Debates of 31 Oct 2018

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:02 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:02 a.m.
Mr Speaker 10:02 a.m.
Hon Members, we have the Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, 30th October, 2018 for correction.
Page 1 … 14 --
rose
Mr Speaker 10:02 a.m.
Yes, Hon Ayariga?
Mr Ayariga 10:02 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am sorry to take you back.
Mr Speaker, on page 3, I just noticed that my name is not under the list of names of Hon Members present, but I was here.
Mr Speaker 10:02 a.m.
I quite recollect that.
Mr Ayariga 10:02 a.m.
Mr Speaker, pardon?
Mr Speaker 10:02 a.m.
Hon Member, I said I quite recollect, and so the change should be effected accordingly.
Hon Members, the Votes and Proceedings --
rose
Mr Speaker 10:02 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Mr Speaker 10:02 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Member.
I direct that the word spelt in 7(i), line 2, is duly corrected.
Hon Members, any other, just in case?

Hon Members, the Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, 30th October, 2018 as corrected is duly admitted as the true record of proceedings.

Hon Members, we would move on to Statements. We have two Statements, and one is on “Ghana-China Bilateral Relations”, in the name of the Hon Chairman for the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

We have another Statement in the name of Hon Dr Kojo Appiah-Kubi, Member for Atwima Kwanwoma, on economic growth, poverty and inequality.

We may have to stand this down for now. Hopefully, they would come.

At the Commencement of Public Business, item listed 4, Presentation of Papers, item 4(a) (i), by the Hon Majority Leader.
Ms Sarah Adwoa Safo 10:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would seek your leave and crave the indulgence of the Minority to lay the said
Papers for and on behalf of the Hon Majority Leader.
Thank you Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 10:12 a.m.
Hon Member, I did not get you.
Ms Safo 10:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, item numbered 4(a), Presentation of Papers, 4(a) to (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) are listed to be laid by the Hon Majority Leader and Minister for Parliamentary Affairs, who is not in the Chamber. He had to attend to business concerning the same House, and I am asking leave of you to lay the said Papers on his behalf.
Mr Speaker 10:12 a.m.
To lay the Papers?
Ms Safo 10:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, rightly so.
Mr Speaker 10:12 a.m.
You may do so.
Ms Safo 10:12 a.m.
Thank you Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 10:12 a.m.
Item numbered 4(a)(i)?
PAPERS 10:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker 10:12 a.m.
Hon Members, item 4(b), by the Hon Minister for Finance.
Ms Safo 10:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, I would like to seek leave and permission for the Hon Deputy Minister for Finance to lay the said Paper on behalf of the Hon Minister for Finance, considering the period within which we are.
He is currently engaged to present a very good Budget to the people of Ghana, and for that reason, one of our own, as usual, Hon Abena Osei-Asare would lay the Paper on his behalf.
Mr James Klutse Avedzi 10:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, yesterday, the same thing happened, where the Hon Majority Leader asked for permission for the Hon Deputy Minster to perform the functions on behalf of the Hon Minister and the Hon Minority Chief Whip reminded the Hon Deputy Minister to convey to the Hon Minister that we need him in this House.
Mr Speaker 10:12 a.m.
Hon Members, and that is why when you are seeking permission, you should not say whether it would be a good Budget or not. We all know the Hon Minister at this time of the year is preparing a Budget.
Please, in this House, I seriously mean this, we know we are on two Sides. Let us simply say certain things factually and then get what we want for Business to proceed. Matters of commentary would come later.
Hon Minister, I take it for granted that you did convey the message.
Mrs Osei-Asare 10:12 a.m.
Thank you Mr Speaker.
The Hon Finance Minister is currently out of the country, in Germany with the President.
Mr Speaker 10:12 a.m.
Are they all related to budgetary matters?
Mrs Osei-Asare 10:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, certainly, they are related to things that would bring a lot of good to this nation.
Mr Speaker 10:12 a.m.
Thank you very much.
Hon Deputy Minister, you may proceed.
By the Deputy Minister for Finance (Mrs Abena Osei-Asare) (on behalf of the Minister for Finance)--
Agreement Establishing the African Trade Insurance Agency (ATI Treaty)
Referred to the Finance Committee.
Mr Speaker 10:12 a.m.
Item numbered 4(c), Hon Chairman of the Appointments Committee? Is the Hon Chairman in the House? [Pause] --
Ms Safo 10:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the item numbered 4(c) Appointments Committee Reports is not ready.
Mr Speaker 10:12 a.m.
Item numbered 4 (c) is not available.
Item numbered 4 (d), by the Hon Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.
By the Chairman of the Committee --
Report of the Public Accounts Committee on the Report of the Auditor-General on the Public Accounts of Ghana (Consolidated Fund) for the year ended 31 st December, 2015.
Report of the Public Accounts Committee on the Report of the Auditor-General on Public Accounts of Ghana (Ministries, Departments and other Agencies of the Central Government) for the year ended 31st December, 2015.
Mr Speaker 10:22 a.m.
We will go back to Statements and then revert to item listed as 5.
The Hon Minority Leader has a Statement on recent matters of international consequence, particularly, the murder of the renowned world journalist.
STATEMENTS 10:22 a.m.
Minority Leader (Mr Haruna Iddrisu) 10:22 a.m.
Mr Speaker, let me thank you for the opportunity to make a Statement on what the world today describes as a ferocious and horrendous murder of a journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, a Washington Post columnist who was dastardly murdered in a diplomatic compound of the Saudi Embassy in Istanbul and the circum- stances that defy conscionability.
Mr Speaker, I would demand that this Parliament condemns the unacceptable murder of Jamal Khashoggi and join the world in demanding answers and that the perpetrators be tried in accordance with law and be made to pay the ultimate price for this unacceptable murder.
Mr Speaker, I consider the murder an affront to freedom of expression and the independence of the media. He was only contributing to the development of the world through his writing, espousing what he saw and believed in.
Mr Speaker, regarding circumstances of his murder, there are various attempts to cover up. We will not accept the cover up and this Parliament should not accept it so that this would never ever be repeated.
Mr Speaker, for a journalist to be murdered, first, we were told by some diplomatic communities that it was a “rogue operation”. Mr Speaker, I would
want to quote the President of Turkey. He says “it is a ferociously planned murder” and he has demanded answers. The 18 to 21 persons who have been identified must be criminally interrogated and tried.
Mr Speaker, we are told that Jamal Khashoggi was last seen on 2nd October, 2018 after he walked towards the Embassy with his wife-to-be. We can only console the fiancée and ask her to cooperate with law enforcement agencies. I know that she has even declined an invitation by the United States of America (USA).
Mr Speaker, our message is clear. The USA must be reminded that values are timeless and that rights, in particular, fundamental human rights, begin with a first generation of liberties, the right to life. Jamal Khashoggi has been denied the right to live. It is the most important right because he could only exercise the other rights if he lived.
Mr Speaker, this Parliament should not accept a cover up by the West, in particular, the USA in the convenient interest of trade with Saudi Arabia. We would not and should not accept it. If this was done within the corridors of the USA, we know what they would have done.
As I said, human rights are indivisible. We all have made a commitment to respect it and the USA must respect that a criminal activity has been occasioned and they must grow beyond their narrow trade interest into ensuring that there is no cover up and the perpetrators are punished.
Mr Speaker, I join the world and demand that our Parliament condemns this ferocious and horrendous act as I said, and that those who are behind this killing be identified and punished accordingly.
Mr Speaker 10:22 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Minority Leader for this well presented statement. Hon Deputy Majority Leader?
Ms Sarah Adwoa Safo (NPP -- Dome/ Kwabenya) 10:22 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to support the Statement ably made by the Hon Minority Leader on the disappearance of a Saudi journalist, Jamal Khashoggi.
Mr Speaker, I believe that this has taken the world by storm. Many have asked a lot of questions about the disappearance of the 59 year old journalist who was just doing his job as a journalist -- reporting as it is.
Mr Speaker, information gathered from all reports of these international networks point to the fact that this was a journalist who was very critical of the Saudi government.
Mr Speaker, all over the world, we have accepted democracy which means that we should learn to tolerate even criticisms from journalists, opposite sides and even people who we represent. Mr Speaker, that is no justification to take someone's life and this ought to be condemned by all of us here in Parliament.
Mr Speaker, there are nine questions that remain unanswered about the death of this journalist. The first is, was Khashoggi really considering returning to Saudi Arabia? If this was just a discussion, why did it take 15 men to travel to Istanbul for a meeting?
Mr Speaker, the third question is why did this Saudi group include a forensic expert and members of the security forces? What actually happened inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey? What happened to Khashoggi's body?
Mr Speaker, the sixth question is 10:22 a.m.
why did Saudi Arabia say he had left the consulate when he had not? Why could the crown prince not have known that something of that sort was happening? Are the men denied by Saudi Arabia
actually the same men who were identified by Turkish authorities? Mr Speaker, nobody has been able to answer.
Mr Speaker, the ninth question is 10:22 a.m.
why did it take 17 days to come up with this account or briefing of what really happened? These are questions that hang on the necks of people who believe in the fundamental human rights of every citizen of every country.
Mr Speaker, the media is the fourth arm of Government and journalists should be treated the same way as citizens of the same country where these human right laws prevail.
The United States of America (USA) is a very advanced democracy. We are looking at what would happen. We should not be quick to defend what is indefensible.
Mr Speaker, I add my voice to that of the Hon Minority Leader in saying that your House should condemn the brutality that was meted out to Khashoggi before he died. There are pictures on social media which are very disheartening -- tearing a man apart as if he is a piece of paper.
We live in the 21st Century and this cannot be acceptable anywhere, let alone in the advanced world. Authorities responsible for the investigation should go through thorough investigative processes to determine the culpability or otherwise of the Saudi Government.
We know that the Crown Prince has denied on several occasions and on various networks, his involvement in this but that is not good enough. We need an independent investigation to ascertain if a crime has been committed.
It is a crime to take someone's life when he is just doing his work to ensure that the right things are done and that the Government delivers on its mandate. The international community is watching where the Saudi Government would take this matter to.
Mr Speaker, on this note, my heart is poured out to Khashoggi's family. It is sad, but I know that his name would never be erased from the memories of those who stand up for the fundamental human rights of every citizen.
Mr Mahama Ayariga (NDC -- Bawku Central) 10:32 a.m.
Thank you very much Mr Speaker.
Let me join the Leadership in condemning this horrendous act. We have seen many interesting incidents in international affairs but this, I believe, surpasses all and raises very interesting international legal issues.
Mr Speaker, a Saudi citizen with an American residence permit went to his country's embassy in Turkey to renew some documents to enable him marry in Turkey, and never came out. There was initially an international denial by the Saudi Government.
Later, there was an admission that he did not leave the embassy and vanished. At the very least, even if we cannot prove death, murder or killing, which they have now admitted to, we can conclude that there was a disappearance which is a clear violation of international human rights.
I join all in condemning this violation of international human rights. Secondly, I condemn it because it was a journalist and we know the reason he became a victim of such a horrible state act. He was
Mr Speaker 10:32 a.m.
Thank you very much Hon Ayariga for your contribution.
Mr George Andah (NPP -- Awutu Senya West) 10:32 a.m.
Thank you very much Mr Speaker.
I beg to support the Statement well made by the Hon Minority Leader condemning the murder of the international journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
There have been some very interesting twists and turns in this Jamal Khashoggi story and I am sure that we have all heard from the submissions that have been made so far, that this is a story that needs to be opened up and there is more investigation to be done.
Mr Speaker, Jamal Khashoggi was not just an ordinary journalist. He was extremely critical of the Saudi regime. This must certainly not be the reason he should be murdered.
Again, he is a billionaire from a very well-connected and well-to-do family. There are many questions that beg for answers and the Hon Deputy Majority Leader stated nine of them.
I would add one more question and that is: who is it that directed him to go to the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Turkey for his documentation to be rectified to enable him get married?
Mr Speaker, if indeed, what we heard was what happened to him, that he actually left the United States of America where he should have had better protection and went to the embassy in Turkey, then we must join the rest of the world and call for a full investigation into this matter.
We must join the rest of the world to ask for the truth and the prosecution of those who were involved in this matter.
Mr Speaker, I would express our condolences to his family and we hope that justice would prevail.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
Mr Speaker 10:42 a.m.
Hon Member, thank you very much for your contribution.
Hon James Agalga?
Mr James Agalga (NDC -- Builsa North) 10:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the Statement which was made by the Hon Minority Leader on the gruesome murder of Jamal Khashoggi.
Mr Speaker, quite a number of questions have been raised as questions that should engage the attention of the international community, but I would like to first of all, confine myself to the conduct of the Saudi Arabian Government in the wake of the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.
Mr Speaker, as the Hon Minority Leader indictated in his Statement, Jamal Khashoggi was killed on 2nd October, 2018 and from that time onwards, the Saudi Arabian Government denied any knowledge about his whereabouts until the 22nd of October, 2018 -- two clear weeks.
Mr Speaker, the question to ask is, why did the Saudi Arabian Government initially feign ignorance about his murder, only to make the admission on the 22nd October, 2018 that he was infact killed in their consulate in Istanbul?
Mr Speaker, if one is looking for evidence of a cover up, I would say without doubt whatsoever that the initial conduct of the Saudi Arabian Government was a clear attempt to cover up the issue.
Mr Speaker, if one also probes further, it would be realised that the admission by the Saudi Arabian Government places a huge burden on them to assist the international community. I would not say
Mr Speaker 10:42 a.m.
Thank you very much Hon Agalga for this brilliant contribution.
Yes, Hon Anthony Karbo?
Mr Anthony N-Yoh Puowele A. Karbo (NPP -- Lawra) 10:52 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to this important Statement which was made by the Hon Minority Leader.
Mr Speaker, a great deal of uncertainty still surrounds the death of Jamal Khashoggi, a journalist who contributed to the Washington Post, and the response of the Western World to the death and murder of Jamal Khashoggi is what I would want to contribute to.
Mr Speaker, we all admit that the protection of journalists and free speech cannot be compromised. Therefore, this dastardly act committed in the Consulate of Saudi Arabia in Istanbul is an issue which all progressive forces and all lovers of democracy and free speech must condemn.
Mr Speaker, it is interesting to also note the arguments being made by our Hon Colleagues on the other side of the House in respect of the international dimension and the geo-politics of Jamal Khashoggi's murder, and of course, the manner in which this particular investigation is being handled.
Mr Speaker, Turkey's Press have given snippets of information indicating that the Turkish Government had some prior knowledge about what was going to happen to Jamal Khashoggi. Those snippets of information are being made available to some Press Houses in Turkey.
Mr Anthony N-Yoh Puowele A. Karbo (NPP -- Lawra) 10:52 a.m.


Mr Speaker, we in Ghana cannot go by those Press reports. We must wait patiently for the full investigation into this matter and see how the Saudi Government also responds to these issues.

Mr Speaker, it is quite clear that Jamal Khashoggi's death comes in the wake of these arguments currently going on within the Islamic world about which country can lead Islam and the leadership of that part of the world. Therefore, how the Middle East, and of course, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran and the United States responds to this killing is going to be a test for the rest of the world to observe.

This is because the comments that have come from the President of the United States of America in respect of this matter has left so much doubt in the minds of many as to whether or not we would ever get to the bottom of the reasons for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.

And so I would like to add my voice to comments made by the Hon Minority Leader that we must condemn this dastardly act, and of course, the protection of journalists anywhere in the world must be commended and supported by all. This is because at the foundation of our democracy is free speech.

Mr Speaker, under your guidance and leadership, we have the opportunity to speak freely as the people's repre- sentatives. Therefore, for a journalist who has been critical of the Saudi Arabian Government and contributed so much to expanding the walls of free speech within the Islamic world to unexpectedly meet his death is a matter that must concern progressives across the continent, particularly, young Africans who must protect free speech.

And I stand here to support this call that all of us in this Parliament must condemn this killing and also call on the international community to make avai- lable all the information surrounding his death.

The cooperation of the Turkish Government is going to be very important.

Mr Speaker, I am very sure you are aware and thus follow the debate in the international press about the tacit support Qatar is giving to the Turkish Government in respect of this matter. All of that still go in line with the arguments within the Arab and Islamic world about which of these countries would take the commanding heights of the Islamic world. Iran is in the corner; Turkey is in the corner and Saudi Arabia itself is in the corner.

All of us in Africa and the rest of the world would be waiting patiently to see how this matter is handled. And all the legal issues, which my Hon C o l le a g ue on the other Side raised would be very interesting to explore and see what the International Law would say in respect of prosecution, if any, in the event the investigations are made public; the Arab world's response to this would be very important to define the type of business and investment we expect from the rest of the world.

Mr Speaker, with these few words, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
Mr Speaker 10:52 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Member, for your brilliant contribution.
Alhaji (Dr) Abdul-Rashid Hassan Pelpuo (NDC — Wa Central) 11:02 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to add my voice to the generally condemned, horrendous, heinous murder of a man who
only sought to bring peace to his people and to fight for the freedom and well- being of his own countrymen.
Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon Minority Leader for raising the issue on the Floor of Parliament. It is a critical point and Ghanaians must add a voice. Ghanaians are allergic to so many things, but first amongst all is our allergy to the abuse of freedom and the rights of people. The abuse of freedom and rights of people anywhere is the abuse and rights of freedom of people everywhere else.
We have adhered to this principle and fought for the independence of several countries, some within Africa and many outside Africa. It has defined us as a people who seek to contribute to the world peace and seek to ensure that the proclamation by the world of the universal human rights of all people is upheld in Ghana.
Mr Speaker, this proclamation was made in the world on 10th December, 1948. And in the 21st Century, the expectation at this time is that, many countries would have imbibed this principle of allowing the freedom of people and supporting the growth of freedom everywhere else. But it does not seem to be the case in Saudi Arabia.
Mr Speaker, the murder of this journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, is a wake-up call to the rest of us to begin to ask ourselves whether the world should continue to tolerate Saudi Arabia to this extent. It has called on us to begin to examine the foreign policy of Saudi Arabia.
What is happening in Yemen? About 14 million Yamani citizens are at the verge of starvation and death. What is
happening in Qatar? Saudi Arabia mobilised other Arab countries to isolate Qatar.
Today, we see a hand stretched from Saudi Arabia to Turkey to murder a citizen who simply wanted documents in order to perform a rightful matrimonial rite.
Mr Speaker, I think that it is in order that we call for investigation into the very depth of what happened. It is important because somebody has to be stopped from doing any other thing to hurt another person in future. It is important because we have to stop the offender in his tracks so that we do not see it recur in any other country or place.
Mr Speaker, one of the challenges that many people foresee in trying to find out exactly what happened is the fact that there is a convention, The Vienna Convention of Consulate Relations and International Relations and how countries relate to each other, and how such relationship can allow a second country to move to question Saudi Arabia for what happened in its consulate.
Mr Speaker, but there is a very weak link in these arguments. There was and there is an admission that there is a local involvement in the matter and that the local involved was asked to dispose of the body.

In that sense, we can arrive at the fact that there is somebody who can be prosecuted by the Turkish Government. The Turkish Government would not tolerate a citizen of Turkey taking human parts and disposing the parts unlawfully and in any form.

Therefore it is possible for us to have Turkey get involved in this matter, to have the matter properly investigated and the
Mr Speaker 11:02 a.m.
Hon Deputy Attorney- General?
Mr Joseph Dindiok Kpemka (NPP -- Tempane) 11:02 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I thank the Hon Minority Leader for making this Statement.
Mr Speaker, I read an article by one Baba Iddrisu Musah and he did pour his heart out using a number of adjectives to describe what happened. In fact, he said in his article that it was simply incredible. It was unbelievable, shocking, heartless, barbaric, primitive, unimaginable, perplexing, callous, beastly and atrocious. I cannot agree with him more.
Mr Speaker, as we watched events unfold after the murder, it was reminiscent of prehistoric time stories that we have been told over and again. It could not have been contemplated that in this 21st Century, such an act could be perpetrated in an embassy; but indeed it has come to pass.
Thereafter, events that would unfold would show the world whether we are prepared as a people to put such acts behind us and let it belong to history
forever. Otherwise, it may embolden others to go same way going forward.
Mr Speaker, I join my Hon Colleagues who have already commented on this issue with a unanimous voice to condemn this at no uncertain terms and to propose to the international community to with one voice, condemn same and put in place measures robust enough to ensure that the perpetrators are brought to book to serve as deterrent to others who would like to tread such paths.
It is not in doubt, as it has been enumerated by a number of contributors, including but not limited to what the Hon James Agalga spoke about, that per the legal system of the countries and the conflict of laws et cetera, experts would have to be involved to resolve it as quickly as possible.
They should identify the perpetrators and allow them to go through the due process of law and where necessary, if they are convicted the appropriate penalties exacted on them to deter others from following same path.
As a Parliament, we have all spoken with one voice and in unanimity in condemning this act and I would like to urge the international community, as again stated by the Hon Pelpuo and others, that a lot is expected of the United States of America in matters of this nature.
In the end, what happened to him would be the beginning of the end of the act of impunity in the world's political dispensation.
Mr Speaker, it is without doubt that if the perpetrators are not brought to book to serve as deterrent, as I indicated earlier, others may be encouraged to do likewise.
More especially, at the very beginning, the theories that unfolded from the statement of “we have no idea about what happened” to partial admissions and full admission of the fact that he had been killed et cetera, [Interruption.] Audio recordings and whatever unfolded sounded unbelievable but it has happened.
So I believe that as a world, what we need to do in matters like this is to come together to ensure that the perpetrators are punished, looking at the law as a whole in respect of the countries that are involved, so that together, we can further strengthen the world's international political order.
Mr Speaker, with these few words, I condemn this act in no uncertain terms as my Hon Colleagues have, and hence urge the House to unanimously condemn same.
I thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 11:02 a.m.
Finally, let us take the contribution of Hon Armah-Kofi Buah?
Mr Emmanuel Armah-Kofi Buah (NDC -- Ellembele) 11:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity. Let me also thank the Hon Minority Leader for this very important Statement condemning the brutal killing of a fine journalist, Mr Khashoggi.
Mr Speaker, I believe that a lot has been said about the savage and brutal nature of the killing. But the clock was ticking on Saudi Arabia's behaviour in the past year. It is important that now that the lens is on Saudi Arabia, those issues are recalled.
Mr Speaker would recall the kidnapping of the Prime Minister of Lebanon. We recall the extra-judicial arrest and detention of a lot of journalists including high level government officials by the new Crown Prince. We recall Saudi
Mr Speaker 11:12 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Buah.
Hon Members, I direct that the unanimous view point of this Parliament condemning the heinous murder of the international journalist has to be duly captured in the Hansard and should be distributed to all embassies and brought to the attention of the Government of Ghana itself.
The House is unanimously of the view that the UN and all international agencies such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), human rights organisations, Amnesty International, International Agencies of Journalists, et cetera should at this stage be at the centre of the process.
The Nuremberg trials and other recent developments have shown that deplo- matic immunity of embassies can sometimes be put aside, thus the principle of lifting the veil so that justice will be done where murder and inhuman
acts are committed, no diplomatic cover- up should be allowed in this global world.
The dismemberment of the body for example, as shown in the international media and on our phones, fly against our common humanity, and action should be taken accordingly.
Thank you very much, Hon Members, for this concern and clever exhaustive elucidation.
Hon Members, item listed number 5 - Motions.
Ms Safo 11:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, item numbered 5 is not ready but if we could take item numbered 4(c) which is a paper to be laid, that is the Report of the Appointments Committee, to be laid by the Chairman of the Committee and then we can take item numbered 6 which is ready.
Mr Speaker 11:12 a.m.
Item numbered 4(d)?
Mr Speaker 11:12 a.m.
Item numbered 4(d)? ‘D' for dog?
Ms Safo 11:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, item numbered 4(c). ‘C' for cat.
PAPERS 11:12 a.m.
Ms Safo 11:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, item numbered
6.
Mr Speaker 11:12 a.m.
Hon Members, item listed 6 -- Motion by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
MOTIONS 11:12 a.m.
Chairman of the Committee (Mr James K. Avedzi) 11:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that this Honourable House adopts the Report of the Public Accounts Committee on the Report of the Auditor- General on the Public Accounts of Ghana (Public Boards, Corporations and Other Statutory Institutions) for the year ended 31st December, 2015, and in so doing, I present your Committee's Report.
Introduction
The Report of the Auditor-General on the Public Accounts of Ghana (Public Boards, Corporations and other Statutory Institutions) for the years ended 31st December, 2015 was laid in Parliament on Friday, 2nd June, 2017, in accordance with article 187(2) of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana.
The Report was referred to the Public Accounts for consideration and report pursuant to Standing Order 165 (2) of the Parliament of the Republic of Ghana.
Deliberation
The Committee met with representatives of Public Boards, Corporations and Statutory Institutions cited in the Report and deliberated on the findings of the Auditor-General.
The witnesses who appeared before the Committee subscribed to the oath of a witness and responded to questions on the issues raised by the Auditor-General.
The Report of the Committee covers the under-listed Public Boards, Corpo- rations and Statutory Institutions:
i. Ghana National Petroleum Corporation;
ii. Petroleum Funds;
iii. National Electrification Scheme;
iv. Energy Commission;
v. Bui Power Authority;
vi. Ghana Grid Company Limited;
vii. Volta River Authority;
viii. Northern Electricity Distribution Company Limited (NEDco);
ix. Securities and Exchange Commission;
x. Cocoa Marketing Company (Ghana) Limited;
xi. Ghana Cocoa Board;
xii. Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT);
xiii. Public Procurement Authority;
xiv. National Lottery Authority;
xv. Ghana Education Trust Fund;
xvi. Students' Loan Trust Fund;
xvii. Venture Capital Trust Fund; and
xviii. Ghana Investment Promotion Centre.
Acknowledgement
The Committee is grateful to all the Hon Ministers, Deputy Ministers, Chief Directors, officials and other witnesses who appeared before it to assist in its deliberations.
The Committee also wishes to express its gratitude to the Auditor-general, Deputy Auditor-General and the technical team of the Audit Service for the immense assistance rendered to the Committee throughout its deliberations on the Auditor General's Report.
The Committee further extends its appreciation to GTV and other media houses for the live coverage and broadcast of the proceedings of the Committee.
Reference
The Committee referred to the following documents during its deliberations:
i. The 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana.
ii. The Standing Orders of the Parliament of Ghana.
iii. The Financial Administration Act of 2003 (Act 654).
iv. The Audit Service Act of 2000 (Act 584).
v. The Internal Audit Agency Act of 2003 (Act 658).
vi. The Value Added Tax Act of 1998 (Act 592).
vii. The Internal Revenue Act of 2000 (Act 592); and
viii. The Financial Administration Regulations of 2004 ( L.l 1802).
rose
Mr Speaker 11:22 a.m.
Order!
Hon Deputy Majority Leader, any difficulty?
Ms Safo 11:22 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
Mr Speaker, my attention has been drawn to certain insertions and corrections that ought to be made. The Hon Deputy Ranking Member of the Public Accounts Committee would want to seek your indulgence to, make the necessary corrections before the Report is taken.
Mr Speaker, I am craving your indulgence -- [Interruption,.].
The Hon Deputy Ranking Member of the Committee wants to draw the Hon Chairman's attention to something in the Report and we have to grant him audience to see whether it would enhance the Report that we are taking.
Mr Speaker, I crave your indulgence. Thank you.
Mr Avedzi 11:22 a.m.
Mr Speaker, this is a Report of the Committee and if there is something wrong with it, I believe that after I have moved the Motion, the Hon Deputy Ranking Member, in seconding the Motion, could do the correction in the Report.
Mr Speaker 11:22 a.m.
Hon Members, normally, there should be consultation. We cannot truncate a Report being presented by the Hon Chairman on his feet. So once the Hon Chairman has commenced the process of presenting his Report, then we should allow him, and if there is any difficulty, the Hon Ranking Member or any Member is entitled to point it out.
Hon Deputy Majority Leader?
Ms Safo 11:22 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
We appreciate your direction and we would take a cue going forward, but the indication that we are getting from the Hon Deputy Ranking Member of the Committee and the other Hon Members sitting next to him is that, the finality of the Report never got to them. It is in this Chamber that they are seeing certain issues which have been raised and which they could have contributed to perfect it before it is taken on the Floor.
Mr Speaker, just as you have said, there ought to be consultations, but it looks as though the finality of the Report did not get to the Hon Ranking Member as well as the Hon Deputy Ranking Member who is standing in for the Ranking Member at the moment. Mr Speaker, if that is the situation --
Mr Speaker 11:22 a.m.
Hon Chairman, may I please hear you?
If that is so, we should not have allowed the process to start at all. The objection should have been a preliminary one, because we are now being told that it is about the root of the Report.
If something is about the root of the Report, then it must be talked about ab initio. I do not really appreciate such belated interventions, but let me hear from the Hon Ranking Member --
rose
Mr Speaker 11:22 a.m.
Hon Chairman, please sit down for the time being.
Mr Mohammed Hardi Tuferu 11:22 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to make this intervention. In fact, it is not about a fundamental issue in the Report, but the process --
Mr Speaker, we take the work of the Public Accounts Committee seriously. We held Committee meetings on these Reports several months ago, but Members from both Sides of the House in this Committee have not had time to sit on this Report, digest it and agree on the issues and matters that have been raised. In fact, the Hon Ranking Member is not even aware that this Motion would be taken today, I also came this morning --
Mr Speaker 11:22 a.m.
Who is not aware?
Mr Tuferu 11:22 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Ranking Member of the Committee. I am the Hon Deputy Ranking Member --
Mr Speaker 11:22 a.m.
Hon Member, this Motion had been fixed by the Business Committee of this Honourable House; it is not the problem of the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
Mr Tuferu 11:22 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is about the Report. It has not been circulated to Hon Members, we did not have pre-Sitting, we
have not made inputs, discussed or concluded on it, so we are surprised that it has been brought before the House. Mr Speaker, except, maybe, the Hon Chairman but members of both sides --
Mr Speaker 11:22 a.m.
Hon Member, do you want what Hansard has covered up to this moment to be truncated and as not representing the true views of my Committee?
Mr Tuferu 11:22 a.m.
Mr Speaker, yes. Hon Members from both Sides of the House in this Committee have not discussed and finalised the Report.
Mr Speaker 11:22 a.m.
Hon Chairman?
Mr Avedzi 11:22 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am completely and totally disappointed in my Hon Colleagues. This is a Report that we have tabled and laid in this House for more than four months. This Report has been on the Order Paper for a number of months. Yesterday, it was put on the provisional Order Paper for the Motion to be moved today.
We met many times on this Report, the final document that I am presenting to the House, we met as a Committee and reviewed it in the committee room on the ninth floor.
Mr Speaker 11:22 a.m.
Hon Chairman, you met on what date? You said that you reviewed it on what date?
Mr Avedzi 11:22 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we reviewed it about four months ago, and we could not take the Report during the previous Meeting because when I asked the Business Committee for us to take the Report, the Hon Majority Leader indicated that because of the Business of the House, we should move it to the First Week of this Meeting.
Mr Speaker, if my Hon Colleague was not available or did not attend that meeting, he should not come and bombard everybody that we did not meet on this. Mr Speaker, this is not true because we met on this, finalised it and the Report was laid.
The Reports were two; the first one is the Motion captured as item 5, which we have started and have had to stand it down. Why is he complaining that we did not meet on that? If he wants to embarrass me as the Chairman of the Committee, it will not work because I am doing my work well.
If he saw something, he should have even come and complained to me as the Chairman of the Committee. Rather, he waited for me to start moving the Motion, and he wants to embarrass me. He is rather embarrassing himself.
If he did not attend the meeting, he should say so. We have met on this and finalised the Report. We laid the Report four months ago, and we are moving the Motion today. So what he said is totally not correct.
Mr Speaker 11:32 a.m.
Hon Member, what do you say to that? For the time being, I want the Hon Member objecting to speak.
Mr Tuferu 11:32 a.m.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
The main issue we are having from our Side is that, this Report should be taken back to the Committee for us to have a bite and tidy up a lot of things on it because we have not had the opportunity. Hon Members sitting here do not have copies of the Report. It is just when we raised the issue that we saw the Report flying here and there.
Mr Speaker 11:32 a.m.
I will refer this matter to the Hon Majority Leader himself, the Hon Minority Leader by himself will stand it down for them to deliberate upon it and come and tell this House something before Sitting tomorrow.
Please, I take a very serious view to such allegations about Hon Members' complaints over Reports which actually have been laid before this House for some time and duly listed by the Business Committee of which I am not part.
It is the business of Leadership, and when all these have been done, we must be very careful when we come to allegations and counter allegations, which go to the root of the dignity of this Honourable House. I take a very serious view of it, and I will ask the Leaders to tell me something before Sitting time tomorrow.
I stand this down.
Motion numbered 7?
Ms Safo 11:32 a.m.
Mr Speaker, Motion numbered 7, again --
Mr Speaker 11:32 a.m.
Hon First Deputy Speaker, would you kindly get ready to take the seat?
Yes, Hon Deputy Majority Leader, I am listening.
Ms Safo 11:32 a.m.
Thank you very much.
Mr Speaker, again, the Report of the Committee of Selection was due to be taken this morning except for a few insertions and corrections that were made by the Hon Minority Leader and the Hon Deputy Minority Leaders. For that reason, we have agreed to step it down and take it tomorrow to bring finality to the Committee of Selection's Report.
Mr Speaker, item numbered 7 will not be taken.
Mr Speaker 11:32 a.m.
I have given my directives on the item listed as 6. I am now referring to the item listed as 7 -- Motion.
Ms Safo 11:32 a.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker. That is the Report of the Committee of Selection, which was due to be taken today except for a few changes that were made by the Hon Minority Leader and the Hon Deputy Minority Leader to some names that have been repeated in certain places. We have both agreed to do the necessary corrections and take the Motion tomorrow. So item numbered 7 will not be taken today.
rose
Mr Speaker 11:32 a.m.
Yes, Hon Chairman of the Finance Committee?
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:32 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Deputy Majority Leader says changes have been made in the Report of the Committee of Selection.
Mr Speaker, I think this Report was laid in the House on 26th September, 2018, when we were recalled. So Hon Members are seized with the Report. If indeed, there were changes in the Report, at the time the Motion is being moved, those changes would be effected.
Otherwise, if we withdraw this Report and lay a new one, that should be the
procedure. She cannot just tell the House that changes have been effected in the Report for which reason the Report will be taken tomorrow.
This is the Report we have, and at the time the Motion is being moved, they can effect the changes. Otherwise, if she is withdrawing the Report, she should say so.
Ms Safo 11:32 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe the Hon Chairman of the Finance Committee did not get me well. What I said was that, there had been names that have been repeated. So it is not a change or substitution or deletion, no.
The Hon Minority Leader drew the attention of the Whip that certain names have appeared twice under certain committees. So in their view, the Hon Minority Whip and the Hon Majority Whip should reconcile them, so that if we are taking it tomorrow, that correction would be made.
It is not as if we are withdrawing the Report that has been laid, no. The Report has been laid already. It is the Motion that was supposed to be taken.
But for the Motion to be taken, if there ought to be corrections at the time the Motion is being taken, there ought to be consensus on both sides of the House. That is exactly what the Hon Minority Leader sought to do this morning. So we are not taking it this morning; we will take it tomorrow.
Mr Speaker 11:32 a.m.
When a report has been made and the document regarding same has been duly distributed to this Honourable House, Hon Members at the
time of the presentation may make relevant corrections to the document while the presenter is on his or her feet. It has nothing to do with going back and forth.
So the right thing which we have done repeatedly in this Honourable House is that, the process must go on and the Hon Member who is moving the Motion must draw our attention to whatever changes are proposed and a decision taken thereon.
Hon Members, this has nothing to do with not proceeding with the Business before this Honourable House.
I would respectfully advise the Leaders that they must seriously scrutinise Business before this Honourable House is well in advance, so that we do not come and go forward and backwards.
Therefore the moving of the Motion must continue, and if there is any proposal for a change, then I would say that some of these changes are allowed to be effected so many times during deliberations by this House. That is the procedure and that is the practice.
Hon Members, the Hon Chairman of the Committee may move and draw our attention to whatever changes that he may want to make, this House would effect the changes, and then continue with its Business.
Ms Safo 11:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to crave your indulgence to move the Motion on behalf of the Hon Majority Leader.
SPACE FOR FINANCE - 11:42 a.m.
SPACE FOR SUBSIDIARY - 11:42 a.m.
SPACE FOR JUDICIARY - 11:42 a.m.
SPACE FOR STANDING 11:42 a.m.
SPACE FOR GOVT 11:42 a.m.
SPACE FOR SPECIAL 11:42 a.m.
SPACE FOR GENDER - 11:42 a.m.
SPACE FOR MEMBERS 11:42 a.m.
SPACE FOR HOUSE - PAGES 11:42 a.m.
SPACE FOR PRIVILEGES - 11:42 a.m.
SPACE FOR SELECTION - 11:42 a.m.
SPACE FOR BUSINESS - 11:42 a.m.
SPACE FOR APPOINTMENTS 11:42 a.m.
SPACE FOR AD HOC - PAGES 11:42 a.m.
SPACE FOR LOCAL GOVT - 11:42 a.m.
SPACE FOR EDUCATION - 11:42 a.m.
SPACE FOR ENVIRONMENT - 11:42 a.m.
SPACE FOR COMMUNICATIONS- 11:42 a.m.
Mr James Klutse Avedzi (NDC -- Ketu North) 11:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion and in so doing, I would want to draw the attention of the House to some errors on page 36 of the Report.
Mr Speaker, on page 36 of the Report, on item numbered 13, we have the name “Hon Mahama Shaibu” and then also on item numbered 16, we have “Hon Shaibu Mahama”.
Mr Speaker, the name on item numbered 16 should rather read 11:42 a.m.
“Hon Mahama Ayariga”, and not “Hon Shaibu Mahama”. The name: “Hon Shaibu Mahama” appears twice on the list. Therefore, we would want to correct item numbered 16 to read: “Hon Mahama Ayariga”.
Question proposed.
11. 45 a. m. --
MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:42 a.m.
Hon Members, I saw the Hon Deputy Minority Leader on his feet, but I do not know whether he is done.
All right, he is done. Was your submission a correction of an Hon Member? Kindly let me follow you. Which page were we deliberating about?
Mr Avedzi 11:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I drew the attention of the House to page 36 of the Report, where the members of the Committee on Constitution, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs are listed.
Mr Speaker, on item numbered 13, we have the name 11:42 a.m.
“Hon Mahama Shaibu”,
and then on item numbered 16, we also have the name: “Hon Shaibu Mahama”. We would therefore want to correct the name on item numbered 16 to read: “Hon Mahama Ayariga”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:42 a.m.
All right, thank you, Hon Member.
Mr Kobina Tahir Hammond (NPP -- Adansi Asokwa) 11:42 a.m.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, it should never be thought that this Parliament, which makes laws and proclaims the laws of this country is supposed to uphold the laws of this country.
Mr Speaker, it should not be seen to be the same forum which has the penchant for breaking the rules of this House. I beg to object to the laying of this Paper in limine, and I do that on the authority of the Standing Orders of this House.
Mr Speaker, I would refer the House to Standing Order 193. That Standing Order deals with changes to membership of Committees. I would go through it in its entirety, for the benefit of the House.
Mr Speaker, it says and I beg to quote 11:42 a.m.
“Changes in Membership of any Committee may be effected by the Committee of Selection at the beginning of every Session in the following specific manner:-
a.--
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:42 a.m.
Hon Member, I do not see the word “specific” in the Standing Orders.
Mr Hammond 11:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, forgive me. I delete the word: “specific”. It rather reads:
“… in the following manner:-
a) during the Session of Parliament by the Committee of Selection with the consent of the Member concerned; or failing that, at the request of two-thirds of all the Members of the Parliamentary Party to which the Member belongs or in the case of an independent Member by a simple majority of Members of the House;
b) the Leader of the party affected by the change shall notify the Chairman of the Committee stating the reasons for the change and the name of the nominee to replace the outgoing Mem- ber; and
c) the Chairman shall notify the House of the change.”
Mr Speaker, I have heard a lot of murmurings from some Hon Members who are being moved, and the reason for that appears to be that none of them appear to have been consulted and the Hon Chairmen of the specific Committees have not also been notified. The changes appear to have been made in a violent breach of the provisions under Standing Order 193.
Mr Speaker, the Standing Order also seems to imply implicitly in its stipulations that the changes contemplated or stated may not affect Hon Chairmen of the Committees.
Mr Speaker, if we look at Standing Order 193(b), it says that the Hon Chairman of the Committee should be
notified, and it seems to deal with the membership of the Committee.
So, when a certain Hon Member is proposed to be moved, there should be consultations with the Hon Chairman of the Committee. There is no indication that there is provision for changes with respect to the Hon Chairmen of the various Committees.
Mr Speaker, I would say that the Report, as we have it, breaches the Standing Orders. I would cite a specific example. I have been informed by the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Mines and Energy, the Committee on which I serve, that he is violently opposed to be removed.
First, as I indicated, the rules do not seem to contemplate a removal of the Hon Chairman of a Committee. Besides that, the Hon Chairman should have been consulted and he should have consented, but there was no consultation and there was no consent. This information does not fulfil the function that consent is supposed to be fulfilled.
Mr Speaker, if the reason is to remove the Hon Chairman or a member of a Committee without their consent, then of course, as I have read out, the Standing Order makes it abundantly clear that two- thirds majority of the entire Hon Members of Parliament is required.
Nobody counted my vote to determine whether I am in favour of changes made.
Mr Speaker, the Report as presented is bad. It is in breach of our rules. We cannot condone it; it is not proper.
Mr Speaker, I invite you to make a ruling that the Report be taken back, and the appropriate and proper procedures be followed as mandated by our Standing Orders.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:52 p.m.
Hon Majority Chief Whip, let me hear you first.
Mr Kwasi Ameyaw- Cheremeh (NPP -- Sunyani East) 11:52 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, I believe the Hon Member has taken the issue out of context. In the first place, he says that our rules do not contemplate the removal of a Chairman of a Committee. He grossly misrepresented what our rules state.
The use of Chairman of the Committee in Order 193 is in reference to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, not a Chairman of a Standing Committee that Hon Members chair or a Select Committee that an Hon Member of the House chairs.
The Committee of Selection is chaired by Mr Speaker himself, and so the use of the expression Chairman of the Committee in Order 193 is in reference to Mr Speaker as Chairman of the Committee of Selection.
Mr Speaker, he made particular reference to the Chairman of the Committee on Mines and Energy as an example, and because he has made that example to the House, I would submit that Hon K.T.Hammond came to me pleading on behalf -- [Interruption] -- let me say it, because it is in bad faith --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:52 p.m.
Hon Majority Chief Whip, let us speak to the law. What happens outside -- ?
Mr Ameyaw-Cheremeh 11:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we informed every Hon Member on our Side who would be affected by the
changes, and because we informed them, some of these Hon Members to be affected by the changes even came pleading to stay.
As I said, it does not lie in anybody's mouth to say that I agreed or did not agree. Whether you consent or do not consent, there is an alternative.
Mr Hammond 11:52 p.m.
With the consent --
Mr Ameyaw-Cheremeh 11:52 p.m.
Hon K. T. Hammond, would you allow me to make my point?
Mr Speaker, whether an Hon Member consents or does not consent, it is one leg of the matter. The other leg of the matter is for this House to agree to the proposed changes or not.
So, if you read Order 193 (a), it says and I beg to quote:
“ during a Session of Parliament by the Committee of Selection with the consent of the Member concerned; or failing that, at the request of two- thirds…”
So Mr Speaker, the Committee has put together this new composition of the various Committees, and we are seeking for the endorsement of the House.
So the House would have to look at it and give consideration to it.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Emmanuel Armah-Kofi Buah (NDC -- Ellembele) 11:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to support Mr K.T.Hammond's motion.
Mr Speaker, I do so on the strength of Standing Order 193 (a), which states and I quote:
“ during the Session of Parliament by the Committee of Selection with the consent of the Member concerned; or failing that, at the request of two-thirds of all the Members of the Parliamentary party to which the Member belongs or in the case of an independent Member by a simple majority of Members of the House;”
Mr Speaker, I am aware that changes are being made, but nobody has even informed me that I have been moved to, for example, Committee of Selection or Committee on Members Holding Offices of Profit. I just saw it today.
That information has not been given, and I am supposed to be the Ranking Member of the Committee on Members Holding Office of Profit. Mr Speaker, I have no clue what I am supposed to do there.
So Mr Speaker, I seriously support Hon Hammond, and I believe that the right thing must be done.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah (NPP -- New Juaben South) 11:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Chief Whip in reading Order 193 (a) said there was an alternative, but he stopped short, and the Hon Member for Ellembele read it in full.
It says, “failing that, at the request of two-thirds of all the Members of the Parliamentary party,…” not “two thirds of the Members of this House”, and if indeed, Hon Members are raising concerns that these changes do not have their consent, neither does it have the support of two-thirds of the parliamentary parties to which they belong, then we
would be flouting our own Standing Orders.
I believe if these consultations have not been made, then we should go back and do the proper thing.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Ms Patricia Apppiagyei (NPP -- Asokwa) 11:52 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I beg to support the Motion on the Floor. If the Motion has not been accepted, I also have a different argument for which I would like to be considered.
I would like to draw the attention of the Committee of Selection to an issue which I passionately feel must be corrected in the House.
Mr Speaker, I simply do not understand why the Committee on Gender and Children has eleven female Members, whereas in the scheme of things, the female Members of the representation of all the Committees of the House have always been about a maximum of three. In some cases, we even have one female on that Committee.
Mr Speaker, if we have to correct the erroneous perception that the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection is --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:52 p.m.
Hon Member for Asokwa, that is a different matter. Your observation may be appropriate but at this time, the whole right of the Committee of Selection to re- compose the Committees is in issue.
The issue is whether they are entitled to re-compose or change Hon Members without one, the consent of the Hon Members, or two, two-thirds of the respective caucuses voting in support of the change.
Alhaji Inusah A.B. Fuseini (NDC -- Tamale Central) 11:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is the issue she is raising. In fact, what you have captured is exactly the issue she is raising.
At the gravamen of the issue she has raised is that, the re-composition is so absurd that it sends a misleading signal that the Committee on Gender and Children should be constituted by a majority of women. That is the argument.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:52 p.m.
But that is the content. It is the process that has been called to question now, so it is when we have dealt with the process that we can come to the content.
I would want to hear more senior Hon Members on this matter.
Dr Appiah-Kubi 12:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would not want to dispute with you. I believe that the issue that was raised by Hon Appiagyei is also germane to the process. Since she talked about the composition itself, I believe that if we are able to admit her issue and correct it, that would probably be embodied in the new composit ion that may come to the House. So I believe that it is also very important.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:02 p.m.
Hon Dr Appiah-Kubi, I believe you are taking us back. If you do not have the power to do it, can you correct it? The challenge now is that they do not even have the power to do it. That is what is being challenged now.
Mr Bedzrah 12:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am a little confused here because a Motion has been moved by the Hon Deputy Majority Leader and seconded by the Hon Deputy Minority Leader. We are debating the Motion and Hon K. T. Hammond came with a counter Motion.
I do not know whether we are debating the counter Motion or the first Motion so that we know whether we should all agree, debate and accept the first or the second Motion. I need your direction in this matter.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:02 p.m.
Hon Member, he has raised a preliminary objection so, we are trying to deal with it and I would like to hear you on that. What is your view of the Standing Order 193 that he has referred to?
Mr Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor 12:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I find favour with the position taken by the Hon K. T. Hammond in this matter.
Mr Speaker, if you look at the definition in our Standing Order 7, a “Committee” is defined to mean “a Committee of the whole, a Standing, Select, Special or Adhoc Committee” but I heard Hon Ameyaw-Cheremeh say that “Committee” as used in the Standing Order that the Hon K. T. Hammond premised his argument on means the Committee that has done this work -- the Select Committee in this matter.
Mr Speaker, I would be happy if at the time of moving the Motion I had heard the Hon Deputy Majority Leader say that notwithstanding the content of Standing Order 193, the Motion be taken in this manner. Then, we would rely on the principle that we are masters of our own rules and therefore, we could vary same to be able to do this business.
But we did not do that and so, if the Hon K. T. Hammond has raised these matters, which in law amounts to preliminary legal position, I believe that the House should consider it seriously --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:02 p.m.
But you have raised the issue that this House is a master of its own rules so, we can suspend the rules. I would want you to develop that argument.
Mr Dafeamekpor 12:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my position is that, we did not rely on that principle in moving the Motion in question. That is why I believe that the Hon K. T. Hammond's position is tenable. That is my humble position on the matter.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:02 p.m.
Hon Members, this is a Committee of the Rt Hon Speaker. He is the Hon Chairman of this Committee. I do not feel empowered to offer an opinion on the objection raised.
However, I would advise that we suspend further proceedings and refer this matter to the Leadership of the House to review, reconsider and reach a consensus before we proceed further on this application.
Ms Safo 12:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is indeed the initial position that I moved before the Rt Hon Speaker left the Chair, that even the Hon Minority Leader had some corrections or additions to make. So, we should step it down at least, for the two Hon Leaders to be here. Then the Hon Chairman of the Finance Committee rose and said we should move on with the Motion.
I am happy that we have gone round and come back to the same position which is that we step it down today and when probably there is consensus between the two Hon Leaders, we can take the Motion. So Mr Speaker, I agree with your judgement.
Mr Hammond 12:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I disagree with the Hon Deputy Majority Leader of the House. There are two discrete points altogether. The first was that when she raised the issue, she suggested that there might be some errors here and there which she would want corrected for that reason the Motion be stood down so that Leadership would deal with that.
Mr Speaker, that is quite different from the fundamental point that we are dealing with. We are talking about the breach of our rules and we are raising an objection in limine. Mr Speaker, they are fundamentally different segments of the argument.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:02 p.m.
I have yours and hers. I suggest that we stand it down. The matters would be resolved because as I said the Rt Hon Speaker's Committee and he has the power to suspend the rules anyway. So the matters raised would be brought before the Leadership and they would be discussed and resolved.
Hon Deputy Majority Leader, what next? I called the Hon Deputy Majority Leader to guide the House.
Ms Safo 12:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we could take the item numbered 8 -- Right to Information Bill, 2018 at the Consideration Stage.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:02 p.m.
Item numbered 8 -- Right to Information Bill, 2018 at the Consideration Stage.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION STAGE 12:02 p.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:02 p.m.
Hon Chairman of the Committee?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:02 p.m.
Does that mean that we are done with clause 1 to 7 already? I would want to be guided by record.
Mr Banda 12:02 p.m.
Rightly so, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:02 p.m.
Very well, item 8 (i) -- clause 8.
Clause 8, Information affecting international relations.
Mr Banda 12:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8 -- subclause (1), opening phrase, line 1, delete “information if its disclosure” and insert “from disclosure if the disclosure of the information . . . ”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 12:12 p.m.
“Information is exempt from disclosure if the disclosure of that information can reasonably be expected”.
Mr Speaker, the purpose is to do away with the personal pronoun “it” and make the rendition more elegant.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:12 p.m.
Hon Ranking Member, are you following us or paying attention to something else?
Alhaji Inusah A. B. Fuseini 12:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am following the House. The drafting rules in some cases admit the deletion of the possessive and substitution of words for themselves.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:12 p.m.
Item numbered 8 (ii)?
Mr Banda 12:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that stands in the name of the Hon Minority Leader.
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 12:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, subclause (1), opening phrase, line 1, after “exempt” delete “information”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:12 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, tell us why we should delete that. Justify your proposal.
Mr Iddrisu 12:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it reads:
“Information is exempt information if its disclosure can reasonably be expected”.
The new rendition would read:
“Information is exempt if its disclosure can reasonably be expected”.
We have used the word information twice in the same line. We want to be able to say that this category of information would not be affected by the Freedom of Information Act. It is more elegant to do so.
Mr Banda 12:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if the Hon Minority Leader would address his mind to the amendment we just effected, in all respect, it would take care of the amendment he proposed. We have also sought to delete “information” and reworded the language in a different way in order to make it more elegant.
If we are to go by the Hon Minority Leader's proposed rendition, the issue of the possessive pronoun would not have been dealt with. This is because in his proposed rendition, he still maintains the
possessive pronoun “it” which we are trying to do away with.
So, I would urge the Hon Minority Leader --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:12 p.m.
Hon Chairman, address your mind to interpretation, on page 43, item 3, on “exempt information”. “Exempt information” is considered as a term of art which has properly been defined by the Constitution. So, if you change and remove “information” from there, it might affect the intended meaning.
Mr Iddrisu 12:12 p.m.
The Hon Chairman's view is the same as the one Hon Inusah Fuseini advised me on, that I should abandon it. Still on page 43, under Interpretation, “information” is defined to include:
“recorded matter or material,
(a) regardless of form or medium”.
So, my amendment is still valid because “information” is also defined. Then we have another definition that is “exempt information”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:12 p.m.
That suggests that we want to differentiate between “information” and “exempt information”?
Mr Iddrisu 12:12 p.m.
No, Mr Speaker. It is the larger wholesale “information” that we would want to exempt, subject to national security, national morality and other considerations like in other jurisdictions. So, it is “information”. “Exempt information” is retail for this purpose.
We have information and are saying that not all categories of information would be affected by this Bill. That is my
understanding. So, we cannot go and say because we have defined “exempt information”. We have defined “information”. Is it not part of the information to which we want to exempt?
Mr Banda 12:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in drafting, I believe consistency is very important. In our preceding provisions, we have at all material times said “information is exempt from disclosure”.
We have used “information is exempt from disclosure” in all the amendments that we have effected in our preceding provisions. I quite agree with them that “exempt information” has been defined but when we get to the interpretation section, we would have to do something about “exempt information”.
This is because this House decided to adopt a different phraseology which is “information is exempt from disclosure”. So, the issue of exempt information, to me, when we get to the interpretation section would no longer be an issue. This is because we might have to delete the definition of “exempt information”.
Mr Speaker, our position is that in order to make the rendition more elegant, “information is exempt from disclosure” is more appropriate, elegant and very apt to us.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:12 p.m.
Very well. So are you suggesting that the amendment already effected takes care of this proposed amendment?
Alhaji I. A.B. Fuseini 12:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the amendment that we made in the first place deleted “information if its disclosure” and did not repeat “information”. If that is so, the Hon Minority Leader's amendment has been taken care of.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:12 p.m.
The information proposed to be deleted has already been deleted. We have just made an amendment in which we deleted the “information” you proposed to be deleted, so it is no longer available to be deleted.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, item numbered 8 (iii)?
Mr Banda 12:22 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, subclause (1), paragraph (c), line 2, delete “of states”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 12:22 p.m.
‘'Information is exempt from disclosure if the disclosure of that information can reasonably be expected to reveal information communicated in confidence to a public institution by an international organisation or a body of that organisation''.
Mr Speaker, the purpose is not to make the rendition restrictive. If the words ‘'of states'' were to be maintained, it would mean that non-governmental international organisations are excluded -- like the Red Cross, but when it comes to international relations, there are non-state actors who play very prominent and critical roles.
Mr Speaker, this is the reasoning that informed the current proposed amendment.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:22 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member for Adaklu?
Mr Agbodza 12:22 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I find this particular amendment a bit worrying.
Mr Speaker, I would want to find out from the Hon Chairman of the Committee, what kind of information would be provided by an international organisation to which he thinks is classified? Is there not a clause which decides if an information is a classified one or not and it could not be disclosed in anyway?
Mr Speaker, if the Hon Chairman of the Committee could give us an example since we are making a law. He should give us an example of an information from a typical international organisation which cannot be disclosed.
Mr Speaker, let us assume that an information has been provided to an institution in Ghana -- I would want to give an example.
There are situations in certain parts of this country where Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) have gone to communities to take children claiming they saw them being abused because they saw them going to the farm after school and then when the Hon Members of Parliament (MPs) enquired they said that the information was provided to them by an
NGO.
Mr Speaker, would they want to say that when there is a situation when an NGO says that by their studies or whatever means they got the information, Social welfare goes to stop a process? Would they want to say that the names of the organisation cannot be mentioned?
Mr Speaker, unless the Hon Chairman of the Committee gives an example of that organisation and the kind of information, I believe this amendment is not appropriate.
rose rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:22 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, there are Hon Members behind you, let me listen to them first.
Yes, Hon Samuel George?
Mr George 12:22 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this issue of exempt information is one of the major problems with the current state of the Right to Information Bill and that is why at the Committee level we discussed the fact that if we would want to have an effective Right to Information Bill that would not act as an iron gate to prevent people or the general public from gaining access to government information under the cloak of exemption, we should re-look as in conjunction with the Public Records and Archives Administration PRAA Act .
This is because there is no classification of exempt information in Ghana. In other jurisdictions, some information could be declassified after five, ten, fifteen or twenty-five years or some would never be declassified.
Mr Speaker, to respond to some of the issues raised by Hon Agbodza, we should assume that in Ghana's arbitration with La Cote d' Ivoire over the maritime dispute, Ghana gained some support from an international organisation that shared some information that aided the case of our legal counsel.
Under what category would that be classified as classified information? We should not forget that, that international organisation may also have representation in La Cote d' Ivoire and if it becomes a public knowledge that, that organisation or an officer within that organisation who may have had sympathies with Ghana shared some information with Ghana that aided our case, the life or freedom of that person would be jeopardised.
Mr Speaker, I believe that until we look at the PRAA Act to really classify information properly and define exemption, we cannot move exemption out of this Act as it stands now. We should leave it in and work on the PRAA Act and specify.
This is because this Right to Information Bill is barely a search engine, but the PRAA Act is what would do the indexing of the directory that the search engine would spring up information from.
Mr Speaker, when the Right to Information Bill is passed into law and we do fix the PRAA Act, we would have had a journey of no consequence.
This is because information would be sought for and it would be said that the information is exempt, but if the PRAA Act is looked at and made to reflect the 21st Century of 2018/ 2019 and there is proper classification, such information would be available and that it is classified but on a request they would be told that in five or ten years it could be available.
Mr Speaker, my position is that, we should leave the exemption and go into the PRAA Act and do what kind of classification we would want to be done to exempt information.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:22 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member of the Committee?
Mr Banda 12:22 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Member who just spoke was an Hon Member of the Committee who together with the Committee went through the Right to Information Bill.
Mr Speaker, the Right to Informaion Bill or exempt information or classes of exempt information at all material times according to international best practices are subject to the public interest override.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:22 p.m.
Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Iddrisu 12:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the Hon Chairman of the Committee's amendments for the deletion of “of states” as he proposes.
Mr Speaker, in international relations and diplomacy, there are state actors and non-state actors. Even as we debate this clause today, we should take for instance, the current development in Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
We can! Like it or not, the revelation of information can affect diplomatic relations between those countries. So the experience is that we want to exempt information if its revelation is communicated in confidence to a public institution.
Mr Speaker, though I support the Hon Chairman, I think we still have to improve this clause. This is because there are international public organisations. When we say public institutions, we are restricting it to Ghanaian institutions.
As the President of Ghana engages at the level of the United Nations (UN), in resolving an electoral dispute maybe in Zimbabwe or another country, he is still engaged in diplomacy. There may be information that he would get which would not come from the State but from a non-state actor. And so fairly, I support his amendment.
But we should look at clause 8 well. This is because I have been perusing the difference between international relations and international diplomacy. The two are
not the same. And I think we have to expand the remit of clause 8 to cover that.
This is because international diplomacy would deal with matters restrictive to negotiations; like the President of Ghana, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo is in Germany, he may engage in some negotiations that strictly, on an understanding with the President of Germany on how they would want it to go.
We do not want that information to be available to those who want to come under the freedom of Right to Information Act. So I do support it, that to leave the State, would be to narrow it as I have said, between Ghana and another country. And so we support it so that we would open it up.
At the level of our dealings in international relations and diplomacy, information given in confidence can always be protected.
Mr Agbodza 12:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the headnote there is “information affecting international relations”. I am asking; if the information provided is from a non-state actor. We are talking about international relations.
And so is it the case that any information provided, of which somebody thinks that this information would jeopardise the relation between that person, which is not the State — [Interruption] That is why I am saying that if the amendment included the State, I would have been happier. But we are now saying that we are removing “state”. Who makes the determination as to what information — ?. [Interruption.]
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:32 p.m.
Hon Member, if you want to change or remove the whole clause, you can file a proposed amendment. But the amendment before us is to remove “of state” so that we would deal with all international organisations. You are not arguing against that and so I would put the question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:32 p.m.
Hon Members, item numbered (iv).
Mr Banda 12:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, subclause (1), add the following new paragraphs:
“to
(a) reveal information communicated in confidence by a public institution to another public institution in another country or another government;
(b) reveal information communicated in confidence by a public institution to an international organisation or a body of that organisation”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:32 p.m.
Hon Members, item numbered (v).
Clause 9 — Information that affects the defence and security of the country.
Mr Banda 12:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 9, head note, delete “defence and”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:32 p.m.
Hon Chairman, there is no “State” in my Bill. It is “…security of the country”. Do you want to amend to “State”? — [Pause]
Mr Banda 12:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is “…security of the country”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:32 p.m.
Hon Members, item numbered (vi).
Mr Banda 12:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 9, subclause (1), opening phrase, line 1, delete “information if its” and insert “from” and after “disclosure” insert “if the disclosure of that information”.
Mr Speaker, this is a consequential amendment. Be it as it may, it would read;
“Information is exempt from disclosure if the disclosure of that information can reasonably be expected…”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:32 p.m.
Very well.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:32 p.m.
Hon Members item numbered (vii).
Mr Banda 12:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 9, subclause (2), line 4, delete “defence and” and in line 5, delete “an”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read;
“Subject to article 135 of the 1992 Constitution, information created by or in the custody of the Ghana Armed Forces or the security and intelligence agencies established under the Security and Intelligence Agencies Act, 1996 (Act 526) which is likely to threaten the security of the state is exempt information.”
Mr Agbodza 12:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to indulge the Hon Chairman to consider — Since he amended the headnote to read, “…security of the country”, would he consider the last line; instead of “state”, just for the sake of consistency, make it, “…security of the country is exempt information” to just correspond with the headnote.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:32 p.m.
Hon Chairman would you consider that?
Mr Banda 12:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not have a problem if we delete “security of the state” and insert “security of the country”.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would not have bothered with, “country” because that is a headnote. But for consistency, we have used, “State” severally in the content.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:42 p.m.
Hon counsel, we have not used anything severally. We have used it on several occasions.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thank you for the correction.
So the Hon Chairman of the Committee should reconsider whether we would want to be consistent with “country” throughout or we would have to maintain “State”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:42 p.m.
Or amend the headnote to “and security of the State” instead of “security of the country”; so the rest would be consistent; which one would be your preference?
Mr Banda 12:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I take a cue from your good self and we would delete, “country” and insert “State” to read “security of the State” in the headnote and that would consequentially follow.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:42 p.m.
Very well.
So, I direct that in consequence of the amendment to the headnote, unless the context otherwise requires “the security of the State” should be used in this clause.
I would put the Question --
Mr Banda 12:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just a little amendment.
I beg to move, clause 9(1) paragraphs (a) and (b) are preceded by “to”. With your permission, we would want to shift the “to” to form part of the preambular sentence in order not to be repeating “to” in each of the paragraphs. So that “to” is shifted upwards to read:
“Information is exempt from disclosure if the disclosure of that information can reasonably be expected to”.
Mr Agbodza 12:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe we have defined “State” --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:42 p.m.
Hon Member, let us complete this amendment and after that I would hear you.
Mr Agbodza 12:42 p.m.
All right.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:42 p.m.
Hon Members, the proposed amendment is to move “to” starting clause 9(a) and (b) to clause 9(1).
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Let me now hear you, Mr Agbodza.
Mr Agbodza 12:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it has been addressed.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:42 p.m.
Very well.
Then I would put the Question on the entire clause 9.
Question put --
Hon Members, I am not hearing the voice vote; should I bring proceedings to a close?
Can I have your attention, Hon Members?
Clause 9 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10 -- Economic and any other interests
Mr Banda 12:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, Clause 10 paragraph (a), at beginning, delete “it” and insert “the information”.
Mr Speaker, the purpose is to do away with the pronoun “it”. So, the new rendition reads:
“Information is exempt from disclosure prior to official publication where the information
Mr Banda 12:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10 paragraph (b), line 2, before “damage” insert “affect the integrity or stability of the financial system or” and also delete “Government” in line 2, and insert “State”.
Mr Speaker, the first leg of the amendment was proposed by the Bank of Ghana. They believe that we need to factor in this proposed amendment in order to take care of certain unforeseen circum- stances.
So, the new rendition reads:
“Information is exempt from dis- closure prior to official publication where the disclosure of the information can reasonably be expected to affect the integrity or stability of the financial system or to damage the financial interest of the State or public institution or the ability of the Government to manage the national economy;”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:42 p.m.
Hon Deputy Majority Leader?
Ms Safo 12:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not seem to get the rendition and I do have a challenge for our colleagues in the financial sector.
When we talk about financial interest and financial system, I believe they are two different issues. When we talk about the financial system, it embodies the whole sector of financial institutions; the money and everything.
Then, when we talk about the financial interest of a government, a government might have certain interests in certain institutions that are financial in nature.
So, I believe that we ought to be careful with the substitution; whether it is capturing the purpose for which initially the exemption is expected to cover. I believe that the insertion of “financial system” against “financial interest” --
Mr Banda 12:42 p.m.
We are doing both; we are not substituting one.
Ms Safo 12:42 p.m.
But I believe that one is consumed in the other. If you are talking about the whole financial system, it is a whole embodiment which I believe encapsulates the financial interest of the Government as well.
I believe the system is broad enough to cover that. But to bring the two words, we ought to know what intent we have at the back of our minds by bringing the two words. I believe system is broader, while financial interest is just a subset of that broader system.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:52 p.m.
Hon Chairman of the Finance Committee, do you want to offer any suggestions?
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, no please. As a matter of fact what she was referring to is not what we do at the Finance Committee. We do not compare financial systems.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:52 p.m.
No. We know your deep knowledge in financial systems and financial interests so would it be appropriate to say it will damage the ‘financial interest' of the State or the ‘financial system'?
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would go for the ‘financial system'.
Mr Governs K. Agbodza 12:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am not a lawyer but ‘economic interest' is what is generally used because finances are just a subset of the economy.
Yes, as far as I am concerned, the economic interest of Ghana is bigger than the financial system. The economy is more than finances and so, could the Hon Chairman consider using ‘economic interest' instead of “financial system” or “interest financial” so that we can avoid whether it is financial system or financial interest?
We should just use economic interest and then avoid using the two interchangeably.
Mr Banda 12:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, to his question, the headnote is “Economic and any other interest”. So ‘financial interest' and ‘financial systems' are subsets of the economic and other interests.
So we are specifically speaking to ‘financial system' and integrity of the State and not necessarily the economic interest. That is the broader heading under clause 10 of the Bill.
Mr Speaker, I will still maintain that we leave ‘‘financial system” on one hand and the “financial interest” of the Government on the other hand because as the Hon
Deputy Majority Leader rightly pointed out, the two are not the same.
The “financial system” is broader and more expansive but the ‘financial interest' is narrow and very limited. So to the extent that the two are not the same, deleting one may cause damage to the provision and, probably, endanger the “financial interest” or “financial system” of the State.
Even though I am not a finance person, I know that the two are not the same and to be on the safer side, I will submit that we leave the two so that in case an issue crops up, that can conveniently be taken care of under the ‘financial system'. If it falls under the ‘financial interest' of the State, that can also be taken care of under the ‘financial interest' of the State.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:52 p.m.
Very well. Hon Member for Adaklu?
Mr Agbodza 12:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman uses “State” and “Government” interchangeably in the same clause as well. Why do we need to use, in one vein, “of the Government” and in another vein, “of the State”?
Mr Speaker, can we just stick to the State and then just ask Mr Speaker, to direct that anywhere we see Government -- This is because the State is bigger than the Government as far as I am concerned. So I do not know why we should be using Government and State in the same sentence.
What is the reason for using “Government” in one vein, and, “State” in another?
Mr Banda 12:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in the second line, we are deleting “Government” and substituting “State” and that is more appropriate but in the third line, we are not touching “Government”.
Mr Banda 12:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10 -- paragraph (e), at beginning, delete “it” and insert “the information” and in line 3, delete “institution; or” and insert “institution and the disclosure of which shall be injurious to national security and economic development; or”
Mr Speaker, the new rendition reads 12:52 p.m.
“The information is exempt from disclosure prior to official publication where the information contains criteria, procedures, positions or instructions that relate to negotiations being carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the Government or public institution and the disclosure of which shall be injurious to national security and economic development”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:52 p.m.
Hon Member, you were referring to national institution and I do not see it anywhere. That is what you are adding after deleting “institution; or”.
“Institution and the disclosure of which shall be injurious to national security and economic develop- ment”
Is that right?
Mr Banda 12:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is right.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:52 p.m.
Very well.
Mr Samuel N. George 12:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to go back to the issue Hon Agbodza just raised.
We need to look at the use of “Government” vis-à-vis the use of “State”. This is because when we even look at clause 10(a) where it talks about:
“it contains trade secrets of financial, commercial, scientific or technical information that belongs to the Government…”
Mr Speaker, any trade secret will not belong to the government, it will belong to the State. Every government will be formed, and it will manage that for the State but not for the Government. So we need to look at the use of government in this particular clause.
Again, in the subclause (e), I propose that when we look at “criteria”, “procedures”, “positions” and “instructions”, I think we should make them singular instead of trying to pluralise them. This is because, the full subclause reads;
‘The information is exempt from disclosure prior to official pu- blication where that information contains criteria, procedure, position or instruction that relate to negotiation being carried out'.
Mr Speaker, this is specific instead of having them in plural. Then again, I would want us to look at the use of “Government” as against “State” because trade secrets do not belong to a Government but to a State.
Mr Banda 1:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with respect to clause 10(a), I will agree with him to the extent that it relates to trade secrets. Trade secrets obviously -- this is because governments will come and go but the trade secrets still remain with the State.
So to that extent, I would agree with him, that “Government” should be substituted with “State”, but with respect to the rest, I believe -- He also mentioned a plural and that is (e) -- Mr Speaker, the singular includes the plural, but in this particular context it would be more elegant to use the plural. It contains criteria, procedures, positions or instructions that relate to negotiations.
Mr Speaker, so that would not cost any damage to the provision and so we should leave it as it is.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:02 p.m.
I believe that my earlier direction on the use of “State” in place of “country” would be extended to the use of “Government”, unless the context otherwise requires; “State” should replace “country” or “Government”.
The other one is singular and, as far as I am concerned, there is not much difference, but that is a decision for the House.
Mr Ahiafor 1:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity.
We all know that we draft in singular and so we would have to stick to the method of drafting and do so in the singular rather than using plural.
In drafting, singular means plural and that is the interpretation that has been given in the Interpretation Act, so we should stick to the normal practice of using singular in drafting.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:02 p.m.
Hon Chairman, do you have any serious objection to singular in place of plural?
Mr Banda 1:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not, except that “criteria” would be “criterion”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Banda 1:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 10, paragraph (f), at the beginning, delete “it” and insert “the information” and after “questions” insert “or methodology”.
Mr Speaker, it would read 1:02 p.m.
“Information is exempt from disclosure prior to official publication where
(f) the information contains questions or methodology to be used in an examination, recruitment or selection process and the release is likely to jeopardize the integrity of that examination, recruitment or selection process.”
Mr Speaker, this is to make the provision very expansive so that if the disclosure of a methodology in an examination leading to a recruitment or selection process would be jeopardised, then that information would be exempted from disclosure. Mr Speaker, this is the reason informing this proposed amendment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:02 p.m.
Very well.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Banda 1:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 11, subclause (1), line 3, delete “information” and insert “from disclosure” and after “disclosure” insert “of that information”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 1:02 p.m.
“Information which would reveal a trade secret, research, scientific, technical, commercial, financial or labour-related information supplied in confidence is exempt from disclosure if the disclosure of that information can reasonably be expected to …”
Mr Speaker, the same reason that was given in the preceding proposed amendment applies here.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:02 p.m.
Very well.
Mr Agbodza 1:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if you listen to the concerns of the public, just as the Hon Member for Ningo-Prampram said, a section of the public is concerned about the level of exemptions that we are giving. I was hoping that the Hon Chairman would be giving some examples of what we are legislating to exempt.
Mr Speaker, but currently, it looks very academic for me when I read what we have done. We should just go through and come up with a rendition. I am thinking about the kind of information we are talking about in terms of security, economics and so on.
Mr Speaker, if the Hon Chairman could give us some examples, then maybe, the listening public would get an information on what we are talking about.
If I read just this, then I wonder the kind of information one could get from a government institution. They would probably just tell you that it is a trade secret or another secret and they would give out nothing.
Mr Speaker, so if the Committee could give an example, it would be very helpful and guide the public to follow us in this process.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:02 p.m.
Hon Member, I think the Hon Chairman had drawn our attention to the fact that whatever we are exempting here is subject to the public interest clause. Everything we have put here as exempt is subject to the public interest clause and that is guided by the African Union (AU) model.
The information is for the public and governments to manage if in the view of the government, giving out that information would jeopardise security and financial interest, they may apply --
But in all those, what should be the capital consideration is what is in the public interest and that has been provided for.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Banda 1:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 11, subclause (1), paragraph (d), line 3, at end, add “to the public institution”.
Mr Speaker, subclause (d) would read 1:02 p.m.
“result in a public institution not being supplied with similar information where it is in the public interest that the similar information be supplied to that public institution.”
Mr Speaker, this would make the sentence complete because as it stands, it appears incomplete -- “information be supplied”.
Mr Speaker, within this context we are referring to a particular public institution which has been mentioned in line 1;
“results in a public institution not being supplied with similar infor- mation where it is in the public interest that the similar information be supplied to that public institution.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:12 p.m.
Hon Members, the proposed amendment is for the consideration of the House.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:12 p.m.
Item numbered 8(xiv). It is a proposed amendment in the name of the Hon Minority Leader.
Yes, Hon Member for Daboya?
Mr Shaibu Mahama 1:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have the authority of the Hon Minority Leader to take this amendment on his behalf.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 11 subclause (2), line 2, delete “information” and insert “from disclosure”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition will read 1:12 p.m.
“Information which has already been made available to the public by the appropriate person, authority or body is not exempt from disclosure under subsection 1.”
Mr Speaker, it gives a better rendition than the current form. So, we delete “information” and insert “from disclosure”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:12 p.m.
Hon Members, order!
Hon Member for Adansi Asokwa, order!
Hon Member for Mampong, kindly resume your seat.
Thank you.
Hon Chairman, do you have any objection to the proposed amendment?
Mr Banda 1:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it flows from the earlier amendment we have effected with respect to shifting our position from exempt information to exempt from disclosure. So, I agree with him.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:12 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member for Akatsi South?
Mr Ahiafor 1:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, before you put the Question on the entire clause 11, with your leave, may we take a look at the use of the phrase “person, a group of persons or an organisation” in clause 11 (1) (a)?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:12 p.m.
Hon Chairman, were you paying attention? It is proposed that the rendition in clause 11(1)(a) could end at “person”, and prejudice the competitive position of a person. This is because a group of persons or an organisation are all persons. That is the proposal.
Mr Banda 1:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we go by international best practice and at times take inspiration from other jurisdictions. Yes, a person, according to the interpretation section can also mean plural, but a group of persons is not necessarily the same as a person.
If we were to use persons but not a group of persons, in that regard, I would agree with them that a person can also mean persons. But to say that a group of persons is the same as a person, I beg to differ.
We are leaving “an organisation” for a purpose. In this particular context, we are trying to distinguish between a natural person and an organisation.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:12 p.m.
Not all organisations are incorporated. So if it is not an incorporated organisation, it cannot be a person. So I do not think the proposed amendment is well placed.
Mr Ahiafor 1:12 p.m.
Then, Mr Speaker, we can leave the “organisation” and take out the “group of persons”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:12 p.m.
Now, Hon K. T. Hammond, let me listen to you.
Mr Hammond 1:12 p.m.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, the Right to Information Bill is a very important Bill among others. So I refer you to Standing Order 48. It states and I beg to quote:
“48.(1) The presence of at least one- third of all the Members of Parliament beside the person presiding shall be necessary to constitute a quorum of the House.
(2) If at any time of Sitting a Member takes notice or objection that there are present in the House, beside the person presiding, less than one-third of the number of all the Members of Parliament, and after an interval of ten minutes a quorum is not present, the person presiding shall adjourn the House without Question put until the next Sitting day”.
Mr Speaker, I thought I should bring your attention to this particular Standing Order considering how significant this Bill is, and that Hon Members should be in the House so that we put our minds together and make sure that we present to the public a well thought through Act which will stand the test of time.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:12 p.m.
Yes, Hon Ranking Member of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, what is your point?
Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 1:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, what he has raised is not known to this House. The Standing Order he has raised does not apply to what we are doing here.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:12 p.m.
Why do you say so? Please speak to your microphone.
Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 1:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, when we started this Sitting, we were more than one-third, and at this present time that we are, we are still more than one- third. So, it does not apply.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:12 p.m.
That is a question of fact that can be determined, but Hon Deputy Majority Leader, what is your pleasure at this time?
Ms Safo 1:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I had the indication from the Hon Chairman of the Committee that we can bring Business to a close, only for the Hon K. T. Hammond to raise Order 48.
Mr Speaker, I think it is just at the appropriate time. We can draw the curtains down for the day.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:12 p.m.
Very well. That brings us to the end of Consideration Stage.
Ms Safo 1:22 p.m.
I believe that we have exhausted Business for today. We have indication from our Hon Colleagues on the Minority Side of a meeting that they ought to attend. So Mr Speaker, at this point, I move, that this House be adjourned to tomorrow at 12 o'clock.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:22 p.m.
Yes, available Leader?
Alhaji I. A.B. Fuseini 1:22 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion, and it is not to say that because the Committee on Legal, Constitutional and Parliamentary Affairs has another meeting. It is because the Motion has been moved by the Hon Leader.
I am not seconding a meeting. I am seconding the Motion for adjournment.
Question put and motion agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT 1:22 p.m.
  • The House was accordingly adjourned at 1.24 p.m. till Thursday, 1st November, 2018 at 10.00 a.m.