and the heading deals with “failure and submission”. So, I do not see why you would want to amend the head- ing. I do not see what you would want to achieve because the headnote is reflective of the body. Maybe, I do not get it.
    Yes, Hon A. A. Osei?
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to plead with the Chairman of the Committee, that if he would want a head- note to read; “failure to submit the decla- ration” it is alright. But if he would want one for “failure to submit clarification”, it is alright. This is because starting from clause 6, it talked about “declaration” and then we come to “clarification”. So, clause 11 must cover both; I agree with Mr Speaker.
    The deletion would not help us, oth- erwise, we would then have to introduce another section for a “failure” -- but this section, as we have it, I think it is alright -- “Failure to submit the declaration or clarification” then it would cover all the matters coming from clauses 5, 6 and the others. So, if you can look at that for us, I think it would help us.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    So, Chairman of the Committee, what do we do?
    Mr Amoatey 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we would withdraw the proposal to amend, so that we retain the subheading as “Failure to submit a declaration or clarification.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    So, the amendment to clause 11 advertised as (iii) is accordingly withdrawn.
  • [Amendment withdrawn by leave of
    • Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    What do we do with the next one, Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Amoatey 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the next advertised amendment, consequentially, will also be withdrawn.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    It is also withdrawn?
    Mr Amoatey 12:15 p.m.
    That is so, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Then the amendment advertised as (iv) is with- drawn.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    I think in Parliament, we do not say “strike out” as withdrawn, we just withdraw it. In the law courts, they would strike it out but with Parliament, it is just withdrawn. I should not strike anything out.
    Mr Amoatey 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I did not
    get that point?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    I said
    in the law court, when you withdraw your motion, they strike it out. But with Parliament, I should not strike anything out; I should just withdraw it.
    Mr Amoatey 12:15 p.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Hon Mi- nority Leader, I could see you are agitated?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speak- er, there are so many hiccups and I am worried.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    There
    are so many what -- hiccups?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    When you have a hiccup, you drink water. [Laughter.]
    Continue, Minority Leader.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speak-
    er, so I would want to suggest to the Hon Majority Leader, the Leader of Government Business, if he would stand this down and do serious and further winnowing on this because I am not too sure -- [Interruption] -- You cannot hear?
    Some Hon Members 12:15 p.m.
    Yes!
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
    I was saying that, given the fact that we need to reconcile so many of the provisions -- there are so many hiccups and I think that we may serve a better cause if we stepped this down and do further consul- tation and perhaps, further winnowing on this before we proceed. Otherwise, I am not too sure of what we are doing -- the end effect may be disastrous to us.
    This is because on the spare of the moment, we have to proffer some sug- gestions. Upon reflection, you would know that perhaps, another recourse could have been a better resort and so on and so forth. So, I would suggest, subject to the indulgence of the Leader of Government Business, if we could step it down and do further consultation.
    Mr Bagbin 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not have any objection to the request. I also think we need to relook at some of the issues that are cropping up. And I think the Chairman and his team may be under some pressure to be conceding when we come up and contradict their position. So, maybe, we would need to have some more time to sit together to reconcile these things before we come back.
    So, I support the request and Mr
    Speaker, if you are minded to agree to that position, I would then proceed to --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    I think I will put the Question --
    Mr Bagbin 12:15 p.m.
    Yes, my attention has been drawn to it.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    I think I will put the Question on clause 11 and then, we will bring the Consideration Stage to an end.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 11 as amended ordered to stands part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Hon Members, this brings us to the end of the Consideration Stage for today on the Con- duct of Public Officers Bill, 2013, by the request of the Hon Majority and Minority Leaders for further winnowing.
    Thank you.
    Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr A.S.K. Bagbin 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the circumstances, I, would want to humbly beg to move, that we do take a bow by adjourning till tomorrow when we can continue with the Business as usual from 10.00 o'clock in the forenoon.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Thank you.
    Hon Majority Leader, I can see you have missed the court. [Interruption.] You have missed the court because instead of just moving -- “I humbly beg to move that we do take a bow in” -- You have missed your advocacy in the court.
    Hon Minority Leader, you have to out- do him. You heard what he said.
    Do not just second the Motion, outdo him in style.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am not too sure that I heard what he said apart from --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    He said, he wishes to humbly move that we take a bow at this stage and come back tomorrow for further Business. So, what is your response?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
    Bow? Mr Speaker, did you say he said he wants us to take a bow?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Yes, and I understand it.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
    I did not hear. Can you restrict yourself to the language of this House, Mr Speaker? [Laughter.]
    Mr Speaker, elsewhere, he could be so semantic but here, it is different.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, I am wondering whether you are talking about semantics. [Laugh- ter.] Well, I take it that you have seconded the Motion. I will put the Question.
    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    ADJOURNMENT 12:15 p.m.
    Alhaji Fuseini 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I said that funds are not released to the Departments. I said when IPs are raised, they are charged against the allocations and I know that my Hon Friend is a good financial
    Mr Speaker, arrears can be in many ways. When, like the Hon Member who asked a question early on said, we could vary the contracts to include the small stretch of road that is a bypass If that was not programmed for, but then the exigencies of the time and the importance of the work warrant our varying the contract, that is extra expenditure, probably unbudgeted for.
    Indeed, I can see my predecessor here. Many years ago, when the funds were not flowing in, the Road Fund, under the leadership of the previous Government went in for a facility to be able to retire some of these arrears, which loans are still outstanding and which are arrears against the Road Fund. There are many instances where arrears accrue but not necessarily out of the non-payment of the money.
    Dr Richard W. Anane rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Hon Member, are you up on a point of order?
    Dr Anane 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just to clarify
    a point. I happen to have been a Minister for the sector over a certain period. I am definitely not his predecessor for the time. We have other colleagues of ours whom he followed. I was the Minister from 2002 to January, 2009 and since then there