Debates of 9 Jul 2018

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 and the Official Report.
rose
Mr Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah 10:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I tried to catch your eye. I would take you back to page 11 of the Votes and Proceedings.
Mr Speaker, on Thursday, the 5th of July, 2018, I recall that when we took the Motion on the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana and the Czech Republic for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital Gains, the Question was put but the Votes and Proceedings states that it was put on Friday.
Mr Speaker, the Question was put and the Motion agreed to on that Thursday. We were only left with the Resolution, but the Votes and Proceedings has it that, the Question was put and the Motion agreed
Mr Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Member. [Pause.]
Hon Yieleh Chireh, any difficulty?
Mr Joseph Yieleh Chireh 10:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, if the Hon Member is talking about record, the point is that if we had disagreed with the Memorandum, then it would have contradicted what was done. So unless he says that we should delete what we have done, they just put the Question. [Pause.]
Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, as the Hon Member for New Juaben South has indicated, the Question on one of the Agreements on the Avoidance of Double Taxation was put on Thursday.
There were two outstanding. Un- fortunately, they were all captured on Friday as if the Question had not been put on them. We had to put the Question on all of them. Later, I realised the mistake.
So, in order that it may not appear as if we have had to doubly approve of one, I guess, we need to tidy up and that would be left to the Hansard office to capture the first one as having been put and the second one deleted.
That is the essence of what the Hon Member for New Juaben South and the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Finance has said.
Mr Speaker, having said that I noticed that on Friday, we captured 226 Hon Members as present in the Chamber. I recall that the Hon Professor Gyan- Baffour was here briefly. He has been captured as absent.
I also saw the Hon Cynthia Mamle Morrison in the Chamber briefly. I recalled vividly, these two were in the Chamber. Maybe we would have to look at that of Professor Gyan-Baffour and Mrs Cynthia Morrison.
Mr Speaker, as I was saying, the Table Officers and indeed the House as a whole may have to have a well-designed mechanism of registering as present those of us who are indeed here.
Mr Speaker, I cannot believe that we had 226 Hon Members in this Chamber. We need to use this to instill discipline in ourselves and if it is made to appear that figures are bloated every time in the Votes and Proceedings, that will be problematic for some of us.
The Hon Whips need to use the Votes and Proceedings to assist the various political parties present in this Chamber to instill discipline, but if it is made to appear as if, on any given day, we have numbers exceeding 200, when in reality, we know that that is not the case, it really inflicts a mortal wound on the Hon Whips in their attempt to instill discipline in Hon Colleagues.
Mr Speaker, I am not really faulting the Table Officers, I am saying to ourselves that we should devise a full-proof mechanism to see who is present in this Chamber and who is not.
Mr Agbodza 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I can only be grateful for the comments by the Hon Majority Leader. It is difficult to consume and accept the fact that when we take the Votes and Proceedings and we see over 200 Hon Members present in Parliament,
but the cameras would show for the Sitting that we are far less than that.
Mr Speaker, I believe the way of capturing presence in the House is a bit not secured. You promised in the past that there was a gadget attached to our consuls, and I remember you being concerned about the suggestion of finding a way of probably, biometrically clocking Hon Members of Parliament in and out.
It is not enough for me to put my head through the door for 10 minutes and walk away and that represents the fact that I have been in Parliament for the whole day.
So I believe in adding my voice to what the Hon Majority Leader has said. However, I think this is still in the domain of Leadership to advise you on the best way to capture Hon Members of Parliament who were present on a particular day. Failure to do this may result in the loss of confidence of the public in us.
So I just want to thank the Hon Majority Leader for this bold comment he has made this morning.
Mr Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Hon Members, thank you very much.
rose
Mr Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Hon Member, are you contributing to the point on hand?
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, rightly so.
Mr Speaker, we should not create the impression that when Hon Members are not in the Chamber, then they are absent from Parliament.
Alhaji I. A.B. Fuseini 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in fact, having called me, I have got some goose pimples listening to your comments.
The entire of last week, when we started considering the Legal Aid Commission Bill, we had to struggle to get the numbers; the cameras are always here. I recall time and again, your admonition to Hon Members of Parliament, not only to come in early, but to also ensure that they remain in the House.
Mr Speaker, all these can be solved if all of us have a meeting -- the Committee of the Whole to fashion out a mechanism to ensure that those who attend Parliament are registered as having attended Parliament. That is the only way we can get Hon Members of Parliament to come, sign in and not sit in their offices.
It is true that some Hon Members do come, like the Hon Chairman of the House Committee wanted to allude to. That some Hon Members do come, attend meetings after which they do not come back to the Chamber and go back to their offices and would be registered as having attended Parliament.
This is very serious and I believe we need to think out a solution to that.
Mr Joseph Y. Chireh 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe that this matter needs to be carefully looked at. One of them -- I have been raising this that when we attend functions outside this country, the time they give there, if it is a conference and they say 10.00 o'clock, whether you are there or not, they could start.
But what has been frustrating those who come very early is that we come and sit here, and they say people are not yet in so Mr Speaker cannot come in.
I believe if we want to resolve this matter, when it is time, walk in and if nobody is there, whether the people want us to remain Hon Members will be decided by the next election.
Mr Speaker, secondly, the Leadership are confusing too many things. When I came to Parliament, I was told that you cannot hold a meeting before 10.00 o'clock outside Parliament. You would have to come to the Chamber, when you have resolved the matter, at least, take some few issues here and after 11.00 o'clock or after Sitting, you hold the meeting.
Today that is not what happens; people do not come and the Majority Leadership who are in-charge of Government Business allow people to go for meetings, the Chamber is not full and you cannot come in before 10.00 o'clock. I think this is wrong.
We have to be principled in what we do and most importantly, we have to take Business seriously. Why should we be doing what we do? This is because nobody is sanctioned, and I recall that there was a controversy about whether people have attended Parliament or not because of the signing of that register in the Mails rooms.
A ruling was supposed to have been made by one of your predecessors about this and that further confused every issue. You recall that some people say ‘they attended a Committee meeting on that day so, they should have been present'. ‘You know I was outside the country or you approved it'.
All these excuses are not good enough because the Standing Orders and all the procedures we know should be applied and people have to be punished; I mean there is no other way.
Mr Speaker, name and shame should be the game; people who have persistently refused to sit in the Chamber and are gone -- come arguing. You need to crack the whip and I believe that the Leadership should sit and look at what we do.
As for Parliament, we must be taken seriously if we perform seriously. If we do not do that and expect people to respect us, I am sorry, they will not.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am happy you attended promptly to the issue raised by one of my Hon Colleagues in respect of those of them who attend Committee meetings.
Mr Speaker, the Standing Orders are very clear on this and the Standing Order that people have been citing is Standing Order 7 which defines Sitting. It says:
“Sitting” includes a period during which Parliament is sitting conti- nuously without adjournment and
a period during which it is in Committee;”
Mr Speaker, the “it” there means, Parliament. Parliament sits in committee. That is the Committee of the Whole and not the affiliate committees and so we cannot attend those committees and say that you are in Plenary. It does not obtain anywhere.
So that “it” is Parliament. When Parliament is in Committee; that is the Committee of the Whole, it is counted as part of the Parliament Sitting. You cannot go and sit in Obuasi and say that you are attending to Finance Committee meeting and so you should be marked present in the House. It is not done and people should have that understanding.
Mr Speaker, the issue about whether committee meetings should hold concurrently to Plenary Sittings?
Mr Speaker, I believe this is an issue that we have debated time and again and we came to the conclusion that committees cannot sit unless there are emergency situations. For instance, a referral may be made to a committee; it would be an urgent matter and the committee may have to attend to it and report to Parliament maybe within 24 hours.
Mr Speaker, that would be exempted, otherwise Committees are supposed to sit outside Plenary Sittings and that is after we close or before the House sits. We have related to this matter time and again, that we cannot continuously engage in this matter. Mr Speaker, it cannot go on interminably -- we have taken a decision and that is committees cannot sit when Parliament is sitting.
Committees would either sit before or after Plenary Sittings. This is the norm everywhere and we have told the Hon
Mr Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Breakfast would be provided. [Laughter.]
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:05 a.m.
Breakfast would be served to everybody, so Hon Members would have to be here at 8.00 a.m. before Parliament sits. The Committee of the Whole Meeting would precede Plenary Sitting. We want to set the tone and that is how it would be done.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Members attending to the Business of the House, and to ensure that Hon Members are present in the Chamber, as I said, we must fashion the best way out. I know that in some jurisdictions, where the Whip systems are very strong, when an Hon Member enters the Chamber he or she would report to the Hon Whip.
Perhaps going forward the Hon Whips would be given notebooks where Hon Members would mark themselves as being present and we would take it from there. Mr Speaker, otherwise, when these gadgets are fully operational they would go with biometrics and Hon Members would register because nobody can do it on their behalf.
The Hon Whips would also ensure that Hon Members would stay -- Hon Members would not just register and leave. The Hon Whips would ensure that
an Hon Member does not enter at 10.00 a.m. and leave five minutes after Prayers. This would put an Hon Member in a good stead or bad stead.
Mr Speaker, I believe we have said enough on this matter. Thank you very much.
Mr Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Hon Members, we have all agreed. In fact, this is a revisitation because this is a matter that has been flogged quite a number of times. I am particularly happy about Hon Yieleh Chireh's concluding remarks, that if we want to be respected then we must act in a certain manner.
It is as simple as that and may we not be the people who triggered the disrespect of Parliament. It is a very serious statement. I know that there are some Hon Members -- if we have to come here at 6.00 a.m, I know that the Hon Minister for the Interior would be here as well as the Hon Member for Adaklu.

There should be no compromise about the work, we must only look for the things that would enable the work to be done. Let us know that plenary is plenary, and I would not try to explain because everybody here knows what plenary is.

We come to plenary by all means and when it is necessary -- In fact, we all know that it could be necessary at one time or the other for a Committee to go out as if they are here, so that they would come and help the work to continue inside the Chamber.

It happens but of course the exception cannot be invoked as a rule and we all know this. So let us work seriously on this. We have made some advances towards the mechanisation of the attendance process that I spoke about in the early part of last year.

Sometimes administratively, we would like Parliament to actually appear as a master of its own procedures because we could start that administratively and we have started but we are going slowly.

Now, we would speed the process because it is obvious from this morning that we have the full support of Hon Members who are men and women and ladies and gentlemen of themselves; duly elected by the people of Ghana to represent the entire populace.

It is a very serious responsibility and we are encouraged. You saw the Clerk to Parliament talking with me -- the mechanisation process would start almost immediately and we would clock in.

It is not a matter of clocking in and going away because there would be clocking in and clocking out and there is a process that could actually monitor and track the actual movement so that a camera would do all these for us, including the time that an Hon Member comes and uses his or her finger print to clock out.

So we are encouraged and I could assure you that we would work on this accordingly.

Hon Members, I thank you very much for your cooperation.

The Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 6th July, 2018, as corrected is hereby adopted as the true record of proceedings.

Hon Members, item numbered 3 -- Question time.

Hon Minister for the Interior --

This is what I was referring to the other day, the Hon Minister for the Interior had been here on time as ordered to be here to answer Questions. Now, it is 11.15 a.m. before he gets the opportunity to do his work. This is the kind of thing that we would certainly want to avoid.

Hon Quashigah?
Dr Clement Abas Apaak 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, with your kind indulgence I wish to seek your permission to ask the Question on behalf of the Hon Member for Keta, Mr Richard Mawuli Kwaku Quashigah, who is indisposed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 11:05 a.m.
MINISTRY OF THE INTERIOR 11:05 a.m.
Minister for the Interior (Mr Ambrose Dery) 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the issue of payment by applicants for recruitment is informed by the cost associated with the process and procedures relating to the e- recruitment as well as other administrative expenditure.
Mr Speaker, prior to the current recruitment exercise being undertaken, the Ghana Immigration Service charged one hundred Ghana cedis (GH¢ 100.00) per
Dr Apaak 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in responding to the Question, the Hon Minister made references to other administrative expen- ditures. I would want to ask the Hon Minister to elucidate on what he means by other administrative expenditure.
Mr A. Dery 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have tried to be as elaborate as I could. Administrative may well relate also to use of stationery and what have you. But I have been as elaborate as I could, and even inspite of all that, we charged 50 per cent of what was charged in the year 2016.
Dr Apaak 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, this is my last follow-up question. I would be most grateful if the Hon Minister could inform the House of how many persons applied as far as this recruitment process was concerned?
Mr A. Dery 11:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, that is not a follow-up question; it is entirely a different question. And should the Hon Member of Parliament want an answer, he should file a Question.
If I had the figures off hand I would have given it to him, but certainly, it is not related and I do not have the exact figures with me.
Mr Speaker 11:15 a.m.
I thank you very much.
Question numbered 393, which stands in the name of the Hon Member for Amenfi Central.
Construction of a District Fire Service Office at Mansa Amenfi
393. Mr Peter Yaw Kwakye Ackah: asked the Minister for the Interior when a District Fire Service office will be constructed at Manso Amenfi, the District capital.
Mr A. Dery 11:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Amenfi District Assembly has allocated a structure to the Ghana National Fire Service which has to be renovated to the standard of a fire station.
To enable the structure be elevated to an appreciable standard, the Ghana National Fire Service is collaborating with the District Assembly to ensure that the renovation work is completed for personnel and fire appliances to be deployed to provide fire cover for the community.
Mr Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Yes, any follow-up question?
Mr Ackah 11:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I thank the Hon Minister for his wonderful Answer. However, my checks this morning indicated that there has not been any such facility from the District Assembly.
However, I must say that when I was the District Chief Executive (DCE), the head of the Assembly, we rented a premises for one year in 2013. Since then, the tenancy has expired.
I do not know whether that is what the Hon Minister is referring to, but my checks this morning indicated that there is no such facility.
Could he please explain more?
Mr A. Dery 11:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I must confess I have not followed. He was not audible or indeed, my ears are growing older.
Mr Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Hon Member, please, ask your question again.
Hon Minister, stand right in front of the podium.
Mr Ackah 11:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I said my checks this morning indicated that there has not been any such facility from the District Assembly. It might be that when I was a DCE in 2013, we rented a premises of such facility for the situation. But the tenancy has since expired, and the Ghana Fire Service could not operationalise it.
I would want to know whether that is what he is referring to? It was rented in 2013, and since then there has not been any facility.
Mr A. Dery 11:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, this is the information from Ghana National Fire Service. The Hon Member of Parliament is surmising that there was a structure that was rented for which the tenancy has expired.
I do not know those details, except to say that the Ghana National Fire Service is aware that there is a facility in which they are working with the Assembly to upgrade.
So it might well be the one that the rent has expired. I do not have those details, but I believe the Ghana National Fire Service is committed to making sure that whatever challenges or shortcomings are involved with the arrangement are rectified.
I count on the Hon Member of Parliament to assist in that exercise.
Mr Ackah 11:15 a.m.
Thank you very much.
I would follow up, but I think we would have to let the Ghana National Fire Service update their record because that record is far outmoded. In 2013/2014, the tenancy agreement expired, and since then, nothing has been done. So I would encourage the Ghana National Fire Service to update their records accordingly.
Mr Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Thank you very much.

Thank you very much Hon Minister, for attending to the House and answering our Questions.

Item number 4 -- Statements.

There is a Statement in the name of the Hon Member for Chereponi on retail trading by foreigners.
STATEMENTS 11:15 a.m.
Mr Samuel A. Jabanyite (NDC -- Chereponi) 11:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity. I rise to make a Statement on the Floor of this august House on retail trading by foreigners in Ghana.
Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Hon Minister for the Interior, we are particularly glad you are in the House at this moment. We all know your strict stance on enforcement of law, and I would be glad if you would make a contribution, whether at this moment or in due course of the proceedings before this Hon House.
Yes, Hon Member?
Ms Laadi A. Ayamba (NDC -- Pusiga) 11:25 a.m.
Thank you Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to the Statement ably made by my Hon Colleague on the issue of foreigners being involved in retail practices in markets in our country.
As the Hon Member who made the Statement mentioned, we have the laws and simply need to ensure that, we go by them. The unfortunate thing is that many a time, we speak about these laws, write them very well and put them in our books, yet we do not practice them. That is where our problem comes from most at times.
Mr Speaker, if we want to actually see that there are a lot of foreigners involved in the retail of items in our markets, we
should just take off some time and go to Makola Market, especially the Tudu area. There, we would realise that shoes especially are sold by foreigners.
When you first get there, you would not notice until you get into the shops. Then you would realise that our women whom you see seated in front of the shops are not the owners of the wares being sold. They are like middlemen who go to take the items and sell.
In the presentation, the maker of the Statement stated that they are not supposed to even invest in retail, but this is exactly what is going on. They pretend, to take the shops, and it is our women who take the things from them to sell just at the entrance of the shops.
So, one tends to wonder how they sell when they are inside? It is a simple trick, because mostly, our women do not have the resources or the capital to buy, they go into the shops, take the things, come out and sit in front of those same shops and sell.
The issue of retail is not just that they come out and sell themselves, but they use our women. It becomes a very difficult issue to tackle unless you get into the markets.
Mr Speaker, it is not only retail. I was surprised when I discovered -- suffice it to say, they might be Chinese -- that a truck load of goods was being offloaded by these same people, and those receiving it and loading it into the shops were also the same people. I suspect by their complexion, hair and stature that they are Chinese.
I asked myself if this was what was happening. They were even working as the kayayei that we are struggling to take off the streets, because they were
rose
Mr Andy Kwame Appiah-Kubi (NPP -- Asante Akim North) 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to associate myself with the Hon Member who made the Statement. This is a relevant issue he has brought to the fore.
Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Hon Appiah-Kubi has hijacked your call. It will come again. Hon Appiah-Kubi, you may go on.
Mr Appiah-Kubi 11:25 a.m.
I am very sorry. I did not intend to do that.
Mr Speaker, the issue of threshold, as described in the Ghana Investment Promotion Council (GIPC) law, is in respect of the company and not the person; we must be straight here. In fact, under the GIPC law, we have company status as resident companies, Ghanaian companies and foreign companies.
Mr Speaker, if the company is resident, it does not mean that the promoters obtained residence status automatically because they promote a resident company. For one to be able to attain the status of a resident, one needs to go through a certain regime of procedure to qualify.
But the impression being created is that, once someone is able to invest a certain amount of money into the economy, he automatically qualifies for resident status. That is not the law.
Therefore if companies, whether resident or foreign, import into the country, satisfying the threshold, those companies ought to operate through their officers who have to be Ghanaians, unless they have otherwise qualified to be a
citizen or a resident, for which reason they would attain a working permit.
Mr Speaker, the mere fact that one has some money to import goods into the country does not mean that automatically, one would acquire a working permit. The law must be interpreted correctly so that the companies so attaining the status of resident companies, would also not import people into the economy, who would hide under the cloak of a resident company and operate illegally.
Mr Speaker, those officers so-called of the company from outside the jurisdiction operating under the GIPC law, purporting to have acquired a right of stay as a result of the investment all operate illegally. Therefore we must be careful not to also create a barrier for companies that probably have money to invest in our country.
Nevertheless, we should also jealously guard those who qualify to work under such companies, so that the rights of citizens would not be taken by foreigners who would come under the cloak of their companies and also operate illegally in the country.
Mr Speaker, with these few words, I thank you very much.
Mr Daniel Kwesi Asiamah (NDC -- Buem) 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon Member who made this Statement.
As a marketer, I worked in Makola for several years before becoming an Hon Member of Parliament. It has been a fundamental problem in the market, where Ghanaians do not have or get the opportunity to raise enough capital and to do retail business. So many a time, we
hear allegations of even some Ghanaians fronting for these Chinese, Indians and other foreigners, to do business in the markets which is very absurd.
Mr Speaker, some of them come under the cover of employing Ghanaians. They would do so within the first and second years, and give vans to these Ghanaian youth to go round to sell these products. Before you would realise, those Ghanaian youth would be sacked and the new manager would be the Indian or Chinese.
I am not talking about these countries alone, but there are several foreigners who do this business in this country. It has become a critical problem.
Mr Speaker, going forward, some of us would like to urge Government, -- Today, you would realise that the real problem in this country is that some Ghanaians want to be rich overnight. So every business that is given to them, they would be ready to defend the foreigners to do that illegal business in this country and it is very worrying.
Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Free Zones Board that today, as we sit here -- Two weeks ago, the Free Zones Board asked that laws should be made to allow Ghanaians to do business with ease. Government must focus on that because most Ghanaians do not have enough capital to go into business.
So when these foreigners come with any sort of business, they call the youth to fund them and they would do this under cover.
Mr Speaker, some even go into contract marriages, so that when one wants to find out who owns the business, the woman or man would come forward, that the business is hers or his.
Mr Daniel Kwesi Asiamah (NDC -- Buem) 11:25 a.m.
However, the person behind this business is a foreigner who is not actually investing the real capital into the economy before doing that business.
Mr Speaker, today when you go to Tema Harbour, it is being expanded. When some of us get there, we cry because I ask myself a question: Are we producing enough to export for our harbours to be so expanded?
Ghanaians should be ready because the foreigners would dump a lot of goods into this country, and in no time, we would cry for our cedi but it would continue to fall. So, it is a wakeup call for all of us to find ways to ensure that the Ghanaian youth is employed.

So we would want to let you know that -- [Interruption] We would want to plead with the Government, that what is happening today --
Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Hon Member, you are getting too excited. If you look carefully into the rules of the game, you are not allowed to raise any controversy or generate any debate. The moment we reduce Statements on the Floor to that level, we defeat the purpose.
I kept quiet over one thing that you said -- “Government”. Is it succeeding Governments or which Government? Those are not necessary. It is part of the art of parliamentary debate to know these things.
Please withdraw and proceed because you were making some good points.
Mr Ashiamah 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I withdraw whatever I said that goes contrary to this House. I am not here to play politics but it is a very important issue --
Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Then do not play politics -- [Laughter.] Go on and make a national statement.
11. 45 a. m.
Mr Ashiamah 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would urge all of us at this particular point, that the time has come for all of us to take a look at the rules of the game, especially retail trading in this country, so that we would all work together.
This is because signals are not so beautiful for this nation.
Retail trading is being taken over by foreigners and as Ghanaians, we must rise up and make sure that we take our positions before we are overwhelmed.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Hon Minister for the Interior, I would plead with you to wait a bit --whatever you have to do to postpone it a bit so that there would be a couple more of contributions before you finally come in.
Please, Hon Member?
Mr Kojo Oppong-Nkrumah (NPP- Ofoase/Ayirebi) 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity. I would like to commend my Hon Colleague on the other Side for a very timely Statement.
Mr Speaker, I would want to focus on the role of Parliament when it comes to ensuring that laws that have been made
to tackle particular challenges in society actually do work.
Mr Speaker, I would want to focus on that because from my observation, we are doing our job in this House by legislating to tackle challenges such as the one that has been discussed here this morning.
Mr Speaker, the next step appears to be literally a complaint that it is left with the enforcement, but it is the enforcement; that is not working.
Mr Speaker, in this instance, it appears to me that the times have overtaken the particular provision in the GIPC Act as was enacted. The minimum investment requirement, as it is being talked about, how it is interpreted, whether it means a person or company, and whether indeed, that particular provision is still enforceable as it is today or not.
This is because when we pass a law, it becomes obsolete as people find ways round it.
Today, Ghanaians are using various instruments such as marriage and others, as have been mentioned, to circumvent these provisions. I believe that it behoves on us as a House to go a step further and not just lament over some of these things.
Mr Speaker, recently I had the privilege of joining one of your Committees to visit the South African Parliament and I observed something there, which I believe as a House we could also learn from.
I refer to a practice where Parliament does not only pass laws and lament about the lack of implementation, but also after a period, Parliament goes to re-examine how those laws are functioning; whether the laws are becoming obsolete, whether
there are loopholes or grey areas or whether the times have even overtaken those laws.
Then the necessary recommendations are made to tighten those loopholes, so that the laws are still relevant even as the society moves forward.
Mr Speaker, my contribution to this Statement is that, as has been suggested at your pleasure, if you would ask your Committee to look into this, perhaps, they may also be able to look into whether that particular provision under the GIPC Act is enough to tackle this challenge that we have today or whether we need some fresh legislation or tightening of same to deal with that challenge.
Mr Speaker, by extension, maybe, not just with this particular law, but some other laws that have been passed by this House, it may be a good time to take a second look at how they are being implemented; whether they are obsolete or whether they are achieving the objectives, so that they could be brought in tune with the times to deal with the real challenges for which they were passed.
Mr Speaker, one last thing I would want to speak to is the question of whether people bring in investments they claimed they would bring in.
Again, from my observation, organi- sations that seek to invest in our country quote an amount that they would want to invest in and they apply with same and we capture same as how much investment has been made.
But Mr Speaker, we may be getting to a point in time where we actually need proper validation of whether people have actually brought in the amount they said they would bring in and the benefits that we have as a country, given them in return
Mr Kojo Oppong-Nkrumah (NPP- Ofoase/Ayirebi) 11:25 a.m.


of the expectation of those amounts that they said they would bring in.

Mr Speaker, I believe these would help to close some of the loopholes that are emerging in our investment space.

I thank you for the opportunity, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
One more from each Side and then Leadership. And we would ask the Hon Minister for the Interior, who is luckily here to respond.
Yes, Hon Member?
Mr Tanko Abdul-Rauf Ibrahim (NDC-- Yagaba-Kubori) 11:25 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Let me recommend something better that I believe when we take into consideration would solve some of the problems raised by the Hon Member who made this Statement to this House.
Mr Speaker, it is a fact that we have all the fine laws on our shelves. The problem here is implementation and enforcement of our laws. When we talk about the retail sector in this country, it is very key to the economy.
Most of our people are in the retail sector, yet day in day out we hear GUTA complaining about foreigners taking over the retail sector. As to whether our laws need to be tightened and loopholes closed, the problem is, are we enforcing the laws that seek the interests of Ghanaians on the retail market? That is where the problem is.
Mr Speaker, the agencies that are supposed to oversee this, are they moving in? We can all say there is nothing happening. When do we see our
Immigration Officers moving to the markets after the call of GUTA to ensure that these things are checked? They are not doing that. Let us look at the enforcement before we go to look at the loopholes in our laws. It is not there.
Mr Speaker, I would want to plead with your Office to refer this to the appropriate Committee, so that the agencies that are supposed to look into this are made to move into our markets.
We are talking about the growth of our economy and employment. The retail sector is one of the areas that employs enough of our people so that they can earn a living.
But we continue to look on as foreigners come in and take over these markets. As to whether they are operating companies within the thresholds, the fact is that the Ghana retail sector is being encroached by foreigners and we need to do something about it.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Member, for being very explicit.
The last contribution from my right before Leadership?
Mr Stevens Siaka (NPP-Jaman North) 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much. I would like to thank the Hon Member for making the Statement.
Mr Speaker, the bottomline of the matter is that, in order to curtail the influx of foreign retailers, we need to put certain mechanisms in place.
This is one of the steps why the Government of the day decided to bring on board the Biometric National Identification Registers.
Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Order! Hon Member, you are digressing, I would be glad if you did not go there. Leave that for now. [Laughter.]
Mr Siaka 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I withdraw that.
Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Please, go on.
Mr Siaka 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe authorities such as the Ghana Immigration Service and the Customs, Excise and Preventive Service (CEPS) needs data that would help them monitor the influx of the foreign retailers who are indeed affecting local retailers.
Mr Speaker, I thank you very much for this—
Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Leadership; Hon Minority Chief Whip?
Alhaji Mohammed-Mubarak Muntaka (NDC--Asewase) 11:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, let me commend our Hon Colleague for making the Statement on the challenges that confront us as a country, with some foreigners participating in retail businesses in our country.
Mr Speaker, whereas I agree to a large extent that this is a major challenge, I also believe that we need to be conscious of our responsibility as a country.
This is because we are members of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). And the treaties and all the agreements that we have had, and
our Heads of States have signed over the years, a mandate that warrants other citizens of West Africa to be able to trade in any West African country without any hindrance. We need to have this at the back of our minds.
Mr Speaker, when we look at the GIPC Act that prevents foreigners from engaging in retail trading -- Mr Speaker, with your permission, I read the GIPC Act of 2013 (Act 865) and it is as follows:
“A person who is not a citizen or an enterprise which is not wholly owned by a citizen shall not invest or participate in—
a. the sale of goods or provision of services in a market, petty trading or hawking or selling of goods in a stall at any place''.
Mr Speaker, if we look at this provision and the treaties that we have signed as members of ECOWAS, it could clearly be seen that implementation would be a real challenge, especially, when it has to do with citizens of the West African Communities like Niger, Nigeria up to Senegal. It would be difficult to expect any authority to be able to implement this particular Act because of the treaties that have been signed.
Mr Speaker, we would need to be mindful of that and be able to develop a mechanism to deal and separate our citizens from the West African Community. This is because if one goes to Sierra Leone, there is a whole community called ‘'Ghana Town'', which is fully dominated by Ghanaians doing trading.
Mr Speaker, today, I am told that the leading product from Ghana, especially in the northern part of Nigeria are coconuts that are sold by the street sides in Ghana. It is heavily exported to especially northern Nigeria and sold by Ghanaians.
Alhaji Mohammed-Mubarak Muntaka (NDC--Asewase) 11:55 a.m.


Mr Speaker, we need to be careful when we make these contributions and drag in neighbouring countries from the West African Community. We may endanger the lives and businesses of our fellow citizens who are in these communities.

For example, Ghana has a population which is estimated to be between 27 and 30 million and Nigeria has over 150 million. Business thrives with population.

If Ghanaians cannot strategically take advantage of the population in Nigeria or La Cote d'Ivoire to also do business and only coil themselves to their communities like Suame Magazine in Kumasi or Abbosey Okai in Accra and just talk as if the whole world is only Suame or Abbosey Okai, we may get it wrong.

This is because the population of Ghanaians outside Abbosey Okai, Suame Magazine and others, in Nigeria, La Cote d'Ivoire, Sierra Leone and Senegal and other countries far outweigh the total number of persons in Suame and Abbosey Okai.

Mr Speaker, we would need to be careful and to find out what it is that those countries do and their citizens take advantage of the extent that products that are brought from Nigeria, Senegal or La Cote d'Ivoire are able to make profits at a cheaper rate and they can compete with and thus undermine our local citizens?

We would need to look at it and be able to boost our own companies to compete effectively.

Mr Speaker, with regard to the Chinese, Lebanese and others, I would want us as a country to relook at the way we do it. This is because in South Africa, there is a place where foreigners sell and it is called

the ‘'Foreign Market''. There, rent is different; taxes that are collected in those enclaves are different and they make money out of it. We cannot discount the role and contributions Lebanese, Syrians and Chinese play in this country.

How do we segregate them in a way that is both beneficial to us and to them without injuring our own citizens?

If we take a blanket cheque and write on it ‘‘all foreigners are not needed'', we may be endangering the lives and businesses of our own citizens outside our country.

I know that in West Africa, one of the leading locally manufactured drinks called ‘Blue Skies Juice' is produced in Ghana by a Ghanaian. It is almost in all the West African countries.

Mr Speaker, if we are not mindful, the business and our own citizens whom he employs and the product is able to export -- and we decide to write: “we do not need any Sierra Leonean, Nigerian and Senegalese'' --
Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
Hon Member, if you can kindly de-emphasise those things, so that - Maybe, some international reportage may wrongly get the impression that Hon Members have said that they do not need Sierra Leoneans or -- Nobody has said that here. Sometimes we must be less emotional and careful of how we react to some of these Statements.
So far as I have heard, nobody has said any such thing in this House. Let us not invoke what Hon Members have not said. Let us be circumspect.
Hon Member, please, continue.
Alhaji Muntaka 11:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, that was why I started on the basis of the law.
Mr Speaker Hon Member, I hope you would just take the advice and continue being circumspect.
Alhaji Muntaka 11:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is well noted.
Mr Speaker, as Hon Oppong-Nkrumah said, the time has come for us to review the laws that we promulgate in this House to see the impact that they make. Are they making positive or negative impact?
Are they useful or should they be revised, as the GIPC Act stands today, we may be having a lot of challenges in the implementation of what the ordinary citizen may expect our Government to do.
I believe that because of other international obligations and in all our discussions, we should have this at the back of our minds so that we would be able to participate effectively as members of the world community.
Mr Speaker, this is a useful Statement and it should be able to invoke in us the spirit of seeing what we can do to do away with the challenges that the ordinary citizen has.
Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity.
Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
Thank you, Hon Minority Chief Whip.
Majority Leadership?
Ms Sarah Adwoa Safo (NPP - Dome/ Kwabenya) 11:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I rise to comment on the Statement which was ably made
and has been the subject for contribution this morning.
Mr Speaker, the many concerns that have been raised by Hon Members on this Floor is whether indeed, as we seek to harmonise and promote trade among countries, the interest of Ghana is put first, and for that matter, the retailers and our market place are protected to give our nationals the needed means of survival when they intend to trade.
Mr Speaker, I believe the worries that have been expressed on the need for Government to tighten its measures to protect our retailers from major over take by foreign nationals, who probably would have better means of trade is something that has to be looked at.
Mr Speaker, that notwithstanding, we also have to be concerned about the fact that Ghana does not stand alone as a country. We have acceded to many international protocols, conventions and treaties. Per article 75 of the Constitution, many of these international instruments have been adopted and approved by this House, and for that matter they are binding on us as a country.
Mr Speaker, I would want to urge that the way forward in this is to find a balance between our international obligations of opening up our trade market to many countries, per the protocols that have been acceded to vis-a-vis our local laws that intend to protect our markets, especially, the retail market.
Mr Speaker, I believe we cannot isolate ourselves and ban anybody from trading in our country on the basis of protecting our own.
We have acceded to many international instruments, one of which I would want
Ms Sarah Adwoa Safo (NPP - Dome/ Kwabenya) 12:05 p.m.
to mention is the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which is called the ‘GATT, and about 123 countries acceded to it in Marrakesh in 1994.
Mr Speaker, again, the ECOWAS Treaties and Protocols.

In all of these international instruments, we are to open and even offer ourselves certain tax holidays when it comes to certain countries trading with Ghana or investing in Ghana.

We have to urge the GIPC, with the provision that it has in its legal framework to protect our own. To be able to strike that balance, the Ministry of Trade and Industry is urged to also have a critical look at this, because our nationals also need to be encouraged and protected in order to survive within their boundaries, as compared to us also ensuring that we perform our international obligations.

Mr Speaker, I believe that this is not the first time that this issue has cropped up. It has been a worry especially with our retail market.

We have seen that many of the foreign nationals who lived in Ghana have taken over that market as well, especially the petty things our market women and men can trade off and make a living in.

The question our own nationals are asking us is what then is left for us, because we cannot come up with all those huge foreign investments that these nationals could come in with?

Can our authorities not also protect us in one way or the other?

Mr Speaker, I believe just as you directed, nobody is saying that we should curtail our international obligations of free trade among countries under the ECOWAS Agreement or under the General Trade Agreements that we have acceded to.

But all that Ghanaians and we as representatives of the people are saying is that, we ought to also create an avenue to protect our own, for them to be able to survive and grow into bigger companies as well.

So it is a duty upon us, as officials of Government and as the people's representatives, to help put in the right measures to strike that balance, so that on the side of our international obligations, we are able to perform. Also, the goodwill and expectations that our people have of us to protect their interest would also come to pass.

Mr Speaker, in concluding, I would want to say that even in our international dealings, the Constitution is so clear on it in articles 40 and 72, that in all our international dealings and obligations, the interest of the people of Ghana should be put first.

So in whatever way that we can solve this problem by offering our people a little bit of protection and a little source of livelihood would not be out of place in the performance of our international obligations.

Mr Speaker, on this note, I thank you for the opportunity offered me.
Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
Hon Minister for the Interior; we are glad you are here. If you would kindly --
Minister for the Interior (Mr Ambrose Dery) (MP) 12:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, permit me to
congratulate the Hon Member who made the Statement for raising such a very important matter at this time. There appears to be considerable consensus from both Sides on issues that are believed and settled.
Firstly, we all want Ghanaians to be employed, and therefore we would want our own to be given the chance to freely operate as retailers and to make a living. That is agreed.
Mr Speaker, it is also a law that sets out businesses that are reserved for Ghanaians and therefore if people are in those areas, they are breaching the law and something should be done about it. I again agree to that.
However, this situation is complex. First, you would want to put it within the context of ECOWAS. We have protocols on free movement of goods and persons. It is also a multi-ministerial responsibility.
The Ministry of Trade and Industry is a critical player in this. The Association of Ghanaian Traders are also stakeholders in this.
Mr Speaker, the question is the balance. How do we get the balance? There are clear cases that the Ministry of the Interior has dealt with, namely, a number of Egyptians and other North African nationals were operating in Ghana, moving around in vehicles and selling wares.
We got them; they did not have resident permits and we repatriated them straightaway. We have been doing that regularly and the numbers are on record. But when it comes to enforcing the laws internally, it is murky.
Most of the people you think have committed the offence are using Ghanaian front-men, so how are we going to go to them? We get there and it is a Ghanaian selling, he or she says that they are her wares -- what then do we do?
We have representatives of our own sister countries and neighbours pro- testing that we are being hostile to them and therefore we need to work it out.
Mr Speaker, let me give you my personal example. There was an occasion when there was a deportation of a foreigner in business by the Ministry of the Interior.
The matter went through the courts up to the Supreme Court where it was ruled in favour of the Ministry. Even in this House I was asked questions when the case was pending before the Supreme Court. So we need to work together.
We need a more thorough analysis of what we are discussing now.
Mr Speaker, if we want to take it superficially, and we would want to go with force, it would backfire on us. In the neighbouring countries, it is going to be enormous.
You are going to have it in Burkina Faso, Togo, La Cote d'Ivoire, Nigeria and the rest of them.
Mr Speaker, so we have to meticulously deal with this matter. It is a thing that we must be careful about. I agree with my Hon Friend on the Majority Side, as well as with the Hon Muntaka.
We need to do a review of our laws. Above all, we need to work on implementing a strategy that allows all stakeholders to come behind the security services.

Otherwise, we are going to have a lot of problems. So the Ministry of Trade and Industry is very critical in this matter. We have engaged our association, but the association also deals with people from outside the country.

Mr Speaker, although I have been called unawares, I would want to assure you that we are committed to enforcing the laws of this country.

But in so doing, we need the cooperation of all of us, and we need the involvement of all stakeholders for us to make sure that in trying to solve the problem, we do not throw out the baby and the bath water.

So the matter is the balance and the fact that we have Ghanaian collaborators it becomes very difficult for us to get to those places. You would be surprised some of our neighbouring countries are complaining that there is an upsurge of Ghanaians in their countries doing various sorts of businesses, including clearly, illegal ones.

So, while we do this, we also should make sure that our neighbours do not feel that we are throwing them out.

Mr Speaker, when you talk of Chinese, you would be surprised how many Chinese have documentation to be here, and you would be surprised how many Chinese are Ghanaians.

You would be surprised. So it is not a matter of seeing somebody of colour and concluding therefore that he looks Asian and is therefore a Chinese, and therefore a foreigner. It is not that easy.

Mr Speaker, what I can tell is that, we have to work in the interest of Ghanaians.

We have to identify who Ghanaians are and we all need to work together to make sure we do it.

Mr Speaker, having said that, it might be necessary for you to refer this matter maybe to the subcommittee on Trade and Industry and then we see how you can help the security agencies.

But as far as we are concerned, we arrest; when we get in and there is no documentation, it is a clear case we deport straightaway without even having to go to court.

Mr Speaker, but it is increasingly difficult for us to do it within the context of ECOWAS and with the activities of our citizens who easily let themselves to be used.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
We thank you very much, Hon Minister for the Interior, and for your patience in waiting to contribute.
The matter is referred to the Committees on the Interior and Trade, Industry and Tourism to examine this tricky issue, including ensuring that our laws are obeyed and examined both within the context of our international obligations, and national interests as well as exploring the issue of Parliament taking steps to examine the way every law in connection to this is applied for us to in future follow this up. This is a very useful contribution made this morning.
We would move on to the next stage. At the Commencement of Public Business. In the meantime, the Hon First Deputy Speaker would take the Chair.
rose
Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
Yes, Hon First Deputy Minority Whip?
Mr Ahmed Ibrahim 12:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the referral, and if possible, appeal that you include the leadership of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
This is because, when we look at the Immigration Act of 2000 (Act 573), issuing of visas and others is now the respon- sibility of the Ministry of the Interior. But as we speak now, it has not been operationalised even though the Act and the Regulation have been passed.
So if the Hon Minister for the Interior says that the Egyptians and others come here, even though they have that responsibility by law, by the Ghana Immigration Service Act which was enacted by this House --
If you could add the two leaders, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs to assist the Committee, it would be better.
Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader -- [Interruption.]
Yes, Hon Minister for the Interior, guidelines in this regard?
Mr A. Dery 12:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I made it clear that it is multi-sectorial and we would deal with all those that clearly are exposed by a lack of documentation. So I would want to assure him that we are not running away.
Mr A. Ibrahim 12:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it seems my senior, the Hon Minister for the Interior did not hear me very well. What I said was that, if it would be possible for you to add the leadership of the Committee on Foreign Affairs to assist the Committees of the Interior and Trade, Industry and
Tourism with the referral, it would be better because the Ghana Immigration Service Act and the Regulations have given the issue of entry visas into Ghana to the Ministry of the Interior but it is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration that is still handling it. So it would be better they come and assist.
Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, any views on this matter?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this whole thing is regulated by a treaty.
Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
The Hon First Deputy Speaker would take the Chair
  • [MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER IN THE CHAIR.]
    • Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:19 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is a matter on the Floor relating to a referral in respect of the Statement that has been made, and a suggestion has come that they include the leadership of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
    I am supportive of that position, given the fact that this whole business of trading in the sub-region is regulated by a treaty. So if we should add the leadership of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I believe it should be in order.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:19 p.m.
    Very well.
    The leadership of the Committee on Foreign Affairs is directed to join the two Committees to whom Mr Speaker had referred the Statement early on to.
    Hon Majority Leader, are we ready to take item numbered 5?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:19 p.m.
    That is so, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:19 p.m.
    Very well, at the Commencement of Public Business -- Item numbered 5; Presentation of Papers by the Minister for Fisheries and Aquaculture?
    Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister sounded that she is on her way. However, because it relates to just the presentation of Papers, may we ask the Hon Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation to do so on behalf of the substantive Minister? I do not know how long it would take her.
    Mr Haruna Iddrisu 12:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I appreciate the application of the Hon Majority Leader for the Hon Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation to stand in the stead of the Minister for Fisheries and Aquaculture, but could he be clear?
    If he says that the Hon Minister for Fisheries and Aquaculture sounded that she is on her way, then we could also sound that we are waiting for her and allow for some 20-30 minutes for her to arrive.
    But if he so wants the Hon Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation to do so, let us proceed so that we know we are not expecting the Hon Minister to come.
    In any case, if she were here, it would be that the Business has been done on her behalf. So it is just for clarity.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:19 p.m.
    Very well, leave has been granted for the Hon Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation to present the Paper on behalf of the Minister for Fisheries and Aquaculture.
    PAPERS 12:19 p.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:19 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, are we ready to take item numbered 6?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, even though we could, some identified Hon Members must be served with the Report before we start the debate on that.
    So, we could stand that one down and go to the Legal Aid Commission Bill, 2017. Before then, maybe we could deal with some other matter.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Very well. Item numbered 7 then; the Legal Aid Commission Bill, Hold on. Hon Majority Leader, you may want to give us some information on the matter relating to the Privileges Committee; Standing Order
    164(4).
    An Hon Member was referred to the Committee and I understand that you are supposed to guide the House. May I know what the position is?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you are right that a matter was referred to the Privileges Committee and when the matter came before the Committee which you Chaired, some three Hon Members from the Majority Side decided to recuse
    themselves, and accordingly they wrote to the Committee to do so.
    Mr Speaker, as Standing Order 164(4) provides 12:25 p.m.
    “A Member of the Committee may disqualify himself from participating in any investigation of the conduct of a Member, officer or employee of the House upon a declaration in writing that he cannot render an impartial and unbiased decision in the case in which he seeks to disqualify himself. If the Committee approves and accepts such disqualification, the Chairman shall so notify the Speaker who shall request the Leader of the same political party as the disqualifying Member to designate a Member from his party to act as a Member of the Committee in any proceedings relating to such investigation.”
    Mr Speaker, what went wrong in respect of this was that the Hon Members, even though they had the right to recuse themselves ought to have discussed the matter with the Leadership of the Caucus that they belonged to. That was not done and then they submitted the application to the Privileges Committee which you Chair.
    Mr Speaker, the Committee ordinarily, should have taken a decision on whether to accept the request or not to but they positioned themselves in such a manner as if it was a fait accompli, and once they had submitted the application, it must be granted. That was a bit unfortunate.
    Having said so, subsequently, we have invited them and they have explained to us the reason they recused themselves. Accordingly, the Leadership of the
    Majority put our heads together and in respect of the three who have declined to participate in the proceedings relating to the referral, we have accordingly nominated the Hon Buaben Asamoa, Hon Yaw Afful and Hon Akua Afriyie to fill in the vacancies created by the three who have left, so that the Committee would be given the muscle to start a full throttle conduct of the Business referred to them.
    Mr Speaker, let me stress that this is not a full scale replacement of the three; it is just for the purpose of the referral that we are considering in respect of the Hon Member for Assin Central. So, when your Committee is through, the three Hon Members will be re-instated accordingly.
    Thank you.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Very well. Let the records show that indeed, the Committee did go into a meeting to determine whether or not to accept that, except that, that was not before the cameras, but after the proceedings were adjourned, the Committee went into a closed meeting and then took the decision as he referred to.
    Yes, Leadership -— Let me listen to the Hon Minority Leader before I ask any further questions.
    Mr Haruna Iddrisu 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader has referred to Standing Order 164(4) and it is your own Privileges Committee.
    My difficulties were two: one, you should have had prior notice of them wanting to do that which they chose to do. Secondly, whether or not after their submission, the Committee could not have continued once quorum was ascertained. Those were my two difficulties.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Majority Leader, should we expect a memorandum formally notifying the Committee? This is simply because I communicated the decision of the three Hon Members to disqualify themselves and our decision by a memorandum to Mr Speaker and to the Leaders.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the proper thing would be done.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Very well. Thank you very much.
    Shall we proceed to item numbered 7 now?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we will proceed with item numbered 7 and before we suspend Sitting, we would do a closed Sitting to discuss the Report of the House Committee. That is item numbered
    6.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Would I be guided by the details as to when to bring proceedings to a close and when to go into closed Sitting?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we will suspend Sitting at 3.00 o'clock. We can even suspend at 2:30 p.m. to do the closed Sitting and consider the Report from the House Committee.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Very well.
    Item numbered 7-- Legal Aid Commission Bill, 2017 at the Consideration Stage.
    Alhaji Muntaka 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was trying to catch your eye before you called for the Legal Aid Commission Bill.
    I would want to draw the Hon Majority Leader's attention to, at least, the sizeable number that we have. One major challenge why we could not do it for the whole of last week was that, when we
    started the Bill, Hon Members moved to Committee meetings and by the time we would want to do it, the Chamber is virtually left with only those interested in discussing the Bill.
    I suggest that fortunately for us, the public gallery is virtually empty and so if we could suspend for just 30 minutes to do this and come back to continue with the Legal Aid Commission Bill, 2017.
    Mr Speaker, it would be neater than to say that we should Sit till 2.30 p.m. and by the time we realise, Hon Members would have moved into Committee meetings and this would be postponed again.
    We have been postponing this for too long, so if the Hon Majority Leader could consider for us to do it now, finish it in 30 minutes and come back to continue with the Legal Aid Commission Bill, 2017.
    Mr Speaker, thank you.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the public interest -- I am using the word “public” advisedly. In this document, it should be enough to sustain Hon Members in this House.
    Mr Speaker, so let us deal with the Legal Aid Commission Bill, 2017 and the interest should hold Hon Members down. This is not only for Hon Members of Parliament but also the staff, so let the interest provide sufficient motivation for Hon Members to stay.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Iddrisu 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have never known the Hon Majority Leader to be in the enterprise of baiting Hon Members to
    stay and do business. Essentially, there are important matters in the Report by the House Committee that must be of interest to Hon Members.
    So we could proceed with the Legal Aid Commission Bill, 2017 and I believe we could bring closure to that and revert, depending upon the time we spend on the consideration of the Legal Aid Commission Bill, 2017. Mr Speaker, but we should do that before we go into any other business.
    Mr Speaker, thank you.
    Mr Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Members, item numbered 7 (i)
    BILLS -- CONSIDERATION STAGE 12:35 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee (Mr Ben Abdallah Banda) 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 18, delete and insert the following:
    Appointment of other staff
    “18. (1) The President shall in accordance with article 195 of the Constitution appoint other employees that are necessary for the proper and efficient conduct of the functions of the Com- mission.
    (2) The President may in writing, delegate the power of appoint- ment in subsection (1) to the Board.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Hon Deputy Majority Leader.
    Ms Sarah Adwoa Safo 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
    I am in support of the proposed amendment, except to draw the attention of the House to the use of the words “conduct of the functions”. I believe that previously, this debate had been on the Floor, and we have gone back and forth and it was agreed that functions are rather performed.
    Mr Speaker, that is my difficulty in the proposed amendment in clause 18(1) where it goes on to say “… the proper and efficient conduct of the functions of the Commission.”
    Mr Speaker, I believe it is the ‘performance of the functions' of the Commission. Consequentially, the same amendment could be done to clause 18 (3) as well, where the same words “conduct of the functions” are repeated.
    Mr Speaker, the last line in clause 18 (3) which says “Dispute Resolution of officers”, I beg to further propose that the proposition “of” should be deleted and the “o” in “officers” should also be capitalised.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move these further amendments within the proposed amendment by the Hon Chairman.
    Mr Haruna Iddrisu 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the Hon Chairman's amendment. If you would recall, he is guided by the clue you gave to him and Hon Members who were participating in this process.
    It has never been the style of this House to resort to quoting verbatim the provisions of the Constitution in a Bill, but if it is our new posture, then we should let it be.
    Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, except to say that the headnote reads 12:35 p.m.
    “Appointment of other staff” but line 2 of clause 18(1) says “… appoint other employees …” Mr Speaker, so, I would want to know why they are not using “other staff” because if we go into the constitutional provision of article 195, then it should be “other staff”.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Deputy Majority Leader has dealt with the last line in clause 18(3) to read “…Dispute Resolution Officers”.
    Mr Speaker, I was lucky yesterday when I met the Executive Secretary of the Legal Aid Commission at a funeral in Tamale and I sought his guidance and
    professional view on the issue of paralegals. I was properly educated and I am satisfied with it. He is S. Y. Imoro, one of the dedicated men at the Legal Aid Commission.
    Mr Speaker, so, if the Hon Chairman would advert his mind to “other staff” but not “other employees” as well as what the Hon Deputy Majority Leader said. Mr Speaker, you may put the Question on it, but it cannot be “other employees”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Hon Member for Bawku Central?
    Mr Mahama Ayariga 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader mentioned that he was adequately educated on paralegals, if I heard him right. Mr Speaker, but you would recall that last week, we discussed the question of paralegals and the use of paralegals as a category of legal professionals.
    Mr Speaker, I raised the issue that the Legal Profession Act does not have any provision for paralegals. The educational system does not graduate anybody to become a paralegal. In other jurisdictions, we know that Paralegals are loosely referred to as people within a legal organisation who support, but who are not necessarily lawyers.
    Mr Speaker, but institutionally, we do not have that, and my fear is that when we legislate and mention it as paralegal staff, then we may be creating a situation, where by law, we would have created a category that the Legal Profession Act does not recognise and this might create a problem.
    Mr Speaker, if somebody is within an organisation and all the person does is to go to court and file documents for the lawyers in the organisation, that person is a staff of the organisation.
    So the earlier provision that they may employ staff would even cover that person because the person is a staff of the organisation and all the person does is to go to court and assist to file documents.
    Mr Speaker, but when we legally use the term “paralegal” then in my opinion, we would be creating a new category and this might create a problem for the Legal Profession Act.
    So, if the Hon Minority Leader could share the education on paralegals with me because I still have a problem with the use of the term “paralegal”.
    Mr Iddrisu 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that Hon Mahama Ayariga was listening to himself. Along the line, he proffered a brilliant definition of paralegals as non- lawyers or non-legal profession.
    The fact that someone is paramedic does not make him a medical doctor. He is to assist in the work.
    Mr Speaker, it was borne out of experience. As I said, Mr S. Y. Imoro said they would need them because having worked with that institution, sometimes one would need those hands to be able to assist.
    So if the Hon Ayariga could abandon his opposition because paralegals -- By this, we are legislating that one must have paralegals as if they were lawyers.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Hon Member for Wa West?
    Mr Chireh 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, even though I was part of the debate on this paralegal issue, I would want to move away from it. I do not support it again because we have provided for Alternative Dispute Resolution Officers. And so anybody who is appointed as an Alternative Dispute Resolution Officer is similarly trained to arbitrate, mediate and do all those things.
    Now, that one is covered by law. Therefore anybody who does that does something in relation to the functions of a lawyer.
    I do not think we should put “paralegals” there as a word. We should leave it, and it should be covered by the Alternative Dispute Resolution Officers. That should cover those people as the paralegals.
    If we put paralegals there, they would begin to see themselves as a professional group, and what would be the qualification for such a person? But for the Alternative Dispute Resolution Officers, they go through training in mediation and others.
    I think if we use Alternative Dispute Resolution Officers, it covers that. So we should remove the paralegals from this.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, do you intend to define “paralegals”. I have checked the interpretation section, and I do not see the definition of “paralegals”. Do you intend to define who paralegals are?
    Mr Banda 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, under page 7 of the Order Paper, under clause 58, paralegal has been defined.
    “‘Paralegal'' means a person who is not a lawyer but has attained a certain level of legal training and is employed by the Commission to provide specific legal services including having audience before the lower courts.”
    Mr Speaker, this is the definition for a paralegal. But much as the word “paralegal” does not find expression in the Legal Profession Act, which is a substantive law explains why we seek to give it the legal basis under the Legal Aid Commission Bill.
    Mr Speaker would recall that under this Bill, a function has been created and allocated to the Commission, to develop a system for the training and participation of a paralegal or legal assistant in the legal aid delivery.
    What it therefore means is that, when this Bill becomes a law, the Legal Aid Commission would have the legal capacity to undertake training of persons to become paralegals, for these people to be subsequently engaged to perform legal aid services.
    Mr Speaker, this is the essence of the proposed amendment by the incor- poration of paralegals. If we do not create the legal basis now, when would the legal basis be created to enable the Commission train persons to become paralegals?
    Mr Speaker, if we are to say that we have to amend the Legal Profession Act to give the basis for the training of persons to become paralegals, it would certainly take a lot of time.
    The Legal Professional Act is a parent or substantive Act just as the Legal Aid Commission Bill. When enacted into a law, it would also become a parent or a substantive law. Today and now, we are therefore creating the basis for the training of persons to become paralegals.
    Therefore the proposed amendment we are making now is a step in the right direction.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    I would listen to you.
    Hon Chairman, I would want to understand you. You would want to, by this Act, create a sub-body of persons yet to be trained as paralegals and also provide for the means of training?
    This is because, as you know, the Legal Professional Act provides for training and how a person becomes a lawyer. In this case, you have defined somebody who has attained a certain level of training and is employed by the Commission. How is that person to be trained?
    Is that provided for under this Bill, or you are going to amend the Legal Profession Act to provide for that kind of training? There still appears to be a vacuum which is not captured by your explanations so far.
    Mr Banda 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Legal Profession Act deals with lawyers; training of persons to become lawyers.
    The Legal Aid Commission Bill seeks to be given the function or the power to develop a system or a programme for the training of persons to become paralegals.
    The Legal Profession Act, as I have already alluded to, deals specifically with persons to become lawyers, but if this House should permit the passage of this Bill, the Commission would be given the mandate to put in place a programme for the training of persons to become paralegals.
    So it would be left to them to map out a course or a timetable setting out the details or a course line up for the training of these persons to become paralegals.
    So I understand this to mean that the training of paralegals per this Bill is being taken out of the functions enumerated under the Legal Profession Act.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    And given to who? The Legal Aid Commission?
    It is taken out of the Board of Legal Education and given to the Legal Aid Commission? Or they would be trained specifically only for legal aid if a person is defined as paralegal or trained as one? Is it only good for legal aid services?
    The other time somebody suggested that there was a definition of paralegal in the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act. Did I hear somebody make that suggestion? If so, what is the definition? Let us find out.
    Yes, Hon former Deputy Minister for and Attorney-General, let me hear you first.
    Dr Dominic Akuritinga Ayine 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, for us to be able to do what the Hon Chairman is suggesting, it means that we have to go back to the functions of the Commission and add to the list of functions, the ability to train paralegals and certify them for purposes of providing the services.

    If we do not do that, I do not see how only by reason of the definition, we can create that separate category.

    Secondly, we need to also enumerate what it takes, the competences to become a paralegal, for purposes of providing legal aid services, and then also go back to the Legal Profession Act and amend it for purposes of allowing the General Legal Council, which is now given the power to provide professional legal education to take that function and be able to certify people for purposes of providing paralegal services.

    So I believe there is a lot that we should do if we want paralegals to be part of the Legal Aid scheme for purposes of providing legal aid services.

    Mr Speaker, thank you.
    Mr Iddrisu 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Legal Profession Act is a creation of Parliament in the exercise of our mandate of making laws, so it stands to reason that Parliament can create paralegals, except that we should define it well in the interpretation column of the Bill. Who do we anticipate to work as paralegals?
    Mr Speaker, having said that, if there is a difficulty and the Hon Chairman is amenable to accept this, where we have paralegals, would it spoil the soup if we say “supporting and Alternative Dispute Resolution Officers”?
    So it reads;
    “. . . the Board for the proper and efficient conduct of the functions of the Commission appoint supporting and Alternative Dispute Resolution Officers”.
    Then Mr Speaker, we know in our minds that we are guided beyond Pepper v. Hart and the Ghanaian ruling on these matters.
    We know that in using supporting staff here, we meant paralegals.
    Mr Ayariga 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe the safest is to stick to the use of the phrase “the appointment of staff”, as the Hon Minority Leader earlier proposed that other staff that are necessary for the proper and efficient conduct of the functions of the Commission.
    So “staff” would encompass all these people, because we would get into a very serious complication if we insist on having “paralegal” as a category.
    The reason is that in the medical field when you say someone is a paramedic, it is part of a category that is known in the profession.
    So if you are a trained nurse and you are operating within a certain setting, you may be referred to as a paramedic, even though you are a certified nurse. You have a certificate to be a nurse.
    So you are not a doctor but you are assisting doctors in a certain operation and you are called a paramedic.
    So that is clear, but here, because in the Legal Professions Act we have not made provision for certification of people to fall within that category, even though professionally, we all, in our practice, have people in the office who assist in administrative matters and after a while they presume to know certain things, but strictly speaking, they do not fall within a category known by the Legal Profession Act.
    Going into the future, it may be necessary to urge the General Legal Council to consider reviewing the system and including that, but it is such a technical exercise that we should not do on the back of establishing a Legal Aid
    Commission. We should rather urge the General Legal Council to look into that and bring us specific proposals that fit into the profession and the educational system for the legal profession, and that would help us solve this problem.
    Otherwise, I urge the Hon Chairman to drop this and let us have what the Hon Minority Leader has proposed; which is ‘staff'. “Staff” include people we send to file papers, to do all other administrative work and that is it.
    Even the definition that he is proffering for “paralegals”, to say that having audience before lower courts -- Mr Speaker, the courts would not agree to grant audience to --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    And providing specific legal services. They are paralegals, but they would provide legal services.
    Mr Ayariga 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes. When the Legal Profession Act is very clear on who can provide legal services, and you have to go through a rigorous process to become a member of the profession, it would be difficult on the back of this Bill to have this provision which enables somebody to provide specific legal services.
    Mr Speaker, like the former Deputy Minister for Justice and Attorney- General has indicated, which specific legal services? Is it drafting? Is it pleadings? What specific legal services are they to render? Or ADR, which is provided for by the ADR Act? That is why we do not have issues with the ADR officers, because the Act provides for them, but paralegals, no.
    Mr Speaker, I would urge the Hon Chairman to drop this.
    Mr Frist Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    In 2016, the Registrar of the Ghana School of Law and some lecturers brought me a paper in which they were proposing that Parliament should permit them to train certain category of persons as Paralegals.
    That is what the Law School itself is proposing, that it is not everybody who wants to be a fully-fledged lawyer, so they proposed that the school should have the programme for training paralegals, but there is no legal structure for that as at now.
    That is the dicey situation.
    Hon Deputy Majority Leader?
    Ms Safo 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was just driving at where you started.
    Mr Speaker, the paralegal training exists in other jurisdictions, and we have Ghanaians who go there to train as paralegals. I know it exists in the United Kingdom and the United States of America but as we speak now, in Ghana, we have not actually set out the right structure and the training process and the body to train these persons as paralegals.
    So Mr Speaker, I also believe that until we are able to do that and establish them properly so called as paralegals within our context, we cannot make law and assume that that law can offer some training for them.
    Mr Speaker, I do not believe that we can sit here instantly and do that. Many are proposing the General Legal Council, others are proposing the Ghana School of Law but properly so called, it should be the School of Law and there should be proper structures.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Chairman, let us make progress. This ‘‘paralegals'' here is going to cause problems. Let us drop it and make progress.
    Mr Banda 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, instead of dropping it, I would rather wish that we flag it, so that we do further consultation. If we do not start something now, how can we do it tomorrow?
    Is career magistrate training backed by the Legal Profession Act? It is not. It was a programme drawn up and implemented, but it is being rolled out.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    But they are not called lawyers or paralegals. A career magistrate; that is what it is. They do not present them as lawyers representing anybody. They listen and make rulings at the lowest level. I believe for other staff of the Judiciary, it is provided for independently.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought the Hon Chairman had suggested a way out, that we flag this matter and engage in further --
    Mr Speaker, I am saying we should flag it because, when we went on retreat to consider the Bill, the very strong advocate group emerged for paralegals. Probably we would need to engage them again, in view of the sentiments being expressed in this House. This is why I believe we should flag it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Minister. I was wondering why I was not hearing from the lawyer from the Majority Side.
    Mr Samuel Atta Akyea 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, humbly, I do not think it is a question of sentiments, as to how people felt about us creating some nomenclature called paralegals. If they do not have any legal foundation, we would not sit here and waste time about how somebody feels about it.
    In the first instance, one forceful argument that I have listened to in this House is what their legal foundation would be?
    What legislation is giving existence to that nomenclature called paralegal? We do not have it. So unless it has been rightly suggested, there is an amendment to the Legal Profession Act, that space has been made that the body which is entitled to educate lawyers should find some
    arrangement to train people who will support lawyers or even judges and the rest of them. I do not see how we can use one legislation to amend another legislation fundamentally. That is a recipe for chaos.
    So I am tempted to come to the conclusion that we should find a general omnibus meaning for “other staff” and if somebody wants to be very serious about it, then we would need to move to amend the Legal Profession Act.
    If not we would flag it and come back and we would face the fundamental legality that has been raised in this House. This is my humble opinion on this matter.
    Mr Banda 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you would indulge me, I would rather have it flagged, so that we would do further consultation on it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    So you would take note of other corrections that were suggested, so that when you come back, you will not have to revisit those typographical errors again.
    Hon Members, clause 43.
    Clause 43 -- Variation of grant of legal aid.
    Mr Banda 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 43, paragraph (d), line 2, delete “after granting legal aid to a person”.
    Mr Speaker, it would read 1:05 p.m.
    “The Commission may
    (d) alter a condition to which the provision of the legal aid is subject…”
    Mr Speaker, the phrase that comes after that is irrelevant. The meaning is clearly brought out.
    Ms Safo 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the sentence ends at “subject”, it sounds incomplete.
    “The Commission may alter a condition to which the provision of the legal is subject…”
    I am not getting the meaning of the rendition. Probably the word “applicable” would make --
    “The Commission may alter a condition to which the provision of the legal aid is applicable”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Hon Member, did you move an amendment?
    Ms Safo 1:05 p.m.
    Yes Mr Speaker, I proposed a further amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Sorry, can you repeat that?
    Ms Safo 1:05 p.m.
    Rightly so, Mr Speaker.
    The new rendition would read:
    “The Commission may alter a condition to which the provision of the legal aid is applicable”.
    Instead of “it is subject”.
    Mr Banda 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, very well. The net effect of it in my mind is the same. But if the House is minded to adopt her proposed amendment, I have no objection. So we may substitute “subject” with “applicable.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Or why not use the heading, “granted” -- Variation of grant of legal aid. So instead of using the word which was suggested by the Hon

    Deputy Majority Leader, we would just refer to the heading.

    “…alter a condition to which the provision of the legal aid is granted…”

    What do you think?
    Mr Banda 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think it is clearer.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Very well, Hon Members, it is for the consideration of the House.
    Mr Iddrisu 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, between the Hon Chairman's proposed amendment and that of the Hon Deputy Majority Leader, may I respectfully read and get the sense of the amendment? Variation of grant of legal aid --
    “The Commission may alter a condition to which the provision of the legal aid is or granted”.
    I believe we can end there. What are the rest of the words doing there?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    That was the original amendment. So we would change that and end with “granted”.
    “…alter a condition to which the provision of the legal aid is granted…”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 43 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 44 -- Notification of changes
    Mr Banda 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 44, subclause (1), paragraph (a) line (1) “private legal practitioner” and insert
    “lawyer”, and unless the context otherwise required do same wherever the phrase “private legal practitioner” occurs in the bill.
    Mr Speaker, consequentially, wherever “legal practitioner” appears, we seek to insert “lawyer” in order to bring it in line with the preceding amendment that we have effected, where we have inserted “lawyer” in place of “a private legal practitioner”.

    Mr Speaker, I will abandon that after stiff opposition from --
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman needs to look at the amendment again. The word “delete” is missing. Otherwise the sentence does not make sense.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Which one?
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:15 p.m.
    The one he just read. He said -- [Interruption.]
    Some Hon Members 1:15 p.m.
    He has abandoned it.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:15 p.m.
    No, read it.
    Clause 44, subclause (1), paragraph (a) line (1) “private legal practitioner” and insert “lawyer” and unless the context otherwise required, do same wherever the phrase “private legal practitioner” occurs in the Bill.
    There is no deletion.
    Mr Banda 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought it was implied. Mr Speaker, I would seek your leave to insert the word “delete”.
    Clause 44 — subclause (1), paragraph (a), line (1), delete “private legal practitioner” and insert “lawyer” and unless the context otherwise required, do same wherever the phrase “private legal practitioner” occurs in the Bill.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Item number 7 (iv).
    Mr Banda 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 44, subclause (2), line 2, delete “solicitor” and insert “lawyer” and in line 3, delete “solicitor's own client” and insert “client of the lawyer”.
    So the new rendition reads:
    “Subsection (1) is without limiting a privilege that may arise from the relationship between a lawyer acting in a professional capacity and the client of the lawyer.”
    Mr Speaker, the meaning is understood but I would want to seek your permission to have it crafted in a different way if the House would adopt that proposed amendment. That makes it simpler to me.
    Mr Speaker, it goes like this 1:15 p.m.
    “Subsection (1) is without limiting a privilege that may arise from a lawyer-client relationship.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Yes, I believe that would make -- It is a well- known and a more traversed course. Kindly read the new rendition so that we take a decision on it.
    Mr Banda 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition reads:
    “Subsection (1) is without limiting a privilege that may arise from a lawyer-client relationship.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    But that does not sound clear.
    “Subsection (1) is without limiting a privilege that may arise from a lawyer-client relationship.”
    Hon Members, that does not sound clear to me.
    Mr Banda 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I understand this to mean that there is a lawyer-client relationship with respect to disclosure of information and this provision says that when the lawyer becomes aware of a change in the the circumstances of the legally-assisted person, the lawyer has an obligation under this law to disclose that information.
    Mr Speaker, subsection (2) says that despite the above provision, the lawyer- client relationship still exists. It is without prejudice --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Use “it is without prejudice”. It is better.
    Mr Banda 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, per your guidance, I will amend the proposed amendment.
    “Subsection (1) is without prejudice to a lawyer-client relationship.”
    I believe that is the meaning.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Hon Members, it is for the consideration of the House.
    “Subsection (1) is without prejudice to a lawyer-client relationship.”
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, could the Hon Chairman read the new rendition so that we are clear?
    Mr Banda 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it reads:
    “Subsection (1) is without prejudice to a privilege that may arise from a lawyer-client relationship.”
    Mr Chireh 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not know where in subclause (1) this lawyer-client relationship is waged. In this, there is no mention of a privilege. I do not know why the Hon Chairman said -- Where is it? In which particular paragraph?
    Mr Speaker, even if we say so, we know that there is always the lawyer-client relationship and the privilege under it. So we do not need to legislate it but if it is there, we also know that once we relate to a client, it is privileged information.
    So I really do not see why we should talk about changing this one and subject it to clause 44(1) (a).
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe clause 44(2) relates to what a lawyer representing a legally assisted person is required to do if some information comes before him. Indeed, subclause (1) provides:
    “Where (a) a legally-assisted person or private lawyer representing a legally assisted person becomes aware of the change in a means or circumstances of the legally-assisted person or in another matter related to the grant of legal aid to the legally assisted person, the legally assisted person
    . . .)”
    Mr Speaker, that is why subclause (2) there is provided for so that they should protect the sanctity of the lawyer-client relationship despite clause 41 (1).
    Now, it may appear then to contradict the position. So what to do in the circumstance is what should matter to us. But in my view, clause 44(2) really seeks to protect the lawyer-client relationship. But then, how do we address clause 41?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    The lawyer- client relationship relates to the law of evidence; a matter which has come to your attention or notice, a fact, which is because your client has given you information. If you disclose it to his disadvantage, he may stop you from disclosing it.
    In this case, it appears we are talking about a person who probably has applied for legal aid, but the lawyer finds out that indeed, that person is not impecunious and that he was not eligible for legal aid in the first place.
    And we are asking the lawyer, if he becomes aware of any such situation, to inform the Legal Aid Commission.
    Then at the same time, we say that his lawyer-client relationship is nevertheless intact. In that case, then this provision is not necessary. But actually, that would not apply in this circumstance.
    This is because I do not believe it is a matter of giving evidence against the person in the case, but it is about telling, if the person has lied in the first place to have obtained legal aid by a false representation or you in the course of receiving legal aid, your circumstances have changed so you probably are not entitled to legal aid.
    If I understand, Hon Chairman, am I correct in representing the situation?
    Mr Banda 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, either of the two scenarios may apply; either in the first place before the person applied, he did not give a full disclosure and a lawyer has been assigned to him, and the lawyer, in the course of the matter finds out that the person has lied, that is different.
    Mr Speaker, in another instance, it may be true that the person at the time of the application did not have anything but in the course of the matter, the person's financial circumstances may have changed.
    And this provision is saying that the lawyer has an obligation to disclose that information to the Commission, failing which the lawyer could be criminally held liable.
    Mr Speaker, this is all that this provision seeks to say. This does not affect the common law position that any information given by a client to a lawyer is privileged.
    That position is not disturbed, except that this provision seeks to make an exception out of the common law position, that there is a relationship between a lawyer and a client with respect to the information that is given to the lawyer, which is supposed to be privileged.
    Mr Ayariga 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe there is a very strong policy consideration for wanting to have the information on the circumstances of a beneficiary of legal aid,
    so that we could channel resources to those who do not have and could deal with those who are ‘free riders on public resources'. So I do support a measure that enables us to do that.
    Mr Speaker, but in doing that, we seem to be treading on a time tested practice in the legal profession, which is to protect the privilege information that comes to a lawyer by virtue of his relationship with a client. That is why we are struggling with how to render this.
    Mr Speaker, I would propose that we go back to clause 44(1) and limit the report to obligation to the beneficiary of the legal aid service, and not extend the report to obligation to the lawyer.
    This is because when he begins to oblige lawyers behind their clients to be reporting on their clients to the State, that relationship or confidence that clients would have in their lawyers would begin to wane.
    So as part of the lawyer's obligation to his client, he would advise his client on his legal obligation to report to the State once his circumstances change. The lawyer would advise his client that his circumstances have changed, so he should go and report that his circumstances have changed.
    But to now impose that obligation on the lawyer to be the one reporting on the changed circumstances of his client, I believe we would be imposing too much on lawyers who, in their relationship with their clients, need to have that atmosphere where there is confidence and openness.
    So while I do appreciate the strong policy consideration, I believe we ought to preserve this time tested legal understanding that the information that gets to a lawyer from his client in that relationship must be protected.
    Mrs Ursula G. Owusu-Ekuful 1:15 p.m.
    Thank you Mr Speaker. I respectfully disagree with my Hon Colleague who just spoke.
    It is analogous to the medical profession where there is a doctor-patient privilege as well. But where evidence of some criminality comes to the attention of the medical practitioner, they are enjoined to report that to the police. Where the child may be a subject of assault or rape, which is being concealed, they are enjoined to report that to the police.
    Mr Speaker, in the same vein, beneficiaries of legal aid are subject to those privileges because of their means that they could not afford legal representation and the State is giving them that support.
    So if in the course of proceedings it comes to the attention of the lawyer representing them, or the persons themselves that their means have changed such that they would not qualify ordinarily to receive legal aid, then, I believe the policy consideration is that the person and the lawyer must be enjoined to report those changed circumstances to the Commission or suffer a penalty thereof.
    So I believe the provision ought to be maintained as it is, otherwise it may be subject to abuse. Their circumstances might have changed but everybody likes a freebie so they would accept the legal aid, while they would be in a position to pay for it themselves thereby depriving others who may really need that service from getting it.
    So my opinion is, the provision should be maintained.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Minister?
    Mr Samuel Atta Akyea 1:35 p.m.
    Thank you Mr Speaker. I believe that sometimes we are too superfluous in terms of the way we want to do things. The whole regime of lawyer-client privilege captured in the Evidence Act, with exceptions to both as rightly said.
    All the exceptions that we looked at, for instance, there is no privilege between a lawyer and his client, for the lawyer to conceal a crime as my Hon Colleague has rightly said.
    So if there is a bad person who believes that when they started at ‘y'' point he could not pay for legal services and they would have to come to his or her aid and now, he or she becomes a managing director of a good company and is doing well, it behoves on the one who is enjoying the service to divulge it.
    If not, it is like trying to suppress serious information that nobody should reward him or her for.
    Mr Speaker, when we are putting the laws together, we should make it so consistent. If we are not careful, that one law in a very subtle way would amend a substantive law which is well known.
    The whole gamut of law on lawyer client privilege and exceptions are captured in the Evidence Act. This new law we are trying to put together should not in any way detract from the one which is already known.
    Mr Speaker, my humble view is that what we are attempting to do is superfluous and so it should be expunged so that the Evidence Act would take care of all these nuances.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member?
    Dr Kuganab-Lem 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my question is, does a lawyer have to continuously assess his or her client to find out if his or her circumstances have changed? If this becomes a case, then it is very dangerous.
    I believe that if somebody is appointed as a managing director, this is a public knowledge and for that matter it is easy to assess. Somebody has come to you in the first instance because he does not have the resources to hire a lawyer.
    So he or she is assessed at that point to know whether he does not have the capacity to pay.
    Along the line, he or she is being assessed to know whether his or her circumstance has changed and if it has, then he needs to make payment. If we open this flood gate, then we are moving towards corruption and extortion of the client.
    Mr Speaker, I would not be ignorant of the law, but common sense tells me that the fellow is assessed from the beginning, and if he does not have money he comes to legal aid and the case is taken.
    If he is employed as a managing director, it becomes common knowledge and the client himself has to disclose the fact that his circumstance has changed.
    Mr Speaker, I fear a situation where on a daily basis the law would ask the client whether his circumstances have changed.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon Members, I believe the main point is whether we should legislate for this well traversed legal position or it should just be abandoned.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon Quaittoo, do you want to contribute?
    Mr Quaittoo 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, no.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Kindly resume your seat, do not confuse me.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon former Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice?
    Dr Ayine 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the policy consideration that Hon Mahama Ayariga articulated is important.
    The cost of monitoring by the Commission or persons whose circum- stances have changed would be too high so, I believe the obligation should be on the lawyer if the circumstances change to report to the Commission, that the circumstances of the client has changed.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon Members, that has been provided for under clause 44 (1).
    What has become controversial is whether we need to provide for what is known already in clause 41(2), that notwithstanding your responsibility to report, your lawyer-client relationship responsibility is not abated - whether we would need to provide for that or not is the issue now.
    Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what we are doing under the Legal Aid Commission Bill is to grant rights to certain people under article 294.

    Mr Speaker, it is a right and with your permission, I beg to quote article 294.

    ‘'For the purposes of enforcing any provision of this Constitution, a person is entitled to legal aid...''

    Mr Speaker, it is a right that is being granted. The rights that are afforded under the Constitution come with qualifications. For instance, in article 18(2), and with your permission, I beg to quote:

    ‘'No person shall be subjected to interference with the privacy of his home, property, correspondence or communication except in accordance with law and as may be necessary in a free and democratic society for public safety or the economic well- being of the country, for the protection of health or morals, for the prevention of disorder or crime or for the protection of the rights or freedoms of others.''
    Mr Speaker, my emphasis is on ‘‘economic well 1:35 p.m.
    None

    If there is something amiss and they report themselves and it is seen that one of them, for instance, has Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) and the other does not have, it behoves the medical officer to divulge the information

    to the other person that this is the situation so he should be careful.

    Mr Speaker, confidentiality is not absolute. I do not even agree to the provision which the Hon Member for Abuakwa South said is superfluous. We can have the provision there and it would not hurt anything. It would be in fulfilment of the Constitution.

    If we do away with it, it is fair and fine, but if it is maintained it does not cause any problem at all. It would only satisfy the constitutional provision.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon Member for Wa West?
    Mr Chireh 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I listened to the Hon Majority Leader and I am happy because he ended up saying the things we have said. He said that the person should not have that privilege and that is why we would want subclauses (2) and (3) deleted because it is something that one claims.
    If one is forced as a lawyer to disclose this information, or a wife or husband to disclose some discussion, the person should claim it from the Evidence Act and give reasons why it should be granted him.
    Mr Speaker, it does not need to be legislated and that is all that we are saying. This is because if it is said in subclause (1) that the person should disclose it and in subclause (2) it could be claimed, why would that be done?
    Which one would be upheld? Any- body who is obliged to give information -- if one does not want to give the information one would claim that privilege and the privilege would be accorded by the court.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 a.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, I believe the evidence covers the situation in subclauses (2) and (3), but it is your Bill, so what is the way forward?
    Mr Banda 1:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, for subclause (2), the Evidence Act covers it, but in subclauses 1(a) and (b), there is no law which specifically puts an obligation on a lawyer or a legally assisted person to disclose information which would be vital to the altering of the condition to which the legal aid was granted.
    There is no specific obligation under any law --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 a.m.
    Alright. It means subclause (3) is creating an offence.
    Mr Banda 1:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is rightly so.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 a.m.
    Very well.
    So, let us deal with subclause 2 and then we would come to subclause (3), whether we should maintain the sub- clause (3).
    With subclause (2), I believe the general consensus is that it is sufficiently covered under the Evidence Act and so we can ignore it. If the Hon Chairman thinks so, then we should just delete subclause
    (2).
    Mr Banda 1:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree to that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 a.m.
    Mr Chairman, please move the amendment so that we can proceed.
    Mr Banda 1:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 44 subclause (2), be deleted.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 a.m.
    There is no further proposed amendment to that unless any Hon Member would want to speak to clause 44(3). If not I would put the Question on clause 44. [Pause.]
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have gone beyond clause 44(1)(b). But as a stand-alone, that subclause is not explanatory enough. Clause 44 (1) (b) says:
    “where the change is of a nature that the legally-assisted person or private lawyer ought to reasonably suspect…”
    Mr Speaker, I thought that it cannot stand alone; maybe we should make some insertions after the word “change”. Which then would read:
    “where the change in the means or circumstances for legally- assisted person is of a nature…” --
    That makes it clearer, otherwise, considering how it is, one would not get the import of it if one reads it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 a.m.
    Clause 44 (1)(a) and (b) should be read together. The (a) refers to the change in the means or circumstances of the legally assisted person.
    The subclause (b) says that:
    “where the change is of a nature that the legally-assisted person or a lawyer ought reasonably to suspect that the Commission might terminate the provision …”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 a.m.


    Hon Majority Leader, and you are saying we should insert the “change in the circumstances”; I believe that if one reads the two together, the person would get the sense of what the “change” is about.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I appreciate it; but that is if one takes it from the subclause (a). But subsections should be able to stand on their own -- that is the point I am making.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 a.m.
    Indeed, this is paragraphs (a) and (b) of one subsection. So the meaning should follow from one another.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, do you want to do anything to clause 44(3)? If not I would put the Question on clause
    44.
    Mr Banda 1:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rather thought that clause 44(1)(a) and (b) should be read together. It should not be read separately. When you read the two subclauses together, the meaning becomes clearer.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 a.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Mahama Ayariga 1:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that for lawyers who have offered to provide legal services free of charge, or even if they are remunerated at discounted rates, to penalise them as captured in subclause (3) on the basis of not reporting the change circumstances of a legally-assisted person seems to me to be a little high handed for the lawyers.
    That is the reason initially, I thought that the beneficiary should have the obligation but not the lawyer. The lawyer is offering the assistance; apart from the fact that we were debating about the time
    tested principle of the privileges that should exist between a client and a lawyer, for us to now add this kind of punishment to the lawyer is a little inconsiderate.
    Mr Speaker, so I would urge that the penalty in subclause 4(3) should be restricted to the beneficiary.
    But to insist that the lawyer should suffer a term of “imprisonment of not less than one year and not more than five years or to both” for not reporting the changed circumstances of a client -- it is as if he is benefiting from the changed circum- stances of the client. In my opinion, it is quite hard on lawyers who are providing legal aid.
    Mr Speaker, I understand the principle that we must preserve public resources and channel it to those who are most in need. But the lawyers, offering to provide legal aid are also providing a resource -- their time, knowledge and intellect. It is a resource in addition to the resource that the State is providing.
    To now impose this harsh punishment on them for just not reporting on the changed circumstance of a client is a bit harsh. Let us reconsider this provision.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, nobody forces that lawyer to offer the services. They went there voluntarily and they ought to be held accountable.
    Maybe the Hon Member thinks the severity of the sanction may be too high. But nobody forces the lawyer to go and offer legal aid. The law should apply to him.
    Mr Ayariga 1:45 a.m.
    The law should apply to who?
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:45 a.m.
    To the lawyer.
    Mr Ayariga 1:45 a.m.
    Why? [Pause.]
    Mr Samuel Atta Akyea 1:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are very much aware of the provision in the Criminal Act -- Concealment of a crime. When we talk about one being arraigned before a court of law for concealment of a crime, it does not mean that the person is the one who committed the crime. But there is a policy reason that what is wrong should come out to the benefit of society.
    So I do not believe that if you press your argument too far, the mere fact that you are not benefiting from the changed circumstances of the individual --
    But then a whole arrangement which is independent is being abused by somebody and the lawyer, being a trained mind think that he or she should conceal this vital information; I think it should be there for us to be alive to our responsibilities. Nobody is given a preferential treatment.
    Mr Speaker, the lawyer knows better than the one who is taking advantage of legal aid. And if he would not want to act responsibly, the penal sanctions would be right. So I believe it should be maintained so that we would be alive to our responsibilities.
    Mr Agbodza 1:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am not a lawyer but I would want the Hon Chairman to look at this.
    How would he read this to the L.I. 613 which is the “Professional Conduct and Etiquette of Lawyers” which normally, the General Legal Council will apply to deal with if a lawyer who misconducts himself in any way? Which is what we are trying to legislate here. There is a procedure already by which that lawyer would be punished.
    Mr Speaker, I am trying to support the position taken, that this should be limited to the client instead of extending it to the lawyer as well. Because it would be difficult.
    Assuming somebody got admitted to the Legal Aid Commission grant and, not to be blasphemous, he attends Obinim's church, got a sticker and won a lottery and then decides not to tell his lawyer but people see him living a flamboyant life somewhere, are we saying that the fact that he has won a lottery, which the lawyer may not necessarily be aware of, that lawyer is guilty of it?
    I believe that should be left to --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 a.m.
    Hon Member, one is not guilty of what he or she does not know. The offence is being created for hiding information that one has become aware of.
    The issue really is: should I be punished for assisting that person by non- disclosure to cheat the system or not even if I am a volunteer? That for me is the question.
    Yes, Hon K. T. Hammond?
    Mr Hammond 1:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have been compelled to change my mind. [Laughter.] -- Yes, I have re-read it and indeed, following the explanation you have given, it is when the notice comes to the attention of the lawyer.
    Mr Speaker, I am fortified in this rationalisation and the change of mind because quite a lot of things go on in this country with some lawyers which is not fair.
    There are some very clear evidence that some lawyers in this country conspire with their clients to commit all sorts of atrocities in the court and nobody seems to be bothered about them.
    Mr Speaker, it is awful and this matter ought to be dealt with. Indeed, thanks for
    Mr Hammond 1:55 a.m.


    your kind explanation, that it is when it comes to the attention of the lawyer.

    I thought that if the lawyer was not aware, why would we expect him to go around fishing for information and report to the Commission?

    But of course, when it comes to his attention, that is fine. [Interruption.] -- At least, this must be the first example.

    Mr Speaker, as we go along, I probably would think that whether it is a private member or whatever, there must be some quite serious regulation because some lawyers are indeed disgracing our profession in this country.

    I thank you very much.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 1:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is true that some lawyers are quite disappointing in trying to act in ways that are contrary to public policy but it is everywhere and your explanation has really brought home the import of this provision.
    That is, immediately the matter comes to the attention of the lawyer he is under obligation to report. If he or she fails to report by concealing that information, he would have committed a crime. That is what we seek to criminalise.
    So Mr Speaker, I believe your explanation is enough and that we should put it to vote.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 a.m.
    Very well, I think I get the sense of the House.
    I would put the Question on clause 44 as amended.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 44 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, it is five minutes to 2.00 o'clock. Could we finish clause 45 and then suspend Sitting and deal with --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, let us attempt to do clause 45 and 46 to conclude that part.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 a.m.
    Very well.
    Clause 45 -- Demand for or receipts of certain payments prohibited.
    Mr Banda 1:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 45, delete and insert the following:
    Demand for or receipt of certain payments prohibited
    “45. (1) A Lawyer shall not without the approval of the Commission:
    (a) charge or recover from a legally- assisted person, an amount in respect of work assigned to the lawyer by the Commission on behalf of that person; or
    (b) make a disbursement on behalf of that person in respect of legal aid.
    Mr Speaker, the sense has not been changed. We have tried to reword the provisions.
    As they are at the moment, the provisions are not clearly constructed, especially if we link the preamble, that is; clause 45(1) to clause 45(1)(b), the meaning does not come out clearly.
    So we tried to reconstruct the provisions in order to make it clearer and better understood.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 a.m.
    So should we defer clause 45?
    Mr Banda 1:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, no, we are not deferring. We are deleting --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 a.m.
    Do you mean the amendment makes it clearer?
    Mr Banda 1:55 a.m.
    Rightly so, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 a.m.
    Very well. Hon Members, it is for the consideration of the House.
    Mr Iddrisu 1:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I generally agree with the thinking, but if the Hon Chairman would look at clause 45(1)(b) which states:
    “make a disbursement on behalf of that person in respect of legal aid”.
    Why are we not using the same words we used in clause 45(1)(a); “legally assisted person” if we want to be consistent? [Interruption.] Yes, so in one breadth, he says:
    “(a) charge or recover from a legally- assisted person…”
    Then, in clause 45(1)(b) he defines, “legally assisted person” as “person in respect of legal aid”. For consistency, we should maintain, “make a disbursement on behalf of that legally assisted person”.
    With the indulgence of Mr Speaker, I so further amend.
    Ms Safo 1:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, humbly, I disagree with the further proposed amendment by the Hon Minority Leader.
    I rather propose that the sentence in clause 45(1)(a) should end at “Commission” because acting “on behalf of” implies that the reference to the lawyer
    here is the one who is representing the “legally assisted person”.
    So to go on and add, “on behalf of that person” when reference has already been made to the “legally-assisted person” and the lawyer, it implies that that relationship would be in respect of representing that “legally-assisted person”.
    Mr Speaker, so I propose that the new rendition should read 1:55 a.m.
    “A lawyer shall not without the approval of the Commission:
    (a) charge or recover from a legally assisted person an amount in respect of the work assigned to the lawyer by the Commission.”
    I so propose and move.
    Mr K. T. Hammond 1:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have been reading the clause but I cannot grasp it properly.
    The essence or application of legal aid is to the extent that the client has consulted the lawyer and an application has been made to the Legal Aid Commission. The disbursement authority has been granted to the lawyer. The job is completed.
    At this stage, it has nothing to do with the client because, first, there was authority for the lawyer to start the work. Without it, maybe, the work would not have started.
    So to that extent, it is agreed that the contract is already established and completed. The lawyer then has to discharge the legal aid that was granted by the Legal Aid Commission.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    Hon Ranking Member?
    Mr K. T. Hammond 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the original rendition and the amendment both do not mean much; they are not helpful.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    Very well. Hon Ranking Member?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what the amendment seeks to do is to prohibit a lawyer from charging or
    receiving any amount from a legally -- [Interruption.] -- Well, he can do that. If he does it wrongly and so -- We do not want him to do it wrongly and that is why we are criminalising it by asking him not to do it.
    The only time that a lawyer can do that is when he has approval from the Legal Aid Commission.
    Mr Speaker, that is what we are saying and I agree with the amendment of the Hon Deputy Majority Leader, that we should stop at “Commission” and not --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    Hon Members, having regard to the state of Business, I direct that the House sits outside the regular Sitting hours.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we should stop at “Commission”. So that it reads:
    “A lawyer shall not without the approval of the Commission:
    (a) charge or recover from a legally- assisted person, an amount in respect of work assigned to the lawyer by the Commission”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    Hon Chairman and Hon Ranking Member, should there arise an occasion at all, where with or without permission of the Commission and the lawyer demands money from the legally-assisted person or disburses money on his behalf. It should not be.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you are a Daniel. I perfectly agree with what you have proposed and the preceding part of the sentence must go, that is: “… without the approval of the Commission:”
    This is because what we would want to talk about here is that, because the Legal Aid Commission is paying, the lawyer should not demand a second payment and that should not arise under any circumstance.
    So I think we should do away with the preceding part and I would further agree with the further amendment that it should end at “assigned to the lawyer”.
    So I believe the new proposed amendment would be:
    “A lawyer shall not charge or recover from a legally-assisted person, an amount in respect of work assigned to the lawyer”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    I think that should be it. What we want to say is that it is the Commission that would have given the lawyer work and so the lawyer should not ask for any money from the legally-assisted person.
    So there should not be an occasion where a Commission grants that lawyer permission to ask for money from the client, no.
    Mr K.T. Hammond 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that really settles it, but I think for the sake of completeness, let us just add that in respect of the work that has been approved by the Commission.
    This is because we could get a situation where there is a limit and the lawyer goes out of the limit of what is granted by the Legal Aid Commission to do some work. In that case --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    They would not be sanctioned by this work; it will be a private arrangement.
    Mr K. T. Hammond 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with the client.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    That is between the lawyer and the client and other considerations will then apply.
    Mr K.T. Hammond 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we leave it at what has been written, it will then mean that in any event that the lawyer goes back to the client for some money, the lawyer might be committing an offence. That is the bit that is troubling me now.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have just dealt with clause 44 which provides that circumstances may arise where the grant of legal aid will be varied.
    If such circumstances arise, the Commission may approve of the lawyer which may be taking some stipends from that person. Such circumstances could arise which could lead to that, and that is what we dealt with in clause 44 - “Notification of changes”.
    Mr Speaker, even in that case, we need the approval of the Commission. The lawyer cannot on his or her own seek any recompense from the legally-assisted person. I think it is for the avoidance of doubt that we have clause 45 and we should allow it to stay.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    I believe that we should not legislate for anything outside providing legal aid. The Commission only exists to provide legal aid to persons applying or litigating on the Constitution.
    With that, it does not matter whether the lawyer is impecunious, and secondly, providing legal aid to persons who are impecunious.
    We should not give room for saying the Commission will approve that the lawyer will charge the person something extra. That will be outside legal aid and I do not think we should legislate for that. So the Constitution should be clear ‘‘that

    the lawyer shall not charge or recover from a legally-assisted person, any amount in respect of the work assigned to the lawyer by the Commission”. That is it.

    Any other thing is outside the Commission and if you have a private arrangement with the person -- but under this Act, we should not make room for the Commission to extend the legal aid into some other business. I think we should not.
    Ms Safo 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the wording; “…without the approval of the Commission” should stay.
    Mr Speaker, with my experience at the Legal Aid Board, and having in mind the practices and challenges captured in clause 44(1), there are situations where clients are granted legal aid and given lawyers to assist them.
    For instance, a widow who has been thrown out of the house, jobless, cannot take care of her children and is assigned a lawyer.
    If it so happens that along the line, she is able to secure a job, get a place to live and can actually assist the legal practitioners in one way or the other --
    There are instances where legal aid clients will voluntarily, at a point offer you transport as a lawyer. In those instances, it means that their circumstances have changed as compared to when they first came for the assistance for legal aid.
    Mr Speaker, I believe it is around that thinking that clause 45(1) is being proposed here. In any event, where circumstances have changed and there is a possibility of the legally-assisted person assisting or providing some payment to
    the lawyer at that point, because of the earlier engagement that the Commission has had with the legally-assisted person, it will not be proper for the lawyer to go his own way to request for some payment.
    So in that instance, you actually have to seek approval, having brought to the knowledge of the Commission, the circumstances that have changed in your client's case, that indeed, the client is in a position to offer some payment.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that the approval at that point is needed from the Commission before the lawyer could take any payment whatsoever, having in mind that he was engaged to offer that legal service on pro bono basis.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Asante Akim Central, I have a totally different --
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I perfectly agree with the further amendment that the Hon Deputy Majority Leader suggested, especially when we are dropping the preceding part which has the “Commission”. We should end the sentence at the “Commission”.
    Mr Speaker, so the new rendition would be, “A lawyer shall not charge or recover from a legally-assisted person an amount in respect of work assigned to the lawyer by the Commission.”
    Mr Speaker, thank you.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    Hon Members, there are proposed amend- ments.
    Hon Chairman, it is changing your proposed amendment.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 a.m.
    Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice.
    Mr Kpemka 2:15 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the rational for this is that hypothetically there are certain situations where somebody is owed an amount of money, like GH¢1 million but is unable to afford the fees for litigation.
    This person may qualify under the Legal Aid Commission Act and a particular lawyer is elected for the person and he wins the case with interest and so on.
    This is a very appropriate case where we could rely on the Commission to exercise the discretion for a certain amount to be set aside to take care of the legal practitioner.
    So, exceptional situations would arise and when those situations arise, then we could invoke this particular section to be able to protect litigants.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, immediately that person wins that case, then his situation would have changed.
    Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Iddrisu 2:15 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice has failed to persuade me with his example of GH¢1 million.
    Mr Speaker, who needs legal aid and for whom are we getting this institution revised through this legislation to serve? Certainly, it must be persons who are in distress and indigents, but to have GH¢1 million --
    Then the person would be dressed in suit like the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice who is a fine gentleman.
    Mr Speaker, so I am not persuaded and I think that we should look at what the Hon Chairman said, but probably improve upon it further.

    All right. Let us see the further amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, I believe the further amendment would make it clear as to what we want.
    Mr Banda 2:15 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, rightly so, except to say that -- [Interruption.]
    Mr Speaker, so we are deleting “without the approval of the Commission.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 a.m.
    Yes, that is the proposed amendment.
    Mr Banda 2:15 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is the proposal.
    Mr Speaker, somewhere in the provisions, it has been provided that an applicant may contribute to the cost of legal services and this provision is giving the Commission the discretion that the part of the contribution that may be made by the legally-assisted person should be paid to the lawyer.
    So the discretion is for the Commission to decide that instead of the applicant making the contribution to the Com- mission directly, the Commission may say that this is the person's contribution and same should be made to the lawyer as part of defraying the cost of legal services in respect of the work assigned to the lawyer.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, why do you not let whatever the contribution is, come to the Commission? This is because in these matters the client of the lawyer is the Commission.
    The Legal Aid Commission is engaging a lawyer to provide the service to a third party. So the Legal Aid Commission is the client. If the third party, the indigent, earns money --
    The Commission says that they have opened a Client Account where the money should be paid and it is the Commission that would disburse that amount, is that right?
    So, why do you want the lawyer to also deal directly with the third party? Let us continue on that path and let the money go into the Client Account and let the Commission disburse from there.
    This is because if we are not careful, the indigent person would be abused at the blind side of the Commission.
    Mr K. T. Hammond 2:15 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the exact point is what I was discussing with my Hon Colleague just before the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice rose to make his point.
    Mr Speaker, we really have to make some provision for that but it is quite different from what we are talking about now.
    I believe that we could leave what we are talking about at this stage and move to the next stage, where along the line or maybe through the effort of the Legal Aid
    Commission and because of the money disbursed to the solicitor, we are able to recover some property of some significant amount and the Legal Aid Commission would decide that for that reason they would not bear the cost.
    Mr Speaker, the solicitor would have a choice, and that is what we should find the words and put it there.
    Mr Speaker, because the Legal Aid Commission would give the lawyer peanuts but when the lawyer goes to the source where the cost has been awarded, then the lawyer would have enhanced cost and so on.
    So, the lawyer could decide that “I would forfeit my benefit from the Legal Aid Commission but go into cost with the person who has lost the argument from the other source where the money is being retrieved”.
    Mr Speaker, so we should find the appropriate wording and create that condition. In that case, the lawyer cannot get double payment from the Legal Aid Commission and the indigent person. We could set the condition that under no circumstance could a lawyer receive two disbursements.
    As it is, I believe this is an appropriate rendition and so let us leave it at that and go where, through the efforts of the Legal Aid Commission, the person got the money that we are talking about.
    The Legal Aid Commission could seek to reclaim their disbursement from the person, or the lawyer would make the arrangement, whether with the Legal Aid Commission or with the person himself. Mr Speaker, I believe we could deal with that.
    Mr Iddrisu 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, probably, we should re-examine the Hon Chairman's proposal.
    Mr Speaker, under clause 45, the Hon Chairman seeks to delete and insert the words he referred to on page 4.
    Mr Speaker, it reads 2:25 a.m.
    “Demand for or receipt of certain payment prohibited.”
    45(1) A Lawyer shall not without the approval of the Commission:
    (a) charge or recover from a legally- assisted person, an amount in respect of work assigned to the lawyer by the Commission on behalf of that person;
    Mr Speaker, the intention there is to ensure that on the basis of a lawyer-client relationship, there is no abuse or exploitation without the Commission's tacit approval.
    Mr Speaker, the (b) reads 2:25 a.m.
    “Make a disbursement on behalf of that legally-assisted person …”
    So, I do not see why we seem to be departing from the merit of this particular insertion of the Hon Chairman.
    Mr Speaker, suffice to add that we only need to delete “person in respect of legal aid”, because we have already defined that to mean “legally-assisted person”. Mr Speaker, then we could make progress.
    Mr Speaker, simply, it says that a lawyer should not make a request without the Commission.
    We want the lawyer to work with the Commission and even if he wants he would serve the Commission with notice,
    apply or let them be in the known that this is what he seeks to do.
    If they approve, then it would be granted, but if they do not then it ends there.
    Mr Speaker, thank you.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, what is the rendition we are going with because we have been battling over this for a while?
    Mr Banda 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is a divided opinion. Some say we should delete “without the approval” and others are saying we should maintain “without the approval”.
    Mr Speaker, my humble opinion is that, we should maintain it, but by effecting or containing the amendment proffered by the Hon Deputy Majority Leader. She said that we should delete “on behalf of that person.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, move your amendment.
    Mr Banda 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 45(1) A Lawyer shall not without the approval of the Commission:
    (a) charge or recover from a legally-assisted person, an amount in respect of work assigned to the lawyer by the Commission; or
    (b) make a disbursement on behalf of the legally-assisted person.”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, at the heart of clause 45 is whether or not we should allow for any interface between the lawyer and the legally-assisted person, whether any moneys at all can be taken from the legally-assisted person by the lawyer.
    Or that, if there is any payment to the lawyer, it should be by the Commission. That is at the heart of this discussion and that is what should engage us.
    In all these, does the legally-assisted person have any direct contract with the lawyer? No! The lawyer is contracted for the legally-assisted person by the Commission. So any payment cannot directly be between the legally-assisted person and the lawyer.
    In that case, then we should determine for ourselves that if we accept that there should not be any direct relationship, then I would go for the amendment proposed by Hon Anyimadu-Antwi.

    Mr Speaker, I am informed that -- [Interruption] -- the very principle of Legal Aid is that we have the Commission at the centre contracting lawyers to act for and on behalf of the legally-assisted persons; the persons who require legal assistance.

    In that case, there should not be any situation where we have that direct interface between the legally-assisted
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    We have heard this argument over and over again. That was why I said the Chairman should propose his amendment. I thought the position had been agreed, that it is the Commission that is engaging a lawyer. So we have one -- But usually, the second amendment is put first.
    Hon Majority Leader, which one is put first?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the second amendment is the first. So if it wins, then the original amendment will fall. But because it was not advertised I would leave it with you.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Let me hear the proposed amendment of the Hon Member for Asante-Akim Central, then we would take the decision.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, my proposal was that it should read --
    Mr Banda 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would succumb to his proposition, so that we can make progress. [Laughter.]
    Mr Speaker, we are deleting “without the approval of the Commission”, so that it reads, “a lawyer shall not”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am sorry. I am looking at paragraph (b) of clause 45(1), which reads that a lawyer shall not make a disbursement on behalf of a legally-assisted person.
    I would want us to consider, that if the lawyer on his own would want to make a disbursement -- and it happens in practices. A lawyer may do a case that he or she may want to assist by this arrangement, we are barring a lawyer from assisting a legally-assisted person.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    No, when we say make disbursement, it means money belonging to the client, which the lawyer spends on his behalf.
    So, clearly, the lawyer should not have that opportunity at all. That is why any money intended for him would go to the Client Account. So, it stands.
    Mr K. T. Hammond 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have been struggling very hard to seek your approval, so that my Hon Colleagues could understand.
    Mr Speaker, the whole enterprise of legal aid is simply to get a lawyer to help an impecunious individual. At the end of the day, this arrangement has already been accomplished between the Legal Aid Board or the Commission and the lawyers for the benefit of the legally-assisted person.
    At the end of the day, what happens is that, in respect of all of the disbursements, the Legal Aid Commission had already approved and given the limit both in terms of the work and the finance.
    The lawyer puts together his papers at the end of the day and applies for discharge. That is the lawyer's approval. This is because without the discharge, the lawyer gets nothing.
    So this bit about seeking approval here and there, I do not quite understand -- [Interruption] -- No.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    We have gone past there. If I understand the clause clearly, what it says is that the lawyer shall not spend any money on behalf of the client; money for the client.
    If there is a situation where, for example, cost is awarded on behalf of the client and the solicitor purports to use the money to do some services -- That is why the clause says:
    “A Lawyer shall not make any disbursement on behalf of the client in respect of legal aid.”
    I believe it is sufficient.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe there was a further amendment to that. That is;
    “…make a disbursement on behalf of the legally-assisted person.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    That has been made. It was part of what was voted upon.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:25 a.m.
    All right.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Very well. At this juncture, I would suspend Sitting.
    Hon Majority Leader, what were you suggesting?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, just a minor amendment to clause 46 and then we would finish that subsection.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    With what I see in clause 46, it would not be controversial.

    It says, add at the end “of proceedings.”

    Clause 46 -- Expenses of applicants.
    Mr Banda 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 46, paragraph (d), at end add “of proceedings”.
    So the new rendition would read;
    “An applicant whose application is approved shall be exempted from paying the prescribed fee in respect of (a) the cost of preparing appeal records and records of proceedings”.
    Mr Speaker, much as appeal records obviously include the record of proceedings, there is a slight distinction between the two. Appeal records consist of the record of proceedings, documents, files and notice of appeals, and they are transmitted to the appellate court by the registrar.
    But a client or a lawyer could apply for the record of proceedings in the course of trial even when the matter has not terminated.
    So, we wanted to make that distinction, which is why we are adding the record of proceedings.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 46 (a), insert after filing, “and service”, so that it reads, “filing and service of relevant court documents”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    When the fees are charged, it includes the service charge, so we do not need that.
    Ms Safo 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 46(a), the wording “court documents”, usually the terminology is “court processes”. So if we are using “documents”, then we should stick to documents, but when we referred to court processes -- So Mr Speaker, I am proposing that we use “processes”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, she is saying that it should change from “documents” to “processes”?
    Mr Banda 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, to be more legalistic, let us use “processes”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    I recall in this Chamber, when there was an argument about law-making, the Hon Second Deputy Speaker was then the Majority Leader.
    He said we should make laws understandable by every person, so instead of saying “enacted”, we should say “passed by Parliament”.
    Very well, the proposed amendment is that we should delete “documents” and insert “processes”.
    Mr Banda 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is a consequential amendment in respect of (c).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Very well. Consequentially, in clause 46, in all places where “documents” appear, insert “processes”.
    Mr Amoateng 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, by your leave, before you put the Question on clause 46, if we may revisit subclause (d), the amendment was “records of proceedings”. I think it should be “record of proceedings”, so that in the word “records” we would delete “s”.
    Mr Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Very well, “records” and “ appeal record”, which of them?
    Mr Amoateng 2:25 a.m.
    “Appeal records and record of proceedings”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 46 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Hon Members, the House is suspended for one hour. Sitting shall resume at 4.40 p.m., but before that, let me bring the Consideration Stage to a close.
    That brings us to the end of the Consideration of the Legal Aid Commission Bill, 2017 .
    2.40 p.m. -- Sitting suspended.
    5.33 p.m. -- Sitting resumed.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Hon Members, welcome back.
    Hon Majority Leader, where are we continuing from?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have finished with clause 46, so, we would be continuing from clause 47.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Very well.
    We would resume consideration of the Legal Aid Commission Bill, 2017.
    BILLS -- CONSIDERATION STAGE 2:25 a.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, we finished with clause 46. Is that right?
    Mr Banda 2:25 a.m.
    It is rightly so, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    So we are continuing at clause 47.
    Clause 47 -- Determination of appeal.
    Mr Banda 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 47, paragraph (b), after “writing” insert “to the appellant”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 2:25 a.m.
    “47. A legal Aid Review Committee shall
    (b) give notice in writing to the appellant of the determination of the Committee of the appeal;”
    This is because, the current rendition does not bring out clearly who the notice is addressed to. Of course, the notice cannot be addressed to any other person than the appellant since it is talking about determination of appeal.
    Subclause (a) says the appeal shall be determined, and (b) says, after the determination of the appeal, notice thereof has to be given to the appellant, hence the amendment is informed by this fact.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Very well.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we were talking about this to the Hon Chairman this morning to resort to the straightway instead of the detour that he would want to make.
    We would want to give notice in writing to the determination of the Committee of the Appeal to the appellant. So in my view, “to the appellant” should come after appeal. It is straight and much more reader friendly.
    Mr Hammond 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, in my view, the whole rubric is wrong. “Determination of appeal” is wrong. Firstly, we must establish the right of appeal before we go on to the determination.
    So I am of the view that the rubric should first be “Right of Appeal” for clause 47, then we go on with a rendition like this:
    “The person who is refused legal aid may appeal to the Legal Aid Review Committee.”
    That is how it should look like, then we could do the rest.
    Mr Patrick Yaw Boamah 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, to add to what the Hon K. T. Hammond just said, there also ought to be specific timelines within which an aggrieved person can make such an appeal.
    I think when we enhance the debate, we would have to look at specific timelines within which a person who is aggrieved by any decision by a lower body ought to make that appeal.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Hon Member, I think you are introducing a different thing. I believe the Hon K. T. Hammond said this is an appeal --
    Yes, Hon Ranking Member?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 11 of the Bill establishes the right of the appeal taker generally. This is because, it says which I beg to quote:
    “A Legal Aid Review Committee shall review a petition against a decision of an officer of the Commission to grant or refuse legal aid to an applicant.”
    Then clause 46 shows the way to do it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    But still we need to clarify what application we make to this Appeal Review Committee because it comes out of the blue. We have demand for receipts, expenses of applicant and then determination of appeal, which reads:
    “47. A legal Aid Review Committee shall
    (a) determine an appeal made to the Legal Aid Review Com- mittee;
    (b) give notice in writing to the appellant of the determina- tion of the…”
    What appeal is it? Is it an appeal against a sentence or a ruling or which kind of appeal are we determining in this one?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is in clause 9.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to quote 2:25 a.m.
    “9. (1) The Board may establish committees consisting of members of the Board or non- members or both to perform a function.
    (2) Without limiting subsection (1) the Board shall establish a Legal Aid Review Committee in each regional capital to hear and determine an appeal in respect of a refusal to grant legal aid …”
    That has been established there.
    Mr Speaker, maybe, you are talking about the sequence; where to place these things. So if it has to do with the sequence or arrangement, it is another matter which perhaps we can deal with in conjunction with the draftspersons to see where to appropriately locate them.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:43 a.m.
    I agree with you. It is that kind of appeal. This is because, coming immediately after a hearing of the matter and awards and so on, it would appear as if we are talking about appeal against -- I think it is about the arrangement. In that case, this clause 47 should be relocated to where we have clause 11.
    Let me listen to the Hon Member for Daboya-Mankarigu.
    Mr Shaibu Mahama 5:43 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, flowing from clause 9, I tend to agree with my learned Friend about the timing. If clause 9 says it shall look at an appeal in respect of a refusal to grant legal aid by the Executive Director or his representative, Mr Speaker, I would want to believe that we need to have a timeline within which that should be done.
    If we are relocating clause 9, then we should make provision for the time limit. Otherwise we would just open the door for them to sit on an appeal for a year or more. Therefore it would not serve the purpose for which we originally intended.
    So while we relocate the clause and realign them, we should make provision for the time limit within which the appeal should be heard. Otherwise, we would leave that to them and they will sit on it forever.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:43 a.m.
    But if we compare clauses 47 and 11, they appear to talk about the same thing.
    Mr Chireh 5:43 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe the relocation of “committee” -- Clause 9 talks about committees generally, but because this is a standing committee of the Commission, some of the things we are
    considering now should come under clause 11, so that the other amendments some Hon Members have made to give timelines can all be considered because it is a standing committee.
    Mr Speaker, if we look at functions of the Legal Aid Review Committee, we could just say the Legal Aid Review Committee and then put the functions and the processes of how the appeals are done. Therefore clause 47 should not stand alone. It is far away from the action point. So we could consider --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:43 a.m.
    In fact, both clauses 47 and 48 --
    Mr Chireh 5:43 a.m.
    We could consider clause 47 now and if we approve of it, it should be relocated where we would have all of it under one group. So it does not matter.
    Mr Speaker, we could add the time frame to the amendments some Hon Members are proposing for and when we approve of it, the relocation would be done by the draftspersons.
    Mr K. T. Hammond 5:43 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if one reads clause 9(2) and he refers to the clause 47 that we are talking about, he may be tempted to suggest that what is the point of clause 9(2) where it is posited, considering what is provided in clause 47?
    Mr Speaker, we could take clause 47(2) completely away because it sits comfortably at clause 9(2).
    We are talking about the establishment of committees to do certain things and then we talk without limiting ourselves to that, certainly one would jump over to appeals when we really intend to provide a right of appeal in its own stead.
    Some Hon Members 5:43 a.m.
    Clause 11 is better.
    Mr K. T. Hammond 5:43 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, to put it at clause 11?
    An Hon Member 5:43 a.m.
    Yes.
    Mr K. T. Hammond 5:43 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 11 reads:
    “A Legal Aid Review Committee shall review a petition against a decision …”
    [Interruption.] No, that is the review.
    Mr Speaker, we are talking about the right of appeal. It is separate from its determination. One must first have the right of appeal, which I thought was to be established by clause 47, which simply makes the point “Determination of appeal”. I accept that some provision has to be made under clause 9(2) to cater for that.

    The Hon Majority Leader understands the point I am making so, I believe he is also making some contributions to that.
    rose
    Mr K. T. Hammond 5:43 a.m.
    I thought you already understood my point? The Hon Majority Leader was struggling to follow me, now that he understands me --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:43 a.m.
    Me?
    Mr K. T. Hammond 5:43 a.m.
    No, not you. He was -- The Hon Member points to Mr Frederick Opare-Ansah. [Laughter.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:43 a.m.
    Will the Hon Member on his feet address the Chair please?
    Mr K. T. Hammond 5:43 a.m.
    The Hon Majority Leader was helping me.
    Mr Speaker, it is common place that we would leave clause 47 as it is. We will come back to it. We would establish the right of appeal in clause 47, and I said that we could have a sentence to the effect that -- The determination of appeal would go and in its place, we would have the right of appeal:
    “A person who is refused legal aid shall have the right of appeal”.
    We would want to make it mandatory.
    Mr Speaker, this may then be clause 47 (2) which would become 5:43 a.m.
    “Pursuant to clause 11(2), the Legal Aid Review Committee shall …”
    Mr Banda 5:43 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the principle is well understood, and probably, what we have to look at is the structuring of the provisions.
    Mr Speaker, clause 9(2) creates the Legal Aid Review Committee and determines its scope of powers. Clause 11 also creates the right of appeal and further goes ahead to give the Legal Aid Review Committee the power, more or less, to determine the appeal that is embedded in the functions.
    Mr Speaker, clause 47 gives a further elaboration with respect to the appeal. The Legal Aid Review Committee would be giving a notice of the determination of the appeal to the appellant and recording its reasons for the determination of the appeal.
    So, Mr Speaker, we may decide to transfer after the proposed amendment. If it is accepted to transfer the amended clause 47 to clause 11 in order to make the reading very easy and logical.
    So, Mr Speaker, I would propose that we should first of all decide on the amendment and thereafter, we would decide where to transfer clause 47 to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:43 a.m.
    The Hon Majority Leader proposed that where you intend to insert “to the appellant” should be relocated to after “the appeal”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:43 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, under the “Determination of appeal”, we have just two clauses. Now, we have hinted at the establishment of a Legal Aid Review Committee in clause 9, so unless --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:43 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, the Committee had proposed an amendment that we should insert after “writing” the words “to the appellant” and you had a counter proposal that “to the appellant” should come after “the appeal”.
    The Hon Chairman of the Committee says that we should complete this amendment and relocate that whole clause and I tend to agree with him because this is wrongly placed.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:43 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, that was the intendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:53 a.m.
    So, let us take the amendment proposed and then after that we relocate it.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 5:53 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, looking at clause 47 and reading it together with clause 11 is where the confusion is arising from, because 11 talks about petitions. Where an application is refused, the applicant is entitled to bring a petition against the refusal.
    In clause 11, the petitioner is identified as an applicant, so I believe that if we relocate it to clause 11, we would not be dealing with appeals again because the Legal Aid Commission would be dealing with petitions.
    Mr Speaker, secondly, I am tempted to move an amendment that, ‘appeal' in clause 47(a) be deleted and ‘petition' be inserted and then in clause 47(b), the same thing should be done. It is consequential to the petitioner or to the applicant and in clause 47(c), appeal to petition is consequential. That is how it should read, so that it would be consistent with clause
    11.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 5:53 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we listen to the argument offered by Hon K. T. Hammond and Hon Boamah regarding timelines, then, when we look at the Bill as captured currently with regard to clauses 9, 11 and 47, it is clear that we need to do some re-arrangement.
    So my suggestion is that we look at the substance of their proposals and when we agree to those, we could direct the draftspersons to clean things up and re-arrange them for us properly.
    Thank you.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:53 a.m.
    That is precisely what I directed. So now we are looking at the ‘appeal' instead of going back and forth.
    Mr K. T. Hammond 5:53 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have been arguing that clause 47 as posited should not be disturbed, and it is for a good reason. We start at clause 38, talking about application for legal aid. We have not applied yet, why would we have right of appeal and right of whatever at clauses 9, 10 or 11? It cannot be proper.
    So Mr Speaker, when we get to clause 38 where we have application for legal aid, we could go through that process and then along the line, if it is refused, we could come to the process at clause 47 where we would then have the right of appeal following the refusal in clause 38 and then the review would follow.
    So clauses 9, 10, 11 and 12 are wrongly placed.
    They are those which should be looked at if deletions are to be made; it should be looked at from there. Clause 47 sits at the right place because it follows in the logical sequence of the structure of the law.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:53 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, what the Hon Member for Adansi Asokwa, Hon K. T. Hammond is running us through really is a dirge in the poetry of disorder. [Laughter.]
    Mr Speaker, we have been saved by the Hon Member for Suhum when he says that we should let us deal with the substance as contained in clauses 47 and 48. When we have done that, then we leave it to the draftspersons to look at the symmetry of what we are doing.
    Mr Speaker, this is because if we are not careful and we follow the logic of the Hon Member for Adansi Asokwa, — he
    seems to be suggesting to us that in that regard we should establish the legal aid for them to listen to applications, grant same before we set up the committees and thereafter come to the legal aid review.

    I am saying that let us deal with the substance in clauses 47 and 48, when we have done so, then we would leave it to the draftspersons to see where to situate it. Otherwise we would be going forward and backward and not making any progress.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:53 a.m.
    I believe I made that ruling, now I would proceed with that. Let us consider the proposed amendment in clause 47, after that I would give the appropriate directions.
    Yes Hon Chairman, the Hon Majority Leader is proposing that instead of inserting ‘to the appellant' after “writing”, we should insert it at after ‘appeal'.
    Mr Banda 5:53 a.m.
    That is agreed, Mr Speaker.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:53 a.m.
    Item listed (viii)?
    Mr Banda 5:53 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 47, paragraph (c), delete “of the “Committee for the appeal” and insert “for the determination of the Committee.
    So the new rendition would read:
    “Record the reasons for the determination of the Committee.”
    Mr Speaker, the way it is crafted now does not clearly bring out the meaning of it though the sense is captured. Mr Speaker, “recording the reasons for the decision of the Committee” is all that this provision seeks to say.
    Mr Chireh 5:53 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the better rendition would be — The point is what the Hon Chairman is talking about: record the reasons of the determination of the appeal. It is the reasons assigned in determining that which is being recorded, So ‘of the Committee' should not come in again.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:53 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, why do we not just say, ‘record the reasons for the decision of the Committee?'
    Mr Banda 5:53 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that is simpler. So we could then under subclause (b), where ‘determination' appears, we could substitute it with ‘decision'.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:53 a.m.
    Does it finish with subclause (c) ‘record the reasons for the decision of the Committee'?
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:03 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, you wanted to propose another amendment some- where? [Pause.]
    I think you were trying to suggest that in subclause (b), where there is the “determination”, we should just use
    Mr Banda 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes. I am suggesting “give notice in writing of the decision of the Committee of the appeal to the appellant”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:03 p.m.
    Hon Members, that is to bring consistency.
    Mr Boamah 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I need further clarification from the Chairman of the Committee on what he just told this House. On the decision of the Legal Aid Review Committee, is it the final decision of appeal or the person has a further rise to go up?
    Mr Speaker, I ask this because I would want to know, once the decision is made by the Legal Aid Review Committee, is it the final decision of the Committee? Within what timelines does the person have to further appeal?
    So going back to my earlier sub- mission, I believe there ought to be timelines. Firstly, a person who is aggrieved has to be given a time frame within which to file his or her grounds of appeal.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member has taken us into the realm of the courtroom. This decision we are talking about is about the grant or refusal of legal aid.
    Mr Hammond 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my Hon Colleague is quite right on the question of the time limitation. I think there must be a time limit. So when we establish the time limit and of course, go on in the course of dealing with the clause 47, I believe we have now reached the point of determination and then we are giving reasons.
    But I believe in that same clause, the time within which the applicant should appeal, the refusal of the grant should be stipulated here; that I believe is fine.
    Of course, if they are still not happy, they can --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:03 p.m.
    Hon Member, there was a proposal to amend clause 47(b) by substituting the word “decision” for “determination” -- that was what was on the Floor. Let us deal with that after which you can introduce other matters.
    Mr Chireh 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, since they are talking about time frame, we could actually incorporate -- [Interruption.]
    No, I am saying within clause 47(b), I was suggesting that we can say ‘‘give
    notice in writing of the decision of the Committee within a month or two weeks''. It is a further amendment of this particular one so that we do not go back to it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:03 p.m.
    Firstly, it is the word “decision” replacing “deter- mination”. Is that agreeable to the House?
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Hon Member, you would want to propose further amendment to subclause (b) by introducing timing.
    Mr Chireh 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the further amendment I would want to make to add is “give notice in writing of the decision of the committee within 14 days”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Chairman, the Hon Member wants to introduce 14 days within which the notice of appeal would be given. Are you agreeable to that?
    Mr Banda 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not have a problem with the time line. But if the Hon Member could repeat the way he crafted it so that we could interrogate it well.
    Mr Chireh 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, insert “give notice in writing of the decision of the Committee to the appellant within 14 days”.
    Ms Safo 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe the proposed amendment is incomplete because the question you asked was when would the 14 days start running. So it should be within 14 days upon receipt of probably, the written notice of the decision --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:03 p.m.
    Relative to the decision —
    Ms Safo 6:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe I am in support of the proposal by the Hon Member for Okaikoi Central. To the extent that the chronology in which clause 47 stands now, I believe we would have to go back again to first establish the right to appeal or right to review.
    This is because I am comparing same with the Public Procurement Act and the rendition that is put in here -- First, the right of appeal or your right to petition must first be established.
    And then it goes on to talk about the application having been made in writing and the days within which that application ought to be made.
    Mr Speaker, upon receiving the application or the appeal, the time frame within which to give a decision, so that it would follow that chronology as it is similar to what pertains in the Public Procurement Act. So that we just do not start with a determination of an appeal when the right has not been established and so on.
    I thank you.
    Mr Chireh 6:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Legal Aid Review Committee is the basis for the establishment of that right to appeal. It is already in the clause 11 that we are talking about.
    Mr Speaker, so the right to appeal is provided; it is the function of that Committee. That one establishes the right for one to appeal.
    The Hon Deputy Majority Leader was talking about the period within which to do so. Again, if you look at the process, when somebody makes an application for legal aid, the determination by the Executive Secretary or whoever takes the
    decisions is already outlined in how to determine who qualifies.
    Therefore, if the person makes an application, that is the reason we should be looking at the time frame within which period if he is refused, he could then make the application.
    Mr Speaker, but the Legal Aid Review Committee is the one given the right so we do not need to separately provide for the right to appeal. If you look at clause 11 very well, it creates the avenue for you and without that, one cannot be talking about the right.
    Even if one wants to establish the right, it should be under the provision that it is dealing with applications. I believe that is clause 38 where the application is made and then they would determine and cite that one is either qualified or entitled.
    If one is refused, that is where the person then makes the appeal. But I believe that it is already defined because of the Legal Aid Review Committee.
    Mr Hammond 6:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Colleague is right in one respect because he also talks about the structure where the appeal is established. That is where we talked about the clause 47.
    But what I believe he conflicts the point we are making on this side is that, there is the first point of appeal, where originally there has been a determination that one does not qualify because of the merit of one's case.
    I would have thought that there would be two strands: first would be the merit of one's case itself and then, of course, one being tested to see whether financially, one could handle it.

    At that stage, when there is a determination that one does not qualify, this is where clause 47 which states the establishment of the right of appeal would come in. We said that anybody refused in this circumstances would, in the first place, have the right of appeal, and the time limits of same being about 14 days.

    I believe what my Hon Colleague talked about is when there has been a determination of this appeal and reasons have been given for the decision, then they are thinking about a further appeal. That is where I believe we should get it right. Our first 14 days is with the original determination that one does not qualify for a legal aid.

    One must appeal and if the person is not happy with the review, at that stage, I do not believe we should go for a second appeal but a judicial review. We do not have to put so many appeal systems in place.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:13 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, I need your leadership. This is your Bill. It is for you and the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice.
    Mr Banda 6:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we are talking about timelines, then, we need to start allocating it from clause 47(a). Within which timeline should the determination of the appeal be? [Pause]
    Mr Speaker, I would want to propose that clause 47(a) should read 6:13 p.m.
    “(a) determine an appeal made to the Legal Aid Review Committee within fourteen days upon the receipt of the appeal;”
    Time begins to run from the very day the appeal is lodged with the Legal Aid Review Committee.
    Ms Safo 6:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am in total support of the proposed amendment.
    Mr Abban 6:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in making these proposals, I believe we should have at the back of our minds that the person who is seeking legal aid may be a defendant in a case.
    Once he or she has been served with a writ for instance, the time for entering appearance would be going. If he would now have all these times to go through the appeal and all that, before he or she realises, they may have even taken default judgement against him or her.
    So in giving these timelines, we must have regard to the fact that the substantive case for which reason he or she seeks legal aid may be running as a defendant.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:13 p.m.
    Hon Members, who is opposed to the application of the addition of 14 days? Is there anybody opposed to that? If not, I would put the Question on that.
    Does anyone want to propose seven or ten days? the Hon Chairman of the Committee proposes 14 days. Does anyone propose a different alternative date?
    Yes, Hon Member for Adansi-Asokwa?
    Mr Hammond 6:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with respect, I believe he now accepts that his 14 days is not placed where we are talking about it; he is talking about 14 days in relation to the period for the determination of the appeal when it has been brought, but that is not what we initially were talking about.
    We were talking about the time --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:13 p.m.
    No, Hon Member. He says that the timeline should start from the beginning when an appeal shall be determined within 14 days upon receipt. Then a notice is given and the record of reasons. That is what the Hon Chairman of the Committee proposed.
    Mr Hammond 6:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, he has been approached to redefine it because when we said that 14 days within which to determine; that is when an appeal has been brought. But you and I are aware that appeal has to be brought within time limits to start before we deal with the determination.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:13 p.m.
    Hon Member, which time limits? This is not an appeal before a court. This is an appeal for legal aid.
    Mr Hammond 6:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, when I apply for legal aid at the Legal Aid Commission and I am refused, they are establishing the right of appeal for me to avert my disillusionment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:13 p.m.
    Do you want us to restrict when one can apply or not, the time period within which one must apply or not?
    Even if one applies within ten years, one must be considered.
    Mr Hammond 6:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, ten, seven or five days, nobody want --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:13 p.m.
    No, Hon Member, I do not believe we should restrict when one could apply. Anytime one applies, he or she would be considered.
    Mr Hammond 6:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is not when one applies; when one appeals.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:13 p.m.
    A person would be applying for a review. This is the Legal Aid Review Committee -- [Interruption] -- so, when one is refused and he or she applies for a review, are you saying that we should give a time limit of say within ten days?
    Mr Hammond 6:13 p.m.
    Yes, that is the point I am making.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:13 p.m.
    I think otherwise. We are dealing with indigent people here. We should not restrict them. Anytime one applies, the application should be considered. We should never be --
    Mr Hammond 6:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we would run into problems. Somebody would go and they would say he or she did not appeal after having been refused six months down the line; they are out of it and would not be given.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to remind my Hon Colleague that the Hon Chairman of the Committee proposed and added that upon receipt of the appeal, the determination be made within 14 days.
    An appeal could be made anytime but an application -- [Interruption] Mr Speaker, I believe Hon K. T. Hammond is talking about something different.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:13 p.m.
    He is talking about a completely different thing like one's right of appeal against a judgement. This is not the court process we are talking about.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we would have to legislate that, then there should be another clause before this very clause. Maybe we could have clause 46(a) for this one to become clause 46(b).
    Mr Banda 6:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that for now, we are dealing with determination of appeal. I would wish that we restrict ourselves to that.
    If an Hon Member has any other proposed amendment outside deter- mination of appeal, the Hon Member may so proffer that at the appropriate time.
    Mr Speaker, I would want us to restrict ourselves because Hon Members are talking about giving timelines within which to determine an appeal. Timelines within which to give the notice of the decision to the appellant is what we should concern ourselves with now.
    If there is any other amendment, that may be proffered at the appropriate time so that we could make progress.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:13 p.m.
    Thank you.

    Yes, Hon Deputy Majority Leader?
    Ms Safo 6:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:13 p.m.
    Hon Deputy Majority Leader, the Hon Chairman of the Committee has just said let us restrict ourselves to when the appeal would be determined.
    You have suggestions that we should start from elsewhere, but let us finish this because we keep introducing new things and we are standing at the same place.
    So, I would put the Question on the 14 days which reads:
    “The Legal Aid Review Committee shall determine an appeal made to the Legal Aid Review Committee within 14 days upon receipt of the appeal”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:13 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, notice of the decision.
    Mr Banda 6:13 p.m.
    Clause 47(b); I would want to propose three days for the giving of the notice.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:13 p.m.
    How many? Three days?
    Mr Banda 6:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, seven days for the giving of the notice.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:13 p.m.
    That is fine. So; ‘give notice in writing of the decision of the Committee to the' --
    Mr Banda 6:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker; “give notice in writing within seven days”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:13 p.m.
    “Give notice in writing of the decision within seven days”.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with the greatest of respect, inasmuch as I agree with the principle that it should be within the seven days, I do not know where we are juxtaposing the seven days and so, if we could have it clearly.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:13 p.m.
    Clause 47 -- serve notice --
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, where do we fix the seven days? It reads: “give notice in writing to the appellant of the determination of the Committee” --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:13 p.m.
    We relocated that. We said that ‘give notice in writing of the decision of the Committee within seven days'.
    Mr Banda 6:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker; “to the appellant' must come. This is because if “to the appellant” does not come --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:23 p.m.
    Yes, it was at the very end.
    Mr Banda 6:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, so; “give notice in writing of the decision of the Committee of the appeal to the appellant within seven days”. Are we clear?
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:23 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, do you have any more amendments on clause 47?
    Mr Banda 6:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe we have already dealt with clause 47(c).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:23 p.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Banda 6:23 p.m.
    So for now, there is no further amendment in clause 47.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:23 p.m.
    Very well. Hon Majority Leader? Or do you yield to the Hon Member for Adansi-Asokwa?
    Mr Hammond 6:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you would kindly bear with me. If we accept clause 47 the way it is, that the structure and where it has been put is all right, let us get the (a), (b) and (c) right. I am happy my Hon Leader is for once giving kudos. -- [Laughter.]
    Mr Speaker, I think he accepts that it is a bit confusing so this is what I am proposing, that we start with clause 47(a) which says; Right of Appeal.
    Then the very 47(a) would be read; “a person refused legal aid shall have the right of appeal”. That is one.
    Secondly, (b) will then be the time limit we are talking about.
    .
    “a person who has been refused legal aid and who intends to appeal may submit this appeal to the determination committee within seven days”.
    Mr Speaker, we would go on to (c) which then is what is now (a). “The review committee shall determine an appeal made to the Legal Aid Review Committee within 14 days”.
    Also, clause 47(d);
    “shall give notice in writing of the determination of the appeal within seven days”.
    Then we would go on to this other one and record the reasons for the Committee of the appeal and in that structure, we would finish with clause 47.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:23 p.m.
    May I suggest that where you are creating the right to appeal should be 47(1)? So whether we have (a) and (b) of clause 47(1) and what we have considered now will be clause 47(2) with all its sub --
    So please, move your amendment again for clause 47(1).
    Mr Hammond 6:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in that case, do I have to repeat myself? I move according to what you have suggested. [Laughter] --
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:23 p.m.
    I will wait for him to move his amendment and then I would come to you.
    Mr Hammond 6:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, having changed the rubric to the right of appeal, I beg to move that lause 47(1):
    “a person refused legal aid shall have the right of appeal”.

    Mr Speaker, he is taking over your function so maybe you have to --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:23 p.m.
    I am not hearing him, I am hearing you. So, let me hear you.
    Mr Hammond 6:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I should follow your instructions and not his.
    So the clause 47(2)(b): “a person shall appeal within seven days of the receipt of the notice of refusal from the Legal Aid Board”.
    Clause 47 (2) (b) --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:23 p.m.
    Hon Member, may I suggest that you go into conclave and put together what you have in mind?
    Mr Hammond 6:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought you said that when we get to clause 47(2), we would then do (a), (b), (c) and (d).
    Mr Speaker, he is bringing a new idea -- that we should not do the (a), (b), (c) and (d) but we should do (3). That is fine and it does not make any difference, so we could do that.
    Mr Speaker, so, the (3) would be 6:23 p.m.
    “The Legal Aid Review Committee shall determine an appeal to the Legal Aid Review Committee within 14 days”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:23 p.m.
    We have already dealt with those ones.
    Mr Hammond 6:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, because we are doing it in a certain order --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:23 p.m.
    We are adding (1) and (2) so what we have dealt with becomes (3). Is that your suggestion?
    Let us take the two further amendments you are proposing one after the other.
    Hon Member, could you read them out so that we would take a decision one after the other? I wanted us to get the sense of the House --
    Mr Hammond 6:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, should I go back to the 47(1)?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:23 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mr Hammond 6:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to further propose that clause 47
    “Right of Appeal --
    (1) A person who has been refused legal aid shall have the right of appeal.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:23 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, a new subclause is being introduced in the Bill. A right of appeal is being established.
    Mr Banda 6:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the principle behind the proposed amendment is good but I thought that clause 9(2) is clear enough to clothe a person whose application has been refused to lodge an appeal with the Legal Aid Review Committee.
    Mr Speaker, I still believe that that right of appeal has been created under clause 9 (2) because it talks about the refusal of the application by the Commission. Mr Speaker, this is what clause 9(2) says.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:23 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, I believe we should look at the reference to clause 9(2) again.
    If we look at the broad chapter, clause 9(2) is dealing with Governance of the Commission and it starts from the Governing body of the Commission, Tenure of office of members of the Commission, Meetings of the Board, Disclosure of Interest, Establishment of Committees, Allowances and so on.
    Clause 9 comes under Establishment of committees.
    Hon Chairman, but when we come to clause 47, then it comes under Appeals, which is separate from Establishment of committees under the governance structure. I believe that clause 9(2) is dealing with matters intra or within the Commission, whereas the Appeals under Legal Aid starts from Procedure to Access Legal Aid and it then continues with Appeals.
    So that one is dealing with the applicants of legal aid whereas from clause 5, we are dealing with the governance of the Commission; matters which are within the Commission.

    Clause 11 comes under the governance of the Commission -- they are all intra. Clause 11 is the “Functions of a Legal Aid Review Committee” and it is talking about committees within and they all come under the Governance of the Commission. So we should be careful not to mix them up.
    Mr Chireh 6:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, though it is about the governance, but inherent in that statement has been said that “A Legal Aid Review Committee shall review a petition against a decision of an officer of the Commission to grant or to refuse legal aid to an applicant.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:23 p.m.
    That is the function assigned to that Committee but when we come to clause 47, it gives procedure for accessing legal aid.
    When a person applies and he or she is refused, then it would be the function of this committee as has been described here. But under the procedure for accessing legal aid, the right to appeal must be established.
    Mr Chireh 6:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we agree with the amendment that he moved for clause 47(1), which is the right to appeal. Mr Speaker, but we had already voted on what would now become 47(2), therefore, the Hon Member should move only 47(1) which establishes the right to appeal; which we all agree.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:23 p.m.
    It is the Hon Chairman who was objecting.
    Mr Chireh 6:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is why I am saying that the Hon Member should not move any other amendment by changing the dates and time. He should move just 47(1) and let us vote on it, for the right to appeal to be established as well as the others that we have already been voted on, including the timelines.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:23 p.m.
    I am now dealing with the Hon Chairman who is the owner of the Bill. The Hon Chairman appears to have a problem with establishing the right to appeal, but I think that it is appropriate because under this chapter, we are dealing with the procedure and process of accessing legal aid and I believe this falls in line.
    Mr Banda 6:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would take a cue from your guidance and agree to the principle but what is left to be done would be the crafting; how --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:23 p.m.
    Yes. I would still direct the draftspersons to clean it up as much as possible.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 47 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:23 p.m.
    I further direct that the draftspersons should review and clean up the drafting to fit the appropriate drafting style.
    Clause 48 -- Effect and implementation of determination of appeal.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:23 p.m.
    There is no advertised amendment under clause 48.
    Mr Banda 6:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is no advertised amendment except to say that for the sake of consistency we should amend “applicant” in line 1 to read “appellant”. Mr Speaker, because under clause 47(b) we indicated that the notice of the decision should be addressed to the “appellant”.
    In order to maintain that consistency, I would want to propose that in line 1, the
    “applicant” should be deleted and replaced with “appellant” just for the sake of consistency.
    Mr Agbodza 6:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 48 reads:
    “The Commission may grant legal aid in respect of an applicant whose appeal to a Legal Aid Review Committee has been upheld.”
    Mr Speaker, does the Commission have the right to say that a person's appeal has been upheld, however, they would not grant the person legal aid? Should it read “may” or “shall” because I do not know the circumstances under which an appeal has been upheld, yet the Commission would say that they would not grant the aid. I think it should be “shall” not “may”.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with my Hon Colleague on the other Side. I was discussing the relevance of clause 48 with the Hon Chairman because that was the purpose of the appeal, and so if the appeal has been upheld then we should not give it back to the Commission to decide on this.
    It is inherent in the appeal and so I would further propose that we should do away with the entire clause 48.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:43 p.m.
    I do not think we should do away with it. I just think we should make it mandatory, because that is the effect and the implementation of the appeal.
    You are implementing the appeal, so it should be “shall”. So, line 1, third word, substitute “may” with “shall”.
    Mr Anyimadu- Antwi 6:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would still want to be educated here. After an appeal has been decided and upheld,
    whether the Commission would have an option of doing (a) or (b), I still insist that the clause 48, whether we make it “shall” or “may”, it is superfluous, because an appeal has been decided and it is upheld. Once it is upheld, that is the effect.
    So I do not think that we need to legislate on this.
    Mr Hammond 6:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, no, the Hon Member is emphatically wrong on that. There is the issue of the implementation of a decision legally. So the decision may be that it is allowed, but what is its implementation?
    Clause 48 is giving a mandatory requirement that it shall, so clause 48 is fair, let us leave it as it is, subject to the change from “may” to “shall”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:43 p.m.
    As soon as you uphold the appeal, you are man- datorily ordered by the law to provide legal aid. I would put the Question, or Hon Chairman, would you like to say something?
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 48 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 49 -- Alternative dispute resolution.
    Mr Banda 6:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 49 “(2) The Commission may add the following new sub-clause:
    (a) pay for expenses incidental to alternative dispute resolution from the Fund; or
    (b) request a legally-assisted person to pay for expenses incidental to alternative dispute resolution.”
    Mr Speaker, we are only seeking to delete the headnote under clause 50, that which deals with the powers of the Commission.
    The powers of the Commission --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:43 p.m.
    But Hon Chairman, we have not finished clause 49 and you are going to clause 50.
    Mr Banda 6:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought I would add the reason behind it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:43 p.m.
    I want to suggest amendments to clause 49, the new clauses you proposed; “pay for”. If you say “pay expenses incidental”, it is the same as “pay for expenses”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what the Committee is proposing to do is to delete clause 50 as contained in the original clause 50, and then bring it up to clause 49. I do not see the relevance in that.
    So, let us leave clause 49 as it is, and leave clause 50 as it is, because they want to delete clause 50 and bring it to clause 49 as subclause (2), and there is no reason for that.
    Let us leave clause 49 to stay intact, and then we come to clause 50.
    Mr Hammond 6:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, unfortunately, I would have to disagree with the Hon Majority Leader on the clause 49. I do not see the essence of clause 49 at all. It is just creating confusion.
    Mr Speaker, the matter goes to the Legal Aid Review Board, they review it, and by clause 48, its decision shall be implemented if there is a positive review.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:43 p.m.
    Hon Member for Adansi Asokwa, please address me and ignore all comments.
    Mr Hammond 6:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I cannot easily ignore my Hon Majority Leader. I risk all sorts of sanctions if I ignore my Leader.
    Mr Speaker, the point I am making is that there is the first route. When there is a refusal, a person could go to the review committee where it would be accepted or refused. That is fair.
    If at that stage there is a further issue and the person wants to go consequent upon that to the judicial review -- but we are creating an alternative route, go to alternative dispute resolution under the Alternative Dispute Resolutions Act of
    2000.
    Mr Speaker, what is the point in that one? It is a straight forward matter. I have been refused legal aid, I applied to the Legal Aid Review Committee Board to review the decision, what is Alternative Dispute Resolution? It is completely unnecessary.
    Mr Shaibu Mahama 6:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I respectfully disagree with my Hon Colleague, but I agree strongly with the Hon Majority Leader.
    The two are distinct and separate. The right of appeal is separate from alternative dispute resolution.
    When you are refused the aid, that is where the right of appeal is triggered, but even as the appeal is accepted, there is still an avenue for alternative dispute resolution, and therefore, the two are distinct and separate and must stand.
    I agree that clause 49 and clause 50 flow really well, and there is no point in collapsing them under clause 49(1) and (2) as suggested by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    So alternative dispute resolution stands alone, separate and distinct from clause 48, which has to do with the effects of the implementation of the decision.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the effect of the amendments that the Hon Chairman moved was that we maintain clause 49. We are not going to do away with the words of clause 50, but on the paper, it appears that delete clause 50.
    Then we are adding to clause 49 so it would capture the heading “Alternative Dispute Resolution”, because the powers of the Commission in respect of alternative dispute resolution is out of place.
    That is why the Committee proposed that we lump them together under clause 49, so in terms of the substance of it, we would not have missed anything, but we would have done away with the subtitle, “powers of the Commission in respect of alternative dispute resolution'', which is out of place.
    Mr Banda 6:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is why right from the onset, I wanted to give the rationale, the background to the proposed amendment.
    Mr Speaker, the headnote of clause 50 talks about powers of the Commission in respect of alternative dispute resolution. We are of the view that the powers of the Commission have been comprehensively dealt with under clause 40.
    Mr Speaker, clause 50(a) also talks about the power of the Commission to pay for expenses incidental to alternative dispute resolution from the Fund. Under clause 34 of the Bill, this has already been taken care of.
    So reading clause 49 and trying to give clause 50 different headnote, we felt that was immaterial or needless. So we decided to delete clause 50.
    Mr Speaker, of course, the provision under clause 50 would still be captured under clause 49.
    There is no difference in the proposed amendment under clause 49 in the Order Paper and the provisions under clause 50 captured in the Bill, except that we are seeking to delete the headnote which reads “Powers of the Commission in respect of alternative dispute resolution” because we were of the view that the powers have already been comprehen- sively dealt with under clause 40.
    Mr Ahiafor 6:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, on this occasion, I would support the Hon Chairman of the Committee, in the sense that he is only seeking between clauses 49 and 50 to delete headnote of clause 50 and the whole of clause 50 to become clause 49 (2).
    Mr Speaker, the reason is that the heading of clause 49 is “Alternative dispute resolution” and if you look at the
    body of clause 49 as well as the whole of clause 50, they deal with alternative dispute resolution. So there is no need for a separate clause dealing with the powers of the Commission in respect of alternative dispute resolution, when clause 49 talks about alternative dispute resolution.
    So, clause 49 would be maintained in whole and 50 would then become clause 49(2). Therefore, the amendment is in order.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:53 p.m.
    Yes, Hon K. T. Hammond, do you appear to have a problem with clause 50 altogether already?
    Mr Hammond 6:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes. Indeed, I am now including the clause 50. This is because, obviously, clause 50 follows from clause 49. So both of them are surplus to requirement.
    The reason is that it is a straightforward arrangement. Legal Aid Commission; because they do not have money and we are talking about expenses here, the applicant has no money; Impecunious. He appeals to the Board for some money for the purpose of this, lawyers and everything.
    There is one strand of the appeal process; if he is not successful, he goes to the Legal Aid Review Committee established under this Act for the purpose of reviewing the decisions, then he takes advantage of that.
    He is either refused or allowed. If he is allowed by clause 48, it should be granted him, and if he is not allowed, he has the option of taking it further up to the judicial review.
    Mr Speaker, what I cannot understand is a further level of alternative dispute -- Who is litigating what? The annoying part for me in that is also the fact that
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:53 p.m.
    Hon Member, we are finished with appeals reviews. That is a new place.
    Mr Hammond 6:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I cannot hear you.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:53 p.m.
    When we come to clause 49, we are done with appeals determination completely. Now, this is a new chapter; Alternative Dispute Resolution, and they are saying that the Board has the right even in offering one assistance to direct a resolution outside court.
    Mr Hammond 6:53 p.m.
    I understand that but Mr Speaker, what I am asking is that, in this case what is there to resolve? You test my means. I have a case, you test it on the merits whether my merits are good, then you test my finances.
    If I do not have the finances, then you are mandated by the law to grant me the facility. What is it that I should go to Alternative Dispute Resolution?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:53 p.m.
    We are saying that your interest would be better served outside the court room. Therefore we are proposing that you resolve this matter outside the courtroom.
    Mr Hammond 6:53 p.m.
    Is it the resolution of the person's matter or the resolution of the legal aid issue?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:53 p.m.
    No. It is your matter. If a person has a case against your employer, he can sue or settle and settlement is what we call Alternative Dispute Resolution.
    So they say the person truly has a case, but rather than taking a writ of summons, we propose that we get a panel to determine this matter outside the court room. And when we draw contracts, we add arbitration clauses. It is the same principle.
    Mr Hammond 6:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if that is the point you are making, I accept, but the rendition is wrong because it does not come out this way.
    Mr Speaker, let us look at the clause
    49:
    “The Commission may arrange for alternative dispute resolution in granting an application for legal aid in accordance with the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798) if the Commission considers it appropriate to do so.”
    To do what? Granting it for one to do what? But I see the point you are making. We do not want you to go to court. We are helping you to resolve it outside. It should be pretty clear out there.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:53 p.m.
    Hon Members, I would put the Question on the proposed amendment to clause 49 first, then clause 50 would be deleted since it has been collapsed already.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:53 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if that is the case, then we might have to look at clause 49, subclause (2) (b):
    “(2) The Commission may --
    (b) request a legally-assisted person to pay for expenses incidental to alternative dispute resolution.”
    Mr Speaker, as we did earlier, I think we are talking about positioning the person to contribute in paying, but not to pay the entirety of the expense.
    So to further amend what proposal that has come from the Committee, the:
    “(2) The Commission may --
    (b) request a legally-assisted person to contribute to pay for expenses incidental to alter- native dispute resolution.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:53 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, are you amenable to the proposed amendment?
    Mr Banda 6:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I did not really get the import.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are talking about the burden to be placed on a legally-assisted person to contribute to pay for expenses incidental to the Alternative Dispute Resolution after the means test has established that a person is able to make some contribution. So we are talking about contributions.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:53 p.m.
    Are you amenable? Hon Chairman, let me hear you first before I discuss it.
    Mr Banda 6:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have no objection.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:53 p.m.
    Very well.
    Yes, Hon Member for Wa West?
    Mr Chireh 6:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe the amendment moved is better because if you look at how it stands now, everybody pays incidental to the thing; the Commission and the legally-assisted person.
    But what we should say is that in the first situation, the Commission, and in the second situation, the legally-assisted person would contribute. So the contribution is important; it is not to pay. Otherwise, we would not know who is to pay.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:53 p.m.
    This is because, clause 49 says “in granting the application”. It means we have determined that the person is entitled to some support, if not hundred per cent. That is why it is relevant.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 49 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 50 -- Powers of the Commission in respect of Alternative Dispute Resolution.
    Mr Banda 7:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 50 delete.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 50 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 51 -- Determination of pecuniary interests.
    Mr Banda 7:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 51, subclause (1), line 1, delete “A member of the Commission or of a Committee established under the Act” and insert “An officer of the Commission or a”.
    So the new rendition reads:
    “An officer of the Commission or a Committee established under the Act shall not have a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter for consideration by the Commission or the Committee.”
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:03 p.m.
    Hon Member for Adansi Asokwa, can I hear you?
    Mr Hammond 7:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not quite understand this. A member is appointed onto the Commission well before a matter comes for consideration.
    So, how could there be a prior determination that he has or does not have an interest? It is only when a matter comes that it would be determined that he has an interest, pecuniary or otherwise in the matter.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 7:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what my Friend is considering is a situation where one is a member of a Board and an issue comes up in which he has an interest. This is a committee or an officer who is going to be permanent. So, the person must permanently not have direct or indirect interest.
    We cannot talk about the person recusing himself because if he is going to do that then it must be at all times. That is why this proposal is being made.
    Mr Hammond 7:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, let us look at what it says here carefully. It says:
    “A member of the Commission or of a Committee established under the Act shall not have a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter for consideration by the Commission or the Committee.”
    When does the matter come for consideration?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:03 p.m.
    When an application for legal aid has been made and an officer has to determine whether he is entitled to the legal aid or not.
    Mr Hammond 7:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, at this stage, it has come up and the officer happens to see that he has an interest so he withdraws. But the Hon Chairman of the Committee says that right from the appointment, the person shall not have an interest -- [Interruption.]
    Hon Majority Leader, I have read it three times. That is my understanding. I have a right to an understanding that you cannot take away from me. The Constitution gives me --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:03 p.m.
    You have a right to even misunderstand. We do not have a problem. [Laughter]
    Mr Hammond 7:03 p.m.
    Again, Mr Speaker, you are right. To actually misunderstand it as well, so that you cannot challenge me at all on that.

    Hon Majority Leader, you keep saying yes, but that is not the import of what is here -- he shall not have it. So at the very beginning of a person's appointment, it is determined that he shall not have an interest in something.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:03 p.m.
    Hon K. T. Hammond, at the very beginning, it is in respect of what shall be determined. It is only when a matter is before the person for a decision to be taken that his interest
    or otherwise would come into play. So, it cannot be for all times and before.
    Mr Kpemka 7:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I propose that we go in the positive in terms of the construction and see if that would not solve the problem anticipated by my Senior. We could say:
    “An officer of the Commission who has a direct or indirect interest in a matter before the Commission shall recuse himself.”
    If we put it that way, it would be better but I can understand clearly from the perspective Hon K. T. Hammond is coming from, that we rather put that:
    “An officer of the Commission who has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter before the Commission shall recuse himself.”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what the Hon Member for Adansi Asokwa indicated is lack of understanding of what is there. I believe he talked as a product of T. I Ahmadiyya Secondary School. [Interruption.]
    Mr Hammond 7:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, he always gets it wrong. He does not know where I went to school. Mr Speaker, you may want to tell him or maybe spare his blushes. Do not tell him.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, do you see his conduct?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:03 p.m.
    Hon K. T. Hammond, I have not given you the Floor. Let him finish. I will give you the floor to demonstrate where we went to school. [Laughter.]
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe either way is clear. What I think we should add, which the Hon Chairman
    Mr Chireh 7:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment moved by the Hon Chairman -- First, because of what is provided under clause 8 covering the conflict of interest creation for members of the committee and the members of the Commission, we could only talk about an officer of the Commission in both cases.
    The second argument is that, the way it is put here, we must first forbid an action by law, and if we now say that an officer should not have interest, whether direct or indirect, then it means we have forbidden that action.
    But how does it come to you? It is that officer who should declare, and the determination is made by the Commission. If the officer says that “I am related to this person in this way and there is likely to be interest in this,” then, the Commission would decide that the officer should either sit on the case or he should not sit on the case.
    It is slightly different from the conflict of interest situation as far as Commission members or committee members are concerned. [Interruption.] -- No, he is not to decide because he is an officer.
    If we look at the subsequent amendments, the “officer” here includes lawyers and national service persons who are working for the Commission.
    So the conflict of interest situation were -- that person is not going to make a decision that he, as a member of the Commission or committee has power. But an officer --
    So he would say, “I owe this man and he is appearing before me''; there is a direct interest in the matter. Therefore, the Commission is to determine whether what the officer is disclosing should allow him to work and determine the case.
    I believe the amendment as carried should be clear that it is an officer of the Commission in both cases, not a member of the Commission or a committee.
    Mr Ahiafor 7:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am looking at this provision in relation to what happens in our normal courts, where a matter comes before a judge of competent jurisdiction and the judge has a pecuniary interest in the matter and would therefore decline jurisdiction in that particular matter.
    Mr Speaker, the matter would, first of all, come before the judge and then, the judge would realise that this particular debt recovery involves my friend, who happens to be a debtor. Therefore I cannot sit on the matter and I am therefore declining a jurisdiction.
    But in this particular case, if we look at clause 51(2), it is the Commission that would have to do that particular determination. How would it be done? Mr Speaker, I am not getting clause 51 very clear.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:13 p.m.
    I believe the point we are trying to make is that, we have provided for Board members. In all matters relating to the Commission, they should not have any conflict of interest situation.
    We are now dealing with officers, so this amendment is to take away the reference to committee. This is because a committee member does not take a decision; they could only make recommendations to the officers to make a decision.
    So I believe the amendment here is to just make this one refer to officers of the Commission. And so far, that is the argument I appear to be hearing.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 7:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment as proposed and moved by the Hon Chairman -- I am proposing a smaller amendment to capture what you have just advised. We should delete the words, “a member of the Commission or a Committee established under this Act” and insert the following:
    “an officer of the Commission”.
    So, the new rendition would be:
    “an officer of the Commission shall not have a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter for consideration by the Commission or the Committee”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:13 p.m.
    Hon Members, I believe the picture has been made clearer.
    Hon Chairman, I want to put the Question on this further amended position. Very well, there is somebody up on his feet; Hon Member for Tamale North?
    Mr Alhassan Suhuyini Sayibu 7:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to seek your guidance to find out if it is always the case that when a committee is formed by a Board, it always has to include only officers of the institution?
    Mr Speaker, I asked because I know that there may be times that a committee would be set up by the Board and the committee would be made up of some members who are not officers of the committee. So, if it is limited to the officers of the Commission, then it is implied that those same officers would be members of the committee when one is set up.
    We may be missing the point because officers may not necessarily always be members of a committee that the Board decides to set up.
    Thank you.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:13 p.m.
    If we go to the part where we set up Boards, we have provided for Board members and non- members. But the position here is, a committee only advises.
    When it comes to decision taking, it is either the Board or the officers. That is why we are providing for officers not being in the conflict of interest situation when it comes to decision making.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:13 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, do you want to add anything before I put the Question again?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, no; not really. It appears the Hon Member was not here when we dealt with the matters relating to the other Committee members as captured under clauses 8, 9 and so on.
    Mr Banda 7:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 51, subclause (2), line 1, delete “Commission” and insert “Board” and further delete “a member” and insert “an officer” and in line 2, delete “or of a Committee established under the Act”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 7:23 p.m.
    “The Board may determine that the interest of an officer of the Commission is not a direct or indirect pecuniary interest.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:23 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, is this amendment necessary?
    Mr Banda 7:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Bill seeks to empower the Board to determine whether an officer may be determined by the Board. That is all that this provision seeks to say.
    Who determines whether an officer has a direct or an indirect pecuniary interest? It is the Board.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, first, we must be very clear in our minds who has the authority to decide in these matters. Is it the Commission or the Board? This is because if you read clause 51(1), which the Hon Chairman ran us through a few moments ago, Mr Speaker, it says:
    “An officer of the Commission established under the Act shall not have a direct or indirect interest in a
    matter for consideration by the Commission.”
    Then they come down to say that “the Board may determine”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:23 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, in a conflict of interest situation, I think the practice has been that it is up to the person who knows that he or she has an interest to declare and to recuse himself or herself, or just declare his or her interest and not take part in the decision.
    It has never been the case that somebody outside would determine. If it is found out that indeed, a person refused to declare while he or she has interest, then the person is in breach of your code of ethics. So is really a question of ethics and I do not believe this is how it is captured.
    The proper thing is for the person to declare an interest and to decline from participating in a decision involving where he has an interest. I believe we should redraft that.
    Mr Banda 7:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we should look at it from two different angles. The first angle is the person himself making a declaration of his interest. Having declared his interest, there must be a determination whether that interest has anything to do with the subject matter being spoken about.
    Mr Speaker, or the Commission can suo motu find out that an officer of the Commission has a direct or an indirect pecuniary interest in a matter being transacted.
    The Commission, having found out that fact, must also come to some kind of
    determination whether the interest of the officer has anything to do with the subject matter being discussed or not. For this reason, the person may be called upon to recuse himself or herself.
    So I still believe that clause 51(2) ought to stay, because if we take out 51(2), a lacuna may be created. Who then determines what is a pecuniary interest in relation to an officer of the Commission?
    Mr Shaibu Mahama 7:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, having listened to the Hon Chairman, I believe I am gradually becoming convinced that clause 51(2) should stand. It should stand because it is possible that somebody may have an interest but may not even know that he has an interest which directly or indirectly affects same.
    Therefore the Commission is now called upon to make a determination whether or not the supposed interest may not be apparent on the face of it to the officer or the member of the committee.
    Therefore if clause 51(2) stands, it gives the Commission the power to now determine that even though the person does not know that he has an interest, they are now telling him that by virtue of “A”,”B”,”C”,”D”, there seemed to be a pecuniary interest in the matter before them. That is the reason why I support the non-deletion and to maintain that clause 51 (2) stands as it is.
    I thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Hammond 7:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I implore you; even though Mr Speaker does not take part in the debate, when it comes to a point where Mr Speaker seems to be fairly strong on that, we should maintain it.
    Mr Speaker, I entirely believe the point that you just made, it is so strong that you would help us to stick to that.

    In my entire life, I also have not heard a situation where somebody determines your interest, pecuniary or otherwise in a matter. You decide that from the basis of whatever it is, this is my interest.

    Mr Speaker, in the Pinochet case, those who knew about it, Lord Hoffmann appeared to have had some little interest relating to Amnesty International.

    In Pinochet II, he said that “you are right; he should have declared it”. It was not for anybody to determine.

    Mr Speaker, so the first one should stand. Anybody who has interest in it should declare it and recuse himself from it. It is not for you to determine that, “I have this and that I should stay on or not”. We should make some progress because we would finish this Bill today.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:23 p.m.
    Hon K. T. Hammond, the Hon Majority Leader promised that when we resume, we would close at 6.30 p.m. I have deliberately ignored the watch and we have donated extra one hour. So do not push us to, “we would finish”.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 7:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member who just spoke is relating the provision backwards.
    Mr Speaker, the provision says that 7:23 p.m.
    “The Board may determine that the interest of a member of the Commission is not…” So you would declare your interest -- “It appears that I have a pecuniary interest in this matter”. So the declaration is for the officer to make, but the Board will
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 7:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support my Hon Chairman here; clause 51 (2) should stay. If we look at clause 51(1), we have made a law that “an officer of the Commission should not have a direct or indirect pecuniary interest”.
    It means that, the officer himself may suo motu declare that he or she has an interest or may not say it at all. It means that another person or Committee could actually bring it out.
    When it comes up, especially when the officer denies having a direct or indirect pecuniary interest, then there must be a determination. That is why we are legislating under clause 51(2), that the Board must decide on this. It is necessary that we maintain the clause 51(2).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:33 p.m.
    Very well, Hon Chairman of the Committee, can you look at clause 8(1) and (2) under the Board? Clause 8(1) and (2) states:
    “(1) A member of the Board who has an interest in a matter for consideration by the Board shall disclose in writing the nature of that interest and is disqualified from participating in the deliberations of the Board in respect of that matter.
    (2) A member who contravenes subsection (1) ceases to be a member.”

    Here, it says, “this is our standard; if you breach them these are the sanctions”. So, what are we seeking to do here?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 7:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, under clause 8, we talked about disclosure of interest of members of the Board. That is why when we come to clause 51, we limited the amendment to an officer. There is a difference between a member of the Board and an officer.
    Even under clause 51(2), it is the Board that makes the determination in respect of an officer's pecuniary interest. So there is a great difference. Clause 51 is limited to an officer of the Commission and not a Board member.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:33 p.m.
    Hon Member, it is the principle. You have said that I shall not have a pecuniary interest. Then you go on to say that the Board would determine it. How would they determine it?
    I have not disclosed and you have not found me out; how would they determine?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 7:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that there needs to be a determination because making a rule that there should not be a direct or indirect pecuniary interest does not mean that it would not arise at all. It may arise, and if it does, how do we solve it? Hence, clause
    51(2).
    Mr Hammond 7:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in that case, in view of clause 8, are all these struggles worth it?
    Mr Speaker, it is not worth it because it is very clear here and these are the exact words we are struggling with - “A member of the Board…” So we could mutatis

    Mr Speaker, say it and do not throw your hands -- Tell them.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:33 p.m.
    Hon Member, you said that when I sit here, I can only suggest. The decision is to be made by you. So I am only suggesting.
    Mr Hammond 7:33 p.m.
    No, you can say something, please.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:33 p.m.
    I believe the appropriate thing is to lift what is here and apply it to members of the Board. To the best of my knowledge, that is what applies in all corporate law practices. [Pause]
    Mr Banda 7:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is a long day. [Laughter.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:33 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee, everyone is tired.
    Mr Banda 7:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, are we lifting the whole of clause 8(1) and (2) or --?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:33 p.m.
    I am suggesting that you lift clause 8(1), and when it comes to clause 8(2), a member who declares such an interest will recuse himself from participating in that decision. Failure to do that, an appropriate sanction would apply, whether the person would be referred to the disciplinary committee of the organisation or some other sanction.
    If it is found that he has participated in a decision in which he has an interest in, he is in his breach. In any case, the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) has made rules for the whole country regarding conflict of interest. I think we should refer to that as well.
    Mr Banda 7:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, having taken a cue from your good self, we would want to defer it, so that we could give it a better rendition tomorrow.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:33 p.m.
    I believe so. Very well, you still have another amendment to clause 51. Would you want to proceed with that one?
    Mr Banda 7:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 51 add the following new subclause:
    “(3) For the purposes of this section, a lawyer or a national service person engaged by the Commission to provide legal aid service is deemed to be an officer of the Commission”.
    Mr Speaker, this has to do with an interpretation of a lawyer or a national service person.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:33 p.m.
    Very well, Hon Members, the proposed amendment is for the consideration of the House.

    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the proposal from the Hon Chairman of the Committee is this:
    “For the purposes of this section, a lawyer or a national service person engaged by the Commission to provide legal aid service is deemed to be an officer of the Commission.”
    Mr Speaker, I would want us to go back to clause 17 where we defined, “legal
    personnel”. What was the language that we used? It should be in conformity with what we are doing.
    I thought that we amended clause 17 (1)(b) and used a certain description. We should be consistent with that. Did we say, “national service person”? It should be consistent with what we did there.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:33 p.m.
    What we said was, “a lawyer assigned by the National Service Board to the Legal Aid Commission”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that should be the language, so that we have the appropriate description.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:33 p.m.
    Why do you not wait and define, “an officer of the Commission” at the end of the Bill?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, an officer would include -- Otherwise, what we are doing here should find symmetry with what we did in clause 17(1) (b). Otherwise, we will be introducing two terminologies to describe the same --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:33 p.m.
    Clause 17(1) -- I am looking through my notes here -- “The legal personnel of the Commission comprise”.
    Over there, we defined legal personnel; here we are defining officers and national service persons other than lawyers who are also officers. So this is broader.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, except that we are indeed referring to the officers captured in clause 17(1) (b). That is why I am saying that we should be consistent, other than that we do not know of any such national service persons. It says; “lawyers assigned by the National Service Board”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:33 p.m.
    Under clause 17(1) (b), what we did was to define “legal personnel.” Therefore, when it came to the national service persons, we restricted ourselves to lawyers posted to the Commission who are national service persons.
    But lawyers are not the only group of persons who may be assigned by the National Service Board.
    So when we are talking about officers, we cannot restrict ourselves to clause 17(1) because it deals with only legal personnel.
    We may have other personnel other than lawyers also assigned to the Legal Aid Commission and those are part of the officers who may want this clause to apply.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, subclause (3) says;
    “For purpose of this section, a lawyer or a national service person engaged by the Commission to provide legal aid”.
    If the discourse that we engaged in clause 17(1) (b) is anything to go by, we said to ourselves that those national service persons will be lawyers who would be sent by the National Service Board. That was the description and that is why I want us to be consistent.
    Mr Speaker, I just raised it, so that it informs us of what we did there, so we are consistent.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:33 p.m.
    Yes, here we are defining officers and the officers are not limited to legal personnel. That is
    the difference. Anybody working for the organisation, including lawyers, are all officers. So I think we should leave it as it is.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:33 p.m.
    There is no advertised amendment to clause 52.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes indeed, there is no advertised amendment for clause 52 but it introduces a new terminology; “conferencing session”. That is not known anywhere and this is the first time this is being introduced. So I think we should find a way to introduce it.
    I thought that if we had not deleted clause 50, where we talked about the powers of the Commission in respect of Alternative Dispute Resolution, we were going to use that route or perhaps some other route to introduce that concept of “conferencing session.”
    When we have done so, we then have to give it some kind of structure as contained in clause 40 -- “Powers of the Commission in respect of application”.
    Mr Speaker, I thought that we would first introduce the terminology and then we could go on, because as it is, anybody would be lost when we just hit clause 52 which says:
    “Where
    (a) the Commission or a Committee makes a publication during a conferencing session;”
    It is a big challenge.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:33 p.m.
    How can information be privileged after publication?

    Hon Chairman, what did you want to share with us with “conferencing session”?
    Mr Banda 7:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, these are all part of the ADR processes and so clause 52 stems from clause 49. So, the ADR starts from clause 49 up to clause 54.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:33 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, I do not see that. What I see is ADR is from clause 49 to 50. All right, clause 50 has been collapsed. So, what I see is “Miscellaneous Provisions”.
    So, if we wanted to add that, maybe, we should not have placed the “Miscellaneous Provisions” there; still you may want to explain further.
    Even during the ADR, what do we mean by “conferencing session”? This is because, as the Hon Majority Leader said, we have never used that in our legislation and so maybe, we have to define it and determine what we really want to say.
    “Privileged information”, as you and I know it, was covered under the Evidence Act and it is a matter which a claimant can say should not be disclosed. But you start by saying that when a publication, which means, it is being published again.
    So how can you claim non-disclosure? That is why I am confused because I thought we were talking about a lawyer- client relationship, but it appears this may be more than that.
    Mr Banda 7:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is different except, if the meaning does not come out clearly. All that this is saying is about anything that takes place in an ADR process. To the best of my knowledge, it is where the convener of a conferencing session and so on takes place.
    So what it says is that, whatever happens under those conferences is privileged information and it does not need to be given out. That is all clause 52 is saying and it relates to clause 49 which deals with ADR.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:33 p.m.
    The lawyers here, do you understand? Frankly, I do not understand.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 7:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it appears that under clause 58, “conferencing session” has been defined and it is a structured meeting.
    So, when there is a publication of a structured meeting, anything that takes place within that meeting is privileged and that is what the provision seeks to do. It will be a breach of privilege to reveal whatever happened in the structured meeting.
    Mr Hammond 7:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what I also think is that, since it is a free standing provision, it stands on its own, I am not sure it distorts anything, so maybe, we can leave it as it is because it has a specific purpose, unless of course we do not accept that the issue of privilege should abide.
    If that is not the case -- Yes, if it means that it is not a question of privilege then we will deal with it. But if we accept that it is a kind of privileged information -- because the “conferencing session” and so on have already been explained.
    Mr Speaker, so I think if we accept that this information could qualify as privilege, then I am happy to leave it as it is, unless you do not agree that it should be a privileged information.
    But really, I do not see any reason for privilege in what is here, but if the House thinks that there is the need for privilege --
    I do not have a difficulty with where it is posited. It is free standing and it does not distort what is above or below it. So, I am quite happy with it.
    Mr Ahiafor 7:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want a bit of clarity with this clause in relation to clause 44 because of our “conferencing session”. The information that he may be privileged to may have to do with a change in the status of the legally-assisted person.
    Clause 44 says that where there is a change in the status of a legally-assisted person, and the person does not disclose it, then he or she would have committed a crime which is punishable.
    Mr Speaker, so we need to look at this clause as against the provision in clause
    44.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:33 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, look at clause 53 -- Disclosure of privileged information. The reference is to section 41which is not ADR but “Monetary contribution by applicant”. Clause 53 reads:
    “A convenor of a conferencing session may disclose information under section 41 to the Commissioner or a committee of the Commission …”
    But clause 41 is “Monetary contribution by the applicant”.
    I do not know whether we have different Bills but what I have, mentions clause 41.
    Mr Banda 7:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes. Clause 41 in the Bill does not have any correlation with clause 53, but clause 44 has to do with notification of changes. Mr Speaker, probably, we would need to further consult.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:33 p.m.
    So what should we do with clause 52?
    Mr Banda 7:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with clause 52, we know that when a matter is before court or before a matter gets to court and is to be settled, whatever discussion that transpired at the settlement is privileged.
    As we normally say, “it is without prejudice” and if the settlement breaks down, then whatever transpired cannot be transported into the court room.
    Mr Speaker, that is how I understand clause 52, which deals with ADR. The same thing applies to ADR, because if ADR should break down, then whatever transpired in the course of the resolution of the matter through ADR, that information is also privileged and without prejudice.
    Subsequently, if the matter is to go to court or it is in court and it is reactivated, then whatever happens in the ADR cannot be transferred into the courtroom.
    Mr Speaker, that is how I understand privileged information, which is without prejudice.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:33 p.m.
    Hon Members, I would put the Question on clause 52 since there are no proposed amendments.
    Mr Hammond 7:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we did not deal with clause 52, so maybe we could conclude it and move to clause 53.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:33 p.m.
    Yes, I was concluding with clause 52 but I saw the Hon Majority Leader who appeared to have woken up from somewhere and asking “wose sen” to wit “what are you saying?”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with clause 52, as I said, I believe we should find a way to introduce the “conferencing session”. I thought that we were going to situate it under clause 50, but clause 50 has now been deleted.
    So we could take it to clause 49 as amended -- [Interruption] . No, establishing it -- that is introducing the “conferencing session” because it is a way of dealing with the ADR.
    So we must first introduce it under clause 49 as amended; and when we have done so, then for instance, we could say that the Commission may engage in conferencing sessions for purposes of the
    ADR.
    Mr Speaker, so certainly it would be part of the powers of the Commission. But which we have deleted under clause 50; but we carried what is contained in clause 50 to clause 49. So I believe that we should bring it from clause 50, where we lifted it, to clause 49 and bring it down to establish that process.
    When we have done so and we come to clause 52, then we could continue in that manner.
    Mr Speaker, that is my suggestion.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:33 p.m.
    Hon Leader, I believe we are tired. Let us bring the curtains down at this point. We promised that we would sit up to 6.30 p.m. but we have sat till 8.00 p.m. We have done a lot more than we pledged to do. I want us to reconsider all these after resting.
    Hon Members, that brings us to the end of the Consideration Stage for the Legal Aid Commission Bill, 2017, for today.
    Hon Members, be advised that there is a breakfast meeting at 8.00 a.m. or 8.30 a.m. Hon Leader, what time is it?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is 8.00 a.m. prompt.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 7:33 p.m.
    Hon Members, be reminded that there is a breakfast meeting at 8.00 a.m. prompt on the 12th floor of Job 600.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, from there we shall descend to have the meeting here at 8.30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you.
    ADJOURNMENT 7:33 p.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 8.00 p.m. till Tuesday, 10th July, 2017, at 10.00 a.m.