Odekro | What has your MP done for you?

Mr Spe ak e r

Hon Members , Correction of Votes and Proceedings of Wednesda y, 24th Jun e, 2015.

Mr Speaker

Hon Members, we do not have any Official Report for correction for today.
Hon Deputy Majority Leader?

Mr Alfred K. Agbesi

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to vary the Order of Business for today and take item number 8, the Report of the Appointments Committee.

Mr Speaker

Very well.
Is the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee here? So that we could quickly lay those Papers before we take the item number 8.

Mr Agbesi

Mr Speaker, the Chairman of the Appointments Committee is --

Mr Speaker

Public Accounts Committee. Who is the Vice Chairman?

Mr Owusu-Bio

Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman is just outside.

Mr Speaker

Very well.
Hon Members, item number 8, Motion. Chairman of the Appointments Committee?

Mr Ebo Barton-Odro

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, I would move the Motion first and ask for leave to amend certain portions of the Report.

Chairman of the Appointments Committee (Mr Ebo Barton-Odro)

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that this Honourable House adopts the Report of the Appointments Committee on H. E. the President's nominations for appointment as Justices of the Supreme Court.
Mr Speaker, I present your Committee's Report.
Introduction
The President of the Republic of Ghana, His Excellency John Dramani Mahama on the advice of the Judicial
Council and in consultation with the Council of State nominated two (2) persons for appointment as Justices of the Supreme Court of Ghana in accordance with article 144 (2) of the 1992 Constitution and communicated same to Parliament on 12th May, 2015 for their prior approval.
The nominations were subsequently referred to the Appointments Committee by the Hon Speaker for consideration and report pursuant to Order 172 of the Standing Orders of the House.
The nominations are as follows:
i) Justice Yaw Appau -- Justice- designate for the Supreme Court
ii) Mr Gabriel Pwamang -- Justice- designate for the Supreme Court
Reference documents
The Committee was guided in its deliberations by the following:
i. The 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana;
ii. The Standing Orders of the Parliament of Ghana; and
iii. The Curriculum Vitae of the Nominees.
Procedure for Considering the Nomina- tions
As part of its procedures and in line with Order 172 (3) of the Standing Orders of the House, the Committee caused to be published in the national newspapers the notice of its public hearing for the
consideration of the nominations and also invited memoranda from the general public in respect of the nominees.
Confidential reports in respect of the nominees were also obtained from Ghana Revenue Authority, the Ghana Police Service and the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) for the purpose of conducting background checks on the nominees.
Following these activities, the Committee held a two day public hearing from Monday, 2nd to Tuesday, 3rd June, 2015 to consider the nominations in furtherance of Order 172 (3) of the Standing Orders of the House.
Before the commencement of procee- dings, the nominees subscribed to the Oath of a Witness. The Committee's line of questioning focused on issues relating to the nominees' citizenship, records of their offices, matters pertaining to the offices to which they have been nominated, issues of national concern and their comprehension of the Laws of Ghana.
The Committee has duly considered the above nominations and reports as follows:
Justice Yaw Appau -- Justice- Designate for the Supreme Court
Background
Justice Yaw Appau was born on 2nd August, 1951 at Badu in the Tain District of the Brong Ahafo Region. He attended Wenchi West Primary School for his primary education and Bekwai Methodist Middle School. He enrolled at Prempeh College between 1965 and 1967, but he dropped out due to financial challenges.
From 1967 to 1971, he proceeded to Ajumako Teacher Training College where he obtained Teachers' Certificate “A”. He also obtained his “O” and “A” level Certificates as a private candidate.

Justice Appau attended the University of Ghana, Legon from 1977 and 1980 and was awarded a B. A. (Hons) in Law and Political Science. He later attended the Ghana Law School from 1980 to 1982 and was called to the Ghana Bar as a Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Ghana in December, 1982.

Justice Appau started work as a professional teacher from 1971 to 1977 in a number of schools including Droboso L/A Middle School and Frema L/A Middle School. At Subingya L/A Primary School, he was also the headmaster of the school.

After his call to the Bar, he was appointed the Regional Coordinator of the then Students and Youth Task Force in the Northern Region in 1982. In 1983, he was appointed as the Deputy Regional Secretary for the Brong- Ahafo Region. He later received nomination for training in Havana, Cuba for a ten-month course in International Relations. On his return, Justice Appau was appointed a member of the National Investigations Committee (NIC) in 1984. In May 1985, he resigned from the NIC and went into private legal practice at Barimah Chambers, Sunyani.

The nominee was appointed a District Magistrate Grade 1 in September, 1991.

Justice Appau worked at the Sekondi District Magistrate Court as a District Magistrate from 1991 to 1995. His court functioned as both a Family Tribunal and a Juvenile Court. As part of his schedule, he supervised the Shama and Cape Coast District Magistrate Courts. In 1996, the nominee was promoted Circuit Court Judge and posted to the Aflao Circuit Court.

In 2000, he was appointed a Justice of the High Court. He was later posted to

the Ashanti Region as the Supervising High Court Judge until his appointment as Justice of the Court of Appeal in 2006.

On 8th October, 2012, Justice Appau was appointed the Sole Commissioner of the Commission of Inquiry to delve into Judgment Debts and other matters as per

C.I. 79.

The nominee holds membership in both local and international associations including the Association of Magistrates and Judges of Ghana (AMJG). He has participated in a number of national and international conferences and also delivered a number of papers on key topics.

Contributions to the development of the Law

Regarding his contributions to the development of the law, the nominee indicated that, he has been on the bench for 24 years during which he delivered very important judgments which have had far reaching impact on the development of the law. He stated that most of the decisions are reported in the Ghana Law Reports.

He cited his ruling on the Sodom and Gomorrah case (2003) which was an action brought against the Accra Metropolitan Authority (AMA) by residents of Sodom and Gomorrah. He indicated that the judgment directed that the residents could be ejected on condition that they were given reasonable time to prepare themselves.

He also mentioned his decisions on the Stadium Disaster and the Yaa Naa cases. He further informed the Committee of an interesting case he decided on, which involved Richard Butt and the Ghana Immigration Service relating to deporta- tion. Apart from his contributions made

to the development of the law, the nominee also informed the Committee that he had served severally as a resource person at the Judicial Training Institute where he delivered a number of papers in nurturing and training newly appointed judges and magistrates.

Role models

The nominee identified Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and Alfred Thompson Denning as his role models, and was nicknamed Oliver Wendell Holmes.

The nominee said he liked them because they were great Jurists. Lord Denning was English while Oliver Holmes Jr was American. They were also described as great dissenters and courageous Judges. Lord Denning fought in the First World War, 1914 to 1918 and Oliver Wendell Holmes also fought in the American Civil War in 1861 and 1865. They were very great judges and he admired their data.

Nominee's experience at the National Investigations Committee

The nominee, in responding to the nature of work he did while serving as a Member of the National Investigations Committee, informed the Committee that, the seven Member Committee made up of himself, Mr Emmanuel Ohene who is now a lawyer, Lawyer Larry Adjetey, Lawyer Emmanuel Ayebi (now an Appeal Court Judge) and three others, was the highest investigative body of the Government at the time and they were tasked to investigate very serious cases involving economic crimes and other matters.

The nominee recollected a major case investigated involving combat goods. The soldiers had petitioned the

Committee that they had returned from Lebanon for over two years and the goods they purchased had not arrived as yet. The Committee conducted investigations which revealed that the ship that was meant to convey footwear for the soldiers was rather used to convey sugar and rice. At the time, sugar was a scarce commodity in the country and the goods were tagged as combat goods to evade payment of duties to the Government.

On whether he considered his membership of the National Investigation Committee (NIC) a betrayal of what the Bar and professional bodies stood for at the time, the nominee informed the Committee that, he could not recall any opposition at the NIC but a general opposition against the PNDC process as a whole by the Bar.

The lawyers did not understand why after 10 months in Cuba and six months at NIC he could come back to Sunyani as a practising lawyer; they suspected him to be a spy planted among them. With much difficulty, Lawyer Kofi Gyambura accepted him into his chambers. It was later on that the Judges really believed that he had actually resigned from the NIC.

Establishment of an Independent Emolu- ments Committee

The nominee informed the Committee that the framers of the 1992 Constitution had good reasons why article 71 was drafted in its current form instead of establishing an Independent Emoluments Committee.

He said he held the view that article 71 office holders such as the President, the Vice President, Hon Ministers, Hon Members of Parliament, the Electoral Commission, the Commissioner of CHRAJ, and Superior Court Judges, among others, are special persons. These institutions are

Chairman of the Appointments Committee (Mr Ebo Barton-Odro)

the home. If it was established that the property was acquired during the subsistence of the marriage, then the property belongs to both and so equality is equity.

Dress Code of Judges

The nominee said it was about time that perhaps Judges demystify their appearance in court. He informed the Committee that, when Her Lady Chief Justice introduced this new directive where Judges were not supposed to put on wigs in civil cases, the idea was a welcome one. This is so because in other countries, for example in South Africa, they do not wear bibs and wigs. A tie and a gown were enough. And with the gown, to assert our independence, the nominee believed it could be designed in a way just as Parliament has done for the Speaker of Parliament, using kente to design something very beautiful for Judges.

Decoupling Attorney-General's Office from the Ministry of Justice

The nominee in stating why he thinks that the two functions should be decoupled said, he was of the view that instead of the Attorney General's position being a Minister of State, the position can be likened to that of the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) or something of the sort, so that there is some independence with the Attorney Generals' work.

In that vein, when it comes to the prosecution of cases involving public officials, then we are confident that irrespective of who the public officer is, the Attorney General will not have any inhibitions in carrying out his/her duties.

He said if the Attorney General is a minister and he/she has to prosecute

Mr Speaker

Any seconder?
Hon Minority Leader?

Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion, but to signal that I may come back later to contribute to the debate.
Question proposed.

Mr Kobina Tahir Hammond (NPP-- Adansi Asokwa)

Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
I rise to contribute to the debate. In doing so, I would go through a few of the responses to the questions posed to Mr Justice Appau.
Mr Speaker, I would deal with it in the sequence that they appear in the Report.
Mr Speaker, the nominee during the vetting was asked about his contribution to the development of law in the country.
Mr Speaker, yesterday, in your absence, when the First Deputy Speaker took over the chair, there were issues about Sodom and Gomorrah -- I understand that we should call it by its proper name, Old Fadama -- It appeared that Justice Yaw Appau gave a ruling on the status of the people. He indeed, ruled that it was proper for the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah to be removed by the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA). Of course, there was a condition he attached to it.
Mr Speaker, what he did was not added to his contributions. Really, is the fact that, it was Justice Appau; Appau J. as he then was, who actually made the ruling in the High Court to the effect that the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC) should pay a whopping sum of ¢30 billion

in the then currency, plus interest on a loan of, I think, ¢6 billion that they have taken but they had defaulted. He ordered that they should pay that sum of money which led to the sale of property belonging to GNPC.

Mr Speaker, indeed, that was at the time when there had been a ruling in England on behalf of Societe Generale, that GNPC should also pay US$47 million to the said company. It was at the same time when he had made this ruling in Ghana. I thought that should also go down as part of his contribution to the development of the law in this country.

Mr Speaker, he talked about Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and wonders why the Ghana Football Association (GFA) has become an untouchable institution. Mr Speaker, he expresses his view that he thinks it is wrong. I support the view that he has proffered over here.

Mr Speaker, it seems to me to be wrong that GFA should be an exception to the rule that “whoever pays the piper, also calls the tune”.

Mr Speaker, we have a situation where the Government of Ghana pays a considerable sum of money for the upkeep and development of football in the country, towards the preparation of the Black Stars for various international assignments.Yet, when it comes to its finances, a Chinese wall is built between the people, the Government and the GFA.

We have now become all the wiser because of the developments at FIFA. Maybe, that is the reason why FIFA has its own rules. They would not want anybody to know what is going on in the various football jurisdictions of the world.

Mr Kobina Tahir Hammond (NPP-- Adansi Asokwa)

Maj. (Dr) (Alhaji) Mustapha Ahmed (retd.) -- rose --

Mr Speaker

Mr Speaker, Hon Minister for Youth and Sports, do you have any point of order?
Maj. (Dr) (Alhaji) Ahmed (retd.): Yes, Mr Speaker, I have a point of order.
The Hon Colleague said, there is a Chinese wall between the GFA and the Government. I would like to put on record that the Chinese walls built are around our stadia, not between Government and the
GFA.

Mr Hammond

Mr Speaker, so, he was quite unhappy that the Justices should be empanelled electronically. Mr Speaker, I am also anxious. I think that judges are empanelled on the basis of their specialised knowledge when it comes to certain areas of the law. So, if a system has been put in place where the lot falls but if a digital or electronic system is used to choose which judges should sit on certain cases, I think the system should impress on those who know how to amend it.
This is because the computer has a mind of its own, and will not always come up with the judges who are appropriately suited for specific cases.
Mr Speaker, he dealt with another matter which again, I support. He talked about the case of Asare v. the Attorney- General. Mr Speaker, it is a matter which relates to the fact that when both the President and the Vice President are out
of the country, it is considered that there is no President in the country and that the Rt Hon Speaker should be sworn in as the President.
Mr Speaker, I understand that on one occasion, your august self thought that -- You were not quite happy swearing the oath and you did not swear the oath to become President.
Mr Speaker, I take the view that whenever the opportunity arises again, this matter should be put back to the Supreme Court for consideration and ruling.

Mr Speaker

Hon Members, the matter is at the Supreme Court so, let us tread cautiously.

Mr Hammond

Mr Speaker, I am grateful.

Mr Speaker

Yes, Hon Member.

Mr Hammond

Mr Speaker, I am grateful to you. That is what I am calling for. If it is there already, then Mr Speaker, I am so grateful that it has come to that.
Mr Speaker, Justice Yaw Apau made some specific references to the property rights of spouses. He took his clue from Lord Denning's decisions in the well- known cases of Gissing v. Gissing, Pettit v. Pettit and Heseltine v. Heseltine.
He would want to read around it to know that since the 1970's when Lord Denning came up with this, the frontiers of family law, particularly with respect to distr ibution of property r ights has changed beyond recognition.
The recent cases of McFarlane v. McFarlane, Miller v. Miller and indeed, the recent one in March this year of Wyatt v.Vince, has put the distribution beyond the recognition of cases that he identified.
Mr Speaker, so I think that Justice Apau would want to refresh his memory with respect to those areas.
Mr Speaker, then when Justice Yaw Apau was asked specifically about the functions of the Supreme Court, he made a disturbing point that there is so much talk about the Supreme Court, but the Judiciary as a whole do not have Associates or Clerks who help them.
We all appreciate the difficulties of judges. So, to think that even at the level of the Supreme Court, we do not have associates who help them, Mr Speaker, I think it is a very serious matter that has to be looked at.
He also made a statement, which for me, is rather disturbing. He said that in some specific instances, he had to rely on some members of the Bar to help him research certain areas of the law. He also made the point that indeed, in some jurisdictions, I think he cited the case of the United States of America, that the associates help to write the judgments of the Court for a particular judge.
Mr Speaker, I think this is rather a dangerous and a very slippery road which must not be trodden by our Supreme Court. The reason is that if a judge is not careful and relies on associates, the product may well end up not being what was anticipated.
Mr Speaker, for example, you have a situation where a judge, whether in a Court or as a Commissioner, produces a Report of judgement in which a witness, for example, is described as being arrogant and boastful. Mr Speaker, you would think that a judge would not normally write something like this. But left to an Associate, phrases like that would seep
undetected into the Report or the judgment.
Mr Speaker, the nominee would also appreciate that underlining the basic judegement of any Court is the foundation of facts. When the facts are wrong, the nominee would realise that the outcome or the judgement is completely wrong.
So, for example, if it is a fact that is being debated in the Court or are matters that have come before him as a commissioner, it is imperative on the nominee, or for that matter, any judge or commissioner, to get the facts right and be fair to all the individuals, whether counsel, witnesses or whoever appeared before the judge or the Commission.
This is because there is the legitimate expectation that in the context of this, everybody -- from the context of appearance before a Court and in the context of natural justice, everybody appearing, should be given the benefit of a fair hearing. If witnesses appear before a Commissioner or the Court and some of the witnesses do not get mentioned at all, but only mentioned by reference to the fact that they did appear in the room, one starts wondering whether it was proper adjudication.
Mr Speaker, these are matters that any judge or any person sitting as a Commissioner should be aware of. Again, we go back to the suggestion that it is possible for some Associates to write reports. If for example, a Report or a judgement appears, and a name as prominent as that of a former President of the Republic could not be spelt properly, Mr Speaker, then the impression is given that the Report was not written by the proper person.
It is worrying and that is why I am cautioning specifically that it may be a very dangerous exercise to get Associates

Mr Speaker

Hon Member, please wind up.

Mr Hammond

Mr Speaker, I am winding up.
Mr Speaker, in the case of Sir Scott -- Mr Gabriel Pwamang, myself, Dr Benjamin Kunbuor, and Hon Joe Ghartey, completed the University of Ghana in 1986. I congratulate him, and I am happy that we produced two Attorney-Generals and then we are also producing a Supreme Court Judge. I am happy, it is a very great band of individuals and I do not think there are many around, especially those looking at me from the other Side, who can boast that they have a cabal of that nature.
I congratulate him and I am happy for him. I think he would also learn from some of the things --

Mr Speaker

Hon Deputy Majority Leader?

Mr Agbesi

Mr Speaker, my Hon Colleague used a word that they had produced a “cabal”. I think that word is so strong and it would give meaning to a certain situation which is unwanted. A “cabal” -- Mr Speaker, I think that he used a strong word because it connotes some meaning.

Mr Hammond

Mr Speaker, I am wondering, because he is not a member of it and I have not asked him to be a member. I have described the membership.

Mr Speaker

Hon K. T. Hammond, what do you mean by a “cabal”?

Mr Hammond

Mr Speaker, it means a little group of a privileged few. [Interruptions] and we are the members. He is excluded, but Hon Joe Ghartey, Dr Benjamin Kunbuor, myself and then of course, we now have Sir Scott, who is Mr Gabriel Pwamang, also being part. He is not part of them, so what is his worry?
Mr Speaker, whatever rendition or whatever may be the meaning of that, he is excluded.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker

Hon Deputy Majority Leader, the context in which he used the word, is not un-parliamentary. In certain circumstances, the use of the ward “cabal”, can be un-parliamentary, but the context in which -- I think it is on the lighter side -- The context in which he used it is “classmates”, should be --
Yes, Hon Osei -Owusu?

Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu

Mr Speaker, I heard my Senior Colleague, Hon K. T. Hammond, mentioning himself, Dr Benjamin Kunbuor, the Second Deputy Speaker, and one Sir Scott.
Mr Speaker, I do not know of any Sir Scott, whose matter is before this House, who has joined the “cabal” of a priviledged group.

Mr Hammond

Mr Speaker, again, he is excluded, so he would not know Sir Scott. Sir Scott happens to be Mr Justice Gabriel Pwamang. He is not a member, so he does not know. That “cabal” is exclusive.

Mr Speaker

Yes, Hon Deputy Majority Leader?

Mr Alfred K. Agbesi

Mr Speaker, we have vetted two nominees for the highest Court of the land and in contributing to the debate to recommend their appointment, my Hon Colleague is saying that an Hon Member, who is going to the Supreme Court belong to a “cabal” --

Mr Speaker

Hon Deputy Majority Leader, the context in which he used it is just to say that they are classmates. They entered into the University the same time, in 1986 and they completed in -- Yes, so it is in that sense that he used it. That is why I said that in certain circumstances, the use of the “cabal”, can be un- parliamentary, but listening to him, clearly, he was just saying that they are classmates.
Of course, the people that he mentioned, belong to different political parties and they do different things. So I do not think that he was using it in any negative sense.

Mr Speaker

Hon Agbesi, do you want to contribute to the Motion? If so, then you have the floor.
11. 40 a.m.

Mr Alfred K. Agbesi (NDC -- Ashaiman)

Mr Speaker, I rise to contribute to this Motion, and to congratulate these two gentlemen, who have been nominated to the Supreme Court, the highest Court of the land.
Mr Speaker, reading through the Report, the two nominees excelled to my satisfaction at the Committee. The first nominee -- Justice Yaw Appau, in answering the questions posed to him,
was candid, was explicit and gave answers as a Judge of the highest Court of the land.
Mr Speaker, in the Report we have here, the nominee, answered questions on many issues. On the issue of the establishment of an Independent Emolument Committee, the nominee made reference to article 71 of the Constitution, and stated that persons who enjoy under that article, or the beneficiaries of that article deserve such payments, due to the important task that they perform in the society.
Mr Speaker, a lot has been said about article 71 beneficiaries. Most of the times, they are criticised without necessarily taking into account the work that such persons do in society and I am happy that Justice Appau explained and gave good answers to such issues.
Mr Speaker, I believe that after this, the society would realise that article 71 beneficiaries indeed, perform important tasks in the society. They are not only Hon Members of Parliament, he mentioned them to be Judges and others, and so anytime the issue is raised, it is not only Hon Members of Parliament, who come under article 71.
Mr Speaker, the nominee also spoke on the issue of compulsory retirement age of Supreme Court Judges and went further to say that at age 70, such Judges still have the stamina to go more miles and yet the Constitution says they must go on retirement.
It is in that sense that he made that suggestion that, such people could be given contracts after their retirement to come back and serve the State for some years. But Mr Speaker, I think and I always hold the view that, people who retire and are called back on contract, do not give way to the young ones who are

increasingly coming out of schools and university and do not have jobs and placements.I believe such retirees should, indeed, retire and give way to the young ones to come and serve.

Mr Speaker, the nominee spoke on a lot of issues; the death penalty and others, and I believe that such a nominee has the knowledge to serve in the Supreme Court.

Mr Speaker, for the second nominee, even though, he is relatively young, he also excelled to my satisfaction at the Committee. He was called to the Bar in 1988 and going to the Supreme Court at this young age, he would bring the experience he had from his private practice and a bit of work at the political circle to bear on the work of the Supreme Court.

Mr Speaker, I would want to say that, the Committee did its work diligently and has recommended that this House approves them for that position. I congratulate them and wish them well as they serve at the Supreme Court.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Speaker

Hon Member for Wenchi?

Prof George Yaw Gyan-Baffour (NPP- -Wenchi)

Mr Speaker, I also rise in support of the Motion that this House adopts the Report of the Appointments Committee on His Excellency the President's nominations for appointment of Justices of the Supreme Court.
Mr Speaker, I watched the discussion from afar when I was at Wenchi and I think these were two fine gentlemen who deserve to be nominated and to be approved for the office.
But Mr Speaker, I rose particularly because of Justice Yaw Appau whom I know very well. I have known him for over thirty years. Mr Speaker, as the Report indicates, he comes from Bedu, which is actually in the Tain Constituency, which used to be in Wenchi West Constituency.

I am so proud of him that he had been nominated into this high office of this country.

Mr Speaker, as I watched it and in fact, the Report indicates, attempts were made to find out the political leanings of these would-be Justices of the Supreme Court. Looking at Justice Appau in particular, his actual history shows that he worked for the two dominant political parties in this country but notably, most of them would have been the Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC) and maybe, the National Democratic Congress (NDC) as a Sole Commissioner.

But it was also mentioned that he was appointed to the Court of Appeals by the National Patriotic Party (NPP). So, indeed, any attempt to get into his political leaning was very difficult because he toggled between these two dominant parties.

But Mr Speaker, what is not very well known about his pedigree is that -- And it was not here, his uncle was the Progress Party (PP) Member of Parliament for Wenchi West. That is the man that he lived with. So, he is somebody who really toggled between these two dominant ideologies, if we could call them ideologies, in this country and he has a balanced view of either of the two political groups.

So, maybe, my Hon Colleagues on this Side cannot claim him and my Hon Colleagues on the other Side cannot claim. That is a good mark for somebody who can sit on the Bench and be as balanced, fair and as impartial as possible.

This is because I personally know him very well, I know that he is a very principled man and I know that he can be a very good Judge at the Supreme Court.

Mr Speaker, notwithstanding all that, has been going on about him as the Sole Commissioner of Judgement Debt and all that, this is a person who really believes in the law, he believes in certain principles and no matter what it is, he would say what he thinks is right.

Therefore, I urge Hon Members on both Sides of the House, to support his nomination because he is a fine man, he can be fair and he would actually contribute greatly to the Justice system of this country.

Thank you Mr Speaker for giving me this opportunity.

Mr Speaker

Hon Member for Yilo Krobo?

Mr Magnus Kofi Amoatey (NDC-- Yilo Krobo)

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
Mr Speaker, I wish to say that the first nominee, His Lordship, Mr Justice Appau, at the Committee, demonstrated so much courage in developing the law. Mr Speaker, if you look at some of the controversial cases that went before him as Judge of the High Court, such as the Sodom and Gomorrah case, the Ya-Naa murder case and the Stadium Disaster issues, Mr
Speaker, we see that Mr Justice Appau has demonstrated that, he is a courageous Judge, who would go ahead and make decisions in accordance with the law and the facts before him.
I think today, if we are looking at the Sodom and Gomorrah case, we would say that, it is a decision that he has made based on certain conditions and I think it is in light of those conditions that some are criticising the manner in which the eviction of the people was done.
Mr Speaker, Mr Justice Appau equally has shown that he is a Justice, who would assist in the development of the law by way of legal education. He has demonstrated that, he had been teaching in training school. I think at the highest apex of the Bench, we need a person of his type to be there to help Ghana to develop the law.
I was fascinated when he told the Committee that his role model was Oliver Wendell, Jr. Holmes and Alfred Thompson Denning -- Lord Denning, whom I believe a lot of lawyers look up to.
Mr Speaker, let me further say that, he is a Judge, who would propagate and has demonstrated that he stands for nobility of the profession and at the same time would be prepared to have change.
Mr Speaker, he told us that, he would want to see the dress code of the Judges of the Superior Court take a form of natural content.
Mr Speaker, I believe those are the types of judges we want to see.
Equally, on the second nominee, my friend Mr Gabriel Pwamang, he has also demonstrated that he has been an effective practitioner, has practised and handled some controversial cases and is

Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu (NPP -- Bekwai)

Mr Speaker, first, I would want to observe that the pillars of any society are the institutions of State we build. The Judiciary is one of the main pillars of democracy. However, whether or not that pillar would live up to its expectations depends on the people who man that pillar and in this case, I am referring to those who are appointed as Judges.
Judicial conduct, impartiality, forward looking and judicial courage is a culture that is critical for strengthening the institution of the Judiciary.
The Appointments Committee's job was to try and find out whether the people who were nominated by the President were inhabited with some of these attributes and habits.
I am happy to observe that the nominees, and in particular, Mr Justice Appau exhibited so much courage before us and when he pronounced that in his view the Ya-Na case is over and that unless any fresh evidence occurs, that is the end of the matter, I saw that this was a man who was motivated by his conviction as a Judge and courage.
This is the kind of principle we expect that Judges would exhibit at all times. The kind of boldness and impartiality that Justice Appau exhibited are what we expect that those who are appointed to
the highest court of the land would exhibit. I think that he performed very well before the Committee that he gave confidence to anybody who observing him. I have had very little experience with him as a Judge, even though I first encountered him as the Regional Minister when I was a student at Wenchi. His conduct as a Judge over the years, from the investigation I did in Kumasi and his judgements I read while I prepared for the Appointments Committee's vetting suggested that he is bold and courageous.
I, therefore, urge all Hon Members to support the Committee and adopt the Report for his appointment to be affirmed.
Mr Speaker, in the case of Mr Gabriel Pwamang, he admitted that whenever the Supreme Court had a good blend of the Bench, Bar and the Faculty, the Court benefitted from the varied experiences of the juries, drawing experiences from those who had grown through the Bench, rising from the lower levels to the top levels; those who had taught the law; and those who had been private practitioners.
After all, it is said that the life of the law is experience and not logic. Therefore, it would be helpful if we had such a good blend. I observed, however, that Mr Gabriel Pwamang would join the Bench not as a nominee of the Bar, of which he has been a member for about 26 years, but as a nominee of the President.
It would have been ideal if the Bar had nominated him. However, be it as it may, I wish to challenge him to see himself as a champion of the Bar even on the Bench. For those of us who are his contemporaries, his performance would give hope and create a way for us. Hon K. T. Hammond and Hon Joe Ghartey were quick to point out that I am not part of their class but I recall that I was just a year behind them.
Mr Speaker, the important thing is that I have faith in the people of our era; our youth, our group who are joining the Bench now, that we would live up to expectations and continue the path that has made --

Mr Speaker

Hon K. T. Hammond, do you have a point of order?

Mr Hammond

On a point of order. Thank you very much.
Mr Speaker, I heard my junior at school and my Hon Colleague from Bekwai talk about Hon Joe Ghartey and myself in the context of something. He was not bold enough to make that audible enough. If he could repeat it, we would be grateful to him.

Mr Speaker

Hon Member, that is not a point of order.

Mr Osei-Owusu

Hon K. T. Hammond, I recall that I was one year behind him. Right from secondary school, I recall that I used to carry water for him; I have not forgotten that and I would always admit it. The point I am making is that it is important for those of us who get the opportunity to strive to excel so that a way is created for people in our category to join the Bench at the highest level.
With these few words, I urge all Hon Members of the House to vote massively to adopt the Report.

Mr Speaker

Hon Members, I have got the sense of the House, so I would take one or two and put the Question.

Mr Joe Ghartey (NPP -- Esikado/ Ketan)

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
The position of the Justice of the Supreme Court --

Mr Speaker

What is your full name?

Mr Ghartey

My full name for the records?

Mr Speaker

Yes.

Mr Ghartey

Joe Nana Kwabena Akwaa Ghartey. [Laughter.] Mr Speaker, the “Akwaa” is spelt “A-K-W-A-A”.

Mr Speaker

Please, proceed.

Mr Ghartey

The man does not know that I am from Winneba. Mr Speaker, the position of the Supreme Court Judge is an extremely unique position in our constitutional arrangement. I recall that I was invited to speak about the Supreme Court and there were other Supreme Court Judges present and I had the audacity, if I may say so, to humbly refer to the Supreme Court as the last dictatorship standing.
Why did I do that? Very simple. Every other institution that we have created under our democratic dispensation is subject to another institution.
Within the Judiciary itself, the High Court is subject to the Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court but the only body in our dispensation which is not subject to any other body but to itself is the Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court says that black is white, the rest of the country must agree.
Mr Speaker, even when the Supreme Court declares provisions of the Constitution as unconstitutional, the rest of the country cannot say otherwise. As a lawyer, one should not even publicly criticise them. Perhaps, one could take it out in some academic discourse like I did the last time, or if one is in Court and even if one is not happy, one must say “much obliged”. So, it is because of this unique state of this institution that we must be very careful of the kind of people we put into the Supreme Court.

Mr Speaker

Hon Deputy Minority Leader?

Mr Dominic B. A. Nitiwul (NPP -- Bimbilla)

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to the Motion.
Mr Speaker, let me confess that the two gentlemen who came before the Appointments Committee comported themselves very well. They impressed me a lot with their knowledge and the way they answered the questions that were posed to them. They were very composed.
Mr Speaker, I particularly tried to find out and watch their demeanour and their knowledge of the subject areas in which they were grilled. This is because one of the nominees is a practising Judge and the other is a lawyer and I wanted to find out exactly how they would handle issues. I can say I was very impressed.
In the case of Justice Appau, he raised very sensitive matters. But some of them, I think we need to put things in their right perspective.
Mr Speaker, on the issue of the recent development of FIFA, he talked about the Ghana Football Association (GFA) and he said that country's finance in support of the activities of the GFA, GFA should be made to account particularly with the regard to the use of public funds. Mr Speaker, impression should not be created that the GFA does not account for public funds. Mr Speaker, they do.
The normal practice is that, the Accountant of the Ministry, not the GFA directly, would always do the payment, in conjunction with the GFA when payment vouchers (PVs) are raised and they do the accounting.
What FIFA statutes state is that, moneys that are paid directly from FIFA, a third party should not be allowed to
influence or get involved in GFA matters when it comes to finances directly from FIFA. That is what the FIFA statutes say. It is not GFA which said that they do not want to be accountable to anybody. They do and even without resources, they still account for resources. I believe transparency, in this case, is what would be important to all of us.
Whatever happens there should be transparent and this is because it is the passion of the nation.
Mr Speaker, I was happy when he talked about the issue of the Ya-Naa. I was particularly happy because there are so many misconception going on with that particular issue. And that is why unfortunately, politicians used it to play a political football. It was a very unfortunate incident and politicians decided to use it to play political football. The families and all of us still believe that those who know the truth should come out with the truth.
I believe there are many people who claim they know the truth and so, they should come out with the truth regarding the issue of the Ya-Naa. As for the law, he says that the evidence that came to him, he thought that unless somebody had new evidence, it was conclusive enough and so he would call that case closed.
But, I still believe that there are people who claimed to know the truth and I urge those people not to die with the truth. They should come out with the truth so that we can all put that case to rest and punish those who need to be punished in that particular matter.
Mr Speaker, he raised another very important issue and that issue had to do with Mr Speaker acting as the President. He thought that Mr Speaker sworn in as the President was not necessary. [Interruption] --Yes, but I am not judging the issue. That matter came up. Mr

Mr Dominic B. A. Nitiwul (NPP -- Bimbilla)

Speaker, you have already ruled that the case is in court. But I just thought that it is an interesting case and either this Parliament or the court must decide on that matter, so that, as a nation, we can move forward. Whether it is even necessary to have an acting President or not,I would be very happy for that matter to come up.
In this world where we have the Air Force One moving from America to Ghana and they take over even our airports -Mr Speaker, when President Obama was here, even our security and Hon Ministers had to go through the American security at our own airport. Maybe, we may have to learn -superpower. But whatever the case, they took over everything. They came and took over everything. Our own people had to be searched. You can ask the Hon Ministers. Our own people in our own airport had to go through the American security. Maybe, Hon E.T. Mensah was searched if he was there.
Mr Speaker, it is an interesting scenario and I would be glad to see how our Constitution fashions it out after the court or Parliament itself rules on these matters.
Mr Speaker, I was also intrigued about a case that came up before the Committee when he mentioned a matter about his experience at the National Investigation Committee. The nominee was forthright. He did not hide a single thing from us. He accepted that there was a perception that he was a spy but he explained the issue so well that all of us understood him perfectly. I am confident and glad that if this House finds it in its wisdom to pass him and the President swears him in, he would enrich our Supreme Court.
Mr Speaker, he mentioned an issue and I thought that it was important for us to look at it again. Do we need to have a
ceiling for the Supreme Court or not? Do we leave the Supreme Court as it is or we should go with the American system where some particular matters, all the Justices of the Supreme Court are empanelled especially, in review matters so that we do not have a situation where somebody decides to pack the Supreme Court or empanel only his friends and therefore, leave the judgment in the hands of, maybe, the Chief Justice. Do we empanel all of them?
Mr Speaker, I believe that I would support him -- layman as I am -- that we should empanel all the Supreme Court Justices in review matters so that everybody can have a bite of the cherry, especially the fact that they are odd in number. As we sit today, it seems we have an even number at the Supreme Court. Maybe, we have to look at it again to have an odd number—yes. They are fourteen, instead of the normal odd number. I think there is a vacancy somewhere,if we believe that.
Mr Speaker, because we do not have a ceiling, a particular number, we can say that this is the end of the road, even if we have twelve members, it may be that-- we cannot say there is a vacancy. I believe that we should have an odd number so that we can have a good justice system.
Mr Speaker, he made a profound statement about the qualification of jurists, and I have been asking lawyers whether it is true. Some believe it is true but others think it is a very dicey area. He said that people, who were thought to be lazy at work are sent to become jurists.That could be very dangerous if it was true and if that was really happening in real practice.
Mr Speaker, that is a dangerous thing because they would be judged and put somebody's life at risk. If the person who

is supposed to qualify as a jury has a problem—he is not qualified enough.He could actually sentence 99 per cent innocent persons instead of the other way round, where we expect to set free, 99 per cent guilty people rather than jail one innocent person like the Lord Himself said.

Mr Speaker, with Mr Gabriel Pwamang, as stated by the Chairman of the Committee, there were one or two petitions against him. The Committee did its best to wait until it came to the bottom of those matters. We did not rush, even though the petitioners themselves were not interested in pursuing the matter.

As a Committee, we thought we could still wait and get to the bottom of it so that we can put the right people at the highest court of law, and I am glad that the decision to wait paid off because we did the right thing.

I believe that when Hon Members go through the Report, they would realise that the Committee had patience to wait in order to give everybody a fair opportunity so that nobody comes later to say, “well, you should have heard from me”. We gave everybody the opportunity.We took pains to look for the people even when we did not know where they were, particularly, a certain woman.

We looked for her and made sure that we found her and heard from her and the disciplinary committee until we were satisfied that there was no case against the nominee before the Committee decided to recommend him to the House for approval. I was glad about the way he went about the issues with his knowledge.

Mr Speaker, because he had served as a General Secretary of a political party, a question was posed to him concerning by-elections, particularly, now that we have an upcoming one and I would mention it. We have one at Talensi now. It was useful to pick his view on the issue

of a by-election, whether we should amend the Constitution such that, the political party, where the Hon Member, for whatever reasons is no more a Member of Parliament, that political party could nominate a successor. But his view was very clear.

He thought that the people have the mandate and they must be allowed to make a choice, unless the law does not permit. Some disagreed because of cost. After all, we set an example the last time, when there was a by-election, and for once the political parties came together and said that, “we are going to stop the Electoral Commission from conducting that by- election”.

Mr Speaker, I believe that we should begin asking ourselves questions, whether we should not copy the French model. In the French model, there is a person who is waiting to take over from a Member of Parliament when the Member of Parliament is no more a Member of Parliament during elections. They call them deputies—député. When one is going for an election, he or she has a deputy. For whatever reason, if one is nominated as a Minister and he or she dies or resigns, that deputy takes over immediately as a Member of Parliament. They do not go through a by-election.

Mr Speaker, maybe, it is an interesting scenario. Can we consider it? But the danger is that, some deputies are waiting for their bosses to go so they could take over. That is the danger in their system as well, but it happens. That is the system Togo, Benin and other French speaking countries use. Can we also consider such a system?

Mr Speaker, in our case, we believe that we should go, spend money to bring a successor when it comes to by-election.

It is an interesting point that we should look at. I also support the view that, the indemnity clauses should stay a little longer --not too long -- but a little longer until the main actors are gone such that we can stabilise this country once and for all.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I would support the view of the nominee that, we should strengthen the National Development Planning Commission (NDPC) to make it a truly independent body that has teeth to bite. That is they should be given resources to have a long term future plan for this country. While in Africa we plan for one year, the Japanese companies actually plan as long as 15 to 25years. No successful company in Japan plans for only one year.

Mr Speaker, I believe that we should get NDPC to plan the future of this country so that all political parties can buy into that vision. We know that—

Mr George Kofi Arthur— On a point of order.

Mr Speaker, NDPC does not plan for a year. Recently, the planning was for six years, and that is why when we read the Progress Report, it was 2010, 2013 and we have 2014 to 2016 and so it is not for only a year.

Mr Nitiwul

Mr Speaker, how many years do we have when the Hon Member says 2013—2016? Is it not three years? No plan from NDPC has gone beyond three years. How long is the Government's budget?

Mr James Agalga (NDC— Builsa North)

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the Motion.

Mr Speaker

I thought you were coming on a point of order because I would want to close the debate. I want to take the views of the Hon Majority Leader and then put the Question. I have now got the sense of the House.

Mr Alban S. K. Bagbin (NDC -- Nadowli/Kaleo)

Mr Speaker, I stand to support the Motion that this House adopts the Report of the Appointments
Committee on His Excellency the President's Nominations for Appointment as Justices of the Supreme Court.
Mr Speaker, the Report of the Appointments Committee calls on this House to give approval to the President's Nominees for the position of Justices of the Supreme Court. They are doing so because article 144 of our Constitution has given us a guide as to how somebody becomes a Justice of the Supreme Court. And Mr Speaker, for purposes of education, I would want, with your permission, to quote the Article. article 144 (1) says:
“The Chief Justice shall be appointed by the President acting in consultation with the Council of State and with the approval of Parliament”.
Article 144 (2) says:
“The other Supreme Court Justices shall be appointed by the President acting on the advice of the Judicial Council, in consultation with the Council of State and with the approval of Parliament”.
Mr Speaker, even though the two clauses are under one article, the process is not the same for the Chief Justice and for the other Justices of the Supreme Court. Mr Speaker, so far, there is no evidence before us that this procedure has not been followed, which means that the Judicial Council has advised His Excellency the President and he has acted on that advice, consulted the Council of State and now seeks the approval of the House.
As I said Mr Speaker, there is no reason we would deny that approval,
because the Committee that we also put in place has gone through the process and I must commend them because they have submitted a very comprehensive report on the two nominees.
Mr Speaker, we happen to know the nominees, and Justice Appau was my mate. We were called to the Bar the same day and the same hour while Gabriel Pwamang was behind me.But I have known him from his youthful days and I know how he was moulded character-wise. So, Mr Speaker, I have no doubt that these are good materials endorsed by the Judicial Council, like the Council of State, and definitely, His Excellency the President of the Republic of Ghana.
Mr Speaker, it is often said that the law is in the bosom of the judge. But Mr Speaker, when that law comes out of the bosom, it is subject to criticism. So, we may disagree with some of the views that the Nominees expressed when they appeared before our Committee, and definitely, I disagree with some of the views that they expressed. But the Constitution is very clear on the qualification of a member of the Supreme Court. It says per article 128(4), and with your kind permission, I beg to quote:
“A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Justice of the Supreme Court unless he is of high moral character and of proven integrity and is of not less than fifteen years' standing as a lawyer”.
Mr Speaker, this is what guided the Judicial Council and this is also what informed the consultation from the Council of State and nobody here has any doubt about their years of experience, neither do we have any question. That is the reason they probed into the petitions that came and that did not affect the integrity of either of them, neither is there

Mr Alban S. K. Bagbin (NDC -- Nadowli/Kaleo)

any issue about the character of the nominees.

So, Mr Speaker, I agree with my Hon Colleagues that this is a good case for us to give approval to His Excellency the President to go ahead and appoint them to the Supreme Court. But I would just want to, with the greatest respect, to my Hon Colleague Justice Appau, who is making us proud by being nominated and going through this process to be a Member of the Supreme Court, that I disagree with his position on the law about the Yendi case, I disagree!

I disagree because even in the Report of the Commission, there were areas that they left for further investigation and prosecution. And we are talking about a criminal case, we are not talking of a civil case. I agree that if there are new evidences, they can be brought back and re-prosecuted. But the way it is stated, and it is being published, it is like that is the end of the day and I do not think that is the case.

I know that, that is not what he meant, but it is important for us to emphasise that the criminal cases can still be brought to court. Not only those that went to court which would need new evidence but there are others that have not been to court and I believe that they can be sent to court for prosecution; that is my humble view.

I also disagree with him on the statement he made about the law of war because I disagree that what happened in Yendi amounted to war. I disagree; and as I said, because the law is now out of their bosom, I can criticise it before them, I had no opportunity to do so. Anybody looking at the Geneva Convention and the law on the war would see that what actually happened in Yendi could not be described

as a situation of war. It was a feud between two factions from the same family -- that is not a war situation. And we know that under our law, the only person who can declare war in Ghana is His Excellency the President. I would want to put this on record as my disagreement on this state of the law on war.

Mr Speaker, apart from that, I have gone through the Report and I agree with his views on most of the other questions that we put before him and I would want to emphasise one issue; the issue of decoupling the position of Attorney- General from that of the Minister for Justice.

There are some people who say that it can be done under the present Constitu- tion. I do not think so. It cannot be done. We can only do it, if we reform the Constitution to be receptive to such an amendment. But as of now, it cannot be done.

But from 1957, the position of the Attorney-General was different from that of the Minister for Justice. For some simple reasons, we were convinced that it would serve the interest of the nation better if we combined them. But we have seen from experience that it is not serving the interest of the nation better and there is nothing wrong with going back to do Sankofa and decoupling them. I believe it is an issue we should take up seriously.

Mr Speaker, let me say a word about Mr Gabriel Pwamang. I personally had to probe him when the petitions came up and went further to ask other people about the merits of those petitions and I am satisfied that the petitions have no merit. So, I am happy that the Committee has recommended him for our approval.

There is one issue I would want to add my voice to. It is the issue of appointing

Mr Speaker

Hon Member for Wenchi?

Prof. George Yaw Gyan-Baffour

Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader is actually misleading the House. He is trying to truncate history by just saying he lost those elections. Can he not give a reason why he lost that?

Mr Speaker

Did he lose or win?

Prof. Gyan-Baffour

He was cheated -- [Laughter.]

Mr Speaker

Hon Member for Wenchi, did he win the election?

Prof. Gyan-Baffour

He lost the election but it was not fair.

Mr Speaker

Did he win or lose the election?

Prof. Gyan-Baffour

Mr Speaker, he lost because it was an unfair one -- [Laughter.]

Mr Speaker

Hon Members, I believe that the point being made by the Hon Majority Leader is factually correct. We can mention a number of people in the Supreme Court who were politicians; Justice N. Y. B. Adade who was a Member of Parliament and a former Minister and a whole lot of them. That is the crux of his argument and I think that we should not waste time on these things. It is factually correct and one can mention a number of them.
Yes, Hon Member for Okere?

Mr Dan K. Botwe

Mr Speaker, I do agree totally with you and the Hon Majority Leader on that point. I would even have no problem if the Supreme Court Judges would wear their party T- shirts to sit. I would have no problem at all.
It is just that I thought that point could still be made without emphasising on the outcome of the contest. [Uproar] - He could still have made the point that there was somebody called Edward Akuffo- Addo who had contested partisan elections before and that he was on the bench where he acquitted himself very well. That could still be made.
The outcome of the contest does not make it any less partisan and I thought the point that was being made, just as you have emphasised -- [Uproar] -- The point that is being made, which you have emphasised and I am even adding that I totally agree, could still have been made without the emphasis -- is it maybe to create humour. That is fine. But the

Mr Dan K. Botwe

emphasis on the point, that he lost, for me, was not very necessary.

Mr Bagbin

Mr Speaker, my reference to our most honoured and illustrious former President and Retired Supreme Court Judge and even Chief Justice - I said illustrious; that is how I referred to him.
I cannot take away anything from him. He has left a very good legacy whether it is at the Bench or in politics. I respect that. He actually contested three times at home; and could his own people have cheated him? -- [Laughter] -- I do not agree to that.
Mr Speaker, I even said I served under Justice Seth Twum. I worked in his Chambers and he was also a Member of Parliament before becoming a Justice of the Supreme Court. So, when I heard people raising it on the airwaves -- you know this debate is not only restricted here,it is also for the general public that is why I referred to it that it is not a disqualification.
As of today, we are aware that his Lordship Justice Kobiah was a Member of this House but he is in the Court of Appeal. There are a number of them. So, we should let the good people know that the fact that if one decides to serve his people in a political position that does not disqualify him from going to the highest Court of the land. [Interruption] No -- [Laughter]
Mr Speaker, having said this, I would want to add that Mr Gabriel Pwamang, while studying his Law at the University of Ghana, Legon, had to act as an assistant to Dr Seidu Daannaa who is now the Hon Minister for Chieftaincy and Traditional Affairs. You all know that Dr
Seidu Daannaa is physically challenged and so he had to add that duty and he performed it to the admiration of everybody. So, one can see the kind of heart that such a person would develop.
It is important that we note that, because one must have a strong character to be able to do this and he did it so well,today, Dr Seidu Daannaa is a shining example of what the physically challenged can achieve when given equal oppor- tunity.
So, Mr Speaker, I would want this to be added to his credentials and to say that we still await more nominees to the Supreme Court because the number is still not up to what we are looking at.
In fact, I am happy one of the Judges proposed 15. I am saying this because of Constitutional cases. In various jurisdictions, they have a Constitutional Court which is an arm of the Supreme Court. We do not have that here and we are combining all. So, 15 is quite a good number and I believe that His Excellency, the President, would take a very strong view of this and we would --

Prof. Gyan-Baffour

Mr Speaker, I think the Hon Majority Leader is pre-empting the appointment of those who are going to be nominated, that they should be politicians and that should not be a problem. I think that is where he is getting to, and it is a very dangerous area.
He is citing the United States of America (USA) and all that. In the USA, those who go into the lower courts are all elected, so with that one there is a clear line of politics involved.
Here, it is not like that. So, if he is saying that it is all right for politicians to do that, sending that message is wrong.

Mr Speaker

Hon Member for Wenchi, recently, I decided to google the background of the current Chief Justice of the USA. If you google it, you would see clearly that his party affiliation as a Republican has been put there. That is the point the Hon Majority Leader is making.

Prof. Gyan-Baffour

Mr Speaker, you are right, but what I am also saying is that, their system requires that, those at the lower courts are all elected and not appointed. They are voted for at the polls. That is why it has the political colour in the USA.
Mr Speaker, but here it is not like that. So, if he is saying that because of that the next one should probably be a politician, that is a very dangerous thing to say at this point. Otherwise, it pre-empts whoever the authority is to bring in Hon Members of Parliament and party chairmen into the Supreme Court. That is not a very good sign at all.

Mr Bagbin

Mr Speaker, I may have to put some effort in trying to speak clearly because what my good senior, Hon Prof Gyan-Baffuor, has just stated, I did not say. My intention is not to encourage any President to continue to appoint politicians into the Supreme Court.
Mr Speaker, the point he raised just underscored and emphasised the issue that, the fact that you are a politician does not disqualify you from serving in the Judiciary. This is because in the USA, they are all politicians.
In fact, I was in Texas when they even voted for their State Attorney. Even for the State Attorneys they vote. I know that, and I have some knowledge on the laws of the USA.
So, Mr Speaker, I would want to add my voice that we approve the two nominees and urge H.E the President to
expedite action in the rest of the list, that might have been recommended to him for appointment to the Supreme Court.
Well, we need to strengthen our Judiciary, which is one of the areas that we are not placing some emphasis. We seem to be leaving them behind. We need to strengthen the Judiciary because certainty of investment or whatever in the country is key to getting people to come into the country. There have been a lot of issues raised sometimes about the certainty of the law. I believe that we need to strengthen them.
One of the issues was raised when it was said that they do not have the requisite technical support to do research on some of the cases. In fact, we have taken some of the retired Supreme Court Judges on, on some of the decisions that they have delivered. After a second thought, they felt their position should have been different.
So, it is important for us as a country to focus on the Judiciary; strengthen them, give them the requisite tools, and I am sure they would deliver.
With this, Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker

Hon Members, that brings us to the end of the debate. I would now put the Question.
Question put and Motion agreed to.

Mr Speaker

Hon Members, in accordance with article 144 (2) of the Constitution and Order 172 of our Standing Orders, this House has approved the nomination of Mr Justice Yaw Apau and Mr Gabriel Pwamang for the appointment by H.E. the President as Justices of the Supreme Court.

Mr Speaker

Hon Majority Leader, what item are we taking?

Mr Bagbin

Mr Speaker, I would propose that we take item number 7 on the Order Paper -- The Right to Information Bill, 2013.

Mr Speaker

Hon Majority Leader, what I propose to do is that we have a number of Hon Ministers in the House, and their Questions are pending. I would want us to go back to Questions.
So, I would let the Hon Minister move the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill, the Hon Chairman of the Committee would submit the Committee's Report and then we defer the debate to tomorrow.
Hon Majority Leader, is my suggestion acceptable to the House?

Mr Bagbin

Mr Speaker, this is just to try to remind the House that the Motion has already been taken, and the Report of the Committee has been presented. So, in essence, it should have been a continuation of the debate.

Mr Speaker

Has the Motion been moved earlier?

Mr Bagbin

Mr Speaker, I thought so.

Mr Speaker

No! We have not.

Mr Bagbin

Mr Speaker, my attention is being drawn to the fact that the Report was laid, but the Motion was not taken. So, we could take the Motion, the Report would be presented and then we could adjourn to another day.
Mr Speaker, but my worry is that, always after Question time,we have Hon Members, because of the vibrancy of the Questions and Answers, , leaving to take some respite. I had wanted us to take the other items on the Order Paper before we go to Question time. That is why we applied for the order of Business to be varied.
Mr Speaker, after that, we would just take the Third reading of the Nuclear Regulatory Authority Bill, 2015, and then we would go to the Questions.

Mr Speaker

Hon Majority Leader, so you agree the Hon Attorney General and Minister for Justice moves the Motion, we submit the Committees Report or we take one contribution from the Hon Ranking Member of the Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee, and then we defer.

Mr Bagbin

No, we do not need to take the contribution of the Hon Ranking Member. We can defer the debate to another day.

Mr Speaker

Very well.
Hon Members, item number 7 on the Order Paper -- Attorney-General and Minister for Justice.
12. 50 p.m.

Chairman of the Committee (Mr Magnus K. Amoatey)

Mr Speaker, I rise to support the Motion moved by the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. In so doing, Mr Speaker, I present your Committee's Report.
Introduction
The Right to Information Bill was presented to Parliament and read the first time on Tuesday, 12th November,
2013. In accordance with article 106(4) and (5) of the Constitution and Order 179 of the Standing Orders of the House, the Rt. Hon. Speaker referred the Bill to the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parl iamentary Affai r s for consideration and report.
The Committee during the considera- tion of the Bill received Memoranda from the under-listed organisations:
i. The Forum for Former Members of Parliament
ii. The Coalition on the Right to Information, Ghana
iii. The Office of the National Chief Imam and the Muslim Commu- nity Ghana
IV. The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI, Africa Office)
v. The Perfector of Sentiments Foundation (POS)
vi. Persons with Disabilities in Ghana
Represen tat ives of the above organisations also participated in the Committee's deliberations on the Bill. Officials from the Drafting Division of the Ministry of Justice and Attorney- General's Depar tmen t were in attendance at the meetings to assist the Committee. Also in attendance as resource person was a former Member of Parliament, former Chairman of the Committee and former Deputy Minister for Justice and Deputy Attorney- General, Hon Kwame Osei- Prempeh who acted as a resource person.
The Committee would like to express its appreciation to all who participated in its deliberations especially, the

Chairman of the Committee (Mr Magnus K. Amoatey)

The Principles stated inter alia that:
i. member countries should be encouraged to regard freedom of information as a legal and enforceable right;
ii. there should be a presumption in favour of disclosure and governments should promote a culture of openness.
iii. the right to information may be subject to limited exemptions but they should be drawn narrowly.
iv. governments should maintain and preserve records
v. decisions to access records and information should be subject to independent reviews.
In 2002, the African Union (AU) Commission on Human and People's Rights adopted the “Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa” to supplement the African Charter which provides that “every individual shall have the right to receive information”.
These principles are as follows;
i. everyone has the r igh t to access information held by public bodies;
ii. right to access information held by private bodies which is necessary for the exercise or protection of any right;
iii. refusal to disclose information should be subject to appeal to an independent body or courts;
iv. public bodies should proactively publish information of signifi- cant interest to the public; and
v. no one should be subject to any sanctions for releasing in good faith information on wrong doing or information which will disclose a serious threat to heal th , safety or the environment.
While the Declaration of 2002 and other such laws adopted by the AU Commission have expanded on State Parties' obligations under the African Charter, they do not specifically provide guidance on the form and content of the legislation to be enacted to give effect to these obligations at the domestic level.
The AU Commission on Human and People's Rights has therefore gone further to provide a Model Law on Access to Information for Africa. The purpose of the Model Law is to provide detailed and practical content to the legislative obligations of Member States to the African Charter with respect to the right of access to information.
The specific form in which such laws would be adopted has however been left for the individual State parties to determine, including the nature and scope of adjustments required by their constitutions and the structure of their own legal system.
In Ghana, right to information is guaranteed by the Constitution. Article 21(l) (f) of the Constitution provides that “All persons have the r ight to information subject to such qualifica- tions and laws as are necessary in a democratic society.
The fundamental principles under- pinning any genuine and effective right to information legislation include transparency, openness, effective participation of the population in the process of governance, accountability
and the greater participation of the populace in public affairs.
Efforts to operationalise the right of access to information began in 1999 when a Bill was drafted and reviewed in 2003, 2005 and 2007 but was never presented to Parliament.
The first practical attempt at enacting the law on the right to information, was made when the Bill was presented to Parliament on 5th February, 2010 and referred to the Joint Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affair s and Communications for consideration and report.
The Join t Committee organised regional consultations in six (6) Regions of the Country and collated views of Ghanaians on the Bill. Unfortunately however, the Fifth Parliament could not finalise the discussions on the Bill for its passage before that Parliament's term came to an end.
The continued realisation of the importance of the right to information and the desire by Government to ensure that there is transparency in governance has compelled Government to lay the Bill in Parliament once again after having incorporated earlier suggestions into the Bill.
Object of the Bill
The Bill is for the purpose of giving substance to article 21(1)(f) of the Constitution by providing for access to official information held by government agencies and private entities performing public functions; and the qualifications and conditions under which the access would be obtained.
Observations
The Committee after its discussions made i ts observat ions under the following headings:
i. Exemptions
ii. Coverage of the Law
iii. Ministerial Responsibility
iv. Appeal/Review Process
v. Appeal to Supreme Court
vi. Payment of Fees
vii. Time Line
Exemptions
The Committee observed that the exemption provision on information not to be disclosed are too wide. Too many exemptions would defeat the purpose of the Bill.
The purpose of the Bill is to allow for transparency and accountability in governance. Too many exemptions would erode whatever benefits the law intends to achieve. The Committee is of the view that every exemption must be subjected to the public interest test. The right to information Law in Nigeria for example states in part that
“Notwithstanding………………an application for information shall not be denied where the public in terest in disclosing the information outweighs whatever injury that disclosure would cause”. Section 25(1) of the AU Model Law states that “notwith- standing any of the exemptions in this Part, an information holder may on ly r efuse a requester access to information if the harm to the interest protected under the relevant exemption that would result from the release of the information demonstrably outweighs the public interest in the release of the information:.

Clause 18 of the Bill lists four (4) instances where disclosure of information would not be permitted. The right of access to information law is to fight corruption and therefore the large range of exemptions in the Bill must not be encouraged. The public interest considerat ion is consisten t wi th international best practice and human rights norms that subject exemptions to a genuine public interest override.

Publ ic in terest i s not a closed category and the danger of a limited public interest override clause is that it may omit an unanticipated situation where the public interest requires that the exemption gives way to disclosure. The Committee has therefore proposed amendments to the exemption Clauses in line with international best practice.

Scope of the Bill

The Committee also observed that the Bill is applicable to only information held by government agencies. The Committee sees it to be too restrictive and therefore the coverage must be widened to cover private bodies that perform public functions with public funds. The Committee is of the view that the public should be able to have right of access to information in the custody of private bodies or agencies especially if the disclosure is in the public interest.

It is therefore important to widen the scope to cover private bodies which perform public functions with public funds. It is a fact that in modern governance, non-state actors influence the destinies of millions of people and hence, the necessity to extend the coverage to private bodies.

The Committee therefore proposes that the term “government body” running through the Bill be deleted and the words “public institution” inserted. This is

applicable to both South Africa and Liberia. In both jurisdictions, the right of access to information applies to private entities that receive public resources and benefits or engage in public functions or provides public services, particularly in respect of information relating to the public resources, benefits or services.

Ministerial Responsibility

Clause 53 (1) of the Bill states “The Minister responsible for Justice has minister ia l r esponsibi li ty for the effective implementation of this Act and may for that purpose, issue written guidelines to agencies and ministries”. The Committee is of the firm conviction that the provision may not allow for independence of the process since the purpose of the Bill is to ensure transparency and accountability in governance.

It is the considered view of the Committee that the ministerial oversight responsibility should be replaced with an independent commission established under the Act to ensure independence in the review process.

The Commission is to have oversight responsibility for the implementation of the Act. The Committee has therefore proposed the establishment of an independent commission which will have oversight responsibility for the implementation of the law. The Committee therefore, using the AU Model Law has made proposals for the establishment of the Commission which would see to the effective operation of the Act.

Appeal and Review process

Clause 38 of the Bill provides that “a person aggrieved by a decision of the information officer of an agency may submit an application for review of that

decision to the Minister responsible for the agency”. The Bill thus places the internal review on the Minister. The Committee envisages that most of the information to be sought would be government information and hence, the Minister being an interested party may have the tendency to be bias. Apart from that, the Minister may invariably be too busy with other core functions of the Ministry to have time for internal reviews under the Law.

The internal review function to the Committee must be taken away from the Minister and given to a non-political head of the public institution. This becomes more compelling in the light of the Committee's proposal to include private institutions performing public functions with public funds. In India, a person dissatisfied with a request appeals first to a senior officer and further to the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission.

In Nigeria, the Law does not make provision for internal review but appeals go to the High Court for review. In line with the amendment proposed to clause 38, the Committee has made consequential amendments to the relevant clauses affected by the review process by the Minister.

Appeal to Supreme Court

The Committee observed that section 42 of the Bill makes provision for any person who is refused access to information by an agency to appeal to the Supreme Court for judicial review. It is the view of the Committee that most people would not have the money, determination nor resources to apply for judicial review at the Supreme Court. Whereas the purpose of a right to information law is

to make it easier for citizens to access information, the appeal to the Supreme Court would act as a deterrent to most people from pursuing the appeals process.

In the United Kingdom, experience has shown that most cases end up at the level of the Information Commissioner or at the Information Tribunal. In India, appeals from Information Review Officers go to either the State Information Commission or the Central Information Commission which are easily accessible to the citizens. In Nigeria, as mentioned earlier, appeals go the High Court. It is the recommen- dation of the Committee that appeal from Information Review Officers must end up at the High Court and not in the Supreme Court.

Payment of fees

The Committee further observed that provisions on payment of fees for access to information are scattered in different parts of the Bill. In some instances, the provisions appear to be inconsistent with each other. While some of the provisions suggest that it is the agency that determines the fees to be charged, other provisions appear to vest in the Attorney-General the power of establish- ing a scale of fees for all the public institutions. The Committee has therefore realigned all the provisions on payment of fees and brought clarity in the Provisions.

The Committee also noted that cost should not be an impediment to the engagement of essential fundamental human right such as the r ight to information. In almost all the jurisdictions where access to information laws are in operation, fees are charged for the provision of the information. The fee charged in the entire Commonwealth and Africa is limited to the cost of reproducing the information for the applicant.

Mr Speaker

Hon Members, if you look at the Report, it is a 69 page Report; out of which 50 pages are devoted to amendments. This is a very important Bill, I want you to go back, refresh your memory for tomorrow, so that we start the debate on this Motion. In my over 20 years here I have never come across this situation and therefore we defer the debate on the Motion to tomorrow.
Hon Members thank you very much. Item number (6) on the Order Paper, Hon Minister for Environment, Science, Technology and Innovation.

Mr Speaker

Hon Majority Leader?

Mr Bagbin

Mr Speaker, I apologise for the -- [Interruption.] -- I should have sought the permission of your good- self and the indulgence of my Hon Colleagues to permit the Hon Deputy Minister for Environment, Science Technology and Innovation to move the Motion for and on behalf of the Hon Minister.
I apologise that it was not done before she moved the Motion, So the proper thing should be done.

Mr Speaker

Very well, no objection.
Hon Deputy Minister, move the Motion on behalf of your Hon Minister.

Mr Speaker

Mr Second Deputy Speaker to take the Chair.

Mr Babgin

Mr Speaker, while waiting for the Second Deputy Speaker to take

Mr Speaker

Very well.

Mr Speaker

Item number 5 (b)
By the Chairman of the Committee --
Report of the Finance Committee on the Income Tax Bill, 2015.

Mr Speaker

We now move to Questions.

Mr Bagbin

Yes, Mr Speaker. The Minister for Gender, Children and Social Protection is available.

Mr Speaker

Hon Members, we start with Question number 448 standing in the name of the Hon Member for Oforikrom, Ms Elizabeth Agyeman.

Minister for Gender, Children and Social Protection (Mrs Nana Oye Lithur)

Mr Speaker, the Ministry had some support from its donor partners for social interventions between 2010 and 2014.
1. Support for the “Eban” Elderly Welfare Programme
In 2014, the UNFPA provided a total amount of twenty thousand two hundred and forty Ghana cedis (GH¢20,240.00) to support the implementation of the Eban Elderly Welfare Programme which consists of creation of database of the elderly and the social protection intervention of providing 50 per cent rebate in fares for the elderly who use the services of the Metro Mass Transport buses.
So far, 1,016 cards have been issued to elderly persons in pilot districts in the Greater Accra and Central Regions. Presently, the Government of Ghana is supporting the issuance of 25,000 cards for 50 districts for 2015.
2. Care Reform Initiative (CRI)
The Care Reform Initiative (CRI) is a programme to deinstitutionalise children and to promote family and community based care. Under our Care Reform Initiative, foreign donor support was GH¢10,361.00 in 2010; GH¢143,505.00 in 2011; GH¢3,030.00 in 2012; GH¢153,220.00 in 2013; and GH¢183,872.00 in 2014.
3. Orphaned and Vulnerable Children
(OVC)
This is a programme to help establish a more consistent and stable approach to caring for vulnerable children in Ghana so that each child would be assured of a permanent home in a supportive and loving family through an intersectoral Committee in the regions.
Foreign donor support for interven- tions on orphaned and vulnerable children was GH¢104,595.00 in 2010; GH¢68,325.00 in 2011; GH¢8,490.00 in 2013; and GH¢18,980.00 in 2014. There were no donor receipts in 2012 for the orphaned and vulnerable children initiative.
4. Juvenile Justice Administration
The Juvenile Justice Programme is a programme to ensure that children in conflict and/or in contact with the law are given the necessary treatment in accordance with the law or in their best interest. Foreign donor support for this activity was GH¢92,212.00 in 2010; GH¢65,767.00 in 2011; GH¢18,168.00 in 2012; and GH¢46,600.00 in 2014. We did not receive any donor support for this activity in 2013.
5. Shelter
The Ministry has a programme for identifying and operationalising shelters which are temporary places where abused children, missing children and any child in need of care and protection are kept pending completion of the necessary legal or administrative processes.
Under support to shelter for abused children, we received GH¢15,570.00 in 2010; and GH¢31,440.00 in 2011. GH¢25,060 in 2012, GH¢26,420 in 2013 and GH¢27,220 in 2014. We have not had donor support for this activity since 2012.
Mr Speaker, we have provided a summary of the foreign donor receipts of 2010 to 2014 in the document that we submitted to this House. The cumulative total amounts to GH¢118,690.00

SPACE FOR TABLE - PAGE 4 -

Ms Agyeman

Mr Speaker, part of what she was reading was quite different from what is in the Order Paper. She said something like there was nothing for the Kayaye but it is not here. My Question was specifically about the Kayayei.
Apart from that, the Hon Minister is quoting her figures in thousands and I do not seem to understand.

Debates of 25 Jun 2015

PRAYERS 11 a.m.

VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 11 a.m.

Mr Spe ak e r 11 a.m.

Mr Speaker 11 a.m.

Mr Alfred K. Agbesi 11 a.m.

Mr Speaker 11 a.m.

Mr Agbesi 11 a.m.

Mr Speaker 11 a.m.

Mr Speaker 11 a.m.

Mr Speaker 11 a.m.

Mr Owusu-Bio 11 a.m.

Mr Speaker 11 a.m.

Mr Ebo Barton-Odro 11 a.m.

MOTIONS 11:10 a.m.

Chairman of the Appointments Committee (Mr Ebo Barton-Odro) 11:10 a.m.

Chairman of the Appointments Committee (Mr Ebo Barton-Odro) 11:10 a.m.

Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.

Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.

Mr Kobina Tahir Hammond (NPP-- Adansi Asokwa) 11:20 a.m.

Mr Kobina Tahir Hammond (NPP-- Adansi Asokwa) 11:20 a.m.

Mr Speaker 11:20 a.m.

Mr Hammond 11:20 a.m.

Mr Speaker 11:20 a.m.

Mr Hammond 11:20 a.m.

Mr Speaker 11:20 a.m.

Mr Hammond 11:20 a.m.

Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.

Mr Hammond 11:30 a.m.

Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.

Mr Agbesi 11:30 a.m.

Mr Hammond 11:30 a.m.

Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.

Mr Hammond 11:30 a.m.

Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.

Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu 11:30 a.m.

Mr Hammond 11:30 a.m.

Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.

Mr Alfred K. Agbesi 11:30 a.m.

Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.

Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.

Mr Alfred K. Agbesi (NDC -- Ashaiman) 11:30 a.m.

Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.

Prof George Yaw Gyan-Baffour (NPP- -Wenchi) 11:30 a.m.

Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.

Mr Magnus Kofi Amoatey (NDC-- Yilo Krobo) 11:30 a.m.

Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu (NPP -- Bekwai) 11:50 a.m.

Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.

Mr Hammond 11:50 a.m.

Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.

Mr Osei-Owusu 11:50 a.m.

Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.

Mr Joe Ghartey (NPP -- Esikado/ Ketan) 11:50 a.m.

Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.

Mr Ghartey 11:50 a.m.

Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.

Mr Ghartey 11:50 a.m.

Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.

Mr Ghartey 11:50 a.m.

Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.

Mr Dominic B. A. Nitiwul (NPP -- Bimbilla) noon

Mr Dominic B. A. Nitiwul (NPP -- Bimbilla) 12:10 p.m.

Mr Nitiwul 12:10 p.m.

Mr James Agalga (NDC— Builsa North) 12:10 p.m.

Mr Speaker 12:10 p.m.

Mr Alban S. K. Bagbin (NDC -- Nadowli/Kaleo) 2:20 p.m.

Mr Alban S. K. Bagbin (NDC -- Nadowli/Kaleo) 2:20 p.m.

Mr Speaker 12:30 p.m.

Prof. George Yaw Gyan-Baffour 12:30 p.m.

Mr Speaker 12:30 p.m.

Prof. Gyan-Baffour 12:30 p.m.

Mr Speaker 12:30 p.m.

Prof. Gyan-Baffour 12:30 p.m.

Mr Speaker 12:30 p.m.

Prof. Gyan-Baffour 12:30 p.m.

Mr Speaker 12:30 p.m.

Mr Dan K. Botwe 12:30 p.m.

Mr Dan K. Botwe 12:30 p.m.

Mr Bagbin 12:30 p.m.

Prof. Gyan-Baffour 12:40 p.m.

PRAYERS

VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT

Mr Spe ak e r

Mr Speaker

Mr Alfred K. Agbesi

Mr Speaker

Mr Agbesi

Mr Speaker

Mr Speaker

Mr Speaker

Mr Owusu-Bio

Mr Speaker

Mr Ebo Barton-Odro

MOTIONS

Chairman of the Appointments Committee (Mr Ebo Barton-Odro)

Chairman of the Appointments Committee (Mr Ebo Barton-Odro)

Mr Speaker

Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Kobina Tahir Hammond (NPP-- Adansi Asokwa)

Mr Kobina Tahir Hammond (NPP-- Adansi Asokwa)

Mr Speaker

Mr Hammond

Mr Speaker

Mr Hammond

Mr Speaker

Mr Hammond

Mr Speaker

Mr Hammond

Mr Speaker

Mr Agbesi

Mr Hammond

Mr Speaker

Mr Hammond

Mr Speaker

Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu

Mr Hammond

Mr Speaker

Mr Alfred K. Agbesi

Mr Speaker

Mr Speaker

Mr Alfred K. Agbesi (NDC -- Ashaiman)

Mr Speaker

Prof George Yaw Gyan-Baffour (NPP- -Wenchi)

Mr Speaker

Mr Magnus Kofi Amoatey (NDC-- Yilo Krobo)

Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu (NPP -- Bekwai)

Mr Speaker

Mr Hammond

Mr Speaker

Mr Osei-Owusu

Mr Speaker

Mr Joe Ghartey (NPP -- Esikado/ Ketan)

Mr Speaker

Mr Ghartey

Mr Speaker

Mr Ghartey

Mr Speaker

Mr Ghartey

Mr Speaker

Mr Dominic B. A. Nitiwul (NPP -- Bimbilla)

Mr Dominic B. A. Nitiwul (NPP -- Bimbilla)

Mr Nitiwul

Mr James Agalga (NDC— Builsa North)

Mr Speaker

Mr Alban S. K. Bagbin (NDC -- Nadowli/Kaleo)

Mr Alban S. K. Bagbin (NDC -- Nadowli/Kaleo)

Mr Speaker

Prof. George Yaw Gyan-Baffour

Mr Speaker

Prof. Gyan-Baffour

Mr Speaker

Prof. Gyan-Baffour

Mr Speaker

Prof. Gyan-Baffour

Mr Speaker

Mr Dan K. Botwe

Mr Dan K. Botwe

Mr Bagbin

Prof. Gyan-Baffour

Mr Speaker