Debates of 25 Sep 2018

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 12:20 p.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon Members, correction of Votes and Proceedings of Monday, 24th September, 2018.
Page 1….12
Dr Anthony Akoto Osei 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, to comment on page 12(ii), the Rt Hon Speaker referred the Agreements to the Finance Committee and to the Leadership of the Committee on Food and Agriculture, but we do not have it here.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
rose
Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Yes, Hon First Deputy Speaker?
Mr Osei-Owusu 12:20 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, I noticed that in this Report, there is no --
Mr Speaker, the page in the Votes and Proceedings that says “absent with permission” is missing from the Votes and Proceedings' sheet.
Mr Speaker, as at yesterday morning, there was one request for permission to
Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Thank you, Hon First Deputy Speaker.
Mr Kwaku Agyeman Kwarteng -- rose
-- 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Yes, Hon Minister?
Mr Kwarteng 12:20 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, I would want to take advantage of this moment to signal that the item listed as “v” on page 13 of the Votes and Proceedings, is supposed to be the laying of a Contract Agreement.
Mr Speaker, actually, it is a Grant Agreement and therefore, we would not need to lay it. It was laid in error when the tax waiver for the same contract was being laid.
Mr Speaker, this is therefore to signal that when we get there, we would withdraw that so that we do not continue listing it as an item on which a report has been presented.
Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Very well, thank you.
rose
Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Iddrisu 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are on the Votes and Proceedings, and so unless the Hon Deputy Minister was talking about us withdrawing that when we get there, I would like to say that this is the work we did as a House, and we are only doing a
verification of what transpired in this House.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister should therefore hold onto his horses.
Mr Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Hon Members, Page 13…21. In the absence of any further corrections, the Votes and Proceedings of 24th September, 2018, as corrected be hereby admitted as the true record of proceedings.
Hon Members, the Official Report dated 24th July, 2018 is here for correction.
Any corrections on the Official Report?
  • [The Official Report of Tuesday, 24th July, 2018 is adopted as the true record of proceedings]
    • Majority Leader (Mr Osei Kyei- Mensah-Bonsu) 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yesterday, a Paper came to be laid in the House rather inadvertently. It related to a contract agreement that was made in Parliament in respect of the Noguchi Memorial Institute for Medical Research of the University of Ghana.
    Mr Speaker, there is an amount of JPY 1,680,816,000.00. That really is a grant and ought not to have been laid in the House, but it came to be laid. The Hon Minister is seeking permission of the House to withdraw that Paper that was laid in the House.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister has sent the Hon Deputy Minister, because the Minister is actively engaged in a very serious matter outside Parliament. He sent his Deputy Minister, Hon Kwaku Kwarteng to perform that assignment on his behalf. If you grant space, he will do so.
    Mr Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, I hope you have no objection?
    Hon Deputy Minister, you may continue.
    Deputy Minister for Finance (Mr Kwaku Agyemang Kwarteng): Mr Speaker, I seek your leave to withdraw the item listed (iv) on page 3 of yesterday's Order Paper. This is because, as the Hon Majority Leader indicated, this is a grant agreement and was laid in error.
    Mr Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Very well. [Pause.]
    So Hon Minister, are you merely withdrawing that which appears here as (v) on page 13 of the Votes and Proceedings?
    Mr Kwarteng 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, exactly so.
    Mr Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Very well.
    It is duly withdrawn and the correction effected.
    ANNOUNCEMENTS 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Hon Members, a delegation from the Parliament of Uganda is in the country to attend the 2018 FIFAFRICA in Ghana organised by the Collaboration for International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) in partnership with Media Foundation West Africa (MFWA), and has found time to visit us and observe our proceedings.
    The delegation comprises:
    Hon Jovah Karamagi Kamateeka -- Leader of delegation
    Hon Nabillah Nagayi
    Hon Kolou Andrew
    Hon Chekwel Lydia
    Hon Achiro Lucy
    Ms Naduriga Esther
    Mr Akena Moses
    Ms Kalembe Justine
    Item number 4(a), Presentation of Papers. Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, item number 4(a) is not ready.
    Mr Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Item 4(b)? Committee on Communication. Hon Chairman, is the Report by any chance ready?
    Hon Majority Leader, any indication in that regard?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my understanding from the Commu- nications Committee is that the Report is not ready, so we could deal with item numbered 5.
    Mr Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Very well.
    Item listed 5, procedural Motion, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    MOTIONS 12:40 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee (Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu) 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 80(1) which require that no Motion shall be debated until at least forty-eight hours have elapsed between the date on which notice of the Motion is given and the date on which the Motion is moved, the Motion for the adoption of the Report of the Appointments Committee on H. E. the President's nominations for appointment as Justices of the Supreme Court may be moved today.
    Mr Haruna Iddrisu 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.
    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    Resolved accordingly.
    Mr Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Substantive motion, Hon Chairman of the Committee, item numbered 6?
    Mr Speaker 12:40 p.m.


    Seventeenth Report of the Appointments Committee
    Mr Osei-Owusu 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that this Honourable House adopts the Report of the Appointments Committee on H. E. the President's nominations for appointment as Justices of the Supreme Court.
    Mr Speaker, in so doing, I present your Committee's Report.
    Introduction
    H. E. the President, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo in accordance with article 144 (2) of the 1992 Constitution, commu- nicated to Parliament the nomination of four (4) Justices to the Supreme Court for appointment on Tuesday, 3rd July, 2018.
    The Speaker of Parliament, Hon Aaron Michael Oquaye, referred the nomina- tions to the Appointments Committee for consideration and report pursuant to Order 172 of the Standing Orders of the House.
    The nominees are:
    i. Prof. Emmanuel Nii Ashie Kotey - - Justice Designate to the Supreme Court.
    ii. Justice Samuel Kofi Marful-Sau (Court of Appeal Judge) -- Justice
    designate to the Supreme Court.
    iii. Justice Agnes Mercy Abla Dordzie (Court of Appeal Judge) -- Justice Designate to the Supreme Court.
    iv.Nene Abayaateye Ofoe Ame- gatcher -- Justice designate to the Supreme Court.
    Reference Documents
    The Committee referred to the under- listed documents during its deliberations:
    i.The 1992 Constitution.
    ii.The Standing Orders of Parliament.
    iii. President's Appointment Letter; and
    iv.The Curriculum Vitae of the Nominees.
    Consideration of the Referral
    Pursuant to Order 172(3) of the Standing Orders of the House, the Committee in the first instance caused to be published in the newspapers of national circulation, the names of the nominees and notice of the Committee's Public Hearings for the attention of the general public. The Committee further requested memoranda from the general public on any of the nominees.
    The Committee subsequently obtained Confidential Reports on the nominees from the Ghana Police Service and the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) as part of its background checks. Tax Status Reports were also obtained from the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA).
    Public Hearings were thereafter held to consider the nominations. On commernce- ment of proceedings, the nominees subscribed to the Oath of Witness and subsequently answered questions relating to their Curriculum Vitae, matters relating to judicial administration and
    justice delivery, their eligibility, issues pertaining to the offices to which they have been nominated and other issues of national concern.
    The Committee duly considered the nominations and reports as follows:
    Prof. Emmanuel Nil Ashie Kotey -- Justice-Designate to the Supreme Court
    Background
    Professor Emmanuel Nii Ashie Kotey was born in Osu-Accra on 2nd October, 1953. He started school at the New Ghana International School, Osu, from 1959 to 1962 and moved to Presbyterian Primary School, Ada Foah, until 1964. From 1964- 1965, he attended the Presbyterian Boys' Boarding Middle School, Osu and proceeded to Presbyterian Boys' Day Middle School, Osu, until 1966.
    He attended the St. Thomas Aquinas Secondary School for his GCE “0” Level from 1966 to 1971. From 1971 to 1973 he attended Apam Secondary School where he obtained his G.C.E ‘A' Level Certificate in 1973.
    From October 1973 to June 1976, he enrolled at the University of Ghana and was awarded a Bachelor of Law in 1976 in the same University. In 1977, he was awarded an LL.M from the University of London, and in 1981 he obtained his PhD from the same University. He attended the Ghana School of Law, Accra, from 1981 to 1982 and was called to the Ghana Bar in
    1982.
    Prof Nii Ashie Kotey has been a Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, University of Ghana since 1981 to date. In addition, he worked as a Solicitor and Advocate at Azinyo Chambers in 1982 and was a Legal Consultant at Kotey and Associates, Accra, from 1999 to 2007. He was the Chief
    Executive of the Ghana Forestry Commission from 2007 to 2009.
    From 2003 to 2007, he was the Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Ghana and from 2005 to 2007. He also acted as Director at the Ghana School of Law.
    He was a visiting scholar at the North Western University School of Law, Chicago, USA, from May to June 2001; a visiting professor in Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa, the Centre for Human Rights at the University of Pretoria, South Africa, from March to April 2001; a visiting scholar at the Queens University of Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK in March 2000, and also at the Faculty of Law, University of Leiden, the Netherlands, from August to September
    1999.
    He was also at the College of Law, Stetson University, St Petersburg, Florida, USA in 1997 as a visiting professor in addition to many other academic engagements.
    Prof. Nii Ashie Kotey has undertaken a number of research works, projects, technical reports and other studies. He has also reviewed a number of publications dating from 1992 to 2015.
    Response to Questions
    (1) Petition against the Nominee
    The nominee was asked to comment on the petition by Mr George Larbi Koranteng, the CEO of Glikwood Ghana Limited and Glikwood Corporation, USA, to the Committee against the approval of Prof. Nii Ashie Kotey to the Supreme Court.
    Mr Osei-Owusu 12:40 p.m.
    Court should be capped at a certain number, the nominee told the Committee that he had observed that the Supreme Court was already burdened with a lot of cases due to the extensive jurisdiction of the court, and that accounted for the delays in adjudication of cases by the court and also the cause of long adjournments.
    The nominee posited that he was satisfied with the current state of the law, however, he would rather support a move to reduce the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
    (7) Preferred Approach to Interpretation
    The nominee, in response to his preferred approach to constitutional interpretation of the law, quoted the often- cited case of Tuffour v. Attorney-General

    SCGLR 637 and said that a literal interpretation of the Constitution will not do because the Constitution has a spirit which is vested in the Preamble to the Constitution and this informs judicial decision-making. On that premise, he indicated that he preferred the modern purposive approach to the interpretation of the Constitution.

    (8) Contribution to knowledge of Law

    On the nominee's contribution to the advancement of law, he responded that he has over the years contributed a lot through his writings and research. He stated that through his works, he has contributed generally to knowledge in law, legal research and legal analysis.

    With respect to legal analysis, Professor Ashie Kotey told the Committee that every law should be analysed within its context; the context of the society or the country within which the analysis is

    being done. He explained that there are limits to the law and law works best when it is in sync with social realities and the aspirations of the people.

    (9) Progress in Land Administration

    On whether measures directed at developing proper land administration system has been successful, the nominee said he believed that there have been some gains, however there is more work to be done. The major problem in Ghana's land administration system has been that of the enforcement of the law.

    He observed that on many occasions when the country is confronted with a problem, we tend to think about enacting new legislation; the law is adequate, what is left is its enforcement. He suggested that we should improve the traditional sector and the State sector in the management of the country's land.

    He called for the surveying and mapping of the lands in the country as the first step, insisting that no amount of reforms would have the desired effect without adhering to these steps.

    He called for the registration of all allodial interests and the demarcation of all boundaries. He told the Committee that there should be a systematic registration of all lands in the urban and peri-urban areas with concentration on recording of land transactions to reduce land disputes.

    On delays in adjudication of land disputes, he stated that the process of taking oral testimonies accounted for most of the general problems. He however acknowledged ongoing efforts and urged that current efforts be expedited.

    (10) Compulsory Acquisition of Land by the State

    In response to a question on compulsory land acquisition by the State, the nominee informed the Committee that

    he had written an article on the subject under article 20(3) of the Constitution in which he pointed out that the law as of today and practice of the law on compulsory acquisition in the colonial times was different.

    He said that during the colonial era, compensation was paid promptly upon acquisition of land by the government but the situation changed after Indepen- dence. He noted that the current law required that acquisition should not be done unless under a law which makes provision for prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation.

    He further stated that the present law does not make payment of compensation a condition precedent for compulsory acquisition which should not be the case. He emphasised that compensation should be paid before acquisition.

    The nominee informed the Committee that a provision had been made in a proposed Land Bill to the effect that money for compensation must be paid into an Escrow Account before an acquisition could be done. The nominee, acknow- ledged other challenges in compulsory acquisition such as change of use or the purpose of acquisition and the right of pre-emption.

    He was of the view that careful reading of article 20 of the Constitution brings to the fore two conditions before the rights of previous owners to re-acquire land could be exercised, the conditions are that the land should not have been used for the purpose for which it was acquired or should not be used in the public interest. He stated that, that view is supported by several decisions of the Supreme Court.

    (11) Appointment of Academicians to the Supreme Court

    On whether he envisaged any challenge when appointed straight to the Supreme Court from the academia, the nominee stated that he did not particularly foresee any challenges.

    He believed that it was important to have a Supreme Court with Justices of diverse backgrounds, different pers- pectives and different starting points.

    He was of the view that the works of academicians, academic writers and their training are essential for work as a Justice of the Supreme Court.

    He also stated that on many occasions, the Supreme Court does not deal with trial of cases, and that the lack of long years of trial experience would not be a major bar in that regard.

    He related to the fact that the country has had very good Justices of the Supreme Court, who were a mixture of academicians and those who rose through the ranks to the Supreme Court, who have equally delivered judgments since the beginning of the Fourth Republic.

    (12) Mining in Forest Reserves

    On whether he supported the idea of allowing mining within the country's forest reserves, the nominee stated that life and development is about priori- tisation and making sound choices.

    He intimated that he would not be able to give an answer to the question. He told the Committee that such a decision ought to be made on case by case basis after a detailed analysis had been done.

    He intimated that the analysis should consider a number of factors such as the environmental impact and the possibility of planting more trees at other places.
    Mr Osei-Owusu 12:40 p.m.


    The nominee told the Committee that to mine or not was determinant on undertaking the cost-benefit analysis of which no definite answer could be given. He said that in each case there should be scientific study, analysis of possible environmental impacts including water issues and the various roles of the forests such as preservation of water bodies, when taking the decision of whether to mine or not.

    He noted that as a country, we do not plant enough trees, yet we continue to cut down trees without corresponding planting of same. He urged the country to plant more trees.

    (13) Nationalisation of Lands

    The nominee in responding to a question on whether lands should be nationalised in the country to ensure better management while giving beneficial ownership to the owners told the Committee that his experience in the management of land in the country does not tend to support that proposal. He suggested that the State be more vigorous in the enforcement and implementation of our land laws.

    (14) Review of the 1992 Constitution

    The nominee told the Committee that he did not support the approach that the Constitution must be reviewed in whole. He shared the view point that a constitution should not be frequently tinkered with, as that would defeat the preservation of the almost sacred sanctity of the Constitution.

    He expressed the view that as a country, we are yet to encounter any constitutional problem which could not be dealt with. He explained that we have

    operated through the interpretation of the 1992 Constitution for over twenty years and that the Constitution should not be touched.

    On his view on who has the power to initiate Bills for the amendment of the Constitution, the nominee said that he did not see any problem with the President initiating the process. He intimated to the Committee that all that was required was that a constitutional amendment be introduced in Parliament.

    He posited that the constitution does not specify who has the power to initiate a Bill to that effect, and that in Ghana, almost all Bills emanate from the President. The law does not say that a Bill to amend the Constitution must emanate from the President or Parliament.

    (15) View on the Hybrid System

    The nominee in response to a question on the Hybrid System of governance as practiced under the 1992 Constitution said that the issue which has led to the call to do away with the hybrid system was that our Parliament is weak, relative to the executive arm and from his close reflection, the fact that some Members of Parliament doubling as Ministers of State was flagged as one of the major causes of that state of affairs.

    He affirmed that he did not share that view and the reality was that the practice in the United States, where Members of Parliament could not be Ministers was an exception. He noted that in both the advanced and emerging democracies like France, Germany, Canada and Austria, MPs doubled as Ministers.

    He observed that in Ghana, all Members of Parliament (MPs) belonging to the President's political party tend to vote along the side of the Government and

    that has nothing to do with the hybrid system. He advised that we identify the real reasons why Parliament is weak, which should include resource constraints.

    (16) View on the Effect of Article 108 of the 1992 Constitution

    The Committee soliciting his view on the real effect of article 108 of the Constitution which relates to a Private Members' Bills,article did not operate as a bar to the introduction of Bills by Members of Parliament. He opined that he did not see the provision as a fetter at all, and that what the provision did was to exclude financial Bills from Bills which could be introduced by Members of Parliament.

    (17) Appointment of Chief Justice

    On whether the most senior Justice of the Supreme Court should be appointed as the Chief Justice, the nominee told the Committee that the relevant constitutional provision for the appointment of Chief Justice was clear and that did not require the President to appoint the most senior Justice of the Supreme Court as the Chief Justice.

    (18) Establishment of Sanitation Court

    Commenting on a proposal to establish a sanitation court, the nominee said that there were fundamental issues about our behaviour, attitudes and education which must be dealt with first, and that the emphasis should not be on the establishment of a specialised court on sanitation.

    (19) Reforms in the Judiciary

    On his ideas about reforms to improve the workings of the Judiciary, Professor Ashie Kotey stated that there was still the

    need to further streamline the processes of the courts. He therefore called for more digitisation and the application of other electronic applications to reduce paper work, reduce statement of a case to a summary and improve the case manage- ment system.

    (20) Role of Religious and Personal beliefs in Judicial Decision-Making

    The nominee stated that he did not foresee any conflict between his religious and moral principles and his work as a Justice of the Supreme Court.

    He assured the Committee that any time he has to write his opinion on any matter before the court, he would write his opinion strictly according to law with no other consideration in mind.

    He explained to the Committee that by swearing the judicial oath, he undertakes to administer justice according to law and remain faithful to the Constitution and the laws of Ghana, and his opinions would not be influenced by gender, creed, association and other extraneous factors.

    (21)The Role of the State in Infrac- tructural Development by Churches

    On whether churches could be com- pelled to establish schools, Prof. Ashie Kotey expressed the view that he did not think that would be a proper exercise of State power, because the management of the affairs of a church was for the church and their members and therefore called on members, to hold their leaders accountable. He posited that it would be improper to compel churches to build schools.

    On regulation of churches, he stated that he did not support the assertion for the State to regulate churches, however
    Mr Osei-Owusu 12:40 p.m.
    Justice Samuel Kofi Marful-Sau -- Justice Designate to the Supreme Court
    Background
    Justice Samuel Kofi Marful-Sau, Justice of the Court of Appeal was born in Assin Adubiasie on 3rd February, 1957. He attended the Methodist Primary School, Assin Adubiasie from 1963 to 1965 and later continued at Sempe ‘1' Primary and Middle School, Accra, from 1965 to 1969. From 1969 to 1972, he attended the Urban Council Middle ‘A' School at Mankessim. From September 1972 to June 1973, he moved to Assin Manso Secondary School at Assin Manso.
    He was later enrolled at Feden High School, Accra, from September 1973 to June 1974. From September 1974 to June 1977, he attended Breman Asikuma Secondary School where he obtained a GCE ‘O' Level. From September 1977 to June 1979, he obtained his GCE ‘A' Level from Navrongo Secondary School, Navrongo.
    Justice Samuel Kofi Marful-Sau, from August 1979 to July 1982, enrolled at the University of Ghana, Legon and obtained a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) degree. He subsequently attended the Ghana School of Law in 1982 and was awarded a Barrister at Law (BL) in October 1984. He later attended the University of Dundee, Scotland, from September 2008 to October 2009 and obtained a Master of Laws (LLM) in Petroleum Law and Policy.
    Justice Marful-Sau did his National Service as a Legal Assistant at the Castle Information Bureau, Office of the Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC) and briefly as a Prosecutor in the Office of the Special Public Prosecutor from August 1984 to July 1986.
    In July 1986 to September 1987, he was attached to the Office of the PNDC after he was selected during the National Service period for a six month course in Intelligence Studies at a Security and Intelligence Academy in Moscow.
    From October 1987 to June 2002, Justice Marful-Sau was a private Legal practitioner at Vidal L. Buckle & Co, Accra. As a private legal practitioner, he was also a member of the Law Reform Commission, from August 1998 to October 2005 a member of the Ghana Frequency Regulation and Control Board from 1993 to 1998.
    He was appointed a Justice of the High Court from June 2002 to November 2006 and has been a Justice of the Court of Appeal since November, 2006.
    He has since October 2010, been a lecturer in Oil and Gas Contracts at the Faculty of Law University of Ghana, and a Senior Lecturer in Civil Procedure at the Ghana School of Law.
    Nominee's Responses to Questions
    (1) Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
    On whether he would support a view that the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court be ceded to the High Court as a way of reducing the workload of the Supreme Court, the nominee, Justice Marful-Sau observed that too many cases relating to the supervisory jurisdiction were being filed in the Supreme Court by litigants.
    According to him, the growing practice had been occasioned by the fact that litigants considered that channel faster, relative to appeal through the Court of Appeal. He proffered to the Committee that even though the growing practice had created some difficulties, it was within
    their rights to do so once they satisfy the legal and constitutional requirements. The nominee proposed a constitutional review that would cede the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to the High Court to deal with the issue, to ease the pressure on the Supreme Court.
    He also believes that the review would enable the Supreme Court to concentrate on dealing with cases that go to it under its original exclusive jurisdiction for the interpretation and enforcement of the Constitution, and its appellate jurisdictional role.
    (2) Property Rights of Spouses --- Spousal Rights
    His response to a question on whether he considered gifts as part of properties that the courts would share between spouses in the event of divorce pursuant to article 22(1) of the Constitution, the nominee lauded the Supreme Court for providing guidelines for the determination of such cases as in Mensah v Mensah

    1 SCGLR 391. That notwithstanding, the nominee believed there remained some gaps which needed to be filled by the legislation that Parliament is required to pass under that provision.

    To buttress the urgent need for the legislation, the nominee told the Committee that when he was at the High Court, he had to determine property rights between a husband who was resident abroad and a wife resident in Ghana involving two plots of land; a developed land and an undeveloped one.

    He said that at the end of the trial, it became apparent that the man provided the funds for the development of the land but the woman could not prove by evidence any contribution she had made to the developed property.

    On the account of that he gave the developed property to the man and the undeveloped land to the woman. He conceded that he did not take into account the intangible contributions that the woman would have made to the development of the property through supervision of the project, purchasing items, among other essential roles.

    He intimated to the Committee that he regretted his ruling in that instance and that if there was the legislation on spousal property at that time, he would have been guided. The nominee appealed to Parliament to pass the Property Rights Bill as a matter of urgency.

    (3) Promotion of Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in Ghana

    The nominee, on how he would promote Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanism (ADR) as viable alternative to the resolution of disputes by the courts and thereby reduce litigation thus indicated to the Committee that ADR must be promoted more vigorously. He intimated that ADR was an effective system of resolving disputes because it was cheaper, less controversial, less antagonistic and faster.

    He opined that most of the cases that were sent to the courts for adjudication could be easily resolved by means of ADR. He however, alluded to some challenges militating against the promotion of ADR in the country, including inadequate financial and human resources and low public education.

    He posited that the funding challenges for the promotion of ADR accounted for the non-establishment of ADR centres in every district of the country as required by the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798).

    On Court-connected ADR, the nomi- nee observed that the practice of ADR at the Commercial Courts had been very
    Mr Osei-Owusu 12:40 p.m.


    2003 in Accra and a Supervising High Court Judge from December, 2003 to November, 2005 in the Ashanti Region.

    She was a Commonwealth Secretariat Appointee to the Republic of the Gambia as a High Court Judge from November 2005 to November 2009 (On Secondment from the Judiciary Service, Ghana) and since July 2010, she has been serving as a Justice of the Court of Appeal.

    Responses to Questions

    (1) Usefulness of Experience from the Gambia

    The nominee in response to how useful her experience acquired in the Gambia as a high court judge to justice delivery in Ghana, Justice Agnes Abla Dordzie explained that as part of her contract in the Gambia, she was tasked to clear a huge backlog of cases pending before the courts in the Gambia at the time. She indicated that through meticulous planning, committed efforts, dedication and hard work many of the backlog cases were successfully disposed of by the end of her service.

    She explained that the judicial system in Ghana is equally saddled with huge backlog of unresolved cases that threatens efficient justice delivery. She assured the Committee that given the opportunity, she would bring to bear the same zeal and dedication to ensure expeditious disposal of cases to reduce the backlog of cases and improve justice delivery in Ghana.

    (2) Judicial Corruption

    Expressing her opinions on how to eradicate judicial corruption, the nominee averred that the failure of the Judicial

    Council to effectively monitor the conduct and activities of judges is one of the contributing factors to judicial corruption in Ghana. She called for the reinstitution of a system that allows the Judicial Council and the Bar to regularly monitor the activities, behaviour and conduct of judges.

    She suggested that promotion at the bench must be based on satisfactory conduct to ensure that judges uphold the highest ethical standards in justice delivery.

    She was hopeful that the newly developed codes of conduct for judges will contribute largely to eradicate judicial corruption. She told the Committee that the deployment of technology and reduction in human contact will contribute greatly to reduce corruption in justice delivery in Ghana.

    (3) Improving Justice Delivery

    On how to expeditiously dispose of cases before the courts, the nominee blamed delays in justice delivery in Ghana on procedures and processes involved in dispensing justice. She blamed the rampant transfer of police officers which delays the completion of investigations and the absenteeism of witnesses as some of the inherent factors that delay justice delivery.

    She called for a closer collaboration between the police, the judiciary and the Attorney-General's Department to develop a clear roadmap towards expeditious justice delivery in Ghana.

    The nominee lamented on the deterioration in the quality of policing and police investigations and called upon the Ghana Police Service to strengthen its investigative machinery to speed up prosecution and justice delivery.

    On how to ensure efficient justice delivery, the nominee suggested that efficient justice delivery hinges on a firm and strong bench. She urged her fellow justices to be firm and resist regular requests for adjournment from defence counsels to avert undue delays in justice delivery. She opined that a firm bench will make lawyers fall in line and ensure that cases are expeditiously disposed of.

    (4) Lengthy Period for Disposing Divorce Cases in Ghana

    The nominee in responding to how best to efficiently dispose of divorce cases without putting the affected individuals and families through the lengthy judicial process suggested that divorce cases should be dealt with in two folds. She suggested that the principal issue of divorce must be handled separately from property issues that arise from divorce proceedings.

    She explained that most of the disagreements relate to the ownership and sharing of properties acquired during the union. Taking on the two cases as one often delay the divorce processes and allow individuals and the families involve to undergo trauma. She suggested the establishment of family courts to handle divorce cases and ensure that cases are disposed of expeditiously.

    (5) Invoking the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to Interpret Constitutional Matters

    The nominee, Justice Agnes Dordzie, expressing her views on the need for the Supreme Court to give interpretation to every provision in the constitution indicated to the Committee that she stands by a ruling by the Supreme Court that where a constitutional provision is

    unambiguous, there is no need to invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for further interpretation.

    On placing a cap on the number of justices to be empanelled to the Supreme Court, the nominee disagreed with the notion that the number of justices to the superior Court are too many. She indicated that an open-ended number will rather facilitate timely justice delivery. She explained that justices who rose through the ranks to the court of appeal and to the Supreme Court prefer an uncapped system.

    She said Supreme Court Justices who sat on cases at the lower courts must recuse themselves when such cases are with the Supreme Court. Where the numbers are capped, the Supreme Court may be handicapped in empanelling where some justices have decided on some cases at the lower courts and have to recuse themselves from the panel. She explained that large panels are likely to make better decisions compared to small panels.

    (6) Role in Promoting Gender and Mentorship of Young Ladies

    On mentorship she has provided for young ladies to attain their full potentials, the nominee explained that as a resource person in the Judicial Training School, she made her expertise available to newly recruited judges and magistrates especially women. She stated that in her private leisure time, she engages young ladies, encourages and advises them on how to attain full potentials in their chosen career.

    On whether her judicial judgements are influenced by her sympathy for women, she averred that her decisions are not influenced by gender but facts of the case before her and the laws that apply to those facts.
    Alhaji Inusah A. B. Fuseini (NDC -- Tamale Central) 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to second the Motion and in doing so, briefly comment on the President's nominees to the Supreme Court of Ghana, the highest Court of the land.
    I would like to commend my own professor, your colleague, Professor Emmanuel Nii Ashie Kotey, a distinguished professor of law, indeed of Land Law, at the University of Ghana, and visiting Professor to many other universities across the globe.
    Justice Samuel Kofi Marful-Sau, who distinguished himself not only in the High Court, but also in the Court of Appeal. I was privileged to sit before him again at the Faculty of Law when I took a programme at the LLM level in Petroleum and Gas.
    I was privileged to appear before Justice Agnes Mercy Abla Dordzie when she was High Court Judge. She was very capable and distinguished; she was very logical in her analysis and thinking, and she was very forthright in her decisions.
    Mr Speaker, Nene Abayaateye Ofoe Amegatcher was very upright and forthright in his arguments as a private
    legal practitioner. He taught Ethics and Legal Practice at the Ghana School of Law. He also distinguished himself. In fact, he had presence anytime he entered the courts and the classrooms.
    Mr Speaker, these are very important nominations to the extent that, these people would go to add to the number of Judges that we have at the Supreme Court. They would be the final arbiters when issues of law are called into action; when issues of the interpretation of our Constitution and where issues on the vindication on the rights of the citizens are involved.
    Indeed, even though in terms of the enforcement of the fundamental rights, they share coordinate jurisdiction with the High Court, it is important for us to understand that, because that is the Apex Court of the Land.
    Today, Mr Speaker just demonstrated the point I am making, that in matters of the vindication of the fundamental rights of a person, the Supreme court is key to setting the parameters and upholding the fundamental rights. That is why, Mr Speaker, I rise to support the Motion on the Floor of the House and to encourage Hon Members -- because I see these persons as distinguished in their various fields whether as teachers, judges or private practitioners.
    I hope that after this House has approved their nomination, they would serve as a bulwark in holding and determining the parameters of governmental action as it affects the individual.
    That when we give approval, they would hold fearlessly to their sworn oaths to do justice to all manner of persons irrespective of political colouration, gender, tribal affinity and whatever; they would do justice to all manner of persons.
    I hope that when we give approval to these individuals, because they are known, they would help consolidate the democratic foundations of this country built on the rule of law and the respect for the fundamental freedoms and civil liberties of the individuals.
    I hope when we give approval to these persons, they would help restore the confidence in the judiciary and create a make believe environment, that we all as mortal beings can count on the Supreme Court to dispense justice with fairness and equity, and that all of us can thank God that we were part of the processes to ensuring that we have a Supreme Court befitting that name.
    Mr Speaker, lastly, it has been said that our practice is American and because of that, Justices appointed to the Supreme Court are perceived in some circum- stances, to give judgements in favour of our nominating authority.
    I have used “nominating” not “appointing”, because the Constitution requires two very important institutions to give approval to the nomination and appointment of Supreme Court Justices and we are key. So I would say “nomination”.
    Mr Speaker, I would rely on the solemn advice of my lecturer, Professor E. K. Quashigah, that people who are appointed to the Supreme Court now have a secure tenure of office subject to certain behaviours. That insofar as they continue to behave appropriately and they have soundness of mind, and they are not on their retirement ages, absolutely nothing will happen to them.
    So as an exaltation to them, we pray that they would dispense justice, fearless of the consequences of their decisions.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Minister for the Interior.
    Minister for the Interior (Mr Ambrose Dery) (MP) 1 p.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to support that this House approves these fine legal brains and personalities to serve on the highest court of the land.
    Mr Speaker, starting with Professor Emmanuel Nii Ashie Kotey, I wrote the Bar Examination with him; I have personal knowledge of him. He had done his master's degree programme outside this country and come to join us. Even as a student, I had respect for his knowledge and views, especially in Land Law. When he came out into practice, I think we met once or twice: once in the court in Bolgatanga and also in Accra.
    He had a distinguished practice. I believe that as a Supreme Court Judge, he would contribute enormously to the development of Case Law and Land Law as we have it, because he is experienced in the practice, he has taught the subject and now, he is going to be a Judge.
    It gives him the various facets; it makes him balanced, and I can only say that as a Supreme Court Judge, he would contribute enormously to the development of the law. I have no doubt that he would stand up for what is right and he is not one of those who is likely to be influenced by extra-judicial considerations.
    Mr Speaker, in the case of Mr Justice Samuel Kofi Marful-Sau, as a High Court Judge, he had a good record. I have appeared before him and I have appealed against some of his judgements, and even when I had appealed to the highest court successfully, I still was impressed about his force of reasoning and analysis.
    Dr Bernice Adiku Heloo (NDC -- Hohoe) 1:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to support the Motion that this Honourable House adopts the Report of the Appointments Committee on H. E. the President's nominations for appointment as Justices to the Supreme Court.
    Mr Speaker, in contributing to the Motion, I would like to commend all the four nominees for exemplary knowledge shown during their vetting. I would like to applaud them for their contributions on the issues of spousal property rights which are of interest to many Ghanaian women.
    Mr Speaker, all of them called on this Honourable House to speed up the passage of the Property Rights Bill as a matter of urgency. This would go a long way to support women who sometimes are disadvantaged when it comes to property rights.
    Mr Speaker, in my contribution, I would also like to commend the only woman who appeared before the Committee, Justice Agnes M. A. Dordzie, who has been a Judge of the Court of Appeal with more than eight years of experience.
    Since she was called to the Bar, she has served in many capacities. She has served at the State Council at the Ministry of Justice; Cross River State, Calabar in Nigeria.
    She has also served as a supervising High Court Judge in Kumasi. Additionally, she served as a High Court Judge
    Dr Bernice Adiku Heloo (NDC -- Hohoe) 1:10 a.m.


    appointed by the Commonwealth Secretariat to the Gambia. Justice Dordzie has also performed quasi-judicial functions including serving on various committees.

    Character wise, she is known to adhere to very high standards of professionalism and many know her to be very fair in her judgments and actions.

    I would like to conclude by calling on this Honourable House to adopt the Report and also approve the nomination of the four nominees vetted for promotion to the Supreme Court.

    Thank you very much for the opportunity.
    Mr Speaker 1:10 a.m.
    Thank you very much, Dr Heloo.
    Mr Kojo Oppong-Nkrumah (NPP -- Ofoase/Ayirebi) 1:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of this Motion, that this House approves the President's nominees to the Supreme Court, namely Prof Emmanuel Nii Ashie Kotey, Justice Samuel Kofi Marful-Sau, Justice Agnes Mercy Abla Dordzie and Nene Abayaateye Ofoe Amegatcher.
    I would first like to congratulate these four persons for being nominated to this very high office. The practice of law is a daunting enterprise, and to practice to the level where your work is acknowledged for which reason you are nominated to serve on the highest court of the land is an act in itself that is worthy of congratulation.
    Mr Speaker, the profiles and track records of these persons are well known, and as has been commented on by Hon Members prior to my commentary, these
    are persons who have distinguished themselves in the profession over the years.
    I would like to, while I support this Motion, speak briefly about just two persons, Justice Marful-Sau and Nene Amegatcher. I took up the study of the law because of the famous Ghana @ 50 case adjudicated on by Jusice Marful-Sau. I was a broadcast journalist at the time but took interest in reading the entire record of the case and his judgment as well.
    I found his legal reasoning interesting to comprehend, and the basis on which he drew his judgement was insightful. It tickled my interest to study the law. Eventually, when I got to the School of Law, he also happened to by my lecturer in Civil Procedure.
    For many who have passed through the walls of the Ghana School of Law, he has been one strong pillar in teaching young potential practitioners about the rubrics of civil procedure. He is a man who I believe would bring his very fine experience to bear on the highest court of the land.
    Nene Abayaateye Ofoe Amegatcher has also distinguished himself over the years in private practice, rising to the high office of the President of the Ghana Bar Association. Even there, working with the Judicial Council and other agencies in the practice of the profession, he has managed to mentor many young persons and pushed for some changes in the legal practice.
    It is exciting to see that these persons have gone through the ranks and today, have an opportunity to serve on the highest court of the land.
    Our prayer is that they would bring to bear on these new roles, if they are appointed as such, the same levels of
    diligence and decorum with which they have practised the profession over the years.
    Mr Speaker, with these words, I support the Motion.
    Mr Speaker 1:10 a.m.
    Thank you very much, Hon Member, for your contribution.
    Mr Rockson-Nelson Etse Kwami Dafeamekpor (NDC -- South Dayi) 1:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak in support of the Motion before the House, specifically to approve the nomination of these four eminent jurists in our jurisdiction.
    As a young man who entered the Faculty of Law, Prof Emmanuel Nii Ashie Kotey was our dean. Hon Boamah, Hon Kpemka and myself recall very fondly how he tutored us in land law and other Environmental Law matters. We affectionately call him “Dean”.
    Mr Speaker, I am particularly excited about the appointment of these four Judges because of the fact that the subtle principles we are taught about the certainty of the law, no longer holds particular at the Supreme Court. We are experiencing a situation where the jurisdictions regarding certain subtle principles of law oscillate.
    I would refer you particularly to the jurisprudence surrounding bail, for instance, where until recently, the jurisprudence has been moving from where bail ought to be granted in all cases, except in some six or seven offenses, until a friend at the Bar decided to test the constitutionality of that statutory disposition.
    The Supreme Court made a pronouncement that bail ought to be granted in all cases, but of course, the discretion lies in the hands of the court in the matter.
    Mr Speaker, an earlier contributor spoke about spousal property rights. If you read the jurisprudence as espoused by the court in the case of Mensah vs Mensah, which is all along the line, you would see that the Supreme Court has moved away from the case where spousal property rights according to the court, has to be settled in respect of properties acquired during the pendency of the marriage to one where whether or not a marriage is properly so called, once the characteristics of the relationship appear to be one of marriage, the court would construe the relationship to be a marriage and move on to make a determination.
    So, the development would help a situation where these four nominees - Mr Speaker, interestingly, one is a practitioner, one comes from academia and two are already serving Judges.
    So the blend is one of people who have very different backgrounds, even though they are in the same legal profession. They would bring their knowledge to bear in some of these subtle matters that we appreciate in the practice of law.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to refer the House to a very small correction on page 36, under item numbered 11 “Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)”. If you look at line 4, the Report says:
    “According to the nominee, Rule 54 of the Civil Procedures makes ADR compulsory for all commercial cases.”
    Mr Speaker, if you look at our Civil Procedure which says ‘orders', ‘Rules', with ‘sub rule'. We have to be specific about which of the orders of the Civil Procedure Rules is in reference. Also, if it is in respect of all of order 54, it has to be stated on clearly.
    Mr Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Thank you very much, Hon Dafeamekpor.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, not at all.
    Mr Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    The Hon learned Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice?
    Mr Joseph Dindiok Kpemka (NPP - Tempane) 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to call on this House to approve of the nominees: Prof. Emmanuel Nii Ashie Kotey, Justice Samuel Kofi Marful-Sau, Justice Agnes Mercy Abla Dordzie and Nene Abayaateye Ofoe Amegatcher.
    Mr Speaker, in my brief contribution, I would want to first of all, commend the Hon Members of the Committee that looked into the various nominees for their very elaborate Report to this House. Indeed, it is not in dispute that the four nominees come from different backgrounds. First, there is Prof. Nii Ashie Kotey who is in academia.
    Mr Speaker, two Justices that, in the recent past distinguished themselves so much in the Supreme Court from academia, include Justice Dateh-Bah and Modibo Okran of blessed memory. No doubt, I am convinced that Prof Nii Ashie Kotey who is an academician would replicate what these two outstanding former Justices of the Supreme Court did in enhancing our legal jurisprudence as a nation.
    Mr Speaker, again, from the Bench, the two Justices; Marful-Sau and Agnes Dordzie would bring their experiences to bear, having risen from the High Court through to the Court of Appeal and now to the Supreme Court. Particularly, Justice Agnes Dordzie responded to a particular issue which I have heard many Hon Members contribute to this morning, but have not referred to - the very first vexed issue of the death penalty on page 30 of the Report.
    Mr Speaker, with your permission, I beg to quote 1:20 p.m.
    ‘'The nominee contributing to her views on death penalty in Ghana indicated that, time had come for the death penalty to be scrapped off the country's statutes. She explained that, Ghana being a signatory to many international conventions that prohibit death sentence and for twenty years has not exercised the death penalty is an indication that
    as a country, we have come to accept that, the death penalty should be taken off our laws. She further explained that the death penalty raises issues of Human Rights, which makes it an undesirable option of punishment for offenders''.
    Mr Speaker, I cannot wait for a day that issues that concern the death penalty would come before the Supreme Court and panel inclusive Justice Agnes Dordzie and the pronouncement that would come out of that. It may just be one other opportunity for reform in our legal jurisprudence.
    Mr Speaker, as indicated by Hon Colleagues, until recently, certain class of cases were ousted as far as bail was concerned, but a radical move taken by the Supreme Court states clearly that all cases are bailable subject to the discretion of the Justice presiding at the time.
    Mr Speaker, it is my hope that this issue of death penalty would come before the Supreme Court and a definite pronouncement made on it to put the issue to rest.
    Mr Speaker, it is not also in doubt that Justice Amegatcher, as he would soon be if approved by this House, has distinguished himself and led the the Ghana Bar Association as President. He also had a long experience teaching Advocacy at the Ghana School of Law where a number of us passed through his very distinguished lectureship.
    Mr Speaker, I have no doubt about all the four nominees. Hon Kojo Oppong-Nkrumah made reference to a decision by Justice Samuel Marful-Sau which did not go to the Supreme Court for a pronouncement. He stated categorically that matters that concern
    Mr Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Thank you very much, Hon Deputy Minister.
    Mr Joseph Yieleh Chireh (NDC — Wa West) 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you. First of all, as a member of the Committee, we did a very thorough job to interrogate the nominees, and to elicit mainly their knowledge and understanding of the law and how it can be applied for everyday problems that we face, and we were
    generally satisfied. All of them, no matter which background they came from, talked authoritatively and their bleats.
    One of the things that we asked was about — almost all of them were very good Christians. They were not just church going Christians but Bible believing and bornagain Christians. So our worry was whether that was not going to influence their decisions.
    And the answer we got from each of them was that no, and that they as Christians would do things morally correct but they would uphold the law.
    Mr Speaker, I am raising this because not all of us are Christians, so if we in the country have almost everybody there as a Christian and Bible believing Christians, it is most likely they would apply the Ten Commandments to our jurisprudence.
    I know that the Rt Hon Speaker is a pastor, but the issue is, we were satisfied with their explanation. But we would further want them to demonstrate it anytime they give their judgements.
    Mr Speaker, the next issue was about the quality of legal education and the springing up of so many schools. This has become a problem because the process of getting legal education is under the General Legal Council. They appoint a Director of Legal Education for the Ghana School of Law.
    Now, we have about three campuses in addition to the Makola campus. But they were very concerned about the quality of lawyers that we are producing and their practices in the courts.
    What we need to do is to speed up, I believe, the review of the law that governs legal education. I know an amendment Bill is in this House. But it is not just an
    amendment Bill. It should be a fundamental law repealing the existing one and addressing the issues properly; where people who are taking on students and they do not have the Faculties, libraries and the things that would help them become good lawyers. But many do so because it is prestigious to be called a lawyer, and everybody wants to be a lawyer and the quality of instruction is poor.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that a law that really looks squarely at the quality of legal education would address all these things.
    Currently, the impasse has been who should enter there and this has raised a number of issues. But I am saying, from the information that we had, and with this, I am refering to legal education as was asked particularly of Prof Emmanuel Nii Ashie Kotey. He decried the quality, interactions, and we as Parliament have to, again, ask the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice not to keep that amendment Bill here. They should bring a substantive Bill.
    Mr Speaker, fortunately, the Ghana Bar Association at various conferences has raised the same issue and people are willing to address the matter beyond what was provided for back in those days of Dr Kwame Nkrumah who wanted the rapid development of the law on which basis he wanted a law school to train lawyers.
    We have grown and so the ideas must change. These ideas that would be incorporated in the new Bill should include the fact that people can study anywhere but they must pass a national Bar examination and be certified.
    Mr Speaker, my friend, the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice
    was talking about the death penalty, and he said he is waiting for somebody to bring the matter to the Supreme Courts. Unfortunately, this is not a Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court would be going against their own if they decide.
    In fact, we have the responsibility of making sure that we carry through the proposed amendments in the Constitution that were started by the late Prof John Evans Atta-Mills. This is because, in the final report and the recommendations, these were mentioned specifically because since 1993, nobody has been executed or hanged.
    The way the whole world is going, and particularly, those of us who are Catholics, we do not believe that we should be taking lives, no matter the circumstances, and particularly when one is not sure that the convict is the real person who would have committed the crime.
    So, I believe that instead of waiting for somebody to go to the Supreme Court, we should rather make sure we carry on with the process of amending the Constitution where it is provided for.
    Mr Speaker, the issue of whether a Private Member's Bill can go through this House, and that if we read article 108 of the Constitution, the various rulings by the Presiding Officers has created the impression that no Private Member's Bill can easily pass through this House. But from the explanation that was given to us by the nominee, we are restricting ourselves.
    Indeed, if we want to amend an existing law because we think that some portions of it are not good for the current situation, it would not involve much and we can easily bring it. The problem however, is engaging the stakeholders when it is a substantial law that has to be passed, and
    Mr Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Hon Member, in conclusion?
    Mr Chireh 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I did not want to speak and you are now saying I should conclude.
    Mr Speaker, in conclusion, having been part of considering these nominees, I would urge all of us to support the Motion that these distinguished personalities: Prof. Nii Ashie Kotey, Justice Samuel Kofi Marful-Sau, Justice Agnes Mercy Abla Dordzie and Nene Abayaateye Ofoe Amegatcher be approved for the President to issue them with letters to be Supreme Court judges.
    I thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Hon Patrick Boamah?
    Mr Patrick Yaw Boamah (NPP -- Okaikwei Central) 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to this Motion and the Report of the Appointments Committee on the nomination of these eminent persons to serve on the bench as justices of the Supreme Court of Ghana.
    Mr Speaker, I am very happy today to speak to this report especially on the nomination of Nene Amegatcher who happened to be my pupil master at Sam Okudzeto and Associates for over eight years in that firm.
    Mr Speaker, I was very supprised when Nene Amegatcher accepted this nomination. This is because Nene Amegatcher would always want to be at
    the Bar and influence things at the Bar. His contributions as the Bar President, every practitioner knows. Until recently, he was the president of the African Forum of the International Bar Association. He was also a very key player at the International Bar Association.
    Mr Speaker, he made sure that every lawyer in the firm registered as a member of the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, the International Bar Association and the African Forum as well.
    So I always felt that he was going to remain an active player in the Bar. But if you read Nene Amegatcher's written submissions to the court, nothing would turn your mind away from the fact that he is a good writer; somebody who understood the law and would be a good judge and I congratulate him on that.
    Mr Speaker, on the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2010, (Act 792), he was very influential in the coming into force of this Act, based on the contributions he made.
    Also, his final presentation to the Bar in Takoradi where he was elected Bar President, he wrote an insightful report on the Act called “The ADR Act, a Daniel has arrived in Takoradi”.
    Mr Speaker, Nene Amegatcher during his practice days became one of the best practitioners when it came to review. The Rt. Hon Speaker has heard of the Jean Hanna Assi that he was able to convince the minds of two sitting justices of the panel to change their minds to win the review which is always a very narrow ground to tread.
    Mr Speaker, the La and Ogbojo Case, you would find the name of Nene Amegatcher printed in there as well as the Adjiringanor and Shiashie Stool Lands.
    Once this man hands you a brief in office, he would tell you to prepare the brief from the Trial Court to the Supreme Court and for review. I remember he handed over this case to me -- Republic vrs Alice Tamakloe, a narcotic case.
    We thought it was a joke; we started off at the trial court and the gentleman was convicted. We went on appeal and to the Supreme Court till he took over on review. Unfortunately, it was only Justice Baffour Bonney who sided with us and we lost on a six-one vote.
    Mr Speaker, who are the justices of the Supreme Court and what are they supposed to do in conformity with our Supreme Law? They must be progressive, understand evolving issues in the world and they must always understand the Ghanaian architecture and take up decisions that would ensure that business — friendly decisions are made; decisions that are supposed to protect the good image of this country are determined at the court.
    Thorny issues---- I am sure the Rt. Hon Speaker would be coming before the Supreme Court which would include dual nationals who have been excluded from occupying certain positions in this country as provided for in the Constitution, taxi and Uber- technological issues that are changing the world and what have you.
    Mr Speaker, another important area that I think the Justices of the Court would be confronted with is their original jurisdiction when it comes to the interpretation and enforcement of the Constitution. I believe those are areas that these very able justices who have been nominated would be asked to distinguish themselves in.
    Mr Speaker, a lot has been said about Prof. Nii Ashie Kotey who happened to be our dean. I wish him well. He is a very
    Mr Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Hon Members, in view of the business before the House and the time at the moment, I direct that
    proceedings go beyond the prescribed Sitting hours.
    Hon Minority Leader?
    Minority Leader (Mr Haruna Iddrisu) 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, let me thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the Motion for the adoption of the 17th Report of the Appointments Committee on H. E. the President's Nomination of Justices to the Supreme Court of Ghana.
    Mr Speaker, as rightly presented by the Hon Chairman of the Committee, we have recommended by consensus the approval of Prof. Emmanuel Nii Ashie Kotey, Justice Samuel Kofi Marful-Sau, Justice Agnes Mercy Abla Dordzie and Nene Abayaateye Ofoe Amegatcher as four justices of the Supreme Court.
    Mr Speaker, the nominees assured the Committee and this House that they would adhere to the Constitution and the rule of law; administer justice without fear or favour; and uphold the principle of social justice. Unlike the United States of America (USA) where there is this advice and consent, in ours, Parliament so approves or consents to the President's nomination, which is consistent with the provision of article 144 of the Constitution.
    Mr Speaker, in doing so, I would raise the issue that one or two of our Hon Colleagues have raised. I would, in particular, refer to paragraph 5 on page 6 of the Report:
    “Property Rights of Spouses
    The nominee commenting on the adoption of the legal cliché “equality is equity” principle adopted by the Supreme Court in the sharing of spousal property
    upon divorce, told the Committee, that in a number of cases the Supreme Court has given substance to Article 22(1) of the Consti- tution…”
    Mr Speaker, I know your personal interest in this matter because you have conveyed same to me and the former Hon Minister for Gender, Children and Social Protection.
    Mr Speaker, this Parliament and the Parliament of Ghana must do right by Ghanaian women. I beg to refer, particularly, to article 22(2) of the Constitution, which states and I beg to quote:
    “Parliament shall, as soon as practicable after coming into force of this Constitution, enact legislation regulating the property rights of spouses.”
    Mr Speaker, it is further derived from article 22(1), which states and I beg to quote:
    “A spouse shall not be deprived of a reasonable provision out of the estate of a spouse whether or not the spouse died having made a will.”
    Mr Speaker, as I have said, I know you have given consequential direction; but it should be the decision of the Seventh Parliament of the Republic of Ghana that we would not be dissolved without bequeathing a spousal rights legislation to Ghanaian women.
    It is not enough for us because of the intangible contribution of women — [Interruption.] When they give us peace and comfort, we are happy; but because that cannot be quantified, we take it for granted. -- [Interruption.] Wo si “hai”; maka wo asem? Mr Speaker, the comfort

    We know the masculine nature of the legislation in Ghana. Most of the time, the men behave in a manner that brings divorce -- [Interruption.] It is in many or in a few instances. [Laughter.]

    Mr Speaker, whatever it is, I know -- the Hon Majority Leader should be encouraged that whichever Hon Minister has to superintend this, we should have spousal -- I did not say women rights.

    Mr Speaker, the other important issue I would like to bring to the fore, which was consistent with the contributions is that -- I admit that all the nominees demonstrated depth of the law. They would bring diversity to the Supreme Court. Unlike the USA and many other jurisdictions -- [Interruption.] The Hon Majority Leader should remove the “p” in “depth”. They demonstrated knowledge of the law.

    Particularly for Prof Kotey, who has had many contemporaries and Hon Colleagues pass through his hands, we expect that he would contribute to enrich constitutional jurisprudence, particularly on land and outstanding land cases.

    Some of these cases have been in the Supreme Court for as long as 10 years. It is not necessarily in the Supreme Court; they have been in some of the courts for 10 to 20 years.. That is not acceptable.
    Minority Leader (Mr Haruna Iddrisu) 1:50 p.m.


    Even though many of them said that in Ghana we do not have constitutional philosophy where they could be described as moderate or conservative, at least, many of them assured us that they would do justice to the law.

    Mr Speaker, this issue was a major subject commented on by all the nominees. With your indulgence, I beg to quote article 128 of the Constitution:

    “The Supreme Court shall consist of the Chief Justice and not less than nine other Justices of the Supreme Court”.

    It means that we do not have a ceiling or a limit to the number of Supreme Court judges in our country. We have largely learnt this from the system of the USA. The Supreme Court of the USA has a maximum of nine.

    I have advocated and repeated same that Ghana could settle on 11 or, at worst, 13. We should not exceed that. I am told that one of the nominees referred that we have stayed on 15 and below.

    I dare ask that if this Parliament could legislate, we should limit the number of Supreme Court judges to not more than 13; probably, it should be between what we have now and 11. Ideally, it should be 11, looking at the USA, except that because of their federal system, they have justices in other states. We cannot have an endless Supreme Court, where we could at any time appoint -- I suggest we strongly advocate for that.

    Mr Speaker, on the matter of improving justice delivery, one of the nominees said that we should help them. When we have the District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF), we should support Her Ladyship the Chief Justice and the judicial system so that at least every year, we could decide in the allocation of the DACF formula -- I know we did it for this year.

    We should allocate a certain quantum of money for the construction of a district court. We should insist on a model court that has information technology infrastructure, which would speed up the administration of justice.

    It would then become a rule of thumb that every other DACF, passed by this House, has some provision to support the Judiciary in terms of a district court. Mr Speaker, as we travel around the country, particularly from Bolgatanga through Wa, and I am sure to Sefwi, we realised that where the judges sit at the district level is most deplorable.

    One of them brilliantly argued that the reason there is no limit may be that because some of the judges were trial judges, they had to recuse themselves when a matter travelled far to the Supreme Court.

    Mr Speaker, that leads me to my next argument on whether article 131 of the Constitution would require a review, and I beg to quote:

    “(1) An appeal shall lie from a judgment of a Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court --

    (a) as of right in a civil or criminal cause or matter in respect of which an appeal has been brought to the Court of Appeal…”.

    Mr Speaker, Justices Agnes Dordzie and Marful-Sau in particular, and together with Professor Emmanuel Kotey argued that why must it lie as a matter of right because the Supreme Court has both appellate and supervisory jurisdictions but this is a matter determined by the High and Appeal Courts.

    Why should we not make it terminal at that particular level so that it does not need to travel as a matter of right? It can travel but it should not be a matter of right. Again, it is something that I believe we can look at as a country.

    Mr Speaker, on judicial corruption, we are not out of the woes yet as a country. Litigation and the judicial process in Ghana is still slow, cumbersome, time consuming, sometimes frustrating for the private sector and the business persons and we need speedy delivery of justice as is normally said that: “justice delayed is justice denied”.

    Let me now conclude. At the weekend, I was traveling from Johannesburg to Accra and I bought a newspaper on the South African Commission of Enquiry which is now a heated debate following some actions taken by President Ramaphosa together with government.

    Mr Speaker, when Justice Marful-Sau gave the ruling in the case of Ghana @ 50, many of us did not appreciate his judgement and I read same in the South African newspaper on Saturday as to what the import of a Commission of Enquiry should do and what we should do with Commission of Enquiry reports as governments and as Presidents.

    Indeed, as I said, the South African jurist emphasized that it is never ever the

    intention when constituting a commission of enquiry that the purpose is to end up with criminal prosecution. I am just saying what I read in the newspaper against the succinct judgement -- now, I can call it a lucid judgement of Justice Marful-Sau on this particular case of Ghana @ 50.

    Mr Speaker, I am sure that Ghanaians did not appreciate the import and so, it means that anytime the President appoints a Commission of Enquiry, we should presume irrebuttably that he wants to find out what work went wrong with a national event or action and to prevent its occurrence. This is not for the purpose of criminal prosecution and that is not to say that the criminal investigative bodies cannot take the beef.
    Mr Speaker 2 p.m.
    Hon Member, except that you may add; ‘not necessarily.'
    Mr Iddrisu 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, ‘not necessarily'?
    Mr Speaker 2 p.m.
    Yes because --
    Mr Iddrisu 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I will leave it there. I am sure --
    Mr Speaker 2 p.m.
    It cannot be for the purpose -- it may end up in criminal prosecution but not necessarily.
    Mr Iddrisu 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am very guided.
    So I should be concluding by saying that we believe that they will do justice. We deliberately questioned each of them what their understanding of the judicial oath is so that we get the assurance on behalf of the people of Ghana.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman did his best and we need to carry the Ghanaian public in these processes and so we would normally advertise. There was a
    Mr Iddrisu 2 p.m.


    petition that the Hon Chairman interrogated even before our Sitting so that the Ghanaian public does not take it that they are not able to take part or input in the approval or vetting process.

    Mr Speaker, “he who alleges, must prove”. It cannot just be the case of writing to the Appointments Committee that we do not find this person acceptable because of an issue when you are not ready to adduce credible and worthy evidence to support the cause.

    I wholeheartedly support the approval of the four Justices and then also, on the matter of the Special Prosecutor, we are told that it is not new in our county's criminal jurisprudence. Special prosecu- tion in the early days of the revolution but not under democratic principles. There was even a law and Justice Amonoo Monney as I was told, was appointed as Director for prosecutions.

    Mr Speaker, we need to resource those offices adequately in order that we collectively can continue the fight, it is not just political corruption, there is some evidence of judicial corruption in the country.

    We need to deepen transparency, more accountability but the judiciary are not resourced enough and therefore, Parliament would have to take a particular position on allocations that are made to them.

    I would not provoke the debate with the other one because the Hon Majority Leader and Leader of the House, an article that Professor Klotey wrote sometime back. It is the legal truth that the Rt Hon Speaker of Parliament heads the Legislative organ of Parliament as an organ of State and nothing more. But he works

    through the Leadership of the House, that is the Majority and Minority Leaders, in order to get the House going.

    Mr Speaker, so, we believe that these Justices will make our country proud. We should work on the spousal rights as a Parliament and appreciate many of the rulings especially so that two of them -- Justices Kofi Marful-Sau and Agnes Dordzie are judges moving from the Appeal Court to the Supreme Court. That is how it should be. We should groom them most of the time to go through the process and to --

    There is the matter of the building of a cathedral which would displace Appeal Court judges. Our appeal is that the State and the President must engage the Judicial Service properly in order to understand that decent accommodation is not denied the affected judges.

    Mr Speaker, with these comments, I support the Motion.
    Mr Speaker 2 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, your concluding remarks.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the space granted.
    The Report from the Appointments Committee is to indicate to us the appropriateness of the nominations made by the President. The Constitution is very loud and clear on who qualifies to sit on the Supreme Court and with respect, I will quote article 128 (4) of the Constitution:
    “A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Justice of the Supreme Court unless he is of high moral character and proven integrity
    …”.
    Mr Speaker, the emphasis is not even on competence or knowledge but the
    Constitution says unless that person is of high moral character and proven integrity. That is at the heart of the qualification and eligibility of people who sit on the Supreme Court.
    One very negative thing about Ghanaian public office holders is character deficiency. I thought that questions that are asked by the Appointments Committee would relate to these matters. The Constitution as I have said, is very clear and its language is forthright. It says;
    “A person shall not be qualified as a Justice of the Supreme Court unless he is of high moral character and proven integrity”.
    Mr Speaker, the other leg is that, the person should not be of less than 15 years' standing as a lawyer. That is taken for granted but the other two, -- reading the Report, and those are the first issues raised by the Constitution but with the other two, I do not see any interrogation by the Appointments Committee into these areas.
    I do not want to believe that, it is deliberate at all but Parliament needs to be led on that path. How do we assess them; their own character traits, what do they exhibit, are they people to be trusted, are they people of integrity that we can believe in regardless of their political colouration?
    Mr Speaker, in the United States of America (USA), they do not place emphasis on a person's political colouration.

    Mr Speaker, some answer is being supplied here by a former Hon Minister of State at the Attorney-General's Office. I do not intend to disclose it because I believe that it was a confidential disclosure.

    Mr Speaker, but I thought that even if this Parliament has not done so before, from hence, we should be leading us. I also would have wished that we tested the brains of these nominees on certain critical and constitutional imperatives.

    For instance, the issue of halving off the Attorney-General's Department from a ministerial encumbrance to ensure real independence of the Attorney-General and that has to do with article 88 of the Constitution.

    Mr Speaker, the transitional provisions, especially the indemnity clauses and the preservation of confiscation and penalties imposed by the Armed Forces' Revolutionary Council (AFRC) and Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC) continues to be an albatross on the neck of this nation and I would have wished that in assessing our Justices of the Supreme Court, we should at least test their brains individually on these matters for us to know what they think.

    What they think could assist Parliament in fashioning the appropriate legislation to confront these matters and I believe that in future, we should concern ourselves with these matters because as a nation, for the time being, we do not know what to do with the transitional provisions and it has no time limitation.

    So, into the next century, if we still operate under this Constitution, then the transitional provisions would live with us as a nation.

    Mr Speaker, the enforceability or justifiability of the Directive Principles of State Policy -- a ruling has been made, but there is no uniformity on the Bench and so we could perhaps test the brains of these nominees whenever they come before us.

    Mr Speaker, the appointment of the Electoral Commissioner is one issue that has attracted public commentary. By the provisions of article 43(1)(2) of the Constitution, the appointment is made by the President.

    We know the sensitive position that the Electoral Commission occupies. Is it the case that if the President appoints or nominates the Electoral Commissioner, the appointment should come to Parliament for approval maybe by a two-thirds majority or whatever, so that the President would be forced to be more consultative.

    Mr Speaker, from the time of former President Rawlings, the Commissioners of the Electoral Commission have been appointed by the President. What President Akuffo-Addo did was nothing new, yet it attracted public commentary.

    What this means is that, going forward as a nation, we should begin to interrogate some of these things and whether the appointment of the Electoral Commissioner should be left in the hands of the President alone as well as the appointment of the Commissioner for the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice and the Government Statistician.
    Mr Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, shall we stick to Judges and conclude?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, could this country accommodate that --? [Interruption].
    Mr Speaker, they are matters that we should really be testing the brains of some superior persons on to affect us in Parliament to craft the appropriate legislation, because what we are doing is not sustainable. We should call a halt to it at the appropriate time.
    Mr Speaker --
    Mr Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    And in conclusion?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, whenever the President has left this country and the Vice-President has had to act, and whenever the two of them are absent and the Speaker has to act, issues come, whether absence from Ghana translates to inability to perform functions of the Office of the President.
    Mr Speaker, even though there is a decision on this, as I said, there is no uniformity at the Supreme Court, so let us test their brains on this individually, so that going forward, if we have to amend the Constitution we would know what to do.
    Mr Speaker, some people are raising certain critical issues now. We have a former President who wants to come back and contest elections.
    Some people are saying that it is not for nothing that we want to secure the life of a former President by telling him that do not go and apply for any job, the State would take care of you. If you go and apply for the job and you lose the opportunity, can you come back and say that I have come back, provide for me again?
    Mr Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, and in conclusion?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader sounded on three occasions that to conclude finally - - he said so three times. I have not said so, but I would soon conclude. Give me just one and a half minutes, I would soon conclude.
    The matter about the determination of emoluments of certain public office holders under article 71, again, they could offer some lessons to us.
    Mr Speaker, if we have an Executive, the Executive authority of this country is vested in the President. The President comes to us with a budget, and Parliament crafts an Appropriations Act that the President can spend up to a certain amount. A President goes beyond that. What should happen to that President, having trampled over an Act of Parliament?
    Does it constitute an act sufficient for impeachment because he has violated the principles contained in his oath? Or is it the case that we can invoke article 69(1) (a) of the Constitution for inflicting violence on the economy -- ?
    Mr Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    And as politicians in this Honourable House, are we in the habit of testing the constitutionality of these matters in the appropriate forum, to wit the Supreme Court, so that collectively
    they can then deliberate upon the legalities of these issues? It cannot even be a matter of independent or individual views of judges at any particular time.
    Hon Majority Leader, please conclude.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:10 p.m.
    Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
    To conclude, I have not come across anything unsavoury about the nominees who appeared before the Appointments Committee, and I believe they have the competence and ability.
    I would have wanted us to go into the qualification and eligibility criteria as set out in article 128 of the Constitution, but notwithstanding, because we are still learning, I would go along with what others have stated, that we should approve of them individually and as a collective.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you very much for the opportunity granted me. Thank you very much.
    Mr Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, thank you very much.
    Hon First Deputy Speaker, do you intend to make some concluding remarks?
    Mr Osei-Owusu 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to thank Hon Members for their contributions.
    I was going to make an observation in respect of the issues raised by the Hon Majority Leader, that indeed an effective answer to all the issues he has raised is for those matters to be put before the Supreme Court, who would make a final pronouncement Any individual judge's opinion would be an opinion, and we all have many.
    Mr Speaker, finally, I would affirm that the Committee relied very heavily and firmly on the state institutions responsible for investigation on the character of the nominees, and we are satisfied with the Report that came before us.
    I thank you and urge all Hon Members to support the Motion for the adoption of the Report.
    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    Mr Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    The Hon First Deputy Speaker would take the Chair at this stage, but if I may at this time mention a couple of issues and draw the attention of Hon Members with regard to the capping of the Supreme Court.
    The late Justice Prof Kludze made a very instructive pronouncement on this matter in an article listed at the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), making a good comparison between ours and the Supreme Court of America.
    You would realise that under article 33(3) of our Constitution, the Constitution gives every Ghanaian the right of automatic appeal from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court, whether it is a land matter or assault, no matter what. That is not so in the US Supreme Court. You cannot appeal as of right on all such matters.
    There is a pre-trial procedure by which essentially, appeals end at the Court of Appeal in the State where the case was, so it does not go to the US Supreme Court, therefore it is a bit tricky if a person looks at the numbers of the US Supreme Court,
    which is quintessentially a constitutional court, and ours, where the right of appeal under article 33(3) is automatic as of right. Do we review that?
    That is why in the French legal system, they also have constitutional courts who take some of these matters of the Supreme Court.
    So if an argument is made that a big country like the United States has a cap of so much and what about Ghana, we must be very careful, because the load before the Supreme Court of the United States is totally different from the load before the Supreme Court of Ghana, where the right of appeal is a constitutional right of every Ghanaian on any matter whatsoever; civil, criminal, constitutional or otherwise.
    These are very salient differences which Hon Members of this House must be aware of and then in future, we can make meaningful contributions to such debates.
    With regard to the right to life, where a convicted criminal would not face the death penalty, it is a very interesting matter when people talk about the right of the criminal.
    Suppose a psychopath sets out to go and kill people in the mosque on a Friday, people in the church on a Sunday, mows everybody down, and at the end of it, he says he has got the right under the law not to be executed.
    It would be ridiculous. He has got the right not to be executed, but he has the right to go and kill a thousand worshippers.
    So the State must resolve for itself. It is good that in Ghana, we have not executed people for so long on the death penalty, but I believe that the State of
    Mr Speaker 2:30 p.m.


    Ghana must have it in its pocket reserved, so that where necessary the most heinous of crimes can still be subject to certain execution. These are parameters that some of the human rights advocates do not seriously examine, and we must be very mindful of them in the future.

    I thank you very for the opportunity to contribute for our future deliberations.

    Hon First Deputy Speaker to continue from here. Nevertheless, Motion 7 --
    MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Whip?
    Mr Moses Anim 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, Motion numbered 7 and 8 are not ready, so may we take item numbered 9?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Yes, Minority Leadership, we are proceeding with item numbered 9 -- Minority Leadership are you here with me? Hon Deputy Minority Leader, it is proposed that we continue with item numbered 9. Do you have any comments? Very well.
    Yes, Hon Deputy Minority Leader?
    Mr James Klutse Avedzi 2:35 p.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker. This was started yesterday, so we can continue today.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Very well. Hon Members, the Minerals Income and Investment Fund Bill, 2018 at the Consideration Stage.
    BILLS -- CONSIDERATION STAGE 2:35 p.m.
  • [Resumption of debate from 24/09/ 2018.]
    • Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Hon Members, item numbered 9(i), clause 3.
    Clause 3 -- Powers of the Fund.
    Chairman of the Committee (Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah) 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, paragraph (f), line 2, delete “41” and insert “40”.
    Mr Speaker this is to correct wrong referencing in the Bill.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 3 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Hon Members, clause 4?
    Clause 4 -- Functions of the Fund.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (2), paragraph (a), line 2, delete “41” and insert
    “40”.
    Mr Speaker, this is to correct wrong referencing as in the earlier case.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Hon Members, item numbered iii -- Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (3), delete and insert the following:
    “(3) In the performance of its functions, the Fund or a Special Purpose Vehicle shall not provide credit to the Government, public enterprises, private sector entities or any other person or entity.”
    Mr Speaker, this is a redrafting for clarity. That is the amendment captured on page 4 of the Order Paper.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Are Hon Members participating in the amendment process? Hon Leaders, you do not appear to have your Hon Members with you on this; are they? [Laughter] -- Very well, I will put the Question on the proposed amendment.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    I will put the Question on the entire clause 4.
    Yes, Hon Ranking Member on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Committee?
    Alhaji Inusah A. B. Fuseini 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have a problem with clause 4(1) (b). This is because we are talking about Minerals Income Investment Fund. Clause 4(1) (b) is seeking to vest the Fund with the capacity to hold equity interest of the Republic and exercise all rights related to the minerals equity interest.
    Mr Speaker, I thought that yesterday, we decided this in clause 2(b), when we argued extensively on the use of the word ‘monetise'. So, we came to the conclusion that even where there is equity interest, the Fund can monetise the equity interest.
    Now, as part of its functions we are saying that they do not have to monetise.
    They can hold equity interest. I do not know the rationale for that. Can they invest equity interest? This is because it is Minerals Income Investment Fund.
    The third question is, Mr Speaker, is it an attempt to divest the Ministry of Finance the right to hold the equity interest of the State in any of the State organisation?
    Mr Speaker, clause 4(1) (b). Thank you.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Deputy Minister for Finance?
    Mr Charles Adu Boahen 2:40 p.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    I would like to draw the attention of the Hon Member to the first paragraph of the memorandum which states that, with your permission I beg to quote:
    “The purpose of the Bill is to establish a Minerals Income Investment Fund to hold and manage the equity interests of the Republic in mining companies, to receive mineral royalty and other related income due to the Republic from mining operations, to provide for the management and investment of the assets of the Fund and for related matters.”
    Mr Speaker, historically, we get an automatic 10 per cent carried equity interest in mining companies as soon as they are established.
    However, we have never been able to generate any income from these equity interests because these mining companies rarely or never pay dividends; they always manage to declare a loss or break even.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    In effect, he said that indeed, it is in line with the memorandum. The purpose for setting up this is to hold and manage so, it is appropriate.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree it is even part of the Long Title but the point is, traditionally, it is the Ministry of Finance that holds equity interest. Is this a shift in policy to allow the Fund which would be a legal personality to hold the equity interest? That is what I would want to understand.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Hon Member, I believe it is obvious from the memorandum. It clearly says that this is the Agency that would hold and manage equity interest in all mining interests. We should go along with it and proceed.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as a matter of fact, that is why we have gone through this route of putting together this Bill because earlier, we were going to issue a bond and then let the floats of the

    royalties backstop them but then later on, after consulting, we decided to come with a full-fledged Bill and so, the policy intent is clear that rather than the Ministry of Finance hold the equity interest, this new special purpose vehicle would do same on behalf of the Ministry. More so, the Hon Minister for Finance sits on this Board.
    Mr Avedzi 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want the Hon Deputy Minister to explain what Hon Fuseini raised under the “Objective of the Fund”. Clause 2 (b) says, “monetise the minerals income accruing to the Republic …” If we come to the functions of the Fund, clause 4 (1) (b) says, “hold and manage minerals equity interest …”
    I just want to find out from the Hon Deputy Minister what the difference is between clause 2 (b) where we monetise the minerals income that accrues to the Republic and clause 4 (1) (b) where we hold and manage the minerals equity interest to the Republic?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance here. The Hon Deputy Minority Leader is posing questions. We are at the Consideration Stage of the Bill. If he has an amendment to move, he should do that but to be asking questions --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, if you have some guidance to assist him, please provide that.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 2:40 p.m.
    No, I do not think we can go on this tangent where he is asking questions.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    I am not saying we should go on that tangent. Do you want to provide any answer for him please? If not, I will provide the answer I know and then we would proceed.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was pointing the attention of the Hon Deputy Minority Leader to clause 3, “Powers of the Fund”. Clause 3 (a) makes provision for that.
    “create and hold equity interests in a Special Purpose Vehicle in any jurisdiction in furtherance of its objects…”
    It is not inconsistent with clause 2 (b). We dealt with it yesterday. Unfortunately, he was not here. So clause 4 provides amplification for the clause 3(a) that we did yesterday.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    I will put the Question on the entire clause 4.
    Clause 4 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 5 -- Governing Body of the Fund
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, subclause (1), paragraph (c), sub-paragraph (i), delete “of” and insert “responsible for”.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that is the proper way to couch this.
    rose
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 2:40 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, I have the Floor.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have had the opportunity to debate this matter with so many people. It is the Ministry of Finance. We may have a Minister who is responsible for Finance who may not necessarily be the Minister for Finance. We have a Minister for Finance. We could have a Minister responsible for Finance if the Minister for Finance for instance travels out.
    Mr Speaker, we could have a Cabinet Minister who would assume the position, who would be entrusted by the President to manage that place. He is the Minister responsible for Finance, but the substantive Minister there is the Minister for Finance. I have always insisted.
    Mr Speaker, let us not change our rules. Otherwise, we would run into trouble. In any event, the recognised name of the Ministry is “Ministry of Finance” and not “Ministry for Finance”. The Hon Chairman of the Finance Committee should sit down when I am on the Floor.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in some jurisdictions, you would have a Minister for the Economy. That Minister for the Economy would be responsible for Finance. So, if the designation should change and then we do not have a Minister for Finance, let us say, we have a Minister for the Economy. [Interruption.]
    Mr Speaker, if we go further, in clause 5 (c) (ii), where we have “Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources”, an amendment is proposed that we delete “of Lands” and insert “responsible for” to read “Minister responsible for Natural Resources” so that if we do not have that designation,
    Minister for Finance, there would be a Minister responsible for Finance even though there is not a Minister for Finance.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, we should be guided by our history. Has it ever happened both in civilian and military administrations that we have not had a Minister for Finance?
    The Chairman of the National Redemption Council (NRC) was also the Commissioner for Finance. So, it has never happened that we have never had a Minister or Commissioner or Secretary for Finance.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the nomenclature keeps changing. We had Minister for Energy, then Minister for Power, Minister for Petroleum. Tomorrow, the Senior Minister could be the Minister responsible for Finance.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Then you support what the Hon Majority Leader said that there could be a Minister responsible for Finance. The Ministry has always been Ministry of Finance.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have seen the Hon Majority Leader effect these changes here on the Floor many times.
    Mr O. B. Amoah 2:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have to be consistent. Being consistent means that if we choose to do one thing, then we should follow it. I have in my hand, the Petroleum Exploration and Production General Regulations 2018, L. I. 2359.
    On page 90, that is the last page, it has Mr Boakye Agyarko, Minister responsible for Petroleum. That is why I said we have to be consistent. What have we agreed to do?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 a.m.
    Let us look at the context here. It says “a representative each from the following Ministries not below the rank of a Director”, so we want a representative from a Ministry. When it is a Ministry, then we are talking about a Ministry of Finance. It has always been that.
    If we were talking about a Minister who would sign, then we probably would say the Minister for Finance. That could change but I think the amendment may not be necessary.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 2:50 a.m.
    Let me draw your attention to the next one where we have Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources. An amendment is proposed that “Lands” be deleted because we have had Lands, Mines and Natural Resources.
    So the emphasis here is on natural resources. We are affecting an amendment, so that we would have the Ministry responsible for Natural Resources. It is in the same spirit that we are effecting this amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 a.m.
    Let me listen to the Minority Side.
    Mr Shaibu Mahama 2:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like the Hon Chairman of the Committee to abandon the amendment. The whole clause talks about a Ministry. We are looking for representatives from a Ministry, therefore, clause 5 (1) (c) (i) should read “Ministry of Finance” and not “Minister for Finance”.
    Also, clause 5 (1) (c) (ii) is fine and should be “Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources”. This is because the reference is to the Ministry and not to the person responsible for the Ministry. I therefore urge the Hon Member to abandon the amendment, so we go by the current rendition.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I second the position of Hon Shaibu Mahama. This is because I recall that when we were crafting the Office of the Special Prosecutor's Bill, when we got to the stage where we were looking for the composition of the Board, we were not looking for persons who would come and constitute the Board but representatives of certain institutions.
    So I believe it is the same thinking and mind-set that we are applying in crafting this particular clause. It is about representation but not the institution or Minister holding those positions that we seek to come and represent. Instead, it is people who would come from these institutions, so I am in support of the position of Hon Shaibu Mahama in this matter.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 a.m.
    Hon Deputy Minister for Lands and Natural Resources?
    Mr Benito Owusu-Bio 2:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, the current name is the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, which you just mentioned. However, we know that these laws are made for future generations. It is possible that one day the name could change to Ministry of Mines or Ministry of Natural Resources because land could also be termed as such.
    So I support the amendment because then we would be sure to take into consideration future changes in the name of this particular Ministry. Hon Dafeamekpor mentioned that it is not to a particular person but a representative from a Ministry.
    Mr Speaker, if we remember, just quite recently we passed the Ghana Integrated Aluminium Corporation Bill into an Act. There was a debate on the Floor of the House which had to do with the Minister
    who would be responsible for the corporation. We debated here and the same conclusion was arrived at, that based on that, we must say the “Minister responsible for Minerals”. That is what is in the Act now, and not Minister for Mines.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 a.m.
    That is not what we are doing here. You are asking for “Ministry responsible for” and that is where there is a challenge. However, let us deal with one amendment at a time.
    The amendment before us now is “Ministry responsible for Finance”. Do we want to change to “Ministry responsible for Finance” or maintain “Ministry of Finance”? Let us take a decision on that before we proceed.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, even though I appreciate the principle, we have always interrogated this matter. I appreciate the principle raised by the Hon Chairman of the Committee who instructs that he should be referred to as “Dr Chairman” and not “Mr Chairman”, even though he has never referred to the substantive Speaker as Prof Speaker; he refers to him as Mr Speaker. [Laughter.]
    Mr Speaker, the issue as I said is that if we overstretch this point, it would then mean that what we have been doing is inappropriate, even for Ministers responsible for Finance. This is because, in that case, if we go for “Minister responsible for Finance”, the “finance” should not be capital “F” but it should be small letter.
    This is because once we introduce capital “F”, we recognise that there is a Ministry by name Finance. Yet by what he said, we might have a Minister in charge of the economy who would maybe manage finance as well.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:50 a.m.


    So, let us not overstretch this. We appreciate the principle and I believe by the Interpretations Act, the debate that is going on here would in future, affect any interpretation if there are doubts. So, let us not go haranguing the way we have been. This is “Ministry of Finance”, so let us leave it at that.

    Question put and amendment negatived.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 a.m.
    Item numbered 9 (v).
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 3 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, after you put the vote, I was trying to catch your eye.
    When you said as many as are in favour, I heard about six people say ‘'aye''; and when you put the Question, a loud four persons said ‘‘noe'' [Laughter].
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, I am the referee here and I ruled that no one -- I do not intend to share that part with you.
    Do you intend to continue with the next amendment?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 3 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, for consistency, I would abandon the amendment in clause 5 (v).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Very well.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 3 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5 subclause (4), line 3, delete “Board” and insert “Fund”.
    Mr Speaker, there was a typographical error there. It should have been ‘'Fund'' and not ‘'Board''.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 3 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 7 subclause (1), line 3, delete “conferred upon the Fund by” and insert “in”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 3 p.m.
    ‘'The Board is responsible for the attainment of the objects of the Fund, the making of operational policy and general supervision of the management and affairs of the Fund and any other functions in this Act''.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Deputy Minority Leader?
    Mr Avedzi 3 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with ‘'Functions of the Board'', if clause 7 subclause 1 says that; ‘‘The Board is responsible for the attainment of the objects of the Fund'', is that not sufficient enough than including in this rendition, ‘‘the making operational policy and general supervision of the management and affairs of the Fund and any other functions in this Act''?
    Mr Speaker, the first line that says, ‘‘The Board is responsible for the attainment of objects of the Fund'', is sufficient enough to cover all these. This is because ‘'making of operational policy'' is geared towards attainment of the object of the Fund. So why are all these added if we know that the main function of the Board is ‘‘attainment of object of the Fund''?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, do you want to speak to that? The Hon Deputy Minority Leader has suggested that it is sufficient to say, ‘'The Board is responsible for the attainment of the object of the Fund''.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Deputy Minister for Finance?
    Mr Boahen 3 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we included that because the structure of the Minerals Income Investment Fund is like a typical fund which also includes an Investment Advisory Committee that would be responsible for the operational policy with regard to how the Fund would be managed and the income from the Fund would be managed.
    That has to be included in the functions of the Board and be separated from the objects of the Fund which relates only to the management of the income and equity interest.
    The operational policy is to do with how the Investment Advisory Board would be set up. The Investment Advisory Board's function would be to review and oversee investment policy and investment decisions that the Fund might decide to enter into.
    Mr Speaker, that is the reason for the separation of that sentence.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Ranking Member for Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 3 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, technically, there is nothing wrong with the provision about the way it is, but it is clumsy. There are four functions in that
    provision which has been collapsed into one. That is why it is clumsy. So it requires redrafting.
    Mr Speaker, if we really want people to understand the functions of the Board - The first function that has been given to the Board is the attainment of the objects of the Fund. That is the omnibus function. The second function is the making of operational policy.
    The third function is general supervision and management of the affairs of the Fund and any other -- the omnibus clause has been repeated.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to advise the Hon Chairman of the Committee that technically there is nothing wrong with it, but it is clumsy. If it could be separated into ‘‘a'', ‘'b'' and ‘‘c'' so that it would be:
    7 (1) ‘'The Board is responsible for,
    (a) The attainment of the object of the Fund…”
    Mr Speaker, or if he so wants, in accordance with drafting conversions, the omnibus clause could be put at the end.
    Mr Speaker, it would make sense and be more eligible, more understanding if we paragraph the functions.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Daboya/Mankarigu?
    Mr S. Mahama 3 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, ordinarily, I would not challenge the Hon Ranking Member for Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee.
    Mr Speaker, in clause 7 (2), the same things that are found under subclause (1) have been repeated.
    Mr Speaker, with your permission, I beg to quote 3 p.m.
    (2) ‘'For the purpose of subsection (1), the Board shall;
    (a) perform its functions and conduct its affairs in accordance with sound investment and financial standards and practice and the investment policy of the Fund;
    Mr Speaker, it goes back to repeat the issues in clause 7 subclause (1), so I would side with the Hon Deputy Minority Leader that it must end at the objective of the Fund so that subclause (2) would explain the other additions that are under subclause (1).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, do you have a problem if it is left with the drafters to break it up once we agree with the text?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 3:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have conferred with the representative from the Attorney-General's Department who is here and it is fine with us; so this could be redrafted.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Members, once we agree with the text, let us take a decision on it and leave the draftspersons to rearrange it. And so rather than taking a decision of any sort, we would just abandon the proposed amendment and leave it to the draftspersons to rearrange.
    And so I hereby instruct that the draftspersons rearrange clause 7.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah — rose —
    Mr Speaker, we still have to put the Question on clause 7.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    It is deferred. We would take the decision on it when it is rearranged.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 3:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, by then we would be gone.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    Yes, we can always come back to it.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 3:10 p.m.
    And so the Question would be put on clause 7 and then the drafters —
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    If we put the Question as it is now, they cannot rearrange it. We must rearrange it before we put the Question on it — [Pause.]
    We want to look at what they would do and agree to the text before we take the decision on it.
    And so I would go to clause 8.
    Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 9 — Tenure of office of members of the Board.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    There is an advertised amendment in the name of the Hon Chairman.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu — rose —
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, the — [Pause]— I am sorry.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Members, clause 9.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 3:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 9 subclause (3), line 1, delete “Subsection (2) does” and insert “Subsections (1) and (2) do”.
    Mr Speaker, this is to ensure that subsection (1) is included in the referencing.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    Very well.
    Mr S. Mahama — rose —
    Mr Speaker, once it becomes conjunctive, then the word would have to change to plural form. And so if we see, subsections (1) and (2), they should not be “does not” but “do not”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    Very well.
    “Subsections (1) and (2) do not”
    Any more suggestion?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini — rose —
    Mr Speaker, clause 9 subsection (1) says and I beg to quote 3:10 p.m.
    “A member of the Board shall hold office for a tern of four years and shall be eligible for re-appointment for another term only.”
    That means eight years.
    Mr Speaker, I understand subsection (2), the Chief Executive is part of the Board. And so if we do not exempt the Chief Executive from that, he would be subject to only an eight-year term. But the Chief Executive can be in office until he retires. I thought that is what has informed the decision of the amendment, is that not so?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 3:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, subclause (2) says and I beg to quote:
    “A member of the Board who is absent from three consecutive meetings of the Board without sufficient cause ceases to be a member of the Board”.
    The three referenced only subsection (2) but it would not apply to the Chief Executive. Now we do not want subsection (1) to also apply to the Chief Executive and that is why the amendment being effected in sub-clause (3) says, “subsections (1) and (2)” would not apply to the Chief Executive.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 3:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move that, clause 9 subclause (7), paragraph (b), delete “(5)” and insert
    “(6)”.
    Mr Speaker, again, this is a typological error in the Bill. It should be “subclause (6) and not subclause (5).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 9 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 10 — Meetings of members of the Board.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 3:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10 head note, delete “of members”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would now read, “Meetings of the Board”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Members, it is a straightforward one and I would put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 3:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10 subclause (1), line 2, delete “the times and in the places” and insert “a time and place”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    So kindly read the new rendition.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 3:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 10, (1) reads, and I beg to quote:
    “The Board shall meet at least once every three months for the dispatch of business at a time and place determined by the chairperson”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 3:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10 subclause (2), lines 2 and 3, delete “place and time” and insert “time and place”.
    Mr Speaker, this is for consistency with the earlier one. And I think that is how we have always known it, “time and place” and not “place and time”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Members, it is a straightforward amendment.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 10 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, it is almost 3.30 p.m. now.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we could go to 3.45 p.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, you said if we could close at what time?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, at 3.45 p.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    The time?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:20 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    We should close at 3.45 p.m. The Committee on Finance themselves have a meeting.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    They have a meeting at 2.00 p.m.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, they have a meeting at 4.00 p.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    So they need 30 minutes to reorganise themselves.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:20 p.m.
    Well, Mr Speaker, I am not fuzzy about it, though.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    Yes, I intend to bring proceedings to a close. I recall that in the morning, you said we would close early. [Laughter.]
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to plead with the Standing Committee on Winnowing if they could meet to consider what we can do with respect to the amendments. So, we would be able to walk faster tomorrow than we are doing today.
    If we may be able to do so immediately we close from here.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    Hon Members, that brings us to the end of the
    ADJOURNMENT 3:20 p.m.