Debates of 10 Jul 2018

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Hon Members, we delayed in coming because we had to follow-up on certain important matters arising as part of the caucus meeting. That is why we could not come quicker than we did.
There would be a further caucus meeting in the light of the developments thereafter. So, Hon Members should kindly heed to the call of Leadership, so that those relevant and pertinent matters would be duly dealt with by this Honourable House.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Hon Members, item listed 2 -- Correction of Votes and Proceedings and the Official Report -- The Votes and Proceedings of Monday, 9th July, 2018.
Pages 1 … 7 --
rose
Mr Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Mr Sayibu 1:10 p.m.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
I rise to correct the notification that I was absent yesterday. I was here; I was at a Committee meeting, and after the meeting, I came to the Chamber and stayed till the House adjourned.
Mr Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Page 8 … 22
Hon Members, the Votes and Proceedings of Monday, 9th July, 2018 as corrected is hereby adopted as the true record of proceedings.
ANNOUNCEMENTS 1:10 p.m.
Ms Sarah Adwoa Safo 1:20 p.m.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
The Question is directed to the Minister responsible for Lands and Natural Resources.
Mr Speaker, we wish to ask leave of you to allow the Hon Deputy Minister for Lands and Natural Resources, Hon Barbara Oteng-Gyasi, to do same on behalf of the Hon Minister, who is currently on a tour in the Volta Region with His Excellency the President.
So Mr Speaker, he has a genuine excuse not to be in the House, and I urge the Minority to cooperate for the Hon Deputy Minister, who again is one of our own, to answer the Question.
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are reasonable men and women here, and we are aware that the President is in the Volta Region, and the Hon Minister is one of his lieutenants in that region serving the Republic.
Therefore ordinarily, there would be no objection, except to say that I saw the Hon Deputy Majority Leader dancing for advise whether to say the Hon Minister had travelled abroad or he was within the country, because she knew that if she raised that, we would have reminded her that there is a ban on travel - -[Laughter].
So since this travel is local, we would welcome the Hon Deputy Minister to stand in the stead of the Hon Minister.
ORAL-- ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 1:20 p.m.
MINISTRY OF LANDS AND NATURAL 1:20 p.m.
RESOURCES 1:20 p.m.
RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT LTD 1:20 p.m.
Mr Dafeamekpor 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would like to know whether the Hon Deputy Minister is aware that there is another company that is engaged in the under lake log harvesting along certain communities in my constituency, from Golovime, Adzorkoe, Agordake, Dzemeni to Adzebui.
Have the activities of that company come to the attention of her Ministry?
Ms Oteng-Gyasi 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Ministry is not aware, but we would take a cue from what the Hon Member has said and investigate.
Mr Dafeamekpor 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, indeed, the name of the company is Dedesu Co. Ltd., and they are in operation. Would her Ministry give us a timeline, if they would do a fact finding mission to the area in question and ascertain what I speak of?
Ms Oteng-Gyasi 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we shall resort to the usual processes of investigation and report to the House in due course.
Mr Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Hon Dafeamekpor has indicated his satisfaction. In the circumstances, Hon Deputy Minister, thank you for attending to the House and answering our Questions.
You are respectfully discharged.

Item listed 4, Statements.

Statement standing in the name of Hon Amoah, on making oil palm another foreign exchange earner to supplement cocoa.
STATEMENTS 1:30 p.m.
Mr Robert Kwasi Amoah (NPP-- Achiase) 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to make a Statement on the need to intensify the production of oil palm, and the establishment of palm oil extracting factories in parts of the Western, Central, Ashanti, Brong Ahafo, Volta and Eastern Regions, under the One District One Factory initiative, to supplement cocoa as a major foreign exchange earner in the country.
Oil palm products have both domestic and industrial uses; there are several businesses within the oil palm industry. The output or sometimes the by-products of one business serves as an input of another.
Mr Speaker, this business feeds several other businesses with its output and the by-products namely palm fruits, palm kernel, palm fronds, palm wine, fibre et cetera.
Mr Speaker, it is important to note that Ghana was the first country where the British established oil palm plantations in the 19th century. The same seeds and production techniques were then used to establish oil palm plantations in another British colony -- Malaysia.
Mr Speaker, despite the common root, the oil palm value chain in Malaysia and Ghana have taken two divergent pathways. Malaysia is now the world's second largest palm oil producer and exporter after Indonesia, while Ghana ranks 15th in terms of production quantity.
With at least six major oil palm companies in Ghana, namely; Ghana Oil Palm Development Company (GOPDC), Twifo Oil Palm Plantatiom Ltd (TOPP), Juaben Oil Mills, Benso Oil Palm Plantation (BOPP) Ayiem Oil Mills and Norpalm Ghana Ltd, the cumulative annual crude palm oil production in the country is 243,852 mt.
Mr Speaker, this is less than Ghana's annual demand of 295,000 ms of crude palm oil. This 35,000 mts demand deficit leaves the idea of crude palm oil export in shadows.
Mr Speaker, Ghana imports over 30,000 mts of crude palm oil from Asia, annually, and this costs us over US$300 million. How can we spend so much to import something we can easily and conve- niently produce and even have surplus to export?
Mr Speaker, the total cultivable land for oil palm in the country is estimated at one million hectares, but only about one- third, that is, 336,000 hectares is under cultivation---664,000 hectares is uncul- tivated.
Our plantation productivity is 15 metric tons per hectare (mts/h) while that of la d'voire is 25mt/h. Meanwhile, we have similar, if not same favourable soil and climatic conditions.
Opportunities
Mr Speaker, the demand for oil palm fruits and other products of oil palm is large and varied, and it has not been met by local production. There is an annual
demand of a million metric tonnes in Africa, with a deficit of 450,000 mts. There is no gainsaying that 54 per cent of Ghanaian households use palm oil in food preparation and production.
Mr Speaker, palm oil is the most competitively priced vegetable oil in the world, because it is five to 10 times more productive than other oil bearing crops, and has lowest requirements for inputs of fuel, fertilizers and pesticides per tonne of production.
Mr Speaker, there are also buying institutions in the country, who present strong demand for the palm fruits throughout the year, provided the right breed is cultivated.
Beside the major buying institution Ghana Oil Palm Development Company (GOPDC), there are other numerous buyers of the oil palm fruits scattered across the country. Together, they present a very good market for farmers of oil palm all year round.
With the above case for oil palm production, Mr Speaker, I strongly recommend that a lot of our districts in the above regions be encouraged to cultivate the oil palm in large plantations and set up palm oil extracting factories. This will go a long way to provide the panacea for unemployment in our various rural areas.
Mr Speaker, as I bring my Statement to a close, I would want to reiterate that I have nursed 60,000 seedlings of the oil palm and I am giving them to out growers. I am establishing an oil extracting machine in my constituency.
I would urge interested Hon Members of Parliament to do same for the development of Mother Ghana.

Hon Member, for this very interesting Statement so ably delivered.

Hon Members, we have one contribution from each Side.
rose
Mr Speaker 1:30 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Dr Clement A. Apaak (NDC -- Builsa South) 1:30 p.m.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to associate myself with the Statement ably made by my Hon Colleague.
In doing so, I believe we can all agree that when it comes to the oil palm plant, its benefits to us are enormous. Indeed, I do not think there is any aspect of this plant that has not been utilised in as far as our existence is concerned.
Mr Speaker, given my own background, I believe it is important to state that this is a plant that is native to our West African sub region. Indeed, archaeologists believe that this plant has been in use and it has been exploited by humankind, including our ancestors going back over 5000 years before the present.
Mr Speaker, given the enormous contributions of this plant, the Hon Member who made the Statement could not have put it better than to call and recommend that we make an effort to ensure that we take due advantage of a plant that is only customised and natural to our environment.
In doing so, I would want to commend the Hon Member who made the Statement, for thinking ahead and taking the needed steps to initiate the process of helping to propagate what he believes is going to serve the better cause of Ghanaians.
Mr Speaker, may I on a personal note indicate to him that I would be contacting him for some of his seedlings to take to Builsa South as part of the effort.
On this note, I would want to again commend the Hon Member who made the Statement.
Mr Kwame Asafu-Adjei (NPP -- Nsuta/Kwamang/Beposo) 1:30 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to associate myself with the pronouncements of the need to produce oil palm in Ghana and process it.
Mr Speaker, there is a general comparative advantage which Ghana has in the production of oil palm. We were fortunate as a West African country to take the lead in the production of oil palm, and we also had to send our oil palm seedlings and seeds to Malaysia and Indonesia. How come they are doing better than us in this country? There is the need for us to investigate.
First, we would need to look at the climatic areas such as the sunshine. In Malaysia and Indonesia, they have better sunshine than we do in Ghana. So there is the need for us to investigate and look at the research and extension services that are happening in the industry.
As with crops, there is lack of research and extension services to assist farmers growing the oil plant; also, the supply of input is poor. Thus too little fertilizer is applied and there is a poor standard of maintenance. Oil palm research is only undertaken by GOPDC in Kusi and Kade. Due to lack of funds; the inability of the Centre to assist the industry has been severely constrained.
In other words, even when the seeds and seedlings are produced, transporta- tion from the centre to the farmers is constrained.
Again, there is not much farms connected to the research centres, so it is hampering the industry. There is the need for Government to provide the necessary inputs, such as financial support, and also provide the necessary equipment for the centre to function in the way that it can assist farmers to increase their output.
Mr Speaker, we can only compete with Malaysia and Indonesia if we do more research into the oil palm production. We can also do better, if seeds and seedlings are provided to farmers on timely basis.
Mr Speaker, it is about time we looked at financing agriculture, while we are doing much for the service sector. Unfortunately, agriculture has been left in the hands of the poor farmers. Credit facility is also a problem. The banks are not prepared to release money to farmers, especially the small holders.
Until we recognise that agriculture is a business in the mainstay of this country and give it more push, we would remain where we are.
Mr Speaker, there is the need also to develop rural areas in the area of infrastructure. If the farmers are going to produce the palm fruits and it cannot get to the market centres, it is also problematic.
For this, agriculture should be looked at in a holistic manner than looking at it from one sector, such as production, and leaving the marketing and processing to an individual. Government should provide the necessary inputs like money and cheap credit; and it should also be in a position to buy all the commodities that are produced by farmers.
Mr Speaker, I thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to associate myself with the Statement ably made by
my good Friend, the Hon Member for Achiase.
Mr Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Hon Members, that ends Statements time.
In view of the time and the Business ahead of us, I direct that Sitting be held beyond the prescribed hours.
In the process, the Hon First Deputy Speaker will take the Chair.
At the Commencement of Public Business.
Item 5 -- Presentation of Papers. Item 5 (a) -- Minister for Energy.
PAPERS 1:40 p.m.
Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister for Commu- nications was here earlier.
Mr Speaker 1:40 p.m.
If you could please wait a second for the Hon First Deputy Speaker.
MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:43 p.m.
Mr Speaker, for item numbered 5(b), the Hon Minister for Communications was in this House on 26th June, 2018 to lay this Paper which was referred to the Committee on Communica- tions.
Mr Speaker, at the Committee level, a few issues came up for which reason the Hon Minister is back to withdraw the Paper that was earlier laid and to relay a second one. So, the Hon Minister would apply to withdraw the first Paper and lay this other one.
Alhaji Mohammed-Mubarak Muntaka 1:43 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I need to understand what the Hon Majority Leader would want us to do, because so far as this House is concerned, the Hon Minister has presented a Paper and it was referred to a Committee. If for any reason she would want to withdraw it, she should tell us the reason and then she withdraws it.
Mr Speaker, if she would want to relay another Paper tomorrow -- But the Hon Majority Leader trying to justify this is my worry. The Hon Minister should tell us why she wants to withdraw, and if the House thinks that it is a good reason for
her to withdraw the Paper, we would accept it.
Mr Speaker, subsequently, whatever happens after it has been withdrawn -- For him to just say the Hon Minister would want to withdraw the Paper and relay it -- Hon Majority Leader, with the greatest respect, the records of the House are being kept.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:43 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, I was just going to ask the Hon Minister to withdraw and then you would proceed.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:43 p.m.
Mr Speaker, but I must respond to what the Hon Minority Chief Whip has said. Mr Speaker, if a document appears in this House and it is laid, it becomes the property of the House, the House which I lead. That is for his elucidation.
Mr Speaker, so if I have information from the Committee that there are issues, the application would come to me and I would make same application to the Hon Speaker and you may then allow the Hon Minister to, maybe, speak to the issues and then withdraw the Paper.
Mr Speaker, that is the practice, in that my Hon Colleague would agree with me.
Mr Speaker, I am not inviting the Hon Minority Leader to get up to talk to any issue at all.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:43 p.m.
Hon Minister for Communications, we would want to hear you.
Minister for Communications (Mrs Ursula Owusu-Ekuful) 1:43 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I rise to seek leave to withdraw the African Union Convention on Cyber-Security and Personal Data Protection (Malabo Convention) which was laid in the House on 26th June, 2018. [Interruption.]
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:43 p.m.
Hon Minister, address me. Ignore the asides.
Mrs Owusu-Ekuful 1:43 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there were a few technical issues with the Paper which was laid on 26th June, 2018. They have since been corrected and I rise to seek your leave to withdraw it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:43 p.m.
Hon Members, I grant the Hon Minister for Communications leave to withdraw, and I hereby also accordingly withdraw the referral of the said Paper to the Committee.

Item numbered 5 (b) -- Hon Minister for Communications?

By the Minister for Communications--

African Union Convention on Cyber-Security and Personal Data Protection (Malabo Convention).

Referred to the Committee on Communications.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:43 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe we can now deal with item number 7, Mr Speaker, it is unfortunate that we have item numbered 6, preceeding item 7, Third Reading of the Legal Aid Commission Bill, 2017, preceding item numbered 7, Consideration Stage of the Legal Aid Commission Bill, 2017.
I believe it was inadvertently advertised to have the Legal Aid Commission Bill, 2017 read the Third time when we have not finished with the Consideration Stage. So I believe it is most irregular.
Mr Speaker, item numbered 6 would not be done. We would move on to item numbered 7.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:43 p.m.
The Legal Aid Commission Bill, 2017 at the Consideration Stage.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION STAGE 1:43 p.m.
  • [Resumption of debate from 9/07/ 2017.]
    • Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:43 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, are we ready?
    Chairman of the Committee (Mr Ben Abdallah Banda) 1:43 p.m.
    Rightly so, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:43 p.m.
    I believe today we are all refreshed. Yesterday, getting to 8.00 p.m., we were so exhausted that we could hardly concentrate.
    Let us go back to item numbered 7(i) -- clause 18.
    Mr Banda 1:43 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.
    (3)The Board may for the proper and efficient conduct of the functions of the Commission appoint Paralegals and Alternative Dispute Resolution Officers.
    (4) Public officers may be transferred or seconded to the Commission or may or otherwise give assistance to the Commission” .
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in line 3 of clause 18(1), the question was to substitute the word ‘'performance'' for the word ‘'conduct''.
    ‘'…for the efficient performance of the functions of the Commission.''
    Mr Speaker, that was the agreement yesterday and the same would hold for the first line of subclause (3) of the same clause 18.
    ‘‘The Board may for the proper and efficient performance of the function of the Commission appoint Paralegals and Alternative Dispute Resolution Officers''.
    Mr Speaker, there is still a mistake with the word ‘'of'' which precedes the word ‘‘Officers''. It is like a cut and paste thing that has been done. Yesterday, we deleted the word ‘'of'', but it has been repeated in subclause (3).
    Mr Haruna Iddrisu 1:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yesterday, I persuaded the Hon Chairman of the Committee that if he so chooses to quote verbatim what is in article 195, he should do so.
    Mr Speaker, in the second line of clause 18(1), I made the recommendation to the Hon Chairman of the Committee and I would still want to stand by it, that the word ‘‘employee'' should be deleted and substituted with the word ‘‘staff''.
    “The President shall in accordance with article 195 of the Constitution appoint other staff '' -- which is inconsistent with the head note which is ‘‘Appointment of other staff''.
    Mr Speaker, in clause 18 (2), it says 1:43 p.m.
    ‘‘The President may in writing…''
    Mr Speaker, I would also want to refer to the words in article 195(2) of the Constitution. It says; ‘‘The President may direct in writing''.
    The word ‘‘direct'' is lost in the first line of clause 18(2) if we would want to quote article 195.
    Mr Speaker, it should be 1:43 p.m.
    “The President may direct in writing...''
    Mr Speaker, finally, the contention was whether the word ‘‘Paralegal'' should be used [Interruptions.] -- It is still there, please check clause 18(3).
    rose
    Mr Iddrisu 1:43 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, why? Are you engaged in a democratic coup? I am on the Floor -- sit down and Mr Speaker would recognise you.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader should yield to superior arguments.
    Mr Speaker, the suggestions that the Hon Minority Leader made are correct except that we should look at the construction. This is because when he says that ‘‘The President may direct in writing, delegate the power of appoint- ment'', it sounds tautologous. He may have to reconstruct if he would want to employ the word ‘‘direct''.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:43 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, did you say that we should substitute the word ‘'performance'' with the word ‘'conduct''?
    Mr Banda 1:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is rightly so. That proposal was made by the Hon Deputy Majority Leader and it was agreed to and voted on.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:43 p.m.
    And same has been used in the new clause 18(1). Where did the Hon Leader propose the amendment?
    Mr Banda 1:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it was the third line of clause 18(1) and the first line of the same clause.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:43 p.m.
    Very well. I would want to hear the proposed amendment.
    Mr Banda 1:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be:
    18.(1) ‘‘The President shall in accordance with article 195 of the Constitution appoint other staff that are necessary for the proper and efficient performance of the functions of the Commission.
    (3) The Board may for the proper and efficient performance of the functions of the Commission appoint Paralegals and Alter- native Dispute Resolution Officers.''
    Mr Speaker, there is also a minor amendment in subclause (4). The word ‘”on'', which precedes the word “may'', should be “or'', and the word “or'', which precedes the word “otherwise'', should be deleted.
    ‘'Public officers may be transferred or seconded to the Commission or may otherwise give assistance to the Commission.''
    Mr O. B. Amoah 1:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not believe the word ‘‘otherwise'' is necessary. We could just say; ‘‘may give assistance to the Commission.''
    Mr Chireh 1:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, nothing has been said about the use of the word ‘‘Paralegals''. Was it accepted in the -- ?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:43 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee what is your position on the proposed amendment? Is it agreeable to you?
    Mr Banda 1:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with respect to the word ‘'Paralegals'', yes. Otherwise, it should be deleted once the sense has been captured.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Members, I can put the Question now.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would plead with you to disaggregate them and put the Questions on the subclause (1) after the other.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, the proposed amend- ment is not to take them one by one. What is before me is to substitute the whole of clause 18 which has four subclauses. That is the proposal before me.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is so, except that yesterday, there was much discussion and contention on the employ of the word ‘'Paralegals''.
    That was why I said that we could deal with subclauses (1), (2), and (4) of clause 18 and come back to subclause (3) to remind ourselves of what has been done and do the appropriate thing. If they are all boxed together we may get it wrong.
    Mr Kobina Tahiru Hammond 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, since we are taking clause 18 as a whole, I do not see why we should go up, down, left, front and centre. What is the point in that?
    We should deal with subclauses (1), (2) and complete the (3) and move to (4). There seem to be some small difficulty with the subclause (3), where the word ‘‘Paralegal'' was used.
    Mr Speaker, I know the issue really is who a paralegal is here in Ghana. We have Alternative Dispute Resolution officers and all that so, to really deal with the subclause (3), I believe we should take out the word “Paralegals” and just have:
    “The Board may for the proper and efficient conduct of the functions of the Commission appoint sup- porting staff.”
    Mr Speaker, whatever it is, we want it but we do not want the word “Paralegal”. Who really is a paralegal? So, let us take that one out; and then Alternative Dispute Resolution offices would be fine because they are all supporting staff. So, legal assistants, supporting staff but not paralegal.
    Mr Chireh 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Majority Leader because we have made further amendments to the subclauses under clause 18. Therefore, let us take them one after the other and make sure that the further amendments that were made, for instance, in clause 18(1), we said “other staff” but in 18(2), he said “may direct in writing”.
    So, I believe if you go systematically, it would be better and after which you would put the Question for the whole of clause 18.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Hon Members, it is said that we can be flexible at the Consideration Stage. Otherwise, there is only one proposed amendment before me.
    So, what do I do with clause 18? Delete and insert the following — Let me start with the heading: Appointment of staff.
    Mr Banda 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 18, subclause (1) delete and insert:
    18(1) “The President shall in accordance with article 195 of the Constitution appoint other staff that are necessary for the proper and efficient performance of the functions of the Commission.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 18, subclause (2) delete and insert:
    (2) “The President may delegate the power of appointment in sub- section (1) to the Board”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, did you say we should jump clause 18(3) and go to clause 18(4)?
    Mr Banda 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 18, subclause (4) delete and insert:
    (4) “Public Officers may be trans- ferred or seconded to the Commission or may give assistance to the Commission”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Iddrisu 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just for the record, in your excitement, you said clause 18(i). It should be clause 18(1).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, I said clause 18(1) --
    Mr Iddrisu 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, no; before then. When you got to clause 18(1) -- it is just for the record.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    No, I said clause 18(1); maybe my “1” sounded like “i”. [Laughter.]

    Very well.

    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    We now move to clause 18(3) -- the issue is on paralegals -- whether we would want to create any such class of professionals or sub-professionals.
    Mr Hammond 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it was in that respect that I said we should delete that. So, the rendition should exclude that. I believe the Hon Chairman of the Committee agrees with that.
    Mr Chairman, the Hon Speaker is looking at you. Clause 18(3) -- so that we can take out the “Paralegal” and conclude the sentence, adding what the Hon Minority Leader talked about -- he said “supporting staff”.
    Mr Speaker, with “Paralegal”, are we going to start training paralegals? We have the lawyers and what have you. [Interruption.] The definition of “Paralegals”? Well, it is ‘para' and ‘legal', is that not it? [Laughter.] I am not sure it is defined.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    It has been defined but the definition itself does not find place anywhere on our legal front.
    Mr Hammond 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is not specifically defined under the interpretation section. So I believe it is really --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    It is in the Order Paper. But yesterday, we had an extensive discussion on this and we were certain that we could not just by introducing a definition, create a system or a professional corps called paralegals.
    Where would they be trained and under what course structure? Where would they be placed? This is the challenge we have and how are we going to amend the Legal Profession Act to place paralegals in this?
    Mr Banda 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Legal Profession Act is about lawyers; paralegals are not lawyers. We are trying to create a legal regime for the training of paralegals. That is captured under this Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    The Legal Aid Commission Bill is being used to create paralegals training school and so on?
    Mr Banda 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, under clause 20, we have incorporated under the functions of the Commission, develop- ment of a system for the participation of a paralegal in legal aid delivery.
    Mr Speaker, we all know that lawyers are not in abundance in the country. This Commission is seeking to establish regional and local offices in all the regional capitals and in all the district capitals. Where are we going to get lawyers to work in the district capitals?
    Mr Speaker, of the total number of lawyers in this country, about 85 per cent of them are concentrated in Accra. The rest are scattered in other parts of the country.
    If we do not complement the efforts of lawyers working in the Legal Aid Commission, which is yet to be created, the Commission cannot function efficiently, competently and conveniently as expected of them.
    Mr Speaker, so the training of paralegals and their assistants to be given to the Legal Aid Commission is of paramount importance. [Interruption.] Yes, I understand that the Legal Profession Act does not have a space for the training of paralegals. We can create the legal basis for that in this Bill.
    Mr Speaker has a problem with the course outline -- we can incorporate all that in the regulations yet to be brought before this august House. So my good self and the rest of the Hon Members of the Committee are of the humble opinion that we must find space for paralegals in this Bill.
    Otherwise, the whole essence of the Bill, trying to decentralise legal aid service delivery in Accra, Kumasi and the other regional capitals and as far as to the remotest parts of the northern part of this country would be defeated.
    Mr Speaker, based on this submission, we are still of the humble opinion that paralegals must find expression in this Bill.
    Mr Hammond 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my Hon Colleague may feel very strongly about “paralegals” and how he describes it. Maybe what he is thinking is an amendment to the Legal Profession Act of 1960 (Act 32). Let us amend it and create a provision for that.
    As it is, who qualifies as such? Who trains them and how do they qualify? We know who a lawyer is; who a solicitor and an accountant are? What we do not know is who a paralegal is. How would they be trained?
    Mr Speaker, look at clause 20(j) which he actually referred to. It talks about “paralegal or legal assistants”. I believe
    we could safely think that “legal assistants” are those who may have started some legal studies and have not quite completed. They have not yet become lawyers; solicitors or barristers.
    To insist on the terminology; we do not have an institution in this country that trains paralegals. We do not have a structure in this country which produces paralegals. [Interruption.] -- Menwiee ye! - - To wit, “I have not finished!” -- [Laughter.]
    Mr Speaker, we could just take out, “paralegal” and make progress. I do not quite get it.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to buttress the point made by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    When we met the Director of the Legal Aid Scheme, he drew our attention to the fact that it is important to train a body of people to complement the work of lawyers, especially in areas where lawyers are not in abundant supply.
    Just like the sentiments raised by the Hon Member for Adansi-Asokwa, Hon K. T. Hammond, we also asked how these people would be trained.
    The Director assured us that they would be taken through training. Just like the training of lay magistrates, we did not need to amend the Legal Profession Act of 1960, (Act 32) to train lay magistrates but now, they are working and are being paid. Their decisions are recognised.
    There would be a system to train them to complement the efforts of lawyers.
    Mr Speaker, indeed, they draw inspiration for this from the practice that exist in Kenya. I am sure if we advert our
    minds to what paralegals could do to make legal aid available to persons who otherwise would not be able to have the services of a lawyer.
    Indeed, it is not all the services of a lawyer that are needed for the purposes of providing legal aid to an applicant. Mr Speaker, so I pray that we advert our minds to how we could couch this provision to be able to be of tremendous assistance to the Legal Aid Commission.
    Mrs Ursula G. Owusu-Ekuful 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the Hon Chairman of the Committee in view of the dire shortage of people with legal knowledge in the various communities around.
    There is a need to train first respondents who would provide basic legal literacy assistance to those who might need it. They might not need to actually engage the services of a lawyer.
    If we seek to institutionalise this as part of the legal aid that the State provides, I believe this House should lend its support to it.
    While I was with them a few years ago, the International Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA) trained a core of community legal assistants called paralegals, who are in the position to provide very basic legal literacy and information to those who might need them in the communities.
    They are there to also refer them to the appropriate quarters if need be: whether it is Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), FIDA or the Legal Aid Board or any such thing. It takes part of the load off the Legal Aid officers and reduces the pressure on our courts.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Let me listen to the Hon Minority Leader. My views are totally different. I would come back to the Constitution.
    Mr Iddrisu 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have been at this in the last few days. References have been made to the Legal Profession Act by lawyers, which itself is a creation of Parliament.
    When we wanted lawyers, we provided a certain legislation describing them as lawyers and legal practitioners.
    The Hon Chairman of the Committee has argued and I have listened to the Hon Minister for Communications, that in other parts of the country, one may not have the privilege of lawyers, yet we want legal services to be accessible.
    Mr Speaker, what the Hon Chairman of the Committee, together with us need to answer, even as we proceed is what would be their status in court? That is what we should advert our minds to.
    Now, we assume that they would work -- In court, there are processes. Admissibility of any document would depend upon one's status. I understand that we would want to train paralegals.
    We could define it in the interpretation section of the Bill and accompany same in its Regulations. We would then develop a nomenclature that Ghana now has paralegals and this is their minimum qualification and these are the skills required.
    Indeed, yesterday, when the Hon Deputy Majority Leader was on the Floor, I conducted a search with my phone about George Washington University and the fact that they have an M.A. programme in paralegals. It means we could do it if we so decide.
    Mr Speaker, our fear is whether it would be clearly distinct from lawyers. If we do so, we could proceed to have paralegals. But they must know that --
    Mr Speaker, in the medical profession, when they call paramedics, they all have their minimum institutional training requirements and what they support.
    What we fear in Ghana is, even before this, we have had some pocket lawyers on the streets. Fortunately, at the time you graduated from Ghana School of Law, the numbers were limited and scarce. Today, we are training more and more persons in there.
    So I believe if the Hon Chairman of the Committee could clarify, we need to know what their statuts would be because they
    would be dealing with court processes. We could leave it and define it in the interpretation section.
    Also, when we come to get the accompanying Regulations, we could clarify further. As to the arguments, Legal Profession Act of 1960, (Act 32) was a creation by Parliament, so we could proceed further.
    Mr O. B. Amoah 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, indeed, I was coming to the point that the Hon Minority Leader made, except that I think what we have here would not be sufficient to create the positions of paralegals and ADR officers.
    Indeed, if we want to create those positions, we should put them in the Bill, but not just in the interpretation section and the Regulations.
    The parent Act should make enough grounds for it. There should be a whole provision on paralegals, and then put together what we really mean; what they should do and how we should create it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Probably, we should restrict them to the Act -- “For purposes of legal aid services, we hereby create… and they would be trained …”
    Mr O.B. Amoah 2:10 p.m.
    This one just mentions and defines it, and then we say that we have created a position for paralegals.
    The parent Act should bring out all the issues regarding paralegals, so that we would know that these are defined areas confined to certain situations, and then we move on. Just mentioning it here would not solve the problem.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Let me listen to Hon Dr Kuganab-Lem, and then I would draw our attention to the Constitution in order to guide the discussion.
    Dr Robert B. Kuganab-Lem 2 p.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker, “para” is a deviation from the normal. It is an archaic terminology. In medicine, it was normally used for those who used the ambulances; they were called “paramedical staff”.
    This is archaic, and people do not want to be referred to as such because we have specialists, cardiologists and super specialists working within these ambulance services. So when they are called “paramedical”, their status is reduced because they are not a deviation from the normal.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to amend it this way, which I would read out so that if it does not work out then we see what happens:
    “The Board may for proper and efficient conduct of the functions of the Commission appoint requisite staff necessary for its function.”
    When we do this, we would eliminate the use of “paralegals” and “ADR officers”. Are we saying that ADR officers are not paralegals? In other jurisdictions, “paralegal”, as I said, is an omnibus term. We can have certified legal assistants and secretaries; but when we say paralegals, is it an assistant lawyer or someone trained half way to -- what are they to do?
    We cannot use it because it is an omnibus term. If we envisage somebody who would assist a lawyer by quali- fication, then we have to define it properly.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Hon Members, I would just bring in this matter to guide the discussion. Let us look at article 294, which creates legal aid. Article 294(1) says that we shall provide legal aid for those who go to court on constitutional matters and others. Article 294(4) is clear on what legal aid is about, and it says:
    “For the purposes of this article, legal aid shall consist of represen- tation by a lawyer, including all such assistance as is given by a lawyer, in steps preliminary or incidental to any proceedings or arriving at or to giving effect to a compromise to avoid or bring to an end any proceedings”.
    So, that is the mandate within which we should provide these services. We do not have the mandate to create any other thing. The Constitution asks us to regulate legal services provided by a lawyer, and we should be bound by that.
    Mr Iddrisu 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, to support your quotation of article 294(4), may I advert your mind further to article 294(2), which supports the position we are to adopt?
    “Subject to clause (1) of this article, Parliament shall, by or under an Act of Parliament, regulate the grant of legal aid.”
    That is precisely what we are doing. So in regulating the grant of legal aid, we
    would want to create a new structure of paralegals. So just a step further from your quotation, what Parliament is doing now is legitimate.
    The Constitution says that we shall regulate the grant of legal aid, and we think that paralegals would be needed, given the scarcity of lawyers across the country. As I stated, it is important that we distinguish them clearly as non-lawyers.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, article 294(4) says, “For the purposes of this article, legal aid shall consist of representation by a lawyer…” It does not give room for any other person. “…representation by a lawyer including all such assistance as is given by a lawyer…” .
    It does not make room for any other thing. It is for the purposes of providing legal aid. We should not take on any mandate we do not have.
    Mr Yaw Buaben Asamoa 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, legal purists, as you are known to be, would definitely focus on article 294(4) as it stands.
    Mr Speaker, ADR officers are backed by law. There is a law that governs ADR officers, and they are not necessarily lawyers. There are services that others perform for lawyers, even as lawyers perform services in aid of the legally assisted.
    There are small essential services that a lawyer, by him or herself, cannot take on all at once. These are not services that may even necessarily be one on one with the legally assisted.
    Mr Speaker, what we seek to do is to make it very clear that paralegals are not lawyers. Therefore, it is within the power and authority of this House to establish
    a provision that enables the formal training of paralegals because it is already ongoing.
    I could refer to the Institute of Paralegal Training and Leadership Studies (IPLS), where I did a certified course in ADR. So paralegals are already being trained. However -- [Interruption.] -- I just mentioned the IPLS.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    There is a law that regulates ADR, where your training fits into. So it is easy to refer to ADR because all this is in relation to its regulation by law.
    So I think we should make progress by providing for other staff. If at the Commission we call them paralegal, that is fine; but we should not create any such thing by statute. That is my challenge. We would provide other staff.
    The officers that we use in our chambers are not lawyers, but some do all the drafting but we have not given them any title. So the challenge is the creation of the core of employees called “paralegals” by this Act.
    If we provide for the Commission to employ other officers, which in the organisation they call “paralegals”, that is up to them.
    Hon Members, but we should not legislate here to create challenges for the Legal Aid Commission.
    Mr Banda 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have taken a cue from you and we believe that “paralegals” may find expression somewhere in “employees” even if now, the consensus or the point is that we delete “paralegal”.
    This is because that seems to be taking us back and forth and so at this juncture, I would seek your leave to delete “paralegals” which finds expression in clause 18(3), but we will maintain Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) officers because those ones are covered by the ADR Act.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    We must create room for other officers in addition to --
    Mr Banda 2:30 p.m.
    Very well. So, the new rendition will read:
    “The Board may for the purpose and efficient performance of the functions of the Commission appoint alternative dispute resolution officers and other relevant officers”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    I think that would solve our problem.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 18 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader, we are going to clause 51 unless you have something else --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just an observation of a matter of privilege that has suddenly arisen.
    In every serious jurisdiction, no ordinary Hon Member of Parliament goes to occupy the seat of Hon Deputy Speakers of Parliament.
    The Hon Sampson Ahi is not an Hon Deputy Speaker -- [Laughter.] -- and he cannot be an Hon Deputy Speaker, neither is he aspiring to be one -- [Laughter.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Sampson Ahi, do you belong there or not?
    Mr Sampson Ahi 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much. I have taken on board the advice given by my good Friend and I did not check the name --[Laughter] -- so, now that my attention has been drawn to it, I would want to quickly pack and leave --[Laughter.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    The next time, check the name --[Laughter.]
    Very well. Hon Members, clause 51?
    Clause 51 -- Disclosure of pecuniary interest.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, yesterday, this clause took us a long time. Where are we going today?
    Mr Banda 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before I move the proposed amendment, I would like to seek your leave to make further amendments. There are minor errors I would like to --
    Clause 51(1), second line, the words “direct or indirect” should read “directly or indirectly”. This is because under clause 51(2), we have “directly or indirectly” and so for the sake of consistency, we have to adopt one and so, “directly or indirectly”. Either one of the two options is correct.
    Mr Speaker, clause 51(2) 2:30 p.m.
    “An officer of the Commission who has a pecuniary interest…” the insertion of “a”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Are you talking about 51(2)?
    Mr Banda 2:30 p.m.
    Yes, because it finds expression under 51(1):
    “An officer of the Commission shall not have a pecuniary interest…”
    I think that is correct and so, 51(2): “…who has a pecuniary interest…”
    Mr Speaker, that is all.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 51 -- delete and insert the following 2:30 p.m.
    Disclosure of pecuniary interest
    “51 (1) An officer of the Commission shall not have a pecuniary interest whether directly or indirectly in a matter for consideration by the Commission or a committee of the Commission.
    (2) An officer of the Commission who has pecuniary interest whether directly or indirectly in a matter under consideration by the Commission or a committee of the Commission shall disclose in writing the nature of that interest and shall not offer a service in respect of that matter.
    (3) An officer, who contravenes sub- sections (1) and (2) commits an offence and is liable to dis- ciplinary action as may be determined by the Board under Regulations made pursuant to this Act.”
    Mr Speaker, finally, I am wondering whether the Committee is the committee of the Commission or the committee of the Board. It should be the committee of the Board and not of the Commission.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    We have provided for committees of the Board in clause 8 already.
    Mr Banda 2:30 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    That is why this one was about officers and so on. I think - Disclosure of interest. Clause 8(1):
    “A member or -- shall disclose in writing --”
    That is a member of the Board, there was no reference to committees of the Board.
    Ms Safo 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, on clause 51(1), the amendment that has been moved by the Hon Chairman, that the words “direct” should read “directly” and “indirect” should read “indirectly”, I support that proposal except to say that if we move that “directly or indirectly” and insert it right after “shall not”, then we delete the word “whether” on line 2, it will make it clearer and easier for comprehension.
    So, I beg to move that clause 51(1) reads:
    “An officer of the Commission shall not directly or indirectly have a pecuniary interest in a matter for consideration by the Commission or the Committee.”
    Mr Banda 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Are you agreeable to that?
    Mr Banda 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Very well. So, let us put the Question on clause 51(1).
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Let us go to clause 51(2), Hon Chairman, you have proposed one amendment which is noted. You were
    asking a question relating to committee and you were not sure whether it should be the Commission or the Board. Let us resolve that before we proceed.
    Mr Banda 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, under clause 9 (1) of the Bill, it says:
    “The Board may establish com- mittees consisting of members of the Board or non-members or both to perform a function”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, your concern is about a commission or a committee where directly or indirectly in a matter under conside- ration by the commission or a committee of the Commission shall disclose in writing.
    Your complaint is that the work is being done by the Board and so the members of the Commission could not have interest. Sometimes the members of the Com- mission work with the Board and they sometimes serve as supporting staff or secretarial staff of the Board. So it covers them.

    Hon Member for Effutu.
    Mr Alexander Kwamena Afenyo- Markin 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, do you want to hear me on record?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Yes, I want to hear you because you are trying to talk to me. How are you trying to engage my attention with hand signals?
    Mr Hammond 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you do not want to hear him on record. It is a matter he was discussing with me and I do not know why he thought the Speaker's time should be wasted on it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Then please do not try to disengage me from my work here.
    Hon Chairman, let me hear you.
    Mr Banda 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my point here is that, the critical question that we need to answer is who has the mandate to constitute committees in the Bill? This is derived from clause 9 which deals with the establishment of the committees.
    There is nowhere in the Bill that this provision has been crafted, apart from this clause, and I am saying that any committee that has been assigned a responsibility to perform a function relating to the Commission could only be constituted or composed by the Board and not by any other person.
    This is because all committees are constituted by the Board from clause 9 of the Bill. So if we are talking about a committee under clause 51(2) then it could only be referable to clause 9 of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, let us look at clauses 15 and 16 -- the Executive Director and the Functions of the Executive Director.
    The functions of the Executive Director is to perform what has been assigned to him by the Board, and the Executive Director may also delegate the function to other staff and so on.
    Does that not arise?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is exactly the issue I was going to raise in respect of clauses 15 and 16.
    Mr Speaker, if we go to clause 19 which relates to divisions of the Commission, in the performance of their functions, some committees could be constituted. So I do not think we are limiting the formation of committees solely to the Board. The performance of their functions, impliedly, they could also create committees to assist in the transaction of business.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Hon Member for Adentan?
    Mr Yaw Buaben Asamoa 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, on second reading, I am assuming that the matters that may come under clauses 15, 16 and 19, as pointed out, may be considered under the first Commission at the beginning of line 3.
    Mr Speaker, because there are two distinct entities that have been dealt with in that paragraph. Mr Speaker, it reads:
    “An officer of the Commission who has pecuniary interest whether directly or indirectly in a matter under consideration by the Com- mission …”.
    This would imply any other organ set up under any other divisions of the Commission. Mr Speaker, it goes on to say that:
    “… or a committee of the Commission.”
    Mr Speaker, in this case the second “Commission” is where I believe that once there is a provision linking committees to Board, then it may be important that in the second “Commission”, it should rather
    reflect the power of the Board to establish committees. Mr Speaker, so, that we would have Commission in the first instance and committees of the Board in the second instance.
    In that way --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    But the Commission could also set up committees because it is the Commission that is actually performing the functions of the Board, and in the performance of its function, they may set up a committee to investigate a matter.
    So, it should not take anything away from the provision that we have here. I do not think so.
    So, I would put the Question.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, is it subject to the amendment that was proffered by the Hon Deputy Majority Leader? Is it as amended by the Hon Deputy Majority Leader?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Yes, as amended.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Subclause
    (3).
    Hon Chairman.
    Mr Banda 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is clause
    51(3).
    We seek to insert subclause (3) which reads:
    “An officer who contravenes subsections (1) and (2) commits an offence and is liable to a disciplinary action as may be determined by the Board under regulations made pursuant to this Act.”
    Mr Speaker, my attention has been drawn to the fact that disciplinary action should not be preceded by “a” -- the indefinite article. So, it should read “… is liable to disciplinary action …”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Why do we not just say shall be sanctioned by the Boards? ‘An officer who contravenes subsections (1) and (2) commits an offence and shall be sanctioned by the Board.'
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, your rendition is very good, except that it appears not to meet a fundamental requirement of the law which is publicity. Mr Speaker, because if a person is going to be sanctioned then the person must know the consequences of his act.
    The person must know that if he fails to disclose his or her pecuniary interest in a matter and offers services to a person in whose matter he or she has an interest, then the sanctions applicable must have been known to him already.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Has it ever been a criminal sanction? Has the failure to disclose an interest ever led to a criminal -- what we are proposing here is commits an offence and liable to disciplinary sanction. But we just want sanctions by the Board.
    Mr Hammond 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you are right on that -- because I am also wondering why there are many sanctions; criminal and so on in legal aid matters. Mr Speaker, but for the purpose of what we are doing now, I think your rendition is perfect -- “… it shall be subject to sanctions.”
    We are clear that this is not criminal sanctions; it might be suspension or paying whatever.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Deputy Minister?
    Mr O. B. Amoah 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, usually, when we get to this stage, I think what we should do is to put in the Act the implications of not disclosing one's status. Usually, one may have to leave or the President would remove him from the Board.
    So we can put that in, and it should be enough. We do not have to wait for Regulations to put them there. This is not a matter for regulation.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Yes, is anybody offering a rendition? Let me attempt something.
    “(3) An officer, who contravenes subsections (1) and (2) shall be sanctioned by the Board.”
    Yes, Hon Chairman.
    Mr Banda 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, agreed.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    So, I would put the Question.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, elsewhere if a member has interest and decides not to declare, what we have done is that the member would cease to be a member.
    However, here, because we are talking about the Board, the member should be subject to sanctions as may be contained in the Regulations.

    This is because the sanctions would be prescribed by the Regulations.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    So we do not put it here. Once there is a provision for discipline, the sanctions and the fine would be covered there. So it does not need to be here.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you occupy a bigger Chair, so I would yield. Other than that, it should be defined where we would find the sanctions, and they are always prescribed by Regulations.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Hon Deputy Minister, were you on your feet?
    Mr O. B. Amoah 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I got up to respond to the Hon Majority Leader. I still believe that when it comes to sanctions, it should not be in the Regulations. We should state in the Act the consequences of not disclosing, then we move on. I do not think we should -- [Interruption.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, which rendition do you agree to so that I can put the Question?
    Mr Banda 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree to your rendition.
    The reason is that when an officer commits or breaches a provision, it would be left to the Board to institute a disciplinary action, and the Board would then determine the punishment that corresponds to the misconduct per- petrated by the officer.
    So, Mr Speaker, I would go by your rendition that:
    “(3) An officer, who contravenes subsections (1) and (2) shall be sanctioned by the Board.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Hon Members, that is acceptable, and I would put the Question on it.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 51 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 52 -- Privileged information
    Mr Banda 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, regarding clause 52, yesterday, we were finding it difficult to --
    It is not clause 52; that is clause 53 --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    From clause 52, we were having difficulty under- standing what we mean by “privileged information” and in clause 53, where it fits in and so on.
    Mr Banda 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is no amendment under clause 52 except that clause 51 is an odd provision under Alternative Dispute Resolution. This is because clauses 49, 52, 53 and 54 all deal with Alternative Dispute Resolution, but clause 51 is an odd one.
    So I would pray that you make an order for the relocation of clause 51 to an appropriate place in the Bill. [Inter- ruption.] Where clause 51 has been placed creates an impression that it is part of clause 49, which deals with Alternative Dispute Resolution.
    Mr Hammond 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not quite follow what my learned Friend and Colleague is talking about there.
    We have the rubric “miscellaneous provisions”. They are matters which are miscellaneous to what are contained in the details of the Bill. So I am not so sure why he is troubled about where this one is particularly positioned.
    It is free standing -- Determination of pecuniary interest is first and privileged information are supplementary to what we have done already, and each of them stands alone.
    So I do not think we have much trouble with this. He should not fret about that. He should leave them where they are. They would care for themselves. They are good where they sit so that we can go on with clauses 52 and 53. The Hon Chairman should not panic at all.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe the concern should be improving on what exists in the Act. This is because, as the Hon K. T. Hammond has said, these relates to miscellaneous provisions, all of which are ancillary to various parts of the Bill.
    For instance, beyond clause 54 offences are general. They still come under miscellaneous provisions.
    Guidelines, regulations and inter- pretation are all under miscellaneous. So, I believe we can leave them and concern ourselves with improving the contents of the various sections.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Yes, let us work on the content, after that I would direct that the draftspersons do the proper arrangements of the Bill.
    So, should I put the Question on clause
    52?
    Mr Kpodo 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is not anything that is seriously wrong with clause 52, but it is for the draftspersons.
    The last sentence after subclause (c) reads, “the information is privileged”. That phrase applies to subclauses (a), (b) and (c), but the way it is arranged, it would appear that it only applies to subclause (c).
    So it is for the draftspersons to indent it in line with “where”, which is the beginning point of clause 52. Then it would be clear that the phrase relates to all the three conditions.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Members, clause 52?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was trying to follow what my Hon Colleague was saying. I believe it is just the positioning of “the information is privileged”. It should be shifted to the left, to be in line with “direct” up there.
    Mr Speaker, the issue that I raised yesterday, I said that clause 52 just introduces conferencing session without any prior indication of that phraseology, which is why I said we should have a provision that provides us with that resort, saying the Commission may resort to conferencing session pursuant to alternative dispute resolution.
    Some kind of structure, and then we would come to where the Commission or a Committee makes a publication during a conference session and so forth.
    So we could have a clause 52(1), which would introduce that terminology, before we come down.
    That is why I was saying that if we had not deleted the powers of the Commission in respect of alternative dispute resolution. As I stand alone, that is where I thought we should have introduced that but now we have lifted it out to clause 49, so I do not know whether that would come after the original clause 50(b) to introduce it there in clause 49 now, or perhaps it would have to be at clause 52(1) to introduce that terminology before we go to clause 52, conferencing session.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, after clause 51, we could then give a new sub-heading, “Conferencing sessions”, and say that the provisions of section 41 of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act shall apply. We would amend clause 53 when we get there.
    So when we say that the provisions of section 41 of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act shall apply to conferencing sessions under this Act, we want to establish that conferencing sessions would be applicable here, and the whole gamut of conferencing sessions is provided in section 41, so we want to lift it by incorporation here.
    I am just suggesting that we give a title, “conferencing sessions”, and say that the provisions of section 41 of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act shall apply to this section.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    But that may be pursuant to clause 49.
    So under alternative dispute resolu- tion, we are saying that the Commission may arrange for alternative dispute resolution in granting application for legal aid in accordance with the ADR Act, 2010, if the Commission considers it appropriate.
    And then you would continue, pursuant to that, subclause (c) and so on, then it has meaning, because as it appears now, it appears to stand alone.
    Mr Banda 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is why a few minutes ago I said we should transpose clause 51, because that seems to be the odd one in that part of the Bill, because --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, we agree with you, but let us try and create this one properly, then the draftsperson can relocate clause 51 to, maybe, clause 50 and then continue from there.
    Mr Banda 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, conferencing session is a term of art. It relates to ADR, so once we have captured Alternative Dispute Resolution under clause 49, the continuation of clause 49 is what is captured under clause 52, which deals with privileged information.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    But you have not introduced the subject and how it relates to the work we are doing. That is what we are saying, that we should introduce it and then we provide the definition.
    I think we should lift the definitions you have proffered here into the main Bill, so that you do not read and go and see the definition before you come to
    continue. First, I think we must introduce it by some introductory clause before we continue.
    Mr Banda 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, so as I said, the proper place for it would have been the original clause 50, the powers of the Commission in respect of alternative dispute resolution.
    Now, we have lifted that to clause 49, so it could perhaps close clause 49 and come after the clause 50 that we have now taken to clause 49, so that it would be created there, other than that, it would have to be --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, we can leave clause 49 as it is, reintroduce the heading at clause 50 and then bring clause 52 and others under it.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:50 p.m.
    So Mr Speaker, are we saying that we should now bring back clause 50? Clause 50 has already been collapsed --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Yes, but we have used the clauses in clause 50. We have added them to clause 49, but the heading we collapsed may be necessary, and so instead of using -- maybe, we should just use the heading at clause 52 and continue from there, then the draftspersons would do the arrangement after that.
    Hon Chairman, do you agree to that?
    Mr Banda 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, rightly so. It makes sense.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    So if we would start with powers of the Commission in respect of alternative dispute resolution, we just note and put it there, and then we continue from there on. [Pause].
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.


    We should hurry up and set up the Legislative Drafting Department of Parliament because all these are not MPs' job. It is the draftsperson's job so, when we leave here, they would go and do the rest.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if I may proffer some suggestion. Under the powers of the Commission in respect of Alternative Dispute Resolution, we just may say:
    “The Commission, may pursuant to Alternative Dispute Resolution, resort to conferencing sessions.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    “Pursuant to clause 49, the Commission may resort to conferencing sessions” then we lift the definition of “conferencing sessions”. Hon Chairman of the Committee, I hope you have noted these down.
    Mr Banda 2:50 p.m.
    Rightly so.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Should we put the Questions on these amendments one by one?
    After clause 51, before clause 52, we insert “Powers of the Commission in respect of Alternative Dispute Resolution.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    Under that we insert again:
    “Pursuant to clause 49, the Commission may resort to confe- rencing session.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    Then shall we lift the definition of “conferencing session” into the Bill? It is at the Interpretation column but I think we should lift it here.
    “For the purposes of this Act:
    ‘“conferencing session” means a meeting at which a structured negotiation process takes place and includes any step taken in the course of making arrangements for the session or in the course of the follow-up session.'”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, it could still be in the Interpretation column.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    For purposes of this section --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:10 p.m.
    In that case, if we are lifting it to the section, then it would read:
    ‘“For purposes of this section --
    “conferencing session” means a meeting at which a structured negotiation process takes place and includes any step taken in the course of making arrangements for the session or in the course of the follow-up session.”
    But if it is left in the Interpretation column, then it would mean:
    “In this Act:
    “conferencing session” means a meeting at which a structured negotiation process takes place and includes any step taken in the course of making arrangements for the session or in the course of the follow-up session.'
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    But because we are restricting ourselves to ADR, it should be in this section.
    Mr Banda 3:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have a challenge with respect to the proposed amendment that says that:
    “The Commission may pursuant to clause 49 have conferencing sessions.”
    Mr Speaker, it appears to be superfluous because we cannot talk about ADR without conferencing session and that is ably captured under clause 49. Clause 49 gives the Commission the power to resort to ADR under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798).
    Mr Speaker, conferencing sessions and all matters relating to conferencing sessions are captured under the Act. So I do not know why we are still seeking to create a separate provision by giving the Commission the power to resort to conferencing sessions. It is a sine qua non to ADR.
    We cannot do ADR without confe- rencing session. Mediation, arbitration, conciliation -- We must embark on conferencing session. We cannot do that without it. Mr Speaker, that is where I have my challenge. I thought that was understood.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, is the Hon Chairman of the Committee implying that we are lifting all the provisions in the ADR Act lock, stock and barrel into this new Act? Is that the implication? That certainly is not.
    We are lifting the relevant portions, and the conferencing session really is of import to this. That is why we need to establish it.
    Mr Speaker, even if it is superfluous, it does not hurt a fly. So, Hon Chairman of the Committee, if we have it there --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    Otherwise, why are we providing “disclosure of privileged information”? Hon Chairman of the Committee, are clauses 53 and 54 not covered under the ADR Act?
    Mr Banda 3:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, indirectly, they are covered because whatever transpires under ADR is privileged. One cannot transport same into the court room.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    Because you have introduced these things here, that is why it is necessary to give the meaning. Otherwise, it does not make sense to a person who jumps straight and comes to “Immunity for convenors of conferencing session” and “privileged information”.
    This is because we know that there is privileged information under the Evidence Act which is different from what we have here.
    Mr Banda 3:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, let us proceed.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    We were on placing “conferencing sessions” in the Act by lifting it from here and we said:
    ‘“For the purposes of this section --
    Mr Banda 3:10 p.m.
    Rightly so.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    Hon Members, the proposed amendment is that immediately after the reference to section 49, we provide:
    ‘“For the purposes of this section
    “conferencing session” means a meeting at which a structured negotiation process takes place and includes any step taken in the course of making arrangements for the session or in the course of the follow-up session.'”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Are they the only ones which we would create the immunities? I believe for all those places where we created the immunities, we should lift them here before the immunities come. “Privileged information” and “disclosure of privileged information” relate to conferencing sessions.
    Mr Banda 3:10 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    So after that we can take clause 52.
    Mr Hammond 3:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, because the Hon Member raised a point about how it has been structured, I wondered
    whether the last bit, the information which is privileged would come first before the rest?
    So, we would have, “Information is privileged where …” so we do not get the problem that is at the bottom.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    Clause 52?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    Under “Privileged information” we should insert “Information is privileged” that is before the word “where”.
    That is before the word ‘'where”.
    Mr Hammond 3:20 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    Hon Members, the proposed amendment is that in clause 52, before the word ‘‘where'', the words ‘‘information is privileged'' should be inserted.
    The new rendition would read:
    ‘‘Information is privileged where''
    Then subclauses (a), (b) and (c) would follow.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, would subclause (c) be complete?
    ‘‘Information is privileged where
    (c) a convenor of a conferencing session prepares a document,..
    Mr Speaker, I wanted to seek clarification whether there should be a definite or an indefinite article for subclause (c). Should it be; ‘‘a convenor of a conferencing session prepares the
    document'' or ‘'a convenor of a conferencing session prepares a document''?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    I believe that should be made a different subclause because it does not appear to be a complete sentence. What we would want to say is that, a document prepared by a convenor is privileged -- information contained in a document prepared by the convenor is privileged, but that would not fit under the ‘‘where''.
    Mr Hammond 3:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, for the subclause (c) it could be:
    ‘'Information is privileged where a document is prepared by a con- venor of a conferencing session.''
    So, we would reword subclause (c) properly to fit into it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    Hon Member, I believe we should maintain the original rendition and relocate the words ‘'information is privileged''. Otherwise, we may have to change all the subclauses.
    “Where
    (a) Commission or a Committee makes a publication during a conferencing session;
    (b) a document is sent to a convenor of a conferencing session or to the Commission for a conferencing session to be arranged; or
    (c) a convenor of a conferencing session prepares a document, the information is privileged.
    I believe it should be left as it is because as has been said, it should be pushed a little forward. The draftspersons can do that, but I believe it should be where it is.
    Mr Kpodo 3:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the issue to address is, what is the information that has been described as privilege? Is it the convenor who is privileged or the Commission or committee which is privileged? It is a document which becomes a privileged information, so it should be the subject matter.
    In subclause (a), it is said ‘‘where the Commission or a committee'' and in subclause (b), it is referred to the document and in subclause (c), it talks about a convenor. Mr Speaker, I would want to find out what is described as ‘‘privileged information''.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    Hon Member, what is being protected is there.; where a convenor of a conferencing session prepares a document. What is privileged is the document prepared by the convenor. If we just stop there -- but if we move the ‘'information is privileged where'', then the last subclause (c) would not make sense.
    Mr Kpodo 3:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that was why I wanted to agree with Hon K. T. Hammond that if we bring the ‘'document'' forward then we would know that that is what would be targeted as privileged information and not the convenor.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    The current rendition would serve us better so it should be maintained.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 52 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, there is no proposed amendment.
    Mr Banda 3:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is true, but there is a cross reference to section 41 and it is not clear whether it is referable to it or to the ADR Act.
    Mr Speaker, section 41 of the ADR Act does not have any correlation with the disclosure of privileged information, so I have been advised to delete the words ‘‘under section 41''.
    Mr Speaker, deleting it would still make the provision meaningful. The new rendition would be:
    ‘' A convenor of a conferencing session may disclose information to the Commission or to a committee of the Commission…''
    Mr Speaker, clause 53 is setting out circumstances under which privileged information may be disclosed by a convenor of a conferencing session. So the words ‘' under section 41'' should be deleted.
    Mr Hammond 3:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have no quibble with his amendment with respect to the section 41. My problem is what is considered “disclosure”. What is to be disclosed in these subclauses?
    Mr Speaker, subclause (a) reads 3:20 p.m.
    “(a) if there is a reasonable ground to believe that the disclosure is necessary to prevent or minimise the danger of injury to a person or damage to property”.
    Mr Speaker, I do not understand this. In the context of what we are discussing; legal aid application, what is the reason for disclosure of information on the basis of what is being articulated in subclause (a)?
    Mr Speaker, in the subclause (c) too, it says 3:20 p.m.
    ‘‘if the disclosure is in accordance with a relevant enactment''.
    That might just be applicable. Subclause (a) is way out of context, subclause (b) is all right in my view, not subclause (a).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    Why can it not be that during ADR, if the convenor comes upon information, he is not required to disclose it?
    But because the information is grave and if it is not disclosed for the protection of either party, either party may be hanged or property may be damaged or destroyed and in that case, he may disclose. How is that out of the way? How is it outlandish?
    Mr Hammond 3:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, damage to a person when one is asking for a legal aid and some information has been disclosed, because there would be damage to the person or injury to property --

    Mr Speaker, what is considered to be privileged information, which may be disclosed, in my view, does not sit right in the context.

    Subclauses (b) and (c) might do, but subclause (a) is not appropriate.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not really see the point being made by my Hon Colleague. What I thought we would rather need to do to enhance it is to introduce the word “where” and delete all the ‘ifs' in subclauses (a), (b) and (c). So that it would read:
    “A convener of a conferencing session may disclose information under the relevant section in the Alternative Dispute Resolution to the Commission or to a committee of the Commission.
    (a) where there is reasonable grounds;
    (b) where the disclosure is reasonably required; and
    (c) where the disclosure is in accordance with the relevant enactment.”
    Mr Speaker, I believe that is better.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, are you opposed to the proposed amendment? The Hon Majority Leader is replacing “if” with “where “ and putting the “where” at the top so that it references all the others.
    Mr Banda 3:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the sense is captured where there is reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure is necessary, that is all right.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
    I believe in this case, “if” is important as a precondition. “Where” sometimes suggests an occurrence of something. The “if” may be a condition to the
    respected before -- I believe the “if” is appropriate.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 3:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, because “where” is an adverb of place, it describes a place where something happens. “If” is a condition; so on condition that the -- [Interruption.]
    Mr Speaker, I believe the amendment we should be concerned with is to remove the “if” that defines subclauses (a), (b) and (c) and bring it up. So that it reads:
    “A convener of a conferencing session may disclose information to the Commission or to a committee of the Commission if
    (a) there is reasonable grounds;
    (b) the disclosure is reasonably required; and
    (c) the disclosure is in accordance with the relevant enactment.”
    We should delete ‘‘under section 41'' because we do not know what it relates to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have no fixation with the ‘wheres' and the ‘ifs'. But “where” in the context is also conditional. So I do not see the issue being raised by my Hon Colleague, the Hon Inusah Fuseini.
    Mr Speaker, so whatever your pleasure is.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
    Mr Chairman, the proposal is that, we should lift the three ‘ifs', merge them into one ‘if' and put it right after Commission so that it refers to each one of them at your pleasure.
    Mr Banda 3:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is all right. We lift the ‘if' and bring same up to link it with subclauses (a), (b) and (c).
    Mr Speaker, but subject to the amendment, I --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
    The first amendment of removing --
    Mr Banda 3:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, removing “under section 41”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
    It is noted.
    Hon Members, the proposed amend- ment is to delete “under section 41” and in line 2, to insert “if” after “Commission” in line 3 and remove, “if” beginning the sentences in subclauses (a), (b) and (c).
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe the disconnect that the Hon Member is talking about would exist if you refer the section 41 to the clause 41 as contained in this Bill. But this, really, is not supposed to be the reference. It is section 41 of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act. [Interruption.]
    Mr Banda 3:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is the reason I am saying that --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, I heard you. I remember exactly what you said.
    Mr Banda 3:30 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    It also makes sense.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
    The referral to the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act also makes sense.
    Mr Ahiafor 3:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before you put the Question, I would want to support the Hon Majority Leader regarding the use of the word “where” --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
    Hon Member, we have gone past that please.

    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
    The Hon Ahiafor did not even vote. [Laughter.]
    Clause 53 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 55 --- Ofences
    Mr Banda 3:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 55, subclause (1), lines 2 and 3, delete “two hundred and fifty” and insert “five thousand” and in line 5, delete “two” and insert “ten”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 3:30 p.m.
    “A person who makes a false declaration in an application commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not less than one hundred and fifty penalty units and not more than five thousand penalty units or to a term of imprisonment of not less than one year and not more than ten years or to both.”
    Mr Speaker, we are seeking to enhance the upper limit. It is not the minimum but the maximum. So the judge would have the discretion to determine the kind of punishment to be meted out on the convict depending on the severity or the gravity of the offence.
    The original rendition puts the upper limit at a low place, so we are seeking to enhance it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:40 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, two years imprisonment is low?
    Very well.
    Mr Hammond 3:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that whole clause is bad. Clause 55(1) and (2) are both bad. That was the point we were discussing earlier; we are doing this civil matter and all of a sudden, criminal sanctions are finding their way into this. It is pretty bad.
    Mr Speaker, when a person applies for legal aid and makes a false declaration, the application is to refuse it, period. So instead of ‘where a person makes false declaration' the application --
    Mr Speaker, let us look at it from this angle. We are talking of people who have no money in the first place. A person who I think had an authority on fraudulent representation might as well be like that for the time being. [Laughter.].This is not a time to drive people who are penniless like that.
    Mr Speaker, the concept of legal aid is for those who do not have the money to start with.
    Let us take a worst case scenario. This indigent tries to write his name and gets it wrong, so it is a false declaration. He states that he does not have money in his bank account, but it turns out that he has GH¢ 100 in it, it is a false declaration. The punishment of imprisonment for two years for that kind of thing -- What are we talking about?
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 3:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support him one hundred per cent. One is making an application to access legal aid and makes a declaration that is false. The refusal itself is enough sanction.
    One disentitles himself to legal aid by false declaration. Why would we criminalise a poor man? [Interruption] - - I would not go there -- [Laughter.]
    I would not qualify. But why would we subject -- ?
    First of all, we are even moving it from a misdemeanour to a felony. Why would we do that? These are poor people we would want to help and we are saying that we should imprison them? Sometimes --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:40 p.m.
    They are not just poor people, they lie! They deliberately lie and we must recognise that. People deliberately lie about everything in this country and they should know that there are sanctions for those needless lies.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 3:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, people deliberately lie but the danger is that we might subject a poor person to a term of imprisonment for a lie that was inadvertently made. That is the problem. [Interruption.]
    But we have not even given the Judge the leverage to look at the substance. We are saying he should go for a minimum of two years and a maximum of ten years. That is a problem.
    It is true that people deliberately lie, and as Lawyers, we know that, but because the intention of this Act is to help poor people, we must have at the back of our minds the need to have empathy towards poor people.
    Mr Hammond 3:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:40 p.m.
    Hon Member, let me listen to the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice. I would come back to you.
    Mr Joseph D. Kpemka 3:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that the sanctions are very necessary. My worry is about the quantum of penalty units. If we talk about 5,000 penalty units, that is about GH¢60,000. That is where my worry is.
    But the sanctions are very necessary because I have been in a certain court and a High Court Judge had to reprimand the legal aid officer for bringing before the court and filing for free a particular matter that the person could afford to pay.
    We have these things going on and as you have rightly pointed out, to correct the situation and let people know that whatever statement they make, they are accountable to it, there is the need for us to have criminal sanctions here to exact on people who deliberately do so. But I believe the prescribed punishment is too harsh.
    Five thousand penalty units is the equivalent of GH¢60,000 and I believe that it is too much.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:40 p.m.
    If the person could afford GH¢60,000, why would he apply to legal aid? [Laughter.]. Unless that person is actually deliberately lying about his means.
    Mr Kpemka 3:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, some may have the money but they would delibe- rately lie that they do not have it. So, they may not be able to pay. But there are others also, that as my learned Senior has indicated, may be telling a lie even though they do not know that they are doing so. We have situations like that.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:40 p.m.
    That person would not be guilty, once it could be shown that it was not deliberate.
    Yes, Hon K. T. Hammond, let me hear you. Nana Akua, after that, I would give you the Floor.
    Mr Hammond 3:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we agree that people lie. Yesterday I talked about Lawyers lying and causing all sorts of things. But this is an exceptional case; it is not an arrangement between the poor person and the legal aid. There is an intermediary of a Lawyer. So the poor person, his Lawyer and the Legal Aid Commission.
    There is reason for all of these. Either it is because of right to fair trial or some property. There would first be the assessment. The only reason this person would go there is because he says he does not have the money.
    So the misrepresentation or non- declaration would almost invariably be in the context of whether he has some money or not to contribute, or something that he has not declared in the context of his assets. If it is found out that he has something, it is --
    Mr Speaker, really, on this one, I believe it is an overkill. We cannot say that because one made these declarations which are false, for that matter --
    My Leader suggests that probably we should reduce the floor of the punishment, so that the Judge could have a discretion of what to do. I think we should not introduce criminal liability in this context. I find it rather nauseating; it cannot be right.
    Nana Akua Owusu Afiriyie 3:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my understanding is that, it is not about the person being poor. It is about the lies. The person lied and must pay for it to deter others from doing same.
    The punishment did not give a minimum but rather the maximum. It could be 1000 or 2000. The issue is that there must be a sanction to deter others from doing same. I feel there is nothing wrong with this one.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe if we introduce a floor and a ceiling, the Judge would not have any option than to confine the suspect to either the floor or anything within the sanction regime up to the ceiling.
    Maybe, we could leave the ceiling and then remove the floor, so that the Judge looking at the circumstances, could let a person off the hook if it so demands. Just as it has been provided for in clause 57
    (2):
    “A person who commits an offence under the Regulation is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than five thousand penalty units.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:40 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, the real challenge is that, when we do not give a floor, some Judges and Magistrates would render your Bill useless. That is the challenge we have with the fight against galamsey. This is because a Judge would fine one GH¢ 10.
    If we really want to be effective, then it is better to give the floor that they cannot fine less than that amount and leave the
    ceiling to their discretion. Usually, they are guided by some sentencing rules; if it is a misdemeanour or something.
    But the situation which often people find ridiculous is when for example, a Chinese national is caught with all his -- then you hear he has been fined GH¢500 or even GH¢5000 and you are outraged that of all the effort in the damage this person has caused, this is the punishment he got.
    I would rather support the floor and leave the Judges the discretion to how far they could go. Often, a very bad Judge would give a very high sentence which he knows that an appellate court would quash immediately just to help the accused person.
    But it is when we leave the floor, then they give the barest minimum of sanction which would make nonsense of all the efforts to prosecute.
    Mr Hammond 3:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in that case I am also tempted to then suggest that we put the Lawyers too in there. Let us make a provision for the lawyers too. This is because as you said, some of them --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:40 p.m.
    Provision for the lawyers to do what?
    Mr Hammond 3:40 p.m.
    The Lawyers who help them to complete their applications and to the extent that they know that this applicant is making false declaration but they connived and helped them. We should have a provision that --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:40 p.m.
    A person who makes a false declaration includes a Lawyer.
    Mr Hammond 3:40 p.m.
    That would include the Lawyer. The person who signs the
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:40 p.m.
    But there are other places where we said if a lawyer becomes aware of information and does not disclose it, he gets punished.
    Mr Hammond 3:40 p.m.
    Is it your suggestion that that would be the same?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:50 p.m.
    Yes, if you are aware that the man is not impecunious and yet you assist him to prepare a declaration which suggests that he is and it is found out, the lawyer is also liable under another section.
    Mr Hammond 3:50 p.m.
    We should also look for a place to create provisions for lawyers being reported to the General Legal Council. It is bad.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:50 p.m.
    I think it is the same thing.
    Hon Chairman, you said we should move it from 150 penalty units to -- the 150 penalty units is alright for you; If you convert that in Ghana cedi terms, how much is it? Is it multiplied by GH¢60 or GH¢6? It is multiplied by GH¢12; so, GH¢ 12 multiplied by 150 units is GH¢1,800. I think it is alright if we leave it there. The judge would have the option --
    Mr Banda 3:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, GH¢1,800 is alright.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:50 p.m.
    GH¢1,800 is quite substantial if the person is truly impecunious.
    So I propose that we leave the floor and abandon the ceiling -- “not less than 150 penalty units or to a term of imprisonment not less than three months.”
    Mr Banda 3:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have to bring the limits in order to circumscribe the discretion of the judge. Otherwise, if we find a judge, who on a day got angry before leaving home, he might throw everything out of gear.
    So I would propose, in order to be on a safer side, to limit the discretion of the judge by giving him --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:50 p.m.
    If we give him a limit up to 5,000 penalty units, is that GH¢6,000?
    Mr Banda 3:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is GH¢
    60,000.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:50 p.m.
    If we left that to him, how far would he go even in his anger? Anyway, it is your Bill, so I would only make suggestions. [Pause.]
    Mr Banda 3:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, Hon Buaben Asamoa seems to say that the proposed amendment on the upper limit is too excessive; but I have a different opinion. [Interruption.]
    We would not cancel the sanctions, but once it is the upper limit, it does not mean that it would always be applied. It is as low as GH¢1,800.
    Mr Speaker, it is just like saying that a poor person goes to steal a goat that is later retrieved, but we say that that poor person should go -- Once it is committed, it is an offence; so that person must be dealt with.
    So I think the upper limit, unless an Hon Member has a contrary view, is alright.
    Mr Bernard Ahiafor 3:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is not stealing. I am looking at section 248 of our Criminal and other Offences Act - making false declaration. Where even a public officer makes a false declaration, it is a misdemeanour.
    If I make an application for legal aid and in providing the information some of it turns out to be false, do we want to treat it like a capital punishment?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:50 p.m.
    It did not turn out; a false declaration was made. I am interested in the misdemeanour part.
    So what is your proposal? I think it is in the same vein as the -
    Mr Ahaifor 3:50 p.m.
    My proposal is that the same should be a misdemeanour, and the maximum punishment is two years.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:50 p.m.
    As in the original rendition.
    Mr Ahiafor 3:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, that is so.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:50 p.m.
    So, we should leave it as it is.
    Mr Ahiafor 3:50 p.m.
    We should leave it as it is. [Interruption.]
    Mr Asamoa 3:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to support the proposition to keep the original rendition. I think it best serves our purpose for this situation. [Interruption.]
    For the removal of ambiguity and doubt, I do not support the payment of the 5,000 penalty units. I support the
    original rendition before the proposed amendment as it stands in the Bill.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 3:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we should abandon it.
    Mr Banda 3:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I withdraw the proposed amendment. We would keep the original rendition in the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:50 p.m.
    Thank you very much.
    It is the same proposed amendment in subclauses (1) and (2); is that right?
    Mr Banda 3:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are deleting subclause (2).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:50 p.m.
    Are you deleting subclause (2) altogether?
    Mr Banda 3:50 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:50 p.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 55 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 56 - Guidelines
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:50 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, I intend to suspend Sitting at 4.00 p.m.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I plead with you because we are just about to finish, so that we do not suspend and continue and we do not come back.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:50 p.m.
    You are saying we should continue to what?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, to finish it and not come back.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:50 p.m.
    We have 11 amendments to deal with; knowing us, we cannot finish even within one hour.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have just five more clauses; we have gone through the difficult ones. I believe we can deal with them. Of course, it depends on your own resistance.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:50 p.m.
    Sorry, I did not hear you.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I said that it depends on your own strength. When I said resistance, I meant your strength.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5 p.m.
    I have discussed with the Hon Second Deputy Speaker to resume after suspension. I planned to go up to 4.00 p.m. and suspend for one hour, and then he would come at

    If we could get him to come now, that is fine. Can you find out if you could get him to come and continue? I had told him, but find out if he could come and continue.

    Hon Chairman, clause 56?
    Mr Banda 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 56, line 1, delete “Minister” and insert “Commission” and also delete “Commission” and insert “Board” and further in line 2, delete “in the form of a Legal Aid Guide”.
    So, the new rendition reads:
    “The Commission may on the advice of the Board make guidelines for purposes of the administration of the Commission.”
    I think this is straightforward.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 56 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 57 -- Regulations
    Mr Banda 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 57, subclause (1), line 1, delete “Commission” and insert “Minister” and also delete “Constitutional” and insert “Legislative”.
    The new rendition reads:
    “The Minister may, by Legislative Instrument make Regulations to”.
    The reason is that the Commission is not a creation of the Constitution but of a Statute; that is, an Act of Parliament and so, it cannot be a Constitutional Instrument. So it is straightforward.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 57, subclause (2), delete.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 57 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 58 -- Interpretation.
    Mr Banda 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 58, add the following new interpretation:
    “‘Fund' means the Legal Aid Fund established under section 31".
    Mr Speaker, it is clause 31 that establishes -- Clause 31 talks about “Object of the Fund” and so, it should be clause 30 and not 31.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5 p.m.
    So, your amendment is that:
    “Fund” means Legal Aid Fund as established under clause 31".
    Mr Banda 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is rather clause 30.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5 p.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5 p.m.
    Clause 58.
    Mr Banda 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we would withdraw clause 58 because -- the amendment numbered (viii).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5 p.m.
    Withdrawn? Paralegals were not permitted.
    Mr Banda 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 58, Add the following new interpretation:
    “‘officer of the Legal Aid Commission' means personnel under section 17(1)(a) and (d) of the Act”.
    Mr Speaker, I am wondering whether the other employees will not come under officers of the Commission. This is because when we talk about clause 17(1) (a) and (d) --
    Clause 17(1) (a) talks about; ‘lawyers appointed by the Commission' and then (d) relates to --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5 p.m.
    Clauses 17 and 18 cover all. Clause 17 dealt with only legal officers but now we are talking about officers of the Legal Aid Commission. In which case it includes all staff. Is that all right?
    Mr Banda 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it should be clauses 17 and 18. I would seek your leave to amend clause 58 this way;
    ‘officer of the Legal Aid Commission means personnel under sections 17 and 18 of this Act'.
    Mr Ahiafor 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to do a further amendment that we delete “of this Act” because if we look at clause 58, it states:
    “In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,”
    So, there is no need bringing “in this Act” into this particular interpretation. I propose that we delete “in this Act” from the proposed amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, are you agreeable to that?
    Mr Banda 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5 p.m.
    So, kindly read the new rendition and I will put the Question on that one.
    Mr Banda 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition reads:
    “officer of the Legal Aid Com- mission means personnel under sections 17 and 18”.
    Your rendition leaves something out, the cell appointed under sections 17 and 18. Right? I think that is better.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    The Hon Second Deputy Speaker to take the Chair.
    MR SECOND DEPUTY SPEAKER
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:08 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, my attention has been drawn to the fact that you are at page 5, clause 58 and item numbered (ix). The Question has not yet been put. Could you give me the rendition? Has the Hon First Deputy Speaker put the Question?
    Mr Banda 4:08 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:08 p.m.
    All right. Thanks very much. Then I have been misled. Could we move to --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:08 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, some minor issues with respect to clause 58. You would see that “Commission” has been defined but I guess we need to define “Board”. This is because “Board” has been used and of course, we know that it is the governing body of the Commission.
    We established that in the clause 5 so, wherever Board is mentioned, we know that it refers to the governing body of the Commission. So, just to define “Board”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, you heard the Hon Majority Leader. Clause 58 is on Interpretation and the “Board” is not defined. Is there any proposed amendment to clause 58 again? We have clause 59.
    Hon Majority Leader, do you have any proposal to support?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move a further amendment to clause 58, insert “Board” and define same
    as “Board” means “The Governing body of the Commission established under section 5.”
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Hon Member for Adentan?
    Mr Asamoa 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, a further amendment to clause 58?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Is it on the same issue on the definition of “Board”?
    Mr Asamoa 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, no. It is another proposed amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    No. We are on “Board” means “The governing body of the Commission established under section 5 of this Act.”
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “Board” means “The governing body of the Commission established under section 5.” Mr Speaker, it is not “… of this Act” but rather “… under section 5.”
    Mr Speaker, because the definition section starts with “In this Act”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Hon Member, you are right. So we would end at ‘‘section 5''.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this whole Bill is about legal aid and clause 1 establishes the Legal Aid Commission and subclause (b) establishes the purpose of the Commission -- to provide legal aid.
    Mr Speaker, legal aid in the context then becomes a term of art -- what do we mean by legal aid? So I thought that we should
    define legal aid and, fortunately, it has been defined by the Constitution.
    So we could just import what has been provided in article 294(4) of the Constitution and then define it as “Legal aid” means “representation by a lawyer and other such assistance as provided for under article 294(4) of the Constitution.”
    Mr Speaker, otherwise we are using the term without really defining it anywhere in the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Hon Members, the Hon Majority Leader has proposed further amendment to clause 58 with an additional term; “legal aid”. He is urging us to adopt the definition as it is in the 1992 Constitution.
    Mr Banda 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, much as the Constitution defines legal aid, my little challenge with this interpretation would be -- does it mean if any other person who is not a lawyer is assisting the Commission to deliver legal aid, then that service is not legal aid?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    I was observing and listening to you from my office and I heard you debate about “Paralegal” and whether it is even a profession and so on.
    I am sure your attention was not drawn to article 294 (4), if it had been, then there would not have been the need for that debate. In any case, I am also of the legal opinion that this is not the Act that would create an additional profession called Paralegal.
    If there is any such profession, then it would be statutorily created and recognised. So I thought that Hon K. T. Hammond was on a sound ground, but we have passed that one.
    Mr Asamoa 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, Hon K. T. Hammond, had left before you made these pronouncements but he would stay now. [Laughter.]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Hon Members, because we are bound by the provisions of the Constitution, there is nothing we could do about it now. We are to just define the term and so we have to adopt what is in the Constitution with a bit of refinement, and I believe that is what the Hon Majority Leader did.
    Let us listen to the Hon Member for Tamale Central.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you are entirely right and Hon K. T. Hammond was right. We were all under the impression that we could expand the frontiers of personnel who provide legal assistance, until our attention was drawn to article 294(4), then we realised that we had hit a constitutional road block, so we retreated.
    Mr Speaker, you are right but obviously, we thought that judging from experiences -- not even considering the Constitution of Kenya and whether they have similar provisions, we thought that we could import their experiences, but we realised that we could not do that because of the constitutional road block.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    The issue here is that we are giving a service which has a professional expertise and there must be responsibility, particularly when there is an action for negligence.
    We cannot be holding a paralegal responsible for a negligent legal opinion. So, you were right in finally landing on solid ground, but let us add this definition.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Adentan, you were on your feet?
    Mr Asamoa 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am ceding to the Hon Member for Okaikoi Central.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Alright.
    Hon Member for Okaikoi Central?
    Mr Boamah 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is rightly so.
    Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to propose this amendment to clause 58 on definition of application.
    It is defined in this clause as
    “application” means an application for legal aid made to the Com- mission.”
    Mr Speaker, my proposed amendment reads 4:10 p.m.
    “application” means an application for legal aid made in writing to the Commission.”
    Mr Speaker, I believe every application must follow a certain form, and we must be guided with that form for which that application ought to be made. So I believe every application to the Commission, which would be commission of record must be made in writing.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, what do you say to this proposal?
    Mr Banda 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this would be a problem considering the illiteracy rate in the country. [Interruption.] Whose lawyer?
    The person is illiterate; he cannot write and cannot read. [Interruption.] Which lawyer makes the application?
    A person comes to the Legal Aid Commission to apply for legal aid without a lawyer, and are we saying the person must put his request into writing before he could access legal aid?
    Mr Speaker, that would be a challenge. So I would rather propose that the way clause 38 has been crafted is all right. The person is applying for legal aid in a manner determined by the Commission.
    So if the person can read and write, he puts his request into writing and present same to the Commission. If he cannot, he appears and whatever he says orally would be reduced into writing for him, or the Commission may reduce whatever he says into writing for him. But to say the person should come with a written request --
    If that is the way I understand him, that presents a challenge.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Since you mooted it, let us listen to the others before I come back to you.
    Mr Hamond 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the point I was making was that, it does not really add or detract from doing it by way of writing. If it were the lawyer or the person himself who went to the Commission and made the application orally or verbally, it would have to be necessarily put down in writing.
    The staff of the Commission would have to put down what the person's details are. They would have to write it. If he would have to thumbprint or they have to sign it on his behalf, it would be in writing.
    So I suggest that adding “in writing” or deleting “in writing” does not really take away the force of that. But he thinks that for the sake of completeness, we say “in writing”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Are you saying that in a court, a person cannot immediately seek legal aid from an officer of the Legal Aid Commission present in court? Where there is an issue and the person needs legal aid, does the person have to put it there in writing?
    Mr Speaker, I have not really studied the earlier chapters, so I do not particularly know what has been stated there. But you are very right. It is almost invariable. In some of these cases, just in the court, the person gets up and the judge realises that there is the need for that and orders that a legal aid should be granted in that particular case.
    But again, almost invariably, that would be put later into writing. It would have to be put into writing. So the judge's order be convened into writing.
    Let us listen to the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice. I have taken your point; I have noted it down.
    Mr Kpemka 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I refer the Honourable House to clause 38.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Yes, we have noted it.
    Mr Kpemka 4:10 p.m.
    Application for legal aid and that would settle the matter.
    “38. A person may apply for legal aid in a manner determined by the Commission”.
    That should answer that.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Yes, the Hon Chairman has drawn our attention to that, but Hon Members are still trying to say something in addition.
    However, the Hon Chairman has drawn our attention to clause 38, which is the application for legal aid; how it is to be done. There is nothing like it should be in writing.
    Now, Hon Member for Okaikoi Central, are you with us? Is there any issue left for litigation?
    Mr Boamah 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the argument on the Floor, right from the outset, I heard my Hon Colleague talked about what if the person is an illiterate? We are not dealing with illiterates. Literates may also have legal challenges and may require the services of a lawyer.
    So if we are talking about illiterates, as my Hon Chairman wants us to believe, we may be veering into areas of introducing jural clauses and what have you.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Maybe, the word is used in connection with a non- legal person.
    Mr Boamah 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is outside what we are dealing with. This is an Act that would guide people who require legal aid, and it does not necessarily limit a person who is literate from accessing legal aid, for which everybody would get up and say, “Ah, we are dealing with illiterates and poor people”.
    So we cannot confine the argument. My argument is that it ought to be in writing in a certain form.
    This is because if we are introducing the constitutional provision in article 294 which talks about: “For the purposes of

    this article, a legal aid shall consist of”, it means it is not exhaustive of repre- sentation by a lawyer.

    A lawyer would be on record to have provided that service, and everything has to be in writing so that people would have the record to be able to deal with those cases.

    This is my simple argument.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Hon Member, our attention has been drawn, and I have had that experience before, where during the course of proceedings I was called upon to grant legal aid to a client in court which I offered. That was not in writing.
    It is after that; when you go back to the office. But the application had already been made and acted upon, then one can go back and raise a file for that case. But the application was not made in writing. That is using “in writing” is limiting the options available for the person seeking legal aid.
    That is all what they are saying, but if you still insist, I would put the Question.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we would implore him to withdraw. Why he should withdraw is that clause 38 states clearly what an application is.
    If he defines application in the interpretation column, he would be abandoning clause 38. And so we cannot pass a law and in the same law we amend provisions of that law in the interpretation section. We cannot do that.
    Mr Hammond 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 38 now even appears a bit more difficult.
    “A person may apply for legal aid in a manner determined by the Commission --
    (a) for that person, or
    (b) on behalf of another person”
    So how is it done? Is it done in writing or not in writing?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    That is why the attempt by the Hon Member for Tamale Central to limit the definition of “determine” to only the mode could be wrong.
    The determination involves other things like one would have to deposit some amounts. It is all part of the determination. Or even if it is in writing, it should be typed or written by hand.
    There are so many ways that one could make a determination.
    Now, the actual issue being raised is that, we have left the issue of determining the message in whatever form it is to the Commission, but in trying to define it you are circumscribing, limiting or tying the hands of the Commission as to how a sessional mode should be implemented. That is what is being raised.
    So it is already for the Commission to determine; it is not for us to define. I believe we are ad idem on this matter.
    Mr Boamah 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I withdraw the application.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    We are most grateful. So can I now put the Question on the whole of clause 58?
    Clause 58 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 59 -- Consequential Amend- ments.
    Mr Banda 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 59, paragraph (a), subparagraph (1)(c), delete and insert the following:
    “(c) legal practitioner appointed by the Commission under para- graph (a) of subsection (1) of section 17”
    Mr Speaker, I would seek your leave to further amend “legal practitioners” to read “lawyers”.
    Mr Speaker, in all the preceding provisions, where legal practitioner appears we have replaced same with lawyer, so we seek to do same to clause
    59.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, clause 17, which definitely would become section 17, is a reference to legal personnel. Clause 17(1) says;” the legal personnel of the Commission comprise…”
    I am sure (a) is what you talked about and you have amended it to “lawyer appointed by the Commission”. Is that the case?
    Mr Banda 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, rightly so. We are referring to clause 17(1) (a).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Yes, that is the legal practitioners.
    Mr Banda 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, rightly so, “lawyer appointed by the Commission”.
    These are the persons who are being exempted under the Legal Professions Act of 1960 (Act 32).
    Mr Speaker, the Attorney-General, the officer of the Office of the Attorney- General and lawyers appointed under section 17(1)(a) do not need to show solicitor's licence. That is what it means.
    Clause 59(1) (a);
    “A person other than --
    (a) the Attorney-General;
    (b) an officer of the Office of the Attorney-General; or Lawyers appointed by the Commission shall not practice as solici- tors…”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Yes, the Votes and Proceedings have just been shown to me and it captures what you are saying, so I would put the Question.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, except that the lawyers are not appointed by the Commission. They are rather appointed by the President, so it would be “Lawyers appointed for the Commission” and not “by the Commission”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Are the lawyers appointed by the President? Clause 59, the Legal Profession Act -- it is amended in section 8 by the substitution for section 1 of -- [Pause.]
    Hon Majority Leader, I am at a difficulty in accepting that they are appointed by the President, so I have asked that the Table Office should cross check whether you amended the clauses to say the lawyers should be appointed by the President. So they are cross-checking that issue.

    It is just the other employees who are appointed by the President, not the lawyers.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the -- [Pause.]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    The clause 17(1) (a)?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:10 p.m.
    I am clear in my mind that for clause 17(1)(a), we deleted “appointed” and inserted “nominated”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Lawyers nominated by the Commission?
    Mr Keyi-Mensah-Bonsu 4:10 p.m.
    Yes. And then we said that the overall appointment would be done by the President in accordance with article 195. That is why I am saying that in that case we would not say that the lawyers appointed by the Commission.
    Mr Speaker, to even cut it short, we could say “Lawyers of the Commission”; indeed, we agreed that they would not be appointed by the Commission.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    The Votes and Proceedings captured the following amendments; clause 17(1)(a), lawyers appointed for the Commission. This means that they are not appointed by the Commission, but they have not stated that they should be appointed by the President.
    So I am told that they may be coming from the Attorney-General's Department or any other institution, or from private practice, by being called upon to offer legal aid.
    The Commission itself also may grant the permission to firms or other “persons”,
    to offer legal aid. They also come under that.
    So we should use the term “Lawyers appointed for the Commission” under paragraph (a) of subclause (1) of section 17. I think that should be the rendition.
    Mr Shaibu Mahama 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to side with the Hon Majority Leader, and instead of “for” and “of”, we just keep it short by saying “lawyers of the Commission”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    No, “lawyers of the Commission” would not be correct. It should be “lawyers appointed for the Commission”.
    Mr Ahiafor 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 59, particularly (a) (1) (c) --
    “The Legal Profession Act of 1960 (Act 32) is amended in section 8.
    (c) lawyers appointed for the Commission shall not practise as solicitors unless the person has in respect of the practice a valid annual solicitor's licence issued by the Council and duly stamped.”
    Mr Speaker, if one's annual solicitor's licence is valid, it means it is issued by the General Legal Council and duly stamped. So to say “a valid annual solicitor's licence issued by the Council and duly stamped” -- Mr Speaker, I propose that we leave the rendition at “solicitor's licence”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Hon Member, do you want us to assume that all licences issued by the Council are duly stamped?
    Some Hon Members 4:10 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mr Ahiafor 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the use of “valid annual solicitor's licence” -- If the licence is not issued by the Council, it is not valid; and if it is not stamped, it is not valid.

    But apart from the Council, there is no other body that would issue annual solicitor's licence. So for one to have “a valid annual solicitor's licence”, it must be issued by the Council and it must be stamped. The rest of the sentence is superfluous; it is redundant.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Hon Member, it is a second proposal. I wanted to put the Question on the first one then we could go on to this second amendment.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, do you agree with me?
    Mr Banda 4:10 p.m.
    Rightly so, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    I will put the Question on the first proposed amendment.
    Clause 59 -- Paragraph (a), subparagraph (1)(c), delete and insert the following:
    “(c) legal practitioner appointed by theCommission under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section
    17”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    There is a further amendment to clause 59 which is clause 59(a)(1)(c) and it is proposed by the Hon Member for Akatsi South. It used to be Avenor-Ave. It is in the following words:
    “An officer of the Legal Aid Commission shall not practise as a solicitor unless that person has in respect of that practice a valid annual solicitor's licence.”
    And so we would delete “issued by the Council and duly stamped”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 59, paragraph (b), delete.
    Mr Speaker, to make pro bono compulsory means that every lawyer must render legal aid service before he would be granted a valid annual solicitor's licence. Mr Speaker, that ought not to be the case.
    Mr Speaker, if there has to be any amendment at all, it has to be with respect to the Legal Profession Act, 1960. That is where the amendment has to be effected but not in this Bill.
    Mr Speaker, the thing is pro bono; it is free. When the Committee met, we were of the opinion that we should delete it; we seek at this juncture to delete same.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Chairman of the Committee. We said that this was not the proper place to put it and that if we wanted an amendment, we should send it to the proper place.

    There is a Legal Profession Amend- ment) Act of 1964, (Act 226) which contains the same provision so that is why we are deleting it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    It has no place in any law and so, you are being mild by saying this is not the proper place. I do not think that we should legislate to tie the hands of any professional in delivering service to the society. That would be an autocratic regime.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, lawyers met at the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) meeting and resolved that one would not have a solicitor's licence -- [Inter- ruption.] Yes. Lawyers met. It was a resolution. If you have not been attending GBA meetings, that is a different matter.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Lawyers met and said what?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 4:10 p.m.
    Lawyers met and said that as a condition to -- [Interruption]. It is a resolution of GBA. As a condition for the renewal of a solicitor 's licence, one must show evidence of pro bono services to the Legal Aid Board. It is the lawyers; they decided that.
    The former Chief Justice endorsed it. -- [Interruption]. I agree that it is not a law but to say that lawyers cannot -- Mr Speaker, the reason I stood to speak on this matter is simple. It is because this is the Parliament of Ghana so, it is not law yet.
    But for lawyers to say that we cannot legislate pro bono service is to try to undermine the very resolution that was passed by lawyers themselves.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Resolu- tion?
    Hon Member, are you saying it was an opinion or it was a resolution? You have gone far because resolution is an authoritative pronouncement, but I think that would have been the opinion expressed by the Association.
    That is not law and it is not binding on the members. Definitely, I do not think in a free society such as a democratic State like Ghana, a profession would be legislating through Parliament to tie the hands of its members to offer pro bono services.
    Historically, pro bono services were criminal and they were referred to as Champerty -- you can google and research on it. It was later on that people thought that lawyers should be humane and should freely offer this service.
    So, to go beyond that to tie the hands -- I believe that would be going beyond the limit of democratic culture.
    Mr Hammond 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is the reason why we are deleting it. So let them bring it here; if they want to bring it here for us to debate, we would debate.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    So, I support the deletion.
    Mr Hammond 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you support the deletion, so complete it and let us go.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Hon Members, we are deleting clause 59(1)(b)
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, even though you have put the Question on clause 59(1)(c), I just would want to bring to the attention of the Hon Chairman of the Committee that the construction which he approved, whether it is not too verbose. It says:
    “an officer of the Legal Aid Commission shall not practise as a solicitor unless that person has in respect of that practice a valid annual solicitor's licence”.
    Mr Speaker, I just would want to propose to the Chairman, if he can, those words “in respect of that practice”. So that simpliciter, we shall have:
    “an officer of the Legal Aid Commission shall not practice as a solicitor unless that person has a valid annual solicitor's licence.”
    We do not need the “in respective of that practice”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    There is a problem over there but I think the Hon Majority Leader -- [Pause]
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, is it because of the nature of the profession in Ghana that this rendition is proposed?
    Mr Banda 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe the rendition is English and the proposition by the Hon Majority Leader does not take away the meaning or sense of the provision.
    So we can still do and understand the provision with the deletion of the phrase that the Hon Majority Leader has spoken about, so that the new rendition reads:
    “shall not practice as ‘a lawyer' unless that person has a valid annual solicitor's licence.”
    I said “a lawyer” because all along, we have been inserting “lawyer”. I believe this proposal makes a lot of sense.
    Mr Speaker, “solicitor” here refers to a lawyer. So we change “solicitor” to “a lawyer”. We would seek to delete “a solicitor” and insert “a lawyer” so as to read “shall not practice as a lawyer unless that person has a valid annual solicitor's licence.”
    Mr Speaker, the “solicitor's licence” is a term of art; so we can maintain “solicitor's licence” because that is why it is referred to as solicitor's licence. But we can change the first “solicitor” to read “lawyer” and delete the phrase “in respect of that practice” and the meaning will still be clear.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    That is the inconsistency we have in the profession now and we would have to rationalise it. We refer to them as lawyers but they practise under solicitor's licence; and then they are called barristers and solicitors.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the problem is that the relevant provision, which this Bill derives its source from, uses the word “lawyer” and that is article 294 of the Constitution.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    I know we do not have “lawyers' licence” in Ghana; we have solicitor's licence.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:10 p.m.
    So that one would be left out.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Yes; so I agree to the deletion of the first solicitor and insertion of the word “lawyer”. But I was simply drawing the attention of the
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    members of the profession to do more sanitisation of the law with regard to the profession. This is because we are copying the system from our colonial masters but we are doing it in a very non- charitable manner and we need to relook at it. We now have a problem here.
    So the whole sentence would read:
    “(1) A person other than --
    (c) an officer of the Legal Aid Commission shall not practice as a lawyer unless that person has in respect of that practice, a valid annual solicitor's licence.”

    Mr Chairman, we are talking about amending the Legal Profession Act, and we are amending a section of that Act and this rendition is in conformity with the intention of the proposals in this legislation. But we are amending an Act; do we have the Act here so we can read section 8 of Act 32?
    Mr Banda 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, are you asking whether we have the Act here?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Yes, the Legal Profession Act.
    Mr Banda 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, it is here with me.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Could you read through section 8?
    Mr Banda 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, section 8 (1) says:
    “A person other than the Attorney- General or an officer of his Department shall not practise either as a barrister or solicitor except in accordance with the practising certificate issued by the General Legal Council in the appropriate form in the Second Schedule to this Act duly stamped entitling him to practise in the capacity or capacities named in the certificate.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5 p.m.
    Hon Members, that Act used about three or four different terminologies and we would want to use the general one which is, “lawyer”. That would make it simpler.
    I would want to put the rendition of clause 59(1)(c) again:
    “59(1) A person other than
    (c) an officer of the Legal Aid Commission shall not practise either as a lawyer unless that person has a valid annual solicitor's license”
    Mr Banda 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, appointed --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5 p.m.
    There is no appointment here. I am putting the Question on clause 59(1)(c).
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, are we together?
    Mr Banda 5 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, item numbered 10, clause 59, paragraph (a) subparagraph (1) (c), delete and insert the following… [Interruption.]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee, we have finished with clause 59(1)(c) but the Hon
    Majority Leader sought my leave to propose a further amendment to clause 59(1)(c) by deleting, “in respect of that practice” and you accepted.
    Mr Banda 5 p.m.
    Rightly so, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5 p.m.
    So, that is the Question I am putting.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5 p.m.
    In your acceptance, you also decided to delete, “solicitor” and insert, “lawyer”. So I am putting the Question on both.
    Mr Banda 5 p.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5 p.m.
    So we take it as a further amendment to clause 59(1)(c). The further amendment states:
    “59 (1) A person other than --
    (c) an officer of the Legal Aid Commission shall not practise as a lawyer unless that person has a valid annual solicitor's license”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, the clause 59(1)(c) has been amended. We have deleted “an officer of the Legal Aid Commission” and in its place, we have, “lawyer appointed for the Commission” under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 17.
    That is clause 59(1)(c) now. The closing phrase is what we have further amended to read as follows:
    “…shall not practise as a lawyer unless that person has a valid annual solicitor's license.”
    That is what we have just done. But we had earlier done the other one. So respectfully, if you read it in conjunction with the original 59(1)(c), you would be sending us back because we have amended what is contained in clause 59(1)(c).
    We have deleted “an officer of the Legal Aid Commission” and inserted “a lawyer appointed for the Commission under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 17.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5 p.m.
    So clause 59(1)(c) should read:
    “Lawyers appointed for the Commission…”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is not “Lawyers” because the opening is:
    “A person other than a lawyer appointed for the Commission under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 17.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5 p.m.
    Hon Members, because we have gone back to clause 59(1)(c), I am trying to see how we could marry the two. The first amendment that was taken at subclause (1)(c), which is item numbered (x) said:
    “Lawyers appointed for the Commission under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 17.”
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, am I right? That is what was taken at clause 59(1)(c).
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, except that, because the subclause (1) opens with “A person other than”, the clause 59(1)(c) should have, “a lawyer”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5 p.m.
    The proposed amendment to the clause 59 (1)(c) which was by the Hon Chairman of the Committee said, paragraph (a), subparagraph (1)(c) delete and insert the following.
    His initial proposal was, “legal practitioner appointed by the Commission under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 17”.
    But the amendment rendered by the House stated, “lawyers appointed for”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am proposing that it should read, “a lawyer”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5 p.m.
    That is a further amendment. I read:
    “A lawyer appointed for the Commission under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 17”.
    Then, the penultimate paragraph would now read:
    “shall not practise as a lawyer unless that person has a valid annual solicitor's licence.”
    Now, the rendition is clear. So, I would put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5 p.m.
    The last amendment of clause 59 which is paragraph (b) says we should delete.
    I will put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 59 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 61 -- Transitional provisions.
    Mr Banda 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 61, subclause (1), line 2, before “Scheme” insert “Legal Aid”.
    So, it reads:
    “The rights, assets and liabilities accrued in respect of the properties vested in the Legal Aid Scheme established under the Legal Aid Scheme…”
    Mr Speaker, while on my feet, may I do same for subclause (2)? I beg to move, clause 61 subclause (2), line 1, before “Scheme” insert “Legal Aid”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5 p.m.
    Why do we have to repeat “Legal Aid Scheme” when definitely we are referring to the scheme established by the Legal Aid Commission?
    Hon Chairman, could you convince the House on that?
    Mr Banda 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if taking out “Legal Aid” would still bring out the meaning, I am ready to do away with the amendment and maintain “vested in the Scheme”. So, “in the Scheme” means the “Legal Aid Scheme”.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5 p.m.
    Actually, my understanding of the clause says so.
    Hon Members, but I can see the Hon Member for Wa West on his feet.
    Mr Chireh 5:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman seeks to delete the --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:10 p.m.
    It is not to delete.
    Mr Chireh 5:10 p.m.
    It is to insert “Legal Aid Scheme”; we do not need that. It is a scheme; but we now have the Legal Aid Scheme Act, so that is the full description of the Act that set up the Scheme. I do not think that we should add anything.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:10 p.m.
    So, you are supporting --
    Mr Chireh 5:10 p.m.
    We should oppose the Hon Chairman on this occasion. [Interruption.]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:10 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, would you withdraw your proposed amendment?
    Mr Banda 5:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I did that a long time ago. [Laughter.] I took a cue from
    you and did that before my Hon Friend got up.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:10 p.m.
    Those of us here did not hear you withdraw it. I saw you slump back on your seat, but I did not hear you withdraw the proposed amendment.
    So the amendment is accordingly withdrawn.
    Amendment withdrawn by leave of the House.
    Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:10 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, the Schedule.
    Mr Banda 5:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, schedule, delete and insert the following:
    SPACE FOR TABLE - PAGE 4 - 5.10 P.M.
    Mr Banda 5:10 p.m.


    Mr Speaker, I seek your leave to further amend category “E”, which deals with paralegals. We would delete “Paralegals” and leave “Alternative Dispute Resolution Officers”. We are equating them with career magistrates.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:10 p.m.
    You are replacing “Paralegals” with “career magistrates”?
    Mr Banda 5:10 p.m.
    No, Mr Speaker, this schedule equates officers or lawyers in the Legal Aid Commission with lawyers in the Office of the Attorney-General and lawyers in the Judiciary.
    For instance, under category “A”, an Executive Director in the Legal Aid Commission is equated to a Solicitor- General in the Office of the Attorney- General and in the Judiciary, a Justice of the Court of Appeal.
    What we seek to do in respect of category E is that, because the House did not accept paralegals as part of the Bill, it does not have to stay in the Schedule. So we seek to delete “Paralegals” as captured under category “E”, but we would leave “Alternative Dispute Resolution Officers” because that is part of the Bill.
    So, we are equating Alternative Dispute Resolution Officers with Career Magistrates under the Judiciary. That is all we seek to do.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:10 p.m.
    Hon Members, I have a problem with the equivalents. Until the elevation or politicisation of the Office of the Attorney- General, the Attorney-General was equivalent to the Solicitor-General, who was equivalent to the Registrar-General.
    Those were the equivalent positions until politics set in and “Minister for Justice” was added to “Attorney- General”. That elevated it a bit above the other “Generals”. It was the same with the Accountant-General and the Auditor- General; those were the equivalents.
    Now, you want the Executive Director of the Legal Aid Commission to be an equivalent of the Solicitor-General. I do not know what went into the discussion; but that is the highest position in that outfit, and that is an Agency under the Attorney-General's Department.
    Or is my concept wrong?
    Mr Chireh 5:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not even know why they want to establish equivalence. If it is because of remuneration where they want to pay lawyers or personnel in the legal profession, that is fine.
    In terms of positions, we have to look at the Legal Aid Commission as a Public Service, virtually separate from the Civil Service. The grading of the Civil Service they want to give creates a problem, because the Solicitor-General now is equivalent to the Director of Public Prosecutions because they are basically two divisions. They are close to the Attorney-General, who is now the overall “General”.
    So, if they are creating a Commission under the Public Service, I do not think that we should talk about equivalence. It would create a problem in terms of relationship. Who is to take instructions? These other people are supposed to issue instructions to everybody else because they work closely with the Attorney- General.
    If the Executive Director says he is equivalent to them, so they cannot direct
    him, we would have created a problem. I do not really know why they want to even establish this equivalent scheme. What is it to do?
    I have read clause 17, but I am not convinced that the exercise we are doing will help.
    Mr Speaker, secondly, if you look at category E, I do not know who we are calling career magistrates. I know that they were originally called lay magistrates, which means that they are lay persons practicing law or making judgements.
    If we say career magistrates, is that a new and legal terminology? If it is not, somebody who has undergone Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) training, and many of them actually did, if you look at them, they are not officially appointed.
    Sometimes, they are individuals who have gone to improve their skills and they may assign cases to them, and if we now want to make them also equivalent to people who have been appointed into the service as lay or career magistrates, then again, we are drawing equivalence that will not be necessary.
    Unless you are telling me that these ADR officers are going to be appointed by the Ghana Government either under the Attorney-General's department or the Legal Aid Commission.
    Mr Speaker, if not, we do not need category E; we need to be careful about drawing these equivalences.
    Mr Iddrisu 5:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I will persuade the Hon Chireh to abandon his opposition to the Hon Chairman's
    Mr Chireh 5:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader has tried to convince me and I am beginning to be convinced, but I do not really know what the equivalences are.

    All I want to find out is whether it is the status we are looking at or once we put them at this level, they will be getting conditions of service in the same way? If it is conditions of service, I now totally agree with him.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:20 p.m.
    Well, I know that the intention is to make that place attractive -- to have people to go there to offer their services. My worry is really about the distortion of the equivalence and if you are able to convince me that there are no distortions, I can proceed to put the Question.
    Mr Banda 5:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there would be no distortions. For instance, when you take the Executive Director under the Legal Aid Scheme, his positon is equated to that of the Justice of the Court of Appeal and under the office of the Hon Attorney- General and Minister for Justice, we have the Solicitor General.
    This is because under the current Bill, the Executive Director must be a lawyer equivalent to a Justice of the Court of Appeal.
    Mr Speaker, the Attorney-General's Department renders legal service as well as the Judiciary, and so, if the Executive Director is a lawyer of at least, 12 years standing and Director of Public Defenders, Director of Citizen's Advisory and Director of Alternative Dispute Resolution shall all be lawyers.
    Then it is fair that these categories of persons are equated to those that come under the ambit of the office of the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and the Judiciary.
    So it is not out of place to equate the position categorised under A, B, C, D and
    E to those under the office of the Attorney- General and Minister for Justice and the Judiciary respectively.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:20 p.m.
    Hon Members, -- yes?
    Mr Kpodo 5:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, when you look at the original Bill, they just have three categories; Chief Legal Aid Officers, Chief State Attorney which is equivalent to a High Court Judge.
    When you look at officers of the Legal Aid Commission, clauses 17 and 18, there is no mention of all these additional provisions which now come under category A in the amendment. So I do not know why there is the need for these additional equivalences to be raised in the amendment of the Schedule which is attached.
    If they could explain why all these other officers in category A are not provided for and which we did not feature in clauses 17 and 18 of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:20 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, is there any further clarification so that the Hon Member for Ho Central could go with you?
    Mr Banda 5:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, under category ‘A', we have the Public Defenders Division under the Bill, we have the Citizens Advisory Division and the Alternative Dispute Resolution all under the Bill. These divisions will be headed by directors and so it is captured.
    With respect to the Chief Legal Aid Officers, categories B, C and D, there is no specific mention of them in the Bill, but they will all be captured under clause 18 which talks about engagement of other employees of the Commission.
    Mr Speaker, all these persons would be captured under clause 18 of the Bill but there is a specific mention of the divisions to be created under the Bill which are well captured under category A of the schedule.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:30 p.m.
    Well, there is an attempt to be extensive by the inclusion of other divisions but there is a danger there because I thought we were only looking at the prosecutions under the Attorney-General's Department, but you have now added the Director of Legislative Drafting. What about the Director of the International Division?
    Mr Chireh 5:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe what you have said is even more important, but as for what Hon Kpodo said -- they have been created because if you look at the Bill, there is a Director for --
    Mr Speaker, they are divisions, but what I do not like about this categorisation is that I believe the Solicitor-General and the Executive Director cannot be in the same group with these other people. They should be a little higher.
    The person is the Executive Director and all his directors are at the same level with him. Mr Speaker, it does not work like that in Ghana. In fact, in that case we could even make him the Director-General, in which case he would be a little higher than the other directors.
    Why would any director work under the Executive Director and have the same status like the Executive Director? So we need to look at that and I also support what the Hon Second Deputy Speaker said. If we just want all directors to be in one group then it is not fair.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:30 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, let me listen to the Hon Minority Leader.
    Mr Iddrisu 5:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you made the point. We want to be able to attract and retain legal personnel who want to work with the Legal Aid Commission. Mr Speaker, more importantly, we want to define a career path for those who work for the Legal Aid Commission, therefore, what the Hon Chairman proposed --
    Mr Speaker, I do concede that Hon Yieleh Chireh has a point. Probably when we were on clause 15, which creates the position and office of the Executive Director, we should have provided that the Executive Director shall be the head of the Commission and shall be responsible for its day-to-day administration.
    I was not around when it was done, but to cure what Hon Yieleh Chireh said, we could have strengthened that under clause 15, but we should allow that particular proposal by the Hon Chairman to pass, so that they would know that having worked, they could compare
    Mr Iddrisu 5:30 p.m.


    themselves relative to their colleagues in the Judiciary and the Attorney-General's Department for the purpose of career progression, attraction and retention of legal personnel to work for the Commission.
    Mr Banda 5:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, finally, I believe this whole categorisation of the various posts listed under the Office of the Attorney-General is sanctioned by the Legal Service Act and this Act has categorised the various positions.
    Mr Speaker, for instance, under Category A we have the Solicitor General, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Director of Legislative Drafting, Registrar- General who is a lawyer and Chief State Attorney. Mr Speaker, they all come under Category A.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:30 p.m.
    He is saying that there is no Director International Division.
    Mr Banda 5:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is not captured under the Legal Service Act
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:30 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, I know that the Director of International Division is equivalent to Director of Legislative Drafting at the Attorney-General's Department. I have known those who have occupied those offices for a long time.
    There is a danger in trying to itemise all of them and what the proposal in the Bill concerns itself with was to look at Attorneys who are handling cases in court. Hon Chairman, but you have now gone beyond that to drafting and so on.
    That is why I raised the issue. Hon Members, but I could put the Question on the original proposal and the subsequent amendments so that we go on.
    Mr Banda 5:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, except to say that I moved an amendment in respect of Category E. That is the deletion of --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:30 p.m.
    I would put that Question too.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:30 p.m.
    Hon Members, there is a further amendment to the Schedule that has just been agreed to under Category E under the Legal Aid Commission category which seeks to delete “Paralegals”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:30 p.m.
    There is a further amendment to the Judiciary category which talks about Career magistrates. The proposed amendment is to delete “career” and refer to it as “Magistrates.”
    Mr Banda 5:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, they are referred to as “Career Magistrates” and not “Magistrates”. The proper title is “Career Magistrates”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:30 p.m.
    Where is the authority? Just refer to the law.
    Hon Deputy Minister for Justice and Attorney-General?
    Mr Kpemka 5:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, they are actually categorised. We have the professional ones who are the magistrates and we have the career magistrates who remain as magistrates till they retire. That is how they are categorised.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:30 p.m.
    Yes, I just asked you to refer me to the law categorising them so we can take it on board since we are legislating.
    Mr Kpemka 5:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not have any law to that effect, except that it is a practice directive from the Office of the Chief Justice. But I do not have any law to back it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:40 p.m.
    So what happens to the magistrates?
    Mr Kpemka 5:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, they have the potential of progressing through the Circuit Courts, High Courts, upwards to the Supreme Court but the Career Magistrates remain magistrates for the rest of their career on the bench. That is the difference. It is because they are not lawyers.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:40 p.m.
    I just would want to know; do the Alternative Dispute Resolution Officers progress or they do not? Or are we now putting them as equivalent to those whom, according to you, do not progress in their career until they die and so would also remain as Alternative Dispute Resolution officers until they die or they would progress?
    Mr Banda 5:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, even for the Career Magistrates, once they remain as Career Magistrates, they do not progress. But once they become lawyers, they can go up.
    So, with respect to the Alternative Dispute Resolution officers, once they remain in that position as Alternative Dispute Resolution officers, they may not progress.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:40 p.m.
    You mean with years of experience, they cannot be promoted?
    Mr Banda 5:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, they are not necessarily lawyers, but the rest in categories A and B of the schedule --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:40 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Wa West?
    Mr Chireh 5:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the matter we have is that we would want to attract people, particularly the legally trained people. Our concern is not about those who are not legally trained and might be rivalling for positions or if it is just for the benefits or salaries and all that.
    But if we say Alternative Dispute Resolution officers are equivalent to Career Magistrates, do we have Alternative Dispute Resolution officers currently in any of the systems. Are they in the Legal Aid Scheme now?
    If they are not there, we are just providing for them in this Bill to be appointed, and he is saying they are equivalent to Career Magistrates. We must have some basis.
    My knowledge about Alternative Dispute Resolution officers is small, but what I know about them is that these are volunteers who learn how to do things.
    So, if we now want to appoint them and we would want them to be equivalent to Career Magistrates who have undergone proper schooling for a number of months, unlike these other people who attended workshops --
    If someone attended workshops and became Alternative Dispute Resolution officer and you would want them to be equivalent to somebody who has had two years career magistrate training, it is not fair.
    We beg him to remove category E and we would go ahead.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:40 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:40 p.m.
    Do we have to be that extensive in trying to legislate the conditions of service or we limit it to the officer's category?
    Mr Chireh 5:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what he even said is dangerous. We have created the Commission to determine wages and salaries. When they go into it, they would be given premium based on the amount of work they do, their qualification and all that.
    That has been the bane of the Fair Wages and Salaries Commission, where every professional group says they were trained for say three years and another seven years and that their premium should not be the same.
    I do not want us to legislate conditions of service in this, particularly with the lower level of people. I do not think we should do that. We should leave it to the Fair Wages and Salaries Commission.
    If somebody can go for a workshop for two weeks, I have done career magistrate training for two years and you tell me we are equivalent in terms of conditions of service, and we make a law, the Fair Wages and Salaries Commission's authority has been ousted
    by this law. We should not do that. I beg the Hon Member.
    Mr Asamoa 5:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the understanding we have just had is that, Alternative Dispute Resolution officers have been appointed as part of the Legal Aid Scheme since the year 2009. So, they are recognised by the Scheme.
    Now, the intent is to make sure that they are fixed in a firmament of conditions of service. Otherwise, they fall through the crack, and we have difficulty determining where they stand in.
    So, when they are in a grade, whenever there is a change in the circumstances, they are automatically lifted along as well. But the Scheme recognises them and appoints them as officers of the Scheme since the year 2009.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:40 p.m.
    Hon Members, I would put the Question, or the person who moved the amendment to the category on the Judiciary is ready to withdraw that amendment. If not, I would put the Question on the deletion of the career magistrates. The person wanted it to just reflect as magistrates.
    Yes, what was the proposal?
    Mr Chireh 5:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, from the explanation, those who are lawyers and sitting as magistrates are the magistrates. For the other, one would have to qualify them. They are the career magistrates. That means that their career ends there. So, if they still maintain it, it should be like that.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:40 p.m.
    So, we should maintain it as career magistrates.
    Then I would put the Question on the whole Schedule.
    Hon Members, so, the only amendment is the deletion of “para- legals”. Is that the case?
    Mr Banda 5:40 p.m.
    It is rightly so.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Schedule as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    The Long title ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:50 p.m.
    Hon Members, I think we have concluded the Consideration Stage of the Legal Aid Commission Bill, 2017.
    Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as you said, we have laboured hard enough to finish the Consideration of the Legal Aid Commission Bill.
    I must express my profound gratitude to all the Hon Members who have endured and carried us thus far. In particular, I must commend those of them who assisted in the winnowing process.
    Mr Speaker, I also thank you and the Hon First Deputy Speaker very much for the enormous assistance that you provided.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to sound Hon Members that we have agreed that tomorrow at 8.00 a.m. we shall have separate caucus meetings, and then at 9.00 a.m. we shall have a joint caucus meeting.
    The joint caucus meeting would be held in the Chamber and the separate caucus meetings would take place in the usual meeting places of the caucuses.
    So Mr Speaker, in between 8:30 a.m., we shall afford ourselves breakfast and meet here at 9.00 a.m. to attend to some emerging issues.
    Mr Speaker, we would not be able to deal with the winnowing of the Right to Information Bill, but we shall endeavour to begin tomorrow, and thereafter, we shall recline to do winnowing of the Right to Information Bill in the evening.
    So Mr Speaker, once again, I thank my Hon Colleagues enormously for the assistance they have provided, until we meet tomorrow at the various caucuses before we commence plenary Sitting.
    Thank you Mr Speaker.
    Mr A.Ibrahim 5:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would just add my voice to the Hon Majority Leader in thanking Hon Members for the way we have comported ourselves throughout. We have been starting early every morning and closing very late, including the staff.
    Mr Speaker, I think this should be recognised by the generality of the citizenry of Ghana, that Hon Members of Parliament do not just work from 10.00 o'clock to 2.00 o'clock in the afternoon but we work even sometimes from 6.00 o'clock in the morning to 6.00 o'clock in the evening which is 12 hours.
    Mr Speaker, this morning we came very early, so we would want everybody, including the Executive, to recognise that parliamentarians are working overtime, and all other things must be put in place.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:50 p.m.
    Hon Members, this is just information to Hon Members, particularly on the joint caucus meeting. As for the meeting of the
    caucuses, the usual channels of communication should follow.
    Unfortunately, Hon Members do not have overtime allowance. I am saying this because there was a slip somewhere, where mention was made of overtime allowance for Hon Members of Parliament. There is nothing like overtime allowance for Members of Parliament. It does not exist.
    ADJOURNMENT 5:50 p.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 5.58 p.m. till Wednesday, 11th July, 2018 at 10.00 a.m.