Debates of 8 Nov 2018

MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:32 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:32 a.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:32 a.m.
Hon Members, we have the Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, 7th November, 2018 for correction.
Hon Members, any corrections?
Page 1…16
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:32 a.m.
Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:32 a.m.
Hon Members, I did not give any directives, but only picked out a few things that I discerned from the discussion. I suggested that the Leadership meet and discuss the fallout from the debate, in particular, the tertiary institutions moving away from their core mandates.
Hon Members, the Votes and Proceedings of the Sixth Sitting of the Third Parliament, held on Wednesday, 7th November, 2018 is hereby adopted as the true record of proceedings.
ANNOUNCEMENTS 10:32 a.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:32 a.m.
Hon
Members, we would move on to item numbered 3 - Questions.
Hon Members, the first Question, 428 stands in the name of the Hon Kwame Governs Agbodza, the Hon Member for Adaklu, and it is for the Hon Minister for the Interior.
Hon Member, you may ask your Question now.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 10:42 a.m.
MINISTRY OF THE INTERIOR 10:42 a.m.
Mr Agbodza 10:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, to lay the foundation for my supplementary questions, I quote from Reuters, a news outlet on February, 24th, 2018. With your permission, it reads:
“The information received indicates that some members of the FPU (Formed Police Unit) allegedly engaged in transactional sex. This is a clear breach of U.N. and UNMISS Code of Conduct which prohibits sexual relationships with vulnerable individuals, including all beneficiaries of assistance.”
Mr Speaker, I would also draw the attention of the Hon Minister to myjoyonline news item monitored from Citi news on 31st May, 2018. Part of that report suggests that the Director of Police Intelligence and Professional Standard Bureau (PIPS) COP Kofi Boakye of the Ghana Police Service says that:
“The Ghana Police Service (GPS) has completed their investigation and are awaiting U.N. report”.
Mr Speaker, my question to the Hon Minister is that, if the GPS has completed its investigation why would the people of this country not know but wait for the U.N. to publish the outcome of their report?
Mr A. Dery 10:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, what the Hon Member has quoted is a newspaper report. I know that investigations are on- going and they will be dealt with between the Hon Minister for Justice and Attorney-General and the Ministry of the Interior for resultant action to be taken.
These pieces of news that he has are according to their sources and I do not know their sources and so we would not debate that.
Mr Speaker, all that he asked was the circumstances under which appropriated - [Interruption] Therefore, I did state that they were allegations that the U.N. decided to investigate and the GPS is also committed to investigating it. Those investigations are on-going, we are in touch with the Hon Minister for Justice and Attorney-General's Ministry.
What he should know is that, it is work in progress, until it is completed and specific action is taken at which stage we will make this available to the citizens of Ghana.
Mr Speaker, I would want to assure the Hon Member that the U.N itself is aware of what we are doing and there is another question by Hon Ablakwa, where he does ask the measures we are taking. I will allude to those measures when I get there but I can assure him that we are taking this seriously and respecting all the rules as well and the human rights of all concerned.
Mr Agbodza 10:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, may I ask the Hon Minister to tell us if the 46 personnel are currently serving in the GPS?
Mr A. Dery 10:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, these are allegations. The 46 personnel returned to Ghana on administrative grounds and remain members and personnel of the GPS until their individual status has been determined.
The report will tell you that the allegations were not against all the 46; there were a number of them, but they remain allegations. The investigations will
tell us who are responsible and if we find any people culpable, they will go through due process and appropriate sanctions taken; but for now, they remain personnel with the GPS.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:42 a.m.
Your last point.
Mr Agbodza 10:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, allegations of sexual misconduct are serious in every organisation. In line with these allegations, is the GPS taking any step to ensure that the training for our personnel that go on these missions are improved just in case there is a gap in terms of their training?
Mr A. Dery 10:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, let me assure the Hon Member that the GPS is very committed to ensuring that its personnel are disciplined and do not bring the reputation of the Service into disrepute. The police personnel have lived up to expectation and indeed, their performance out there has been very credible.
However, these are allegations that we are dealing with and I can assure you that we are reinforcing. Since then, I have had engagements with the GPS and I have reiterated the commitment of the GPS and the Government in consonance with the Ghanaian standards that they do hold Ghana's flag high outside its borders.
The soldiers have set the Ghanaian flag high out there and there are some prison and immigration officers who are out there, and just like other Ghanaians who find themselves in international operations, they have kept the standards high.
Mr Speaker, we are insisting that it happens and it is going to be stated throughout the system; training and otherwise. Thank you.

Member for Builsa North?
Mr James Agalga (NDC -- Builsa North) 10:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have apprised myself of the rules of the U.N pertaining to the conduct of investigations on misconduct such as the allegations of sexual misconduct against our contingent.
I would want to find out from the Hon Minister whose response indicates that the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), the UN independent body was commissioned to investigate the allegations.
Mr Speaker, having apprised myself of the rules of the U.N contained in Resolution 61/267,2007, the UN, in carrying out investigations, ought to include members of the troop-contributing country.
My question is, did the UN comply with that rule by extending a hand of invitation to Ghana to send an investigator to join in the conduct of their own investigations, independent from what we subsequently did?
Mr A. Dery 10:52 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would not say that I am not apprised of the specific issue of inclusion, but what I do know is that the UN has engaged us and we are on the same level. Mr Speaker, I would want to inform you that as at 9th October, 2018, a 140-man contingent of the Ghana Police Service has gone to South Sudan.
So we are engaging on equal grounds and collaboratively. Out of that number there are 104 Formed Police Unit and 36 are individual police officers.
I would want to say that there is confidence on both sides; we are transparent and we are doing the things
that ought to be done. Therefore, although I do not have information about who exactly is in that position, I could assure you that there is mutual respect and that is what has culminated in how things are going on and we expect another contingent to go.
Mr Speaker, but as I said, I would need to get information on the specific Question. I believe that all he wanted to know was if the UN gave us the respect or accordance of our right to participate.
I am saying that the UN had not only engaged us but the engagement has even gone to New York. What remains on the ground is positive and they know that we are doing what we are supposed to do and they still have confidence in the Ghanaian Police Service to allow them to continue to operate.
Mr Speaker, that is all I could say for now.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:52 a.m.
Hon Member for Tarkwa-Nsuaem?
Mr George Mireku Duker 10:52 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister rightly said that he has instituted investigation into the matter. I would want to know how soon would the report be ready -- from the 11th of March, 2018, as it is indicated in his Answer?
Mr A. Dery 10:52 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not have information as to when it would be ready or when investigation would end. Certainly, what is involved is that we are dealing with rights of people and we have to give them their statements and so on.
Mr Speaker, I would not be giving any information until the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice has looked at it. So, I would not be able to give a specific time, but what I am saying is that we are taking
it very seriously and even to the extent - - I am forced to give part of the Answer that I would give to Hon Ablakwa -- that we have actually gone beyond simply looking at the investigations to looking at the regulations of the Ghana Police Service, and we are working on an amendment to specifically provide for the sexual offences.
Mr Speaker, all I could assure you is that we are doing that very soon but I do not have a specific date.
Mr Emmanuel Kwasi Bedzrah 10:52 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I just want the Hon Minister to confirm whether the act by our Police has not affected the country internationally?
Mr A. Dery 10:52 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I want to tell the Hon Member for Parliament that it remains as allegations that we have taken very seriously, and just as I said, on the 9th of October, 2018, 140 police officers went to South Sudan.
So we could say that while waiting for the outcome, they are convinced that we would do what must be done against those who are found culpable.
Therefore they have confidence in the system to continue to deal with us. But for now, they remain as allegations that we have taken seriously and going through due process.
Ms Laadi Ayii Ayamba 10:52 a.m.
Mr Speaker, from the response of the Hon Minister, I would want to find out whether all the 46 police officers were residents in the same town or area in South Sudan when the incident or allegations came up and has the Ministry ensured that all the accused are at post while the investigations are ongoing?
Mr A. Dery 10:52 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the 46 police officers were deployed within the same area and investigations are ongoing, but there are rules as to how investigations are to proceed.
People are interdicted when investigations start but there are time limits within which that must be done. Beyond that we have to obey the rules and make sure that the rights of people are not unduly abused or breached.
Therefore, I could assure you that they remain police officers and we insist that the investigations should be conducted in a manner that would not breach their human rights.
Mr Speaker, that is the situation as far as the Ministry is concerned.
Alhaji Mohammed-Mubarak Muntaka 10:52 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am concerned about an answer to a question by the Hon Minister when he said that he cannot give specific times. This incident happened in February and we are in November; about nine months have passed and the Hon Minister could still not give this House a specific time? Mr Speaker, it means that we are just talking.
Mr Speaker, yes, the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice would have to advise, but we would still want the Hon Minister to tell us when he hopes to finish because he cannot take to investivate this forever.
Mr Speaker, nine months have passed and so when does he hope that the investigations would end so that this House would, at least, be abreast of the necessary steps to be taken?
Mr A. Dery 10:52 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I hope it would be before the end of the month.
That is my hope.

Members, we would move to question numbered 429 standing in the name of the Hon Member for Builsa North, Hon James Agalga.

Implementation of the Arms Trade Treaty ratified by Parliament in 2015

429. Mr James Agalga asked the Minister for the Interior whether there were plans to implement the Arms Trade Treaty which was acceded to and ratified by Parliament in 2015.
Mr A. Dery 10:52 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Arms Trade Treaty which was acceded to and ratified by Parliament in 2015 came into force for Ghana after the 22nd of March,
2016.
The implementation of the treaty requires Ghana to put in place certain measures which includes, designation of a Competent National Authority, a National Focal Point, a National Control List, strategies to prevent and address the diversion of conventional arms to unauthorised end-users, among others.
Mr Speaker, further to this, under articles 11 and 75 of the 1992 Constitution, the provisions of Arms Trade Treaty have to be domesticated. Specifically, Ghana would have to adopt a legislation, develop rules and administrative measures for implementation. Although there are some laws on arms and ammunitions, we need to review our legislation to the UN standard.
Mr Speaker, I wish to inform this august House that steps to implement the Treaty are underway. The Ministry is working on a Cabinet Memo on the matter for submission to Cabinet for approval.
Mr Agalga 10:52 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon Minister whether he would consider to bring a Bill under a certificate of urgency for us to domesticate the terms
of the Treaty, given the fact that so far we have not been able to meet the stipulated deadlines for reporting to the Secretariat of the Arms Trade Treaty for progress made so far in respect of the implementation process?
Mr A. Dery 11:02 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Ministry is taking steps, and if we find it necessary, we would come up with that. But for now, I am not pre-empting the processes because there are consultations ongoing. Therefore, I would not want to impose a particular moment.
Mr Speaker, the former Deputy Minister knows that there are a lot of treaties that have come into force many years ago. These are very important, and we are going to make sure we deal with it.
There are many Bills we are working on right now. You know from practice that we all go through the same institution to deal with it. I assure you we would deal with it seriously and quickly as we can.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:02 a.m.
Yes?
Mr Agalga Mr Speaker, my last question to my Hon Senior at the Bar, the Minister for the Interior is whether he will consider making the Small Arms Commission one of the agencies under his control, the National Focal Point for coordinating the implementation pro- cesses since we still do not have an institution set up which is required to be established under the Treaty for the purposes of its implementation?
Mr A. Dery 11:02 a.m.
Mr Speaker, as a focal point which is necessary, we are working with the Small Arms Commission. They are doing a good job.
Yesterday, the Hon Deputy Minister for the Interior was with them to destroy arms and what have you.
We would deal with the matter. We do not think that hey are outside the shortlist we are considering although one thing has been made clear.
And the principle has to be clear, that in the face of the proliferation of arms within our sub-region, we are going to deal with it, determine the focal point, but ensure that government has the ultimate responsibility because the ultimate responsibility of keeping peace is the Government's.
I believe the former Hon Deputy Minister with his experience from the Ministry would be welcomed to make input and as a member of the Defence and Interior Committee, we would consult him in arriving at these conclusions.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:02 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member for Nsawam-Adoagyiri?
Mr Frank Annoh-Dompreh 11:02 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am grateful.
Let me refer the Hon Minister to his Answer. He said the treaty was ratified by Parliament in 2015 and it came into force in March, 2016. Then the Hon Minister goes ahead to talk about conditions inherent, which are needed to be fulfilled.
He mentioned among others, if you would permit me, I would read with your consent:
“ … a Competent National Authority, A National Focal Point, a national Control List et cetera.”
I am curious to know; what did the Hon Minister inherit from his predecessor in
terms of relative attempts at ensuring that these conditions were fulfilled?
Mr A. Dery 11:02 a.m.
Mr Speaker, what I recall is the ratification and its coming into force, and of course, they left behind the Commission for us to continue to work with. That is what I know.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:02 a.m.
Very well. I would move on to Question numbered 445 standing in the name of the Hon Member for Builsa South - Hon (Dr) Clement Apaak.
Postage of District Police Commander to Builsa South Divisional Police
Headquarters
445. Dr Clement A. Apaak asked the Minister for the Interior when a District Police Commander would be posted to Bulisa South to head the Bulisa South Divisional Police Headquarters and what was being done to improve law and order in Bulisa South.
Mr A. Dery 11:02 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Bulisa South District has only one Police Station located at Fumbisi which is the District Capital. Apart from the Police Station, there is no office accommodation at any of the communities with the Bulisa South District ostensibly for the Police to use as a Police District or Divisional Headquarters.
Mr Speaker, security in general within the Bulisa South District is calm apart from petty crimes such as the stealing of livestock. No robbery has been recorded in the District this year. I think I should congratulate the Member of Parliament (MP) for that.
Mr Speaker, the Police Service will consider deploying a District Commander to the Bulisa South District when adequate facilities are available for the Police to use as a Police District Headquaters.

the written response and the verbalisation of same by the Hon Minister, I found one or two issues rather interesting. On the basis of that, I would want to ask the Hon Minister whether he considers the stealing of 10, 15 or 20 cows as petty crime.
Mr A. Dery 11:02 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am not aware of those numbers that the Hon Member of Parliament is talking about.
However, what I wanted to say was that, talking relatively -- [Interruption] You realised that I talked about crimes and I talked about armed robbery. That is the context in which this was done. Even the stealing of a fowl is a very serious matter. I did not mean to say that.
But what I just said was that, if you talk about the Builsa South District, its challenges are relatively less in terms of security challenges than others. Talking about 10 cows is a huge issue. I did not mean that at all.
Dr Apaak 11:02 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister sought to compliment me on the basis of his Answer, part of which indicates that no robbery has been recorded in the Builsa South District this year.
Unfortunately, I do not qualify for this compliment because the information that has been made available to the Hon Minister is rather inaccurate.
In this year alone, the Builsa South District has recorded three instances of robbery. As the Member of Parliament, I have had the unpleasant representation of having to deal with victims of these attacks.
On this basis, would the Hon Minister assure this House that he would put in place the right measures to improve law and order, given that Builsa South has only 15 police personnel?
Mr A. Dery 11:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the records I have at my Ministry do not include what he is talking about. Therefore, I would not respond directly to that. My records show that it is not the case.
I expect the Hon Member of Parliament, who knows he has access to me all the time, to be able to bring these issues out and I would deal with them.
What I can assure him of, however, is the commitment to make sure that there is peace and security in his district as well as all other districts we are committed to.
What I need to also tell him is that, we would need cooperation and colla- boration. We at the Ministry are working to ensure that we expand these facilities within the country. We are getting equipment, vehicles but we also need some collaboration.

I am getting invitations from various Hon Members of Parliament to come and commission them. I would encourage the Hon Member of Parliament for Builsa South to collaborate with us and see how we can set up those facilities and make sure that we get personnel there adequately equipped to deal with the situation if there is any.

For now, I would like him to give me a specific note on that so I would be able to verify and validate the information that he has.

We should be cautious of what we call “armed robbery”. Those things are left to the technical people to deal with. I do not know what is involved, but I would be happy if he gives a detailed narration.

That would help me to validate it with the Police, and I can assure you that if the records we have are not right, I would acknowledge it and revert to him so that we work together to deal with it. But for now, the safety of Builsa South is paramount to the Ministry.
Mr James Agalga 11:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would like to find out from the Hon Minister whether he would consider deploying two of the brand new Toyota Hilux pick-ups he recently took delivery of for the Builsa North and South Districts, because mobility of Police personnel in the two areas is seriously nothing to write home about; the two vehicles at their disposal have broken down?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:12 a.m.
Hon Member, ask your own Question.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 11:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister has told the House of his general plans in ensuring that law and order in Builsa South is improved.
What specifically does he intend to put in place to ensure that political actors are involved in ensuring the success of this plan?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:12 a.m.
I do not think I understood the question. Which political actors are you referring to?
Mr Afenyo-Markin 11:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would make it specific.
The Hon Member of Parliament wanted to know what is being done to improve
law and order in Builsa South, and I am quoting from the Question.
The Hon Minister gave a general position on that. What I am trying to ask the Hon Minister is, what specific steps is he putting in place to ensure that the Hon Member of Parliament for that constituency gets on board, especially when it comes to partisan activities that would threaten law and order?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:12 a.m.
Hon Member, I cannot see how that is related. There is no evidence that partisan activities are threatening law and order.
The Report says that some cattle have been stolen, and the Hon Minister would deal with it.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:12 a.m.
Hon Member, are you close to Builsa North and South?
Mr S. D. Alhassan 11:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, a bit close.
Mr Speaker, is the Hon Minister aware that there are some districts in Ghana that have no police stations? And is there a national plan to ensure that all these districts are protected?
Is the Hon Minister also aware that the matter of national security is so important that we should not rely on individuals?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:12 a.m.
Hon Member, please file your own Question. If you are not related to Builsa South please file your own Question.
Hon Minister, the Question mentions a division and a district. Do they have a district and a divisional headquarters? This is because your Answer only talked about the district officer.
Mr A. Dery 11:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, what we are stating is that there is neither of the two; it is just a station, but we are saying that depending on the facilities that we get -- [Interruption] One would realise that within certain areas one could even talk about a divisional headquarters that might overlap some of those areas, but we are just talking about facilities and the possibilities that we can get.
So if we get more elaborate facilities, we would not mind raising that area to that level, because Fumbisi has great potential economically, and right now there is a plan to get a road through. It is a basket where we have a lot of commercial rice farmers and others, but right now, all we have is a police station, neither a district nor a divisional headquarters.
All these options are open to us and that shows the extent to which we want to go with Builsa South collaborating with all stakeholders.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:12 a.m.
Hon Minister, it is a district now. It is a district headquarters and not one of the administrative structures that must be in the district, and who is responsible for providing the facilities for which you would bring the personnel?
Mr A. Dery 11:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is collective. The Assemblies play a role in it, Members of Parliament apply their funding both public and private to it, and individuals build as well.
Mr Speaker, we want to provide facilities in all the districts, but it is not possible to provide all at once. That is why we need the collaborative efforts. But certainly, he has brought his up, and I would see how specifically we could deal with that.
Mr Speaker, as I said, there are many good examples. You established what can even be a regional headquarters in your area, and I am recommending that example to other Hon Members of Parliament.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:12 a.m.
Very well, we would move to the last question, Question 463, which stands in the name of the Hon Member for North Tongu, Mr Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa.
Statement from United Nations Mission in South Sudan
463. Mr Samuel Okudzeto Ablakvva asked the Minister for the Interior whether a statement from the United Nations Mission in South Sudan, dated February 24, 2018, alleging that UN Peacekeepers from Ghana and part of a Formed Police Unit had engaged in sexual exploitation had come to the Ministry's attention and if so, what responsive measures were being taken by the Ministry.
Mr A. Dery 11:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the statement from the United Nations Mission in South Sudan on the alleged misconduct involving UN Peacekeepers from Ghana and part of the Formed Police Unit has come to the attention of the Ministry. The matter is currently being investigated and in due time the outcome would be made available.
In line with the Ghana Police Service's commitment in fighting Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, related cases in the field mission, a three-member team of investigators was dispatched to South
Sudan on 11th March, 2018 to also investigate the matter.
Mr Speaker, again, in line with the UN Zero adherence policy on light Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, the detachment of 46 personnel was repatriated on administrative grounds to Ghana on 30th May, 2018.
Meanwhile, urgent steps are being taken by the Ministry and the Office of the Attorney-General to amend the Ghana Police Service Regulations 2012 (Cl76) to include Sexual Exploitation and Abuse which was not explicitly captured under the current Regulations.
11. 22 a. m.
Mr Ablakwa 11:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am most grateful.
I thank the Hon Minister.
There appears to be the need for some reconciliation. I have here a report posted on myjoyonline on 31st May, 2018, an interview with the Director of Police Intelligence and Professional Stands (PIPS) Bureau, COP Kofi Boakye, who said emphatically that the investigations have been completed. But in the first paragraph of the Hon Minister's response to this House today, he said, and with your permission I quote:
“the matter is currently being investigated and in due time, the outcome would be made available”.
I am in a quandary. Was this an error or what exactly happened?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:12 a.m.
Hon Member, do you want to bring the PIPS Director here to answer your question?
Mr Ablakwa 11:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the PIPS Director says investigations have been completed; the Hon Minister says it is still ongoing. Could the Hon Minister reconcile this development? We need to know exactly what the position is.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:12 a.m.
Yes, Hon Minister, are the investigations completed or not?
Mr A. Dery 11:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe I did make it clear that a team was sent from Ghana to go and start investigations there. It was not set up by PIPS. First, the investigation was to deal with the issues generally. I am not responsible for what PIPS has said.
All I have said was, I was forced to give a date, I am saying that it is a continuum for me; we undertake the investigations, we might get some petitions from people who are being investigated. That would not be known to Kofi Boakye.
Some people would write to us at the Ministry to raise issues that in these investigations, their rights, “A” and “B” and B have been breached. All those things need to be tied together, sent to the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, and as I said in my earlier Answer, upon the advice of the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, I would release the report.
Now, I do not know what he is talking about and certainly, I am not responsible for what is — I am answering the Question from the Ministry's point of view. Of course, he would believe that I have a more authentic position than he does. I do not know whom he was investigating; it may be one individual or the other.
Some people could come to me and say, “in this investigation, I have been put on interdiction, it is supposed to be for this

period and not that period”. That issue would not be is not known to Kofi Boakye. In that situation, the investigations are not yet completed to the extent that we have not finalised it with a report of the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice for me to deal with it.

Mr Speaker, I would not be taking on what some other officers say. If there is a contradiction between statements that I had made earlier and now, I would be responsible for the resolution, but it is indeed on est factum. That is not my statement.

Thank you.
Mr Ablakwa 11:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am most grateful. We would certainly defer to the Hon Minister.
The second supplementary question that I have has to do with the rights of the interdicted police personnel. I had done my checks as of yesterday, and I was told that we were in breach of the regulations; they have been interdicted beyond six months and they are still on interdiction.
As of yesterday when I did my checks
-- 11:12 a.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:12 a.m.
Hon Member, your follow-up questions must relate to the Question you ask.
Mr Ablakwa 11:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is related.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:12 a.m.
How is it related? You have not even introduced interdiction at all.
Mr Ablakwa 11:12 a.m.
No, it is part of the investigative process. They were interdicted for—
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:12 a.m.
Kindly ask him if officers have been interdicted as a result of the investigation before you could build up on that.
Mr Ablakwa 11:12 a.m.
He said that in an earlier Question by Hon Agbodza which is related.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:12 a.m.
Hon Member, if I were relating to the other, I would have disallowed this question because it is practically the same.
Mr Ablakwaa 11:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I defer to you and I am guided accordingly.
Have the officers been interdicted and are they still on interdiction?
Mr A. Dery 11:12 a.m.
I said the investigation is ongoing. I would answer a specific question that is asked and a specific answer given, but for now, I would not make the details of the investigation public.
That is what I indicated earlier and his question supports my position that when the investigation is completed, I would make it available. It is not completed. If there is anything within the investigations that he wants to ask, he should specifically ask and I shall provide the answer.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:12 a.m.
Hon Minister, were the officers interdicted?
Mr Dery 11:12 a.m.
Yes, officers are interdicted as a matter of practice when the investigation is going on.
Mr Ablakwa 11:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, my last supplementary question; the Hon Minister knows what I know.
Mr Speaker, I would move on and commend the Hon Minister for the last paragraph, which is the urgent steps being taken to amend the Ghana Police Service
Regulation 2012, CI76. Very proactive measure for which we need to commend the Hon Minister for the Interior.
Mr Speaker, except that the Hon Minister for the Interior does not give us any timeline. Is the Hon Minister able to let us know when in his estimation, we could achieve this very important step that he is taking?
Timelines, Mr Speaker.
Mr A. Dery 11:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, this proposed amendment has gone through the Police Council; it has to go to Cabinet and we are pursuing. We would bring it here as soon as we could.
Mr Speaker, I would want to assure the Hon Member that if he has any other issues of the investigations, he could come and we would deal with them.
Dr Robert Baba Kuganaba-Lem 11:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, would the Hon Minister also consider that in the training of the police officers, there is a clear understanding of what is sexual exploitation and abuse, and also exploitation and abuse of other vulnerable groups?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:12 a.m.
Hon Minister, you have said that you are introducing a new offence into the regulations. So, would you consider introducing into the training of the police officers what constitutes sexual abuse and exploitation?
Mr A. Dery 11:12 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The police regulations regulate the police personnel generally, and when it talks about “the police shall not engage in any act that brings the Police Service into disrepute”, all these actions are included, but we want to be more specific about it. So, we are amending to expressly provide for that.
Yes, it is already ongoing and it would be emphasised the more. It is already part of the training and it would be emphasised.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:12 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member for Manhyia North?
Mr Collins Owusu Amankwah 11:12 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I would like to find out from the Hon Minister, and without prejudicing the outcome of the investigations, whether there has been a formal communication between the Government of Ghana and the United Nations (UN)?
Mr A. Dery 11:32 a.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, there has been, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration has gone to the UN and I believe, as I said earlier, things are on course and we are together collaborating to make sure that we bring whoever is culpable to book and we allow those we set free to continue to operate.
However, in all cases, we are committed to making sure that Ghana's image outside is maintained and enhanced.
Mr Chireh 11:32 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister talked about amending the Police Service Regulations. I hope he is aware that if the provisions have not been made in the main Act, it would be difficult to amend the Regulations specified under some general rule.
Mr A. Dery 11:32 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we are taking steps to make sure that we provide for that and I am sure when it gets to the technical aspect, we would deal with it. I am sure Hon Yieleh Chireh would play a part in that when it comes to Parliament.
Mr A. Dery 11:32 a.m.


us to the end of Questions. Thank you, Hon Minister for attending upon the House to answer Questions asked by Hon Members.

You are hereby discharged.

Hon Majority Chief Whip, what next?
Mr Ameyaw-Cheremeh 11:32 a.m.
Mr Speaker,
we may move to Public Business. Item numbered 7, the Right to Information Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:32 a.m.
Very well.
Item numbered 7, the Right to Information Bill, 2018 at the Consideration Stage.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION STAGE 11:32 a.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:32 a.m.
Hon
Chairman, are we ready to do clause 13?
Chairman of the Committee (Mr Ben Abdallah Banda) 11:32 a.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:32 a.m.
Very well. Item numbered 7 (i), clause 13.
Clause 13 -- Information of public institutions
Mr Banda 11:32 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 13 subclause (1), delete and insert the following:
“ (1) Information is exempt from disclosure where the disclosure of the information will reveal --
(a) an opinion or advice given.
(b) a recommendation, consul- tation or deliberation made to
the public institution and is likely to undermine the deliberative process in that public institution.”
Mr Speaker, the reason is to make clause 13(1) subject to the harm test. It would be realised that it is not only an opinion, advice, recommendation or consultation made to the public institution, but if it is likely to undermine the deliberative process in that public institution, that information is proposed to be exempted. That is what is referred to as the deliberative process privilege.
Where deliberation is going on, people should be free to proffer honest and frank advice so that at the end of the day, whatever is intended to be achieved could be properly achieved. It is on this basis that this amendment has been proposed.
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 11:32 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have a difficulty in supporting the Hon Chairman's amendment. My difficulty lies in the fact that right to information - We have ourselves argued that we are giving meaning to article 18 of the Constitution.
If we want to keep making exemptions such as opinion or advice -- Let us take a housing project for instance. Somebody gives an opinion or advice which leads to a bad decision and the public wants to know what informed that particular decision.
Are we saying that should be exempt? If we used the words “deliberative process”, and added “pending a decision” -- maybe on that matter, we are awaiting a decision -- maybe that would be an improvement. However, just “deliberative process”.
Mr Speaker, my worry with this amendment is that we are still watering down the potency of the right to information. I would appreciate it if the Hon Chairman would just share with me the best practice.
Where in the world has he seen this provision in a Right to Information Act or Freedom of Information Act? He should give us one jurisdiction and then we would be guided.
Mr Banda 11:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, before I do that, this provision is not new. We would recall that under the exemption clause relating to the President, which is under clause 5, there is a similar provision.
Be that as it may, I would like to quote section 35 of the Freedom of Information Act, 2000 of the United Kingdom.
“35(1) Information held by a government department or by the government National Assembly for Wales is exempt information if it relates to --
(a) the formulation or development of government policy,
(b) Ministerial communications,
(c) the provision of advice by any of the Law Officers or any request for the provision of such advice, or
(d) the operation of any Ministerial private office.
(3) The provision of advice by any of the law officers or any request for the provision of such advice.”
Mr Speaker, the provision of advice, ministerial communications and anything relating to the formulation or development of government policy — All these pieces of information relating to what I have just mentioned are exempt.
Not only that; unfortunately, I could not bring the Right to Information Law of Kenya. It is well stipulated in there and it can also be found in other jurisdictions. This is not new. This is a standard — I believe he has yielded now.
Mr Bernard Ahiafo 11:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity. With all due respect, I would want to disagree with the position of my Hon Chairman, and rather support — [Interruption.]
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:42 a.m.
He has dropped his opposition.
So we can take the Motion now —
Mr George 11:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, even though the Hon Leader has yielded or dropped his opposition, I think that we should add a slight amendment to the amendment proposed. I would want to do a further amendment.
This is because if we look at (a), it ends at “an opinion or advice given” and (b) talks about the recommendation, consultation or deliberation still in the deliberative process.
Mr Speaker, leaving (a) at just “an opinion or advice given” appears to be a conclusive matter that has already communicated that which is not in the deliberative process. So I think that we should amend (a) to state: “an opinion or advice given that is pending either

presidential or cabinet approval”. It still means that it is an opinion or advice in transit or institutional approval.

What this means is that if an opinion is given and it is not yet acted upon by Cabinet, the institution or the President, it is left open; but an advice is open to rejection by the President or by Cabinet. I believe that we should expand (a) — we should add “or” or something to include the deliberative process to make it all- inclusive.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:42 a.m.
Hon Chairman, we can also break the (b) down to read:
(a) “an opinion or advice given”
(b) a recommendation, consultation or deliberation… made to the public institution is likely to undermine…”
This is because it appears to be that the (a) and (b) are talking about giving advice or deliberation to a public institution. So if you removed from, “made to the public institution…” further down, then the (a) and (b) would stand out and it would show that they are being made to the public institution.
Mr Banda 11:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, that is fantastic. So it would cover (a) and (b). — [Pause]
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:42 a.m.
Very well.
Hon Chairman, I think the understanding is clear. If the draftspersons are here, then we could just take the vote and they would do the appropriate drafting.
Mr George 11:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I want to find out if you are moving the amendment?
This is because the amendment has not been moved by the Hon Chairman.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:42 a.m.
The Hon Chairman has actually moved —
Mr Banda 11:42 a.m.
It has been accepted.
Mr Speaker, as you rightly pointed out, we would end at “made” in paragraph (b) and then beginning from (2) up to “institution” downwards so that it would cover (a) and (b).
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:42 a.m.
Hon Members we can now put the Question on the entire clause 13 unless there are further amendments.
Mr Banda 11:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, just a little consequential amendment under clause 13 subclause (2) paragraph (b).
Mr Speaker, I beg to move that in clause 13, subclause (2), paragraph (b), line 1, after “exempt”, insert “from disclosure”. This is a consequential amendment.
The new rendition would read:
“contains only factual or statistical data is not exempt from disclosure.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Ansah — rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:42 a.m.
Hon Member, I have not pronounced — unless there is a proposed amendment on clause
13.
Mr Opare-Ansah 11:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I just want to draw the attention of the Hon Chairman to the fact that under clause 84
— Interpretation, exempt information has been defined.
Clause 13 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:42 a.m.
Hon Members clause 17.
Mr Iddrisu 11:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the amendment in clause 17 stands in my name — Clause 17(1) — Opening phrase. I have been learning from ancient and modern drafters who are seated behind me — [Laughter] — Hon Yieleh Chireh, Hon Bernard Ahiafo and the Hon Chairman.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:42 a.m.
Hon Minority Leader we will get there. There is item numbered (ii) — There is a proposal that the entire clause 17 be deleted. We have to deal with that before we come to any amendment to it.
Hon Members, the proposer is not in the House. What do you suggest? I was actually going to say we discuss and take a vote on it.
Mr Yieleh Chireh 11:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we debated this exhaustively yesterday and the trend went against the proposer so he took a quorum in support — [Laughter.]
Let us be guided about it, whether we should reopen this in his absence or take the vote so that he — We have given him all the opportunity so that he could come back at the Second Consideration Stage if he wants to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:42 a.m.
Well, I am going by what is before me; “debate to continue”. I will hear any more contributions before I put the Question.
Dr Dominic Akuritinga Ayine 11:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I wanted to draw your attention
to the fact that has been pointed out by Hon Yieleh Chireh.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:42 a.m.
Very well.
Anybody in favour of the proposal that clause 17 be deleted?
Question put and amendment negative.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:42 a.m.
Hon Members item numbered (iii).
Mr Iddrisu 11:52 a.m.
Mr Speaker, this looks more like a trial in absentia of the amendment of Hon K. T. Hammond.
Mr Speaker, with clause 17(iii), I would want to withdraw the amendment but on condition that the language would change. When you say “the modern drafters”, which includes the Hon Chairman, want “Despite a provision”. It cannot be “Despite a provision”. It has to be “Despite the provisions of this Act”. So, that would be my new amendment and then the original rendition can stay.
I thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 11:52 a.m.
Hon Members, the proposal is to amend it by deleting “a” and inserting “the”.
Hon Member for Daboya?
Mr Shaibu Mahama 11:52 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity.
Mr Speaker, I support the Hon Haruna Iddrisu's proposal 11:52 a.m.
“Despite the provisions of this Act”. I believe this new rendition sounds very elegant and should be adopted.
Mr Opare-Ansah 11:52 a.m.
Mr Speaker, there
are several provisions in this Bill, and subsequently they will be in the Act. On exempt information, the caveat there is “Despite a provision”; so any of the provisions concerning exemption -- despite any of them.
So it is not “Despite the provision” as if there is a single and a particular provision on exemption; there are several provisions that we discussed and approved here. So “Despite a provision” -- If there were a specific and a single one, then we could say “the provision”.
Mr Richard Mawuli Quashigah 11:52 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe in this context, the Hon Minority Leader's position is most suitable. We are looking at consistency and also the article “a” which is indefinite. And we are saying that “Despite the provision” is a definite article and can be in reference to any aspect of this Act.
So honestly, it should be the definite article “the” and not the indefinite article “a”, which is only making reference to a number. But if we say “the”, which is definite, it would refer conclusively to any of the provisions in this Act. I believe we should rather go by the proposition of the Hon inority Leader.
Some Hon Members — rose --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:52 a.m.
I listened to a non-lawyer, now let me listen to a lawyer and then I would come to you, Mr Samuel George.
Mr Rockson-Nelson E. K. Dafea- mekpor 11:52 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe the mischief can be cured by the use of “any” and not “a” or “the”. Indeed, ‘any' would mean that wherever that provision is located within the law -- [Interruption]-- exactly.
So my further proposition to the Hon Minority Leader's amendment is that we delete the definite article “the” and insert “any” and that cures the mischief.
Mr Ras Mubarak 11:52 a.m.
Mr Speaker, exactly my point.
Mr Speaker, to re-echo what the Hon Dafeamekpor has said, using “any” to replace the articles “the” or “a” would make it a lot sexier or finer in terms of -- [Interruption]. I withdraw the word “sexier”. It will make it finer in terms of the language. [Laughter.]
Mr Speaker, I am grateful.
Mr Opare-Ansah 11:52 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I will buy a bicycle soon -- [Laughter]-- so that I can ride from my house in Madina to Parliament House, so that when I see words like this -- I will feel the sexiness of them.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:52 a.m.
Truly, I did not hear the word you referred to.
Mr Opare-Ansah 11:52 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I said that I would buy a bicycle soon and start riding from my house in Madina to Parliament House, so that when I see such words, I would begin to appreciate the sexiness of them. [Laughter.]
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:52 a.m.
You must grow a thicker skull. [Laughter.]
Hon Samuel George, do you still want to contribute to this one?
Mr George 11:52 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I may not seek to be sexier; I may just seek to be functional. In being functional; I support the position that the framing of that is looking at exempt information which falls between clauses 5 and 16 of the Bill.
So, instead of using “a” which is indefinite article and we seeking to use “the”, which is a definite article -- If we use “the”, then it means we need to make the provisions plural.
Some Hon Members 11:52 a.m.
It has been done.
Mr George 11:52 a.m.
So is that the sexy position? [Laughter.] Then my functionality is sexier. [Laughter.]
Mr Speaker, I thank you.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:52 a.m.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, they are proposing to change your “a” to “any”; frankly, does it make any difference? I would wish Hon members to tell me if it makes any difference? “Despite a provision” and “Despite any provision”, would it make any difference?
Hon Member for Wa West?
Mr Chireh 11:52 a.m.
Mr Speaker, this is not something that we should debate. It is a drafting style. Some of our laws have “any” but the modern draftspersons and those who are reading Cavendish Law are the ones arguing this.
This is because what we are saying is that if we say “a provision”, it means any provision there. But because there are so many provisions, that is why the Hon Minority Leader is saying if you introduce “the” -- which sounds good to him -- then you make it plural -- provisions -- which means that it covers any provisions; all provisions.
Mr Speaker, the argument that you cannot draft in the plural and so you should always draft in the singular is also important. But I think that once we all agree, it should be “any”. In fact, “any” is what was used in the past. But now, when you want to say anything, you say “a” which means the same thing. So really, there is no substantial difference in what is being said.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:52 a.m.
Frankly, I do not see whether any amendment here would change because they would come to the same thing.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, what is your position?
Mr Banda 11:52 a.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, I do not subscribe to the plural. Using “a” over there can also mean plural; “any” and the indefinite article “a” would mean the same thing -- “Despite any Provision and “Despite a provision”. So, if the two are the same, then I would propose that we maintain “Despite a”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:52 a.m.
Yes, the Hon Minority Leader has withdrawn his proposed amendment.
Mr Iddrisu 11:52 a.m.
Rightly so, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:52 a.m.
So we would proceed to the next one, clause 17(iv); it is the same proposed amendment, delete “a law” and insert “any law”.
Mr Iddrisu 12:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as for the second one, I would insist. Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 17, subclause (1), paragraph (a), line 1, delete “a law” and insert “any law”.
The new rendition, “a contravention of, or a failure to comply with, any law”, is more appropriate than “a law”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:02 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, let us take one after the other. The current amendment on the table is on subclause (1)(a), which is to delete “a law” and substitute “any law”. Let us deal with that one first.
Mr Dafeamekpor 12:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if I may, I recall that I proffered a further amendment to the Hon Minority Leader's position under clause 17(1), which was on “any provision”. No decision was taken on that. [Interruption.] I proffered a further amendment to the position of the Hon Minority Leader's position.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:02 p.m.
Which one? We have now moved to item numbered 7(iv) on the Order Paper.
Mr Dafeamekpor 12:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my position on item numbered 7(iii) was that --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:02 p.m.
Item numbered 7(iv) is on subclause (1). Let us deal with that and proceed to the next one.
Clause 17(1)(c) -- “miscarriage of justice”; I have asked the Hon Minority Leader to hold on. We already have one that we must finish before we go to the next item.
Mr Damfeamekpor 12:02 p.m.
Very well, Mr Speaker.
Mr Quashigah 12:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in relation to this particular amendment, since we had earlier agreed on “a law”, for the sake of consistency, I think we should maintain “a law”.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:02 p.m.
Hon Chairman, do you agree that for the sake of consistency we should retain “a law” instead of “any law”?
Mr Dafeamekpor 12:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that was my position. I proposed that it should be “any provision”; I do not recall any position taken on that. So I rather propose that once we --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:02 p.m.
Which one are you referring to?
Mr Dafeamekpor 12:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I refer to item numbered 7(iii).
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:02 p.m.
We debated it to the end and came to a conclusion that “any” and “a” would mean the same thing. So the Hon Minority Leader withdrew his proposed amendment.
We then moved on to item numbered 7(iv), which is on subclause (1)(a) -- delete “a law” and insert “any law”. That is where we are now. The proposal is that we should be consistent. Instead of using “any”, we should use “a” because we have come to the conclusion that it is the same thing.
So we would move on to -- Hon Minority Leader, you proposed that we should delete clause 17(1)(c) -- “miscarriage of justice”. We can discuss that now.
Mr Iddrisu 12:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, “miscarriage of justice” as a term in the judicial process -- there is an opportunity to correct a miscarriage of justice on appeal. That is why it is trite law that one appeals on fact or law, or on both.
If we say that the information is exempt on -- the disclosure of information reveals evidence of miscarriage of justice -- even the burden of miscarriage of justice, who would make that determination? That puts us in a difficulty. So I think that we should delete “miscarriage of justice”.
Mr Speaker, if we look at the headnote, it states, “Disclosure for the protection of public interest” because even in the 1992 Constitution, a limitation to the enjoyment of some freedoms and rights is public interest.
This is just like when we come to the freedom of the media and say that some disclosures could be done in the public interest. If we say we should include the miscarriage of justice, who would determine evidence of -- ? [Interruption.] Yes, but who determines what would constitute the miscarriage of justice?
Mr Opare-Ansah 12:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would just want to draw the attention of the Hon Minority Leader to the fact that there have been instances where in the courts, people had filed their defence to a certain process that had been served on them. Yet, the High Court would say that it has not seen a filing of the defence and go ahead to give a ruling against that person.
I would want to have that information concerning the filing disclosed. That would show that there was miscarriage of justice, and it would help the Supreme Court make such a pronouncement. That person or his attorneys would need to unearth that information to present same to the Supreme Court for that pronouncement to be made.
So this says that if a disclosure of that information would reveal evidence of the miscarriage of justice, then it is not exempt. That is what this says.
Dr Dominic A. Ayine 12:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, on this issue, I would want to differ from the Hon Minority Leader.
Mr Speaker, I think that the underlying assumption of this clause is that it is in the public interest that justice should not miscarry. Where information that is otherwise exempt, if disclosed would reveal a miscarriage of justice, then that information would not be protected from disclosure.
The Hon Minority Leader gave the example of the appellate process as a corrective mechanism for the miscarriage of justice. It should be possible, for instance, in a situation where a trial may start even from the Magistrate Court and travel all the way to the Supreme Court, but justice could miscarry because of the lack of information.
So for instance, we could have a situation where information relating to a nuclear arsenal is exempt under this regime because of public health and safety.
However, if a community has been adversely affected by the nuclear plant and they want that information in order to support their claim for compensation and it is being shielded from them because it is exempt under this regime, then justice
Mr Iddrisu 12:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I yield to the superior argument.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:02 p.m.
Very well.
So we would proceed to item numbered 7(v) -- Hon Chairman of the Committee.
Mr Banda 12:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 17, subclause (1), paragraph (b), delete and insert the following:
“(b) an imminent and serious risk to public safety, public health or morals, the prevention of disorder or crime or the protection of the rights or freedoms of others.”
Mr Speaker, we have made some additions to the rendition because we would want to capture the language of the Constitution, as stipulated under article 18(2) of the Constitution.
These words move together in the Constitution -- “public safety, public health or morals, the prevention of disorder or crime or the protection of the rights or freedoms of others”, and it is captured under article 18(2) of the Constitution. It is in the light of this that this amendment is being proposed.
Mr Speaker, thank you.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:12 p.m.
Very well.
Mr Iddrisu 12:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if the Hon Chairman would have no objection, we may substitute the word “risk” for the word “threat”. Therefore, instead of putting it as: “an imminent and serious risk...” it would be put as: “an imminent and serious threat”.
That is what is known to many right to information legislation. The word “risk” is more business-like, but to put it as a “threat to public safety, public health or morals…” would be better.
Mr Speaker, secondly, if we come to Chapter Five of the Constitution, we have its caption put as “Fundamental Rights and Freedoms”. Where we would want to use the word “or”, as put in the phrase: “…rights or freedoms of others”, I would want to say that rights and freedoms are not divisible.
So I am wondering if the word “or” cannot be substituted with the word “and”, just as the opening words of the Constitution says -- “Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms”. If we use the word “or,” then we are saying that it “may be rights or freedoms.”
Mr Speaker, for instance, the right to free speech is built on the right to live and have a mouth to talk. Therefore, the word “and” should be used because we cannot use the word “or”. So if we could further accept the word “or”, then we could put it as “protection of rights and freedoms”. I do not know if I make sense to the House and the Hon Chairman.
Mr Speaker, generally, the amendment is apt, but I believe that we should substitute the word “risk” for the word “threat” and the word “or” for “and”, if there are no objections.
Mr Speaker, thank you.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:12 p.m.
Yes, Hon Chairman?
Mr Banda 12:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not believe that I have any objections with respect to the first proposed amendment, which is put as “an imminent and serious threat to public safety.”
Mr Speaker, however, with respect to the Hon Minority Leader 's second proposition, I would say again that this is the language of the Constitution as seen in the last but one line of article 18(2). It says: “…for the prevention of disorder or crime or for the protection of the rights or freedoms of others.”
I am quoting this from the Constitution, unless what the Constitution says is wrong. I quite understand what the Hon Minority Leader is saying, because in Chapter five of the 1992 Constitution, it is put as “rights and freedoms”; but this is different.
Mr Dafeamekpor 12:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity.

Mr Speaker, the phrase “imminent threat” is indeed a form of art employed in international law and order .
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:12 p.m.
Hon Member, the Hon Chairman of the Committee has agreed to the use of the word “threat”. The second proposed amendment is the issue now -- whether we should accept it to be “rights or freedoms” or “rights and freedoms”.
Mr Dafeamekpor 12:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, what is on board now is “an imminent and serious threat.” That is what is being considered now, and my position is that, it is a very strange phraseology.
This is because what is known, which has become a form of art, is simply the use of the phrase “imminent threat”. I have never seen the use of the phrase “imminent and serious threat”. So, my proposition is that we simply put it as “an imminent threat”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:12 p.m.
Hon Member, what stops us from saying that an imminent threat is also serious?
Mr Dafeamekpor 12:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, can an imminent threat not be serious?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:12 p.m.
Yes! There can be a threat that is not serious.
Mr Dafeamekpor 12:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, a threat that affects public safety -- it is serious enough.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:12 p.m.
Hon Member, it is not every threat that is serious, and we are talking about a serious threat here. If there is a threat of - [Interruptions.]
Mr Dafeamekpor 12:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, unless of course we are saying that we are going to define it in the definition section, my friend who is the Hon Chairman of the Foreign Affairs and the --
Mr Speaker, we know that in our international law lessons, write ups and articles, it is the phrase “imminent threat” that is employed and not the use of the phrase “imminent and serious threat”.
Mr Agalga 12:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am not too comfortable with the proposed amendment to delete the word “risk” and replace it with the word “threat”.
Mr Speaker, I believe that we would need to look at the meanings of the two words. The word “risk” is not the same as the word “threat”. The word “threat” is a
Mr Quashigah 12:12 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, as much as I appreciate the reasoning behind the proposition from my good friend the Hon Agalga, I tend to disagree with his conclusions that the word “threat” connotes some positivities. If we put it as “imminent threat”, it could largely be synonymous to the use of the phrase “imminent risk”, and the understanding for me rhymes.
So, one would even think that to talk about “threat” is of a stronger force than even the use of the word “risk”, the reason for which I would go with the proposition
that it should be put as “imminent threat,” rather than what currently we have before us.
Mr Opare-Ansah 12:22 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that I support Hon Agalga's position. The definition of threat actually involves a declaration of intent by somebody but if you read the amendment being proposed, it is talking about the existence of some risk to public safety which does not necessarily involve someone making a statement of threat.
For instance, somebody finds out that there is a cloud gathering over Togo and there is going to be a serious rainstorm or a possible tsunami, which is risk of public safety but nobody has made any threat against the nation and the person, if he discloses such information, it will help avert a disaster. Then somebody will say, Well, you cannot because this information is prohibited or exempt”.
Mr Speaker, this clause that we are trying to amend is saying that if the situation existed where by, a measure that risk exists, then he or she could go ahead and reveal the information.
So, I believe that “risk” in this sense is much better than “threat” which will necessarily require a declaration of some intent by someone.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:22 p.m.
Hon Members, let me read what I have picked out from the definitions of “threat” and “risk” so that we compare. Threat:
“A statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.”
Mr Chireh 12:22 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that the appropriate word is what you have guided us to do.
Normally, with these words, if we are dealing with financial institutions, “risk”, as you said, is the likelihood to do something but the emphasis that Hon Agalga gave makes the use of the word “risk” better. This is because the issue is about a possibility and we are saying imminent”, which means it is likely to happen or it is emerging.
Mr Speaker, so I still believe that having read the dictionary meaning which is the way to go when we have similar words, the context will then define what should be the case and I believe that it is still better to remain at “risk” than to go to the extreme end of “threat”.
Mr Quashigah 12:22 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as much as I appreciate what my Hon Senior Colleague has said in relation to the
proposition by Hon Agalga, in looking at “threat, it also talks about the definition of --
“A danger that something unpleasant might happen”. It is also: “a cause of this danger”.
In effect, “risk”, as was explained, corresponds with “will”, which is futuristic, it gives off “imminence” or something is likely to happen.
Clearly, this demonstrates the likelihood of it happening. So we cannot necessarily say that it is more suitable than the use of “threat” in this context.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:22 p.m.
No. If you look at -- it says: ‘a threat is from somebody or something.' I believe it is the second definition that will define it. It emanates from a person or a thing and in this context, that will not be an appropriate word to use.
Mr Iddrisu 12:22 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am guided by your reference to the dictionary but I am also guided by the Executive Order limiting Freedom of Information Act between 1982 and 1995 in the Regan Administration and relative to it, withholding enormous amounts of information under national security and these matters; the noted words, for instance “9/11” was “imminent threat”, but not “imminent risk”.
In the United Kingdom, when fire gutted a building, it was “imminent threat” but not “imminent risk”. So we are doing a legislation to serve a purpose.
In fact, Mr Speaker, when I rose first with your indulgence, financial matters - - risk could be contemplated and others. We are dealing with matters of morality, public safety, national security and public interest. I would want to believe that under
Mr Banda 12:22 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that each word would be interpreted within a context. So I am of the opinion that we should not try to stretch definitions of words.
Mr Speaker, in some laws, they even used “to prejudice”. In others, they use “endanger”; and in some, they use “threats” and “risks”.
I believe these are words that are used interchangeably under the African Model Law, it is “endanger”. I just looked at the United Kingdom law; they use “risk”, and in others, they use “threat”. So these are words I believe we should not be stretching the definitions themselves too much. Each word will be looked at and interpreted as and when the time arises within context.
Mr Speaker, so once we have all adopted “threat”, we should use it and then move along.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:22 p.m.
Very well.
Yes, but you are against “rights and freedoms”, you prefer “rights or freedoms”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:22 p.m.
Now, there is another proposed amendment of “any” there.
rose
Mr Banda 12:22 p.m.
[Inaudible] --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:22 p.m.
Are you abandoning it? Hon Member, you are not the proposer, so why are you up? The proposer is abandoning it. If it is in respect of that unless you are proposing a new amendment and to what clause?
Mr George 12:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes.
Mr Speaker, taking a cue from the Hon Chairman's reference to article 18(2) and the wording of the Constitution and taking guidance from the Hon Minority Leader, I would want to suggest that clause 17(d) that talks about “an abuse of authority”, we should look at article 296 and add “discretion”. This is because the abuse could be not just of authority but even discretion and so it should read:
“an abuse of authority, discretion or a neglect in the performance of an official function”.
So it should read: “An abuse of authority”
So I am proposing the insertion of “an abuse of a discretion”, not just as abuse of authority in paragraph (d).
Mr Ahiafor 12:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am opposed
to the further amendment being proposed by the Hon Member. Mr Speaker, discretion is embedded in authority; if one does not have the authority, then one could not have the discretion to exercise.
So the use of “authority” has taken care of any discretion that should be exercised in the circumstances. So I would urge my Hon Colleague to abandon his proposed amendment.
Mr George 12:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am hungry and so I have eaten the humble pie.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:32 p.m.
Very well.
I would put the Question on clause
17.
Mr Banda 12:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, except to effect a little consequential amendment. First of all, clause 17 (1), “Despite a provision of this Act on information exempt from disclosure”.
So the first line should read: “Despite a provision of this Act on information exempt from disclosure”. Then it would continue as follows: “information is not exempt from disclosure if the disclosure of the information reveals evidence of …”
Mr Speaker, we have to repeat it because that is how we have --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:32 p.m.
If I recall correctly, I gave a consequential directive that all those amendments be carried out by the draftspersons.
Mr Banda 12:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, very well. Thank you.
Clause 17 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:32 p.m.
Hon Member?
Mr George 12:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am guided by article 102 of the Constitution and our
Standing Orders, Order 91 (c), to draw your attention to the fact that --
Mr Speaker, Order 91 (c) says that “Debates may be interrupted -- by attention being called to the absence of a quorum.”
Mr Speaker, casting a cursory glance around the Chamber, I see close to 30 Hon Members on the Minority Side, but on the Majority Side there are just about 15 Hon Members. This is Ghana and Government business -- altogether, I see just about 45 Hon Members in the Chamber. Mr Speaker, one-third of Hon Members of Parliament is 91 Hon Members.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:32 p.m.
Hon Member for Suhum?
Mr Opare-Ansah 12:32 p.m.
On a point of order. Mr Speaker, I have known my young Hon Colleague for some time, but I have not known him for his ability to miscount. When I look behind me I see, at least, 20 Hon Members and another 30 Hon Members there. [Laughter.]
Mr Speaker, when I look behind my Hon Colleague I see another 20 or 30 Hon Members which sums up to about 100 and which far exceeds the quorum required for business.
I recollect not too long ago, when the Hon Second Deputy Speaker presided and ruled that on the matter of quorum, the Standing Orders refers to “at the time of Sitting” which means at the time the current Sitting began. Mr Speaker, I would want to know your own view on that while the Clerk-at-the-Table do the needful.

and I know that you would guide us, but I think that we started today's business with a quorum, and I am sure that some Hon Members are at Committee sittings.

Mr Speaker, we have made a commitment to get this Bill passed. Therefore the Hon Whips on both Sides must look around and make sure that Hon Members who are close by should join us as you relate to the time that is required, so that we could continue to work on the Right to Information Bill, 2018.

Mr Speaker, thank you.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:32 p.m.
Hon George, which Standing Order did you refer to?
Mr George 12:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I referred to Order 91 (c), and for the avoidance of doubt and with your permission, it states:
“Debates may be interrupted by attention being called to the absence of a quorum.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:32 p.m.
So which debate did you interrupt?
Mr George 12:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the debate on the consideration of the Right to Information Bill, 2018.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:32 p.m.
No, there is no debate on the Floor.
rose
Mr George 12:32 p.m.
Hon Opare-Ansah, you have not caught the eye of the Speaker, so please sit down. It is unparliamentary for you to stand, I have the Speaker's attention. [Laughter.]
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:32 p.m.
Hon Member, address me.
Mr George 12:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am being intimidated by my senior Hon Colleague.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:32 p.m.
Do not worry. He is allowed to stand, but I have not recognised him so address me.
Mr George 12:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, you put forward the amendment and invited contributions which resulted in debates on the amendment. When the proposed amendment is moved and the position is espoused by the proposer, you open the Floor for Hon Members of this House to engage in a debate on that amendment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:32 p.m.
Hon Member, but we have not reached there. As at the time that you raised the objection, there was no debate going on.
Mr George 12:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am duly guided and I yield to the Speaker. I shall return.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:32 p.m.
Very well.
Hon Member for Wa West, do you want to say something?
Mr Chireh 12:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
I believe that the Order that has been cited said “interrupted”. Yesterday, the Hon Second Deputy Speaker who presided decided that the bell should be rung.
Mr Speaker, but if you look at the Standing Order very well, it says that debate can be interrupted. They have not indicated what else should be done.
The tradition we have had in this House since I joined Parliament in 2005 has been that, at the Consideration Stage, the maximum number of Hon Members you could get is about 10 and we pass the

I am asking that what would be the ruling of the Speaker when an Hon Member cites Standing Order 91 (c)? Is it interruption? If it is interrupted, then it means that the Speaker could suspend Sitting and call us back or what? I believe that we never used this Standing Order for a long time and things went on.

We should not suspend. What should be the ruling on this?

I am also looking for guidance from the Speaker as to what we should do when this particular Standing Order is raised.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:42 p.m.
Very well.
Yes, Hon Deputy Majority Chief Whip?
Mr Moses Anim 12:42 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
In fact, yesterday, your Colleague, the Hon Second Deputy Speaker even cited the House of Commons as a typical example, where you could even see about eleven people, at least, considering a Bill.
Mr Speaker, yesterday for instance, Standing Order 91 (c) was cited. I am not saying that there is a timeframe to citing Standing Order 91 (c), but with all humility, it is not 2.00 p.m. yet, and we have enough Hon Members to continue to do business and consider this Bill as it is.
We all know the history behind this Bill. If by 2.00 p.m. we want to adjourn within that limit, it is all right. When the Hon Member was miscounting, he was allowed to do so. He even cited 30 Hon Members from their end.
Mr Speaker, in my view, you would rule anyway, but we are also pleading with Hon Colleagues that this citing of Standing Order 91 at this stage would not do Parliament any good. Let us continue to work till 2.00 p.m., then we can adjourn from there.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:42 p.m.
Let me listen to the most senior Hon Member on the Floor.
Mr Emmanuel Kwasi Bedzrah 12:42 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, I would want to appeal to my Hon Colleagues; this Bill has been with us for more than a decade now. We all know how the civil society organisations and the entire nation want us to pass this Bill. We all know that in the last Parliament we nearly passed it except for the fact that there were few technicalities that prevented us from passing it.
Our Hon Brother who called for the quorum has a legitimate concern. We all know that this House is ruled by the Standing Orders; therefore, he is right. It is within his right to call for a quorum.
But I would also want to plead with the Hon Majority whip. This is their work; it is Government Business. The Hon Majority Whip should whip his people to come and do Government Business on the Floor of the House.
Look at us here. I heard the bell, I was with other association and rushed here because I want this Bill done. But look at their Side; there is nobody at their Side.
Mr Emmanuel Kwasi Bedzrah 12:42 p.m.


Mr Speaker, we would want to work. Our Side wants to work, but they should do the right thing.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:42 p.m.
Hon Members, let us not make this “your Side and our Side debate”. Every Member of Parliament is enjoined to be in the House, unless he is granted leave to be absent.
I have the list of all Hon Members who were granted leave to be absent today on my table. Every other person who is not in this Chamber and not at Committee meeting is actually absent without permission.

Clause 18 -- Application to access information
Mr Banda 12:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 18 subclause (1), paragraph (f), delete and insert the following:
“(f) provide the identification card of the applicant; and
(g) be signed by the applicant”.
Mr Speaker, because of the debate that arose on this proposed amendment about two days ago, I seek your leave to delete “card” in paragraph (f). So, the new rendition would read:
“(f) provide an identification of the applicant; and
(g) be signed by the applicant”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:42 p.m.
Yes, Hon Members, the proposed amendment is for the consideration of the House.
Mr Kwame Governs Agbodza -- rose
-- 12:42 p.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:42 p.m.
Do you want to contribute to the discussion? Yes, Hon Agbodza?
Mr Agbodza 12:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have not been in the House for a long period of time. You just read Standing Order 3. I humbly seek your further guidance on this because when I read it, it says:
“3. (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Orders, any order or part of the Order may be suspended without notice with the consent of Mr Speaker and the majority of Members present.”
I am just seeking your guidance -- I would not risk challenging Mr Speaker. I just need further guidance on it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:42 p.m.
Those who disagree with the suspension, stand up and let me see you? [Laughter.] I have 100 per cent agreement. Let us proceed.
Mr Bernard Ahiafor 12:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity. Your ruling is clear; anybody who intends to challenge your ruling must come by way of a motion.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:42 p.m.
I would put the Question on the proposed amendment to clause 18.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Banda 12:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 18 subclause (3), line 2, before “officer”, insert “information”.
Mr Speaker, subclause 3(2) would read 12:42 p.m.
(3) Where a request is made orally under subsection (2), the request shall be reduced into writing by the information officer to whom the application is made.
Mr Speaker, this is just a consequential amendment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:42 p.m.
Yes, Hon Agalga? I thought you were on your feet?
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Banda 12:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 18 — add the following new subclause:
“(4) Where the applicant is illiterate, and the request has been reduced into writing, the information officer shall --
(a) clearly and correctly read and explain the request to the understanding of applicant in accordance with the illiterates' Protection Act, 1912 (Cap 262);
(b) ask a witness to endorse on the face of the request that “the request was read to the applicant in the language the applicant understands and the applicant appeared to have understood the content of the request; and
(c) ask the applicant to make a thumbprint on the request.”
Mr Speaker, except to seek your leave to further amend paragraph (a) by the insertion of “ contents of” before the beginning of line 2 in paragraph (a).
Mr Speaker, so that it would read;
“Where the applicant is illiterate, and the request has been reduced into writing, the information officer shall --
(a) clearly and correctly read and explain the contents of the request”.
Mr Speaker, I seek to insert “contents of the request”.
Mr Speaker, we all know that it is the content that must be read and explained to the person who cannot read and write. It is not the request itself, it is the content.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:52 p.m.
That is a further amendment to your proposed amendment?
Mr Banda 12:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, rightly so.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not know why my Hon Chairman is seeking now to insert “content” to define the request?
Mr Speaker, what this one does is the illiterate Protection Act -- If an illiterate somebody has come to put in an application, he has to explain the information and the application to you and you reduce his request into writing, because he is an illiterate, he would not know what you have written, so you have to tell him that you have requested this, this is the application, which is the request, not the content.
You would ask him if he wants “a”,”b”,”c” or “d” to be done for him. If he says yes to any of the options then you would have to put the jurat and make his mark. I have an amendment to that.
Mr Opare-Ansah 12:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe the correct thing to do is for the Hon Chairman to rather insert “written” at the place he seeks to insert “content”.
Mr Speaker, if you look at the preamble it says; “where the applicant is illiterate and the request has been reduced into writing, the information officer shall clearly and correctly read and explain the request”.
So is it the earlier request? It is the written request, the one that has been reduced into writing. So, if we insert “written” there, it solves the problem of content or not.
Where you sought to insert “content of”, insert “written”, so it becomes; “clearly and correctly read and explain the written request”.
He came and made an oral request, but you have now reduced it into writing, and you want to explain the written request to him.
Mr Iddrisu 12:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, mine would be just an addition, so that we find where to place it.
I support the Hon Chairman's amendment, but with a further proposal that that oral disclosure be recorded. I would just like him to further improve it, because for our purposes, what would be the evidence even if you transcribe it into writing?
So if he could further improve it, we would support it, but that oral submission must be recorded. You just do not translate it into writing. You must have evidence
that the person was illiterate, and therefore for some other reason or disability, was unable to write.
So if you took it orally, it should be recorded for these purposes.
Mr Quashigah 12:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would also support what the Hon Chairman put out, because the request has been written out, and it obviously has a content, and that is where the emphasis is.
The content of that must be read back to the illiterate person who is making the oral request, because the information officer would have first put what he wants down in writing and then subsequently read it back to him.
So it is a content, and I believe that the Hon Chairman's further amendment is very apt and must be accepted.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:52 p.m.
Hon Chairman, let us listen to other people before I come to you.
Mr Shaibu Mahama 12:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the content and the request are not different. An illiterate person goes to say that “This is what I want”; it has been reduced into writing and you are now repeating the content of the writing.
The content is the same as the request that he has made, and therefore, there is no point in repeating “explain the content of the request”.
Mr Speaker, further, I disagree with the further amendment by my Senior Colleague that we should put “explain in writing”.
If you look at subclause (4), it says;
“Where the applicant is illiterate, and the request has been reduced into writing, the information officer shall…”
In other words, it is already reduced into writing, and so the amendment proposed by the Chairman -- I believe the Chairman should abandon it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:52 p.m.
Hon Members, where is your disagreement on the proposed one by the Hon Member for Suhum? It says;
“Where the applicant is illiterate, and the request has been reduced into writing, the information officer shall
(a) clearly and correctly read and explain the written request…”.
You have transformed what he spoke to you by word of mouth into some written form. We want to be sure that he agrees with what you have written down for him, so you read that back and translate it to him.
I think that is the essence.
Mr Chireh 12:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe that the further amendment he proposed is acceptable. The others are not, because it is the one that is reduced into writing that needs to be explained to him for clarity sake. But where they are talking about content, honestly there is no need for that at all.
I believe that with his, we should support that further amendment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:52 p.m.
Frankly, let me ask this question. If the person cannot read and write and we give the information to him, are we going to give it to him orally?
If it is a piece of written information and he cannot read and write, what would he do with it?
Mr Opare-Ansah 12:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there are pieces of information within this Bill and we anticipate some may be even video or audio, so it is not only written information that somebody may go to an institution to request for.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:52 p.m.
Very well, let us conclude on this proposed amendment to the amendment.
Mr Quashigah 12:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in my view, what is “written” and what the Hon Chairman proposed are largely saying the same thing, because the request would have a content.
It is just like when an illiterate person goes to the police station to make a complaint, the police officer writes whatever he said and reads back to him. It is the same in this context, and so that which the police officer would read is a content of the statement that has been made.
Therefore what the Hon Chairman said and what my Hon good Friend said are the same, except that his appears to be a bit elegant. So if we are going for his, then it is because of the elegance. But as for what the Hon Member for Daboya propounded, it obviously falls flat on the face; it does not really gel into this position.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:02 a.m.
This Police example, I wonder whether you have had an experience before? This is because they would put that down. I have been advised that I have a right to a counsel of my choice and that I may choose not to make a statement.
Mr Banda 1:02 a.m.
You are a seasoned lawyer, let me take the example of a will. When a will is prepared by a lawyer upon the request of somebody who cannot read and write, in the Jurat, what do we say? We say it is signed by this individual or that individual after the content had been read, explained and interpreted to him in a language that he or she understands by so and so. That is the essence of the Jurat.
Mr Speaker, it is something the illiterate Protection Act, 1912 says. The illiterate Protection Act obligates the information officer to read the content but not the request.
It is not the request that the information officer is reading but the content that matters, whether what is contained in the request is indeed so. In fact, what the applicant orally told the information officer to write. So it is the content and not the request.
Secondly, my Brother said the request is the same as the content. Mr Speaker, No. They are not the same. Request is the application. The application having been reduced into writing, the information officer is obligated to read and explain the content of the application.
So Mr Speaker, every word must be looked at and interpreted within the context. So content here is appropriate.
But what the Hon Member for Suhum said would also mean the same thing, except that in law and in an elegant manner, we do not say, “read the written request” but we say, “read the content”. That is what we all know. So I believe that what the Hon Member for Keta said is correct and we should go by that.
Mr Agbodza 1:02 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would like the Hon Chairman to explain this: assuming we have a situation where Hon Oppong Nkrumah is the information officer at Adaklu. We are saying ---
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:02 a.m.
Why him?
Mr Agbodza 1:02 a.m.
By the time I finish, you would understand. And so if my grandmother, who cannot speak English turns up, is my grandmother expected to send an interpreter to the information officer?
So when you say the information officer should explain what has been written, assuming Hon Oppong Nkrumah cannot speak the Ewe Language, are we saying that the various information officers at various points must necessarily speak the languages the people could understand or we are by this illiterate Protection Act, 1912 going to provide the necessary interpreters at the various information points?
So I want to ask the Hon Chairman to explain, how is he going to deal with that?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:02 a.m.
This is inappropriate. What it means is that, we make the law and then we provide the personnel to do the work. This is the law- making stage.
Every Court in this country has an interpreter. Some of them, their attempt to translate the language is tough but they make the effort. So once the law requires that you speak the language he understands, they would find the appropriate officer.
Let us zoom in on the amendments and — Yes, Hon Member for Suhum?
Mr Opare-Ansah 1:02 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman of the Committee agreed with me to a point, but he missed the point that I made, which advised me to choose the written request.
Mr Speaker, whether he wants to include “the content of” or not what must be read is the written request. And it is important we have that reflect in the law because when you read the entire subclause, the request is in another form as the oral form has also been used. So there must be clarity as to which one's content is going to be read. That is why it is important to say, the written request.
This is because in the preamble, it says:
“Where the applicant is illiterate and the request has been reduced into writing…”.
So, the “request” has already been used. Then when you come to subclause (a), it says, clearly and correctly read and explain the content of the request. The content of which request? The oral request he made or the request you have reduced into writing?
That is why it is important that whether we want to say the “content of”, we still have to put “written” there to at least make it clearly distinctive from the earlier use of the phrase “the request”.
Mr Ras Mubarak 1:02 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am very grateful. I see where the Hon Agbodza is coming from. He is anticipating a difficulty with the use of the word, “the information officer”.
Now, my suggestion would be that, where the applicant is an illiterate and the information has been reduced into writing, instead of “the information officer”, we should replace it with “an information officer” so that if the information officer does not understand or speak a particular language, he is required by law to get somebody who understands and could interpret it for the benefit of the person seeking the information.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:02 a.m.
Hon Members, let us finish with one thing before we introduce a new one. For now, the proposed amendment on the Floor is whether to admit the inclusion of “content of the request” or to accept “written request”. Let us conclude on that one, then any other considerations would be given to the others.
Yes, Hon Member for Wa West?
Mr Chireh 1:02 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the whole clause as an amendment mentions illiterate Protection Act, 1912 (Cap 262). That clause has to be read as a whole. Therefore even the introduction that the Hon Chairman is bringing and the one that my Hon Friend is also proposing are not necessary.
This is because you cannot do so if you read subclause (a), which says we are going to use that (Cap 262) to do it. It is implied in all that. You cannot explain that a request should be something different from what is in the content and all that. So it has to be read together.
Mr Ahiafor 1:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with my learned colleague and senior in Parliament.
Mr Speaker, the whole section makes reference to the illiterate Protection Act and the jurat in the illiterate Protection Act that we all referred to simply states, for example, that “The content was read over by Bernard Ahiafor in a language that the person understands before they signed.”
So, once we are making reference to the illiterate Protection Act, this issue of the content in writing is all taken care of. We could even make the rendition much simpler by stating that where the applicant is an illiterate and the request has been reduced into writing, the information officer shall clearly and correctly read and explain the request in accordance with the illiterates Protection Act 1912 (CAP 262).
The request that has been reduced into writing must be read over and explained to him or her in a language they understand. That is what the illiterate Protection Act talks about. It would be very clear, simple and elegant.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:12 a.m.
Hon Chairman, let us make progress. Without the proposed amendment there would be no difference particularly because of the illiterate Protection Act which has been
introduced. Let us proceed without any of the proposed amendments.
Are there any other proposed amendments to the one advertised? Otherwise, I would put the Question.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, there is a small amendment to clause 18 (4) (c).
“ask the applicant to make a thumbprint on the request.”
Mr Speaker, that clearly excludes those without fingers, so we could say a mark and not thumbprint.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, after “thumbprint” insert “or a mark”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:12 a.m.
Very well.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:12 a.m.
Item numbered 7 (x), Hon Chairman of the Committee?
Mr Banda 1:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 18 subclause (6), line 2, before “Braille”, insert “electronic form and”.
The new rendition would read:
“For the purposes of this section, the reference to “writing” in subsection (3) includes electronic form and Braille.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19 -- Person to deal with application
Mr Banda 1:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19 line 2, at the end, add “concerned”.
The new rendition would read:
“An application to access information shall be dealt with by the information officer of the public institution concerned.”
Mr Speaker, this is intended to clarify or define the public institution spoken about.
Mr Shaibu Mahama 1:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I oppose to this amendment because it does not change anything. Already, the public institution is definite, so once we make the application to the public institution “concerned” it no longer becomes necessary. So I propose we take out “concerned”. The statement as it stands is elegant and correct.
Mr Ahiafor 1:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Member for Daboya/Mankarigu in the sense that “concerned” does not add anything to the rendition. The rendition as it is, is very clear and there is no ambiguity. So we should not add “concerned”.
So I would plead with the Hon Chairman to drop the amendment and let the rendition be the way it is.
Mr Opare-Ansah 1:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, there is a definite article there, “the public institution”. So adding “concerned” is wrong.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have heard three Hon Members opposing the application but they only said it does not add anything new. [Interruption] The records have it that Hon Members said the proposal does not add anything new.

Mr Speaker, the Hon Member is intimidating me. He did not ride the bicycle again. He stopped yesterday and went home with an uber. Why is he coming to --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:12 a.m.
Hon Member, address the Chair.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I came in my car and he has been driving a car --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:12 a.m.
Hon Members, you are out of order.
Yes, Hon Member for Wa West?
Mr Chireh 1:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, what we have agreed on is that if you put “concerned” at the end, it does not add anything. In law-making, you do not add unnecessary words. It is superfluous. You do not waste words -- even the ink you would use to print the word “concerned” is unnecessary.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:12 a.m.
Hon Chairman, I want to hear you.
Mr Banda 1:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:12 a.m.
Item numbered 7 (xii). Hon Frederick Opare- Ansah?
Mr Opare-Ansah 1:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19 add the following new subclauses:
“(b) The information officers of a public institution shall be appointed by the Minister.
Mr Mubarak 1:22 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I respect- fully oppose the amendment made by Hon Opare-Ansah.
This is largely so because if we look at clause 59, the President may appoint the Executive Secretary. But in so far as junior officers are concerned, I think we ought to be seen to be building institutions.
They have to be appointed in accordance with the Public Service Commission Regulations so that we do not overly politicise public institutions more than we already have. Already, there are concerns being raised that there seemed to be interferences.
Mr Speaker, imagine a situation where a new government comes in and also decides to send all information officers home and appoint new officers. We would be doing great damage to our country.
So I think that appointment of officers should not be the business of a sector Minister.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:22 p.m.
Hon Opare- Ansah, clause 59 deals with appointment of other staff, and it says:
“The President may, in accordance with article 195 of the Constitution, appoint officers and other employees that are necessary for the effective implementation of the functions of the Commission.”
Are you suggesting that the power to appoint should be given to the Minister? That would not be constitutional.
Mr Opare-Ansah 1:22 p.m.
Mr Speaker not at all.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:22 p.m.
Shall we read clause 59 out again.
“The President may, in accordance with article 195 of the Constitution, appoint officers and other employees that are necessary for the effective implementation of the functions of the Commission.”
Mr Opare-Ansah 1:22 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is “of the Commission.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:22 p.m.
Are the information officers not the ones responsible for implementing this — ?
Mr Opare-Ansah 1:22 p.m.
Mr Speaker, information officers of the various
institutions. So for instance, they are not part of the Commission. They work in the various public institutions where people would go and ask for information.
If we go through the Bill, we would realise that the Commission has its own purpose where one would be sent petitions and other things. So that is where the President is making those appointments and not appointing information officers to the institutions of concern.
Mr Chireh 1:22 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have seen the Hon Minister for Information very close to the man, and he is making this move. Indeed, we should not centralise this one —
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:22 p.m.
That is improper motive to the application and it is out of order.
Mr Chireh 1:22 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in the public service we already have the Controller and Accountant-General posting officers, and even the Minister currently also posts officers to various Ministries and Departments.
But what is important is that, we are creating a law that would enable every institution with officers there already who are conversant with the information and the data that would be available there.
We are not going to appoint people. We must use the right words. Even in the case of the Controller and Accountant- General and all the Information Ministry, they post people there and designate officers.
Mr Speaker, even in the case of the institutions we are talking about, it is the head of that institution who would
designate an officer, and not appoint -- no. These people would have been appointed already and they are in the system. So we must use the correct language in doing this.
And I do not even think that we should have — [Interruption] —— we have so many public institutions. One Ministry to be designating or even appointing people would be unwieldy. And his Ministry alone would become a central point of appointments. That is not right. Let us deal with the institutions and they should designate their appropriate officers.
Mr Ahiafor 1:22 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the definition of “Information Officer” at page 43 of the Bill can also help us resolve the problem in support of the position of Hon Yieleh Chireh as against the Motion on the Floor.
Mr Speaker, it reads 1:22 p.m.
“information officer” includes the information officer of the public institution or the officer designated as an information officer to whom an application is made;”
Mr Speaker, so if that is the definition of an “information officer” then we cannot say that the information officer should be the person appointed by the Minister. So I support the position of Hon Yieleh Chireh as against the Motion.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:22 p.m.
I have a problem with the appointment, but the designation is important; the quality of persons we want to place there. And so probably, when we come to the definition, we may want to add something.
Mr Oppong-Nkrumah 1:22 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes the Bill as it stands now, mentions an information officer but does not give
Mr Bedzrah 1:22 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think to make progress, we have a place where we have the appointment of other staff.
Currently, we are on clause 19, and it has to do with persons to deal with application.
Mr Speaker, the subheading for clause 59 is, “Appointment of other staff”. If my Hon Colleague could postpone his amendment now and move it when we come to clause 59, “Appointment of other staff”, then we can deal with it so that we can make progress with the law.
Mr Oppong-Nkrumah 1:22 p.m.
Mr Speaker, except that clause 59 deals with staff of the Commission. The Commission is very different from the Information Office or Unit within the public agency.
Mr Quashigah 1:22 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have heard the Hon Minister for Information advance an argument that the appointment of Information Officers appears scattered, and therefore, to harmonise it, it must be centralised. But of course, that obviously comes with a huge challenge.
The fact is that, the Public Services Commission engages people into the public service. And I believe strongly that as at now, there are a lot of institutions that have information officers who were engaged by the Public Services Commission. These people are obviously professionals who went through the due process of engagements.
I do not think that they just handpicked people and put them in positions to be information officers. They obviously would have demanded some requirements from them, based on which, experts approach, as it were, to take through the interview process and all that.

Mr Speaker, I am being heckled unduly.

Mr Speaker, I said, create the impression that it is haphazardly done would be unfair.

Mr Speaker, again, we also know that within the political space, Information Ministers are obviously very political. If that role should be given to the information officers, what is going to happen will possibly result in an injustice which we would all want to avoid. It has already been captured in this Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:32 p.m.
But the President is also very political yet the power is given to the President.
Mr Quashigah 1:32 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:32 p.m.
I think your point is well made.
Hon Minister, would you want to say something?
Mr Oppong-Nkrumah 1:32 p.m.
No, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:32 p.m.
Very well.
Please, let us be guided by article 195 of the Constitution which reads:
“195. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the power to appoint persons to hold or to act in an office in the public services shall vest in the President, acting in accordance with the advice of governing council of the service concerned, given in consultation with the Public Services Commission.
(2) The President may, subject to such conditions as he may think fit, delegate some of his functions under this article by directions in writing to the governing council concerned or to a committee of the council or to any member of that governing council or to any public officer.”
So we need not legislate on this matter; the Constitution is clear. The power to appoint into the public services is held by the President. The President may in writing direct the Minister, a council or another body to perform that for him.
It is not through legislation; we do not need to legislate on this matter. But we can say the kind of person we want so that the President in appointing would consider that.
Let us move on from this motion. I think in the definition of “information officer”, we can add the quality of person we would want. So that whoever is appointing shall not depart from the quality of the person we want whether by designation or --
Hon Opare-Ansah, you moved the motion. Would you want to withdraw or we should vote on it?
Mr Opare-Ansah 1:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I accordingly withdraw.

Question put and amendment agreed to.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 -- Transfer of application

Haruna Iddrisu: Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 20 subclause (1) paragraph (a), line 1, before “public” delete “the” and insert “that” and in line 2, before “public” delete “the” and insert “that”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 1:32 p.m.
“Where a public institution is unable to deal with an application because the information requested
(a) is not in the custody or control of that public institution, but to the knowledge of that public institution, it is held by another public institution”.
Mr Speaker, it is just to make it more specific to a particular public institution.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:32 p.m.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, would that make any difference?
Mr Banda 1:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, obviously, that would not make any difference.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:32 p.m.
It does not make any difference.
I would want to hear the new draftpersons; if you change “the” to “that”, does that make any difference to the meaning? It does not.
Hon Member for Keta?
Mr Quashigah 1:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do agree with you that it does not change the meaning at all. Again, I find it more elegant the way it is rather than introducing “that”.
I thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:32 p.m.
Hon Members, anybody proposing to support the amendment? [Pause]
Very well. I will put the Question.
Question put and amendment negatived.
Mr Banda 1:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 20 subclause (1) (1) closing phrase, line 1, delete “or the designated officer to whom the application is made” and in line 2, delete “ten” and insert “two”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition reads 1:32 p.m.
“Where an application for access is made and the public institution to which the application is made does not have the information in its custody, the information officer shall within two days of the receipt of the application transfer the application
…”
So we are seeking to delete “the designating officer to whom the application is made” and we are seeking to shorten the days within which the information officer must transfer the application. Instead of ten days, we are shortening it to two days.
Mr Speaker, we are deleting the designated officer because under clause 19, we have already made mention of the information officer. So it is this information officer whom we are talking about.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:32 p.m.
Very well.
Hon Members, it is a straightforward amendment.
Mr Quashigah 1:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am just looking at the definition of “information” officer which says “includes the information officer of the public institution or the officer designated as information officer to whom the application is made”.
I suspect that the reason for which designated officer is mentioned is because of the likelihood of the information officer not being available to deal with his schedule which would require designating some other person within the institution to deal with his schedule. So taking out the designated --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:32 p.m.
No. When that person is designated, he is also an information officer and that is why you do not need to repeat.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Banda 1:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 20 -- subclause (1), closing phrase, line 3 and 4, delete “to the other public institution and give written notice of the transfer to the applicant” and insert the following:
“(i) refer the application to the relevant public institution; or
(ii) transfer the application to the relevant public institution and give written notice of the transfer to the applicant”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 1:42 p.m.
“Where an application for access is made and the public institution to which the application is made does not have the information in its custody, the information officer shall, within two days of the receipt of the application transfer --”
Mr Speaker, upon a closer look at this proposed amendment, I realised that if it is effected, the closing phrase would not
tally with the proposed amendment. So I would further amend it with your leave. We would delete from “transfer” up to the end of that sentence. So it would read:
“(b) The information officer shall within two days of the receipt of the application;
(i) refer the applicant to the relevant public institution; or
(ii) transfer the application to the relevant public institution and give written notice of the transfer to the applicant.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:42 p.m.
Very well, yes, Hon Member?
Mr Dafeamekpor 1:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am struggling to follow the proposed amendment as advertised by the Hon Chairman of the Committee vis-à-vis the outline of the Bill as we have it.
I do not know if the Hon Chairman has noticed because for clause 20, I have, “Transfer of application”. Subclause (1) states and I beg to quote:
“Where a public institution is unable to deal with an application because of the information requested;
(a) is not in the custody or control of the public institution, but to the knowledge of the public institution, it is held by another public institution…”
Now, Mr Speaker, I see some advertised amendments. But if we add it to what is in the Bill, it fails to tally and that is my difficulty.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:42 p.m.
Hon Member, why does it not tally? If you look at the two advertised amendments, if it is
Mr Dafeamekpor 1:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if you look at item numbered 14 which is the second advertised amendment, for instance, line 1 of subclause 1, delete.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:42 p.m.
Hon Member, you were not following. We changed when we deleted “from”. That is why you are confused.
Mr Dafeamekpor 1:42 p.m.
Very well, Mr Speaker, I am guided.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:42 p.m.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, your people are tired. Let us get something controversial so that we agitate ourselves. The House becomes boring with what is not controversial.
Alright, item numbered (xvi).
Mr Banda 1:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 20, add the following new sub- clause:
“(2) Where a public institution receives a transfer of application under paragraph (b) of subsection (1), the public institution shall notify the applicant of the receipt of the application within three days after the receipt of application.”
Mr Speaker, this is where the public institution that has received the transferred application is obligated to
notify -- so, it follows from the amendment we just effected.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21, Deferred access
Mr Banda 1:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 21 — subclause (2), opening phrase, line 2, after “shall” insert “within three days after the deferment”.
Mr Speaker, it would read 1:42 p.m.
“Where an application for access is deferred for any of the reasons stated in subsection (1), the information officer shall within three days after the deferment notify the applicant in writing and;
(a) the reason for the deferment; and
(b) the likely period of the deferment.''
We want to tie the information officer to a time limit, making it very possible in notifying the applicant.
Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 1:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to give better and further clarification on that. It is just the time limit; we do not want information officers to sleep on the job.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22 -- Decision on application
Mr Banda 1:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22 subclause (3), paragraph (a), delete.
Question put and amendment agreed to
Mr Banda 1:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22, subclause (3), add the following new paragraph:
“(e) the prescribed fee for the reproduction of information”.
Mr Speaker, in this particular case, if the application is asking the public institution to reproduce the information for him or her, it is fair that the applicant pays the relevant fee for the reproduction of the information.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:52 p.m.
Hon Members, Hon Frederick Opare-Ansah, Member of Parliament for Suhum is not here to move his Amendment but he is seeking that clause 22 — add the following new sub-clauses:
“(e) any fees or charges that may be payable under section 78 before access to information may be granted”.
Let us consider it. Clause 78 is on fees and charges. It says that section 78 should be a condition precedent.
Hon Chairman, would that affect the implementation of the Bill if it is done that way, or will it make any difference if it is not there or the amendment is not carried?
Mr Banda 1:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not really get the meaning of what this proposed amendment seeks to do.
Anyway, Mr Speaker, whether it is brought or not, clause 78 of the Bill deals with fees and charges. Section 78 gives the circumstances under which fees or charges may be paid. So it does not detract or add anything.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:52 p.m.
Let us be clear. Generally, when a fee is prescribed, does it not follow that it must be paid before a service is provided? In this case, a fee is prescribed; is it not a precondition for the enjoyment of the service? Must we necessarily legislate for it? I do not think so.
Well, Hon Opare-Ansah is not here. It would be struck out anyway. Item numbered 7(xx) is struck out as not moved.
Item numbered 7(xxi) -- Hon Chairman.
Mr Banda 1:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22, subclause (4), line 1, delete “public institution” and insert “information officer”.
Mr Speaker, the provision rather refers to the information officer but not the public institution because under clause 22, it is the information officer who takes a decision. It is not the institution, so putting in “public institution” would change the meaning of the provision. Therefore it is the information officer that takes the decision and not the public institution.
Mr Quashigah 1:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I disagree with the Hon Chairman on this note. The fact is that the information officer works within an institution and does not take some decisions on his own. It may be the directive of the institution that some information should not be released.
So he may only work for a superior officer, the reason for which I think that it is relevant to maintain “public institution” instead of “information officer”.

with Hon Quashigah to the extent that there is a designated officer, he is the one who would refuse or otherwise.

Therefore if that person refuses, it is not the institution. That is the need for which reasons must be given for refusals. So it is the designated officer, who in this case is the information officer. So it cannot be the public institution.
Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 1:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg my Hon Colleague to understand the rationale. We are allocating responsibility; we are holding somebody within an institution responsible. That is why we are deleting the innocuous body, “public institution”, and hold the person responsible. He must give reasons.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:52 p.m.
If the information officer refuses, do you have a right of appeal? If you do, who does it go to? [Interruption.] That is right. It is because it goes to the head of the institution first, so the institution would not have refused it. It is the information officer who has refused it. The power to make that final change is still with the institution.
Mr Mubarak 1:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I wanted to make a point, but it seems you have provided a ruling on it already.
The information officer acts on behalf of the institution. We may also want to look at instances where an information officer may personally be targeted. In avoiding that, a decision of the information officer is a decision of the institution.
Mr Speaker, you may have been familiar with instances of the issuance or refusal of visas. In the instance where visas are refused, it is the embassy that refuses the visa, and the reasons for refusal come
from the embassy and not a particular officer.
That is why in almost all of those cases, the name of an officer is not given because the officer who may have authorised the refusal had done so on behalf of the institution. It cannot be reduced to one individual.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:52 p.m.
Usually, they use “the consular officer”; do they not?
Some Hon Members 1:52 p.m.
Yes.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:52 p.m.
So it means that you could appeal above him.
Mr Bernard Ahiafor 1:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am looking at the amendment as against clauses 26, 27 and 28 of the Bill. I do not know whether the amendment proposed by the Hon Chairman would be consequential. This is because when we look at clause 26, it says:
“(1) A public institution may refuse to continue to process an application where the public institution has by notice demanded payment of a deposit in relation to the application…”
Clause 27 reads:
“(1) A public institution which fails to continue to process an application…”.
It also talks about “public institution”.
Clause 28 reads:
“Refusal of access --
(1) A public institution may refuse access to information if
(a) the application is manifestly frivolous or vexatious;”
So, it does not mean that the decision lies solely with the information officer. In the circumstance, it is the institution.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:52 p.m.
Hon Member, proceed to clause 32.
Mr Ahiafor 1:52 p.m.
Right to internal review
“Except as otherwise provided in this Act, a person aggrieved by a decision of the information officer of a public institution may submit an application for internal review of that decision to the head of the public institution.”
Mr Speaker, there are a whole lot of things that we would have to reconcile.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:52 p.m.
Very well; let us try to reconcile them.
The available Hon Leader -- we would close exactly at 2.00 p.m., so we should try to finish clause 22.
Mr Chiereh 2:02 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I listened to the Hon Ranking Member on the issue; he is quite right.
When we create an institution like this, the actions of individuals are still attributable to that office, but you must assign the responsibility to an individual whom you can hold responsible.
This is because if one says the public institution refuses to release access to information, whom is he going to ask?
When one gets there, one will find somebody they have assigned the duty
to and that person does not always get instructions from his superiors to perform. It is already part of his schedule and so he or she knows.
So we should assign it to that person ultimately, because we have a grievance procedure of people appealing and -- Otherwise, it means that the head of that institution should always be the one we are dealing with.
Mr Speaker, so I believe that the amendment should be supported; we are dealing with the officer but that officer represents the institution.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:02 a.m.
Hon Member for Keta, you have the last word then.
Mr Quashigah 2:02 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe that the way it is already captured --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:02 a.m.
Hon Members, having regard to the state of Business, I direct that the House Sits outside the regular Sitting hours. It is already 2 o'clock, we will finish clause 22 and then we will bring Proceedings to a close.
Mr Quashigah 2:02 a.m.
Mr Speaker, as much as I agree with what has been said by the Hon Minority Leader, we must also avert our minds to the fact that if somebody comes to Parliament seeking information, definitely they will go to the Public Affairs Department.
If they do not get the information from the Director of Public Affairs, when they go out, they will say, “Parliament refused to give the information”.
Mr Speaker, the onus always lies on the institution. So in making reference to the officer who has been designated to deal with that portfolio, it does not
Mr Agbodza 2:02 a.m.
Mr Speaker, who is the applicant making the request to? If we go to clause 18, it says:
(1) “An application to access information held by a public institution shall --
a. be made in writing to the public institution”.
Mr Speaker, so we are not applying for the information from an officer to start with, but then we could say, the “information officer”. So when Hon Ahiafor says that there is a lot of reconciliation to do, I believe that we may have to craft something somewhere that
designates the fact that when we are making an application --
Mr Speaker, in fact, you probably know that some institutions will even tell you that when you are applying for this, say, “the Director” or “the so and so officer” of this institution.
So we may be quite specific, since this is an attempt to give the public access to information, maybe, we need to be more explicit than to leave it like that because currently, you are only applying to the institution and not the information officer.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:02 a.m.
I believe that because there is another level of appeal above the information officer, if you say that it has been refused by the institution, it means that it is foreclosed. That is the institution has refused so you would have to appeal to the agency that is also within the institution.
Therefore probably, we will look at what reconciliation will do but I think the amendment is well placed because at the first instance, we are looking at applying to the information officer, and if he or she refuses, then you may appeal to the superior after that then you may go outside the institution.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:02 a.m.
Hon Chairman, how many more do you have? [Pause] All right. Let us proceed.
Mr Banda 2:02 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22, subclause (2), delete.
Mr Speaker, we would want to delete the words “deemed refusal”. What sub- clause (5) seeks to say is that if the application is sent to the public institution and the public institution does not act on
it within a specified period, that application is deemed to have been refused. We do not want that.
We want the public institution to act within a time period. Otherwise, we will create a situation where public institutions will not be working.
You bring your application, they will not tell you anything but they leave your application lying down and then after the expiration of a certain period, this provision would then state that your application is deemed to have been refused.
So we are doing away with the instance of “deemed refusal” of applications. Anytime an application is sent, the officer is obligated to act on it within a certain period of time and that is the intendment of this deletion.
Mr Agbodza 2:02 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe that the Hon Chairman is right in this regard.
For instance, if somebody applies by post and for some reason, the information officer never got the application, we cannot assume that he or she has decided not to provide the information. So I think that deleting this clause makes it safer for everybody.
Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 2:02 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is true that that was the position of the Committee at the Consideration Stage. In view of the first amendment, I believe that we should take a critical look at what we are proposing.
Mr Speaker, what clause 22 is doing is establishing a procedure and clause 22(4), as we have said “the information officer” because he or she can refuse. In clause 22(5), we are saying that where he wilfully neglects to respond, it will be deemed to be a refusal.
So we must do two amendments. Clause 22(5) must stay but we must delete “public institution” and insert “information officer”.
This is because if there is a wilful action on the part of the information officer not to respond within a specified period of time, that delay will be constructive refusal. Then the applicant could then invoke clause 32 to appeal against the action of the information officer. That is what it is saying.
Mr Speaker, but if you say we should delete it, there will be no process if you apply to the public institution which application is referred to the information officer, if the information officer wilfully delays or refuses, there will be no procedure.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:02 a.m.
I was about to ask whether you have provided for a situation where the information officer actually refuses or fails. If you have not, then it may not be safe to delete this.
Mr Chireh 2:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not think that we should delete it. I support the Hon Ranking Member in this.
We are just providing a situation where if somebody fails to do something and there would be a grievance procedure to follow.
But if he says that by providing it the institutions would take advantage of it then no, because there are consequences and so long as there are consequences then we need to just change the “public institution” to the “information officer” because of the previous one and leave it.
This is because it is just indicating that they are not helpless and when something happens they could take up the matter.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:12 p.m.
It is because
we cannot prevent people from being irresponsible or being deliberate. They would do it and if they do then there must be a provision.
Hon Chairman, so I think that the appropriate amendment is to change “public institution” to “information officer” so that the next process would kick in.
What do you suggest?
Mr Banda 2:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the reason for this amendment is that the application may be brought and it may not be acted upon within a certain period of time, but the information officer could ask for an extension of time.
We do not want to have a situation where the thing has been brought and it has not been acted upon within the prescribed period and the person has appealed only to be told subsequently that the application has been dealt with. The cost involved and the time involved in the application would have been in vain. We do not want to create that situation.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:12 p.m.
Hon Chairman, if he appeals then that is what he wants. So, if he gets the results before the appeal is heard then he should be happy. Truly, it is not about what we wish but it is about --
We make laws for bad people and they may be bad people so we should take into account the danger that there may be bad people and plan for them.
Hon Ahaifor, are you adding anything new? Otherwise, the Hon Chairman would accept the amendment that has been proposed and we would move on.
Mr Ahiafor 2:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if a case has been finished and a judgment is supposed to be delivered but the Judge who is to deliver the judgment has not done so, a person cannot appeal against a judgment that has not been delivered.
So, they could delay to deny a person access to information and that is why this clause has made provision for a timeframe within which a person is to provide the information.
Mr Speaker, and beyond that timeframe a person has a right to appeal against it deeming the failure to comply with the period within which the information must be supplied as a refusal to enable the appeal to be instituted against the refusal of information.
Mr Speaker, I believe we have to leave subclause (5) subject to the consequential amendment of using “information officer” instead of “public institution”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:12 p.m.
Hon Chairman, this is your amendment so --
Thank you.
The amendment would then be substitute “public institution” with “information officer”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:12 p.m.
In that case we have to abandon item numbered xxiii because subclause (6) becomes useful.

Hon Members, item numbered (xxiv).
Mr Banda 2:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22 subclause (9), opening phrase, line 1, delete “review” and insert “perusal”.
Mr Speaker, subclause 9 would read 2:12 p.m.
“Where upon the perusal of an application”.
Mr Speaker, it is the same information officer and it is not coming to him for a review. The use of the word “review” connotes that it has come to him and it is coming to him again for a second look.
Mr Speaker, but this is saying that whereupon the perusal of an application -- So, it is the same application that is before him which the information officer is looking at. It has not come back to him a second time for a review.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:12 p.m.
Very well. Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr Banda 2:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22, add the following new subclause:
“(10) Where information sought by an applicant does not exist because a duty is not placed on a public institution by any law to hold or collect the information, or the information has been destroyed in accordance with the time frame required by law for keeping the information, the information officer may give a notice to the applicant stating the reasons.”
Mr Agbodza 2:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe that the new clause is appropriate but just to ask the Hon Chairman because we were arguing about line 7 the other day -- whether “may” in this case also means “shall”.
Mr Speaker, because if he says that the officer may inform the applicant but assuming he decides not to -- unless “may” also meanss “shall”.
Mr Speaker, but I think that necessarily, whether the information exists or not, the officer should be able to get back to the person. So it is not classified as the officer has refused to respond to the applicant.
Mr Banda 2:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have no objection to the substitution of “may” for “shall”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:12 p.m.
Very well, Hon Ranking Member?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:22 p.m.
Mr Speaker, “or the information has been destroyed in accordance with the time required by law for keeping the information” is not necessary.
When information is generated in a public institution, after some time it is sent to the Public Records and Archives Administration Department (PRAAD). It is kept at PRAAD for a period of time which is consistent with the law and after that time the information is declassified if it is classified information. If it is not then it is destroyed.
So it goes through the process and that is after a period of time. We do not need this phrase that says the information has been destroyed.
An officer would have to direct an applicant to the Public Records and Archives Administration Department (PRAAD), and they would say for the Right to Information Act, we do not need to put it here.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:22 p.m.
This law is also made for PRAAD. So why should it not be here?
Yes, Hon Member for Daboya?
Mr S. Mahama 2:22 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I respectfully disagree with my Hon Ranking Member. In my view, this information is still necessary. It is necessary because you need to state the reason you are not giving that information out.
It could still be your institution, but the fraction of time -- Records could be kept and after five years we do not need to keep them here.
Even though a person may know that you are supposed to be holding that information, you are by this provision to explain to him that you do not have the information because it is over 10 years and you no longer keep information beyond 10 years.
So this is still necessary to explain; to give the reason you are not giving that information or a referral is made to a different institution for the information.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:22 p.m.
Hon Member for Wa West, do you want to add anything more?
Mr Chireh 2:22 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with him. The Ranking Member is out of order. [Laughter.]
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:22 p.m.
The reason I disagree with the Hon Ranking Member is that this law also applies to PRAAD.
So once it goes to PRAAD, and it is held for 25 years, somebody may go there to apply, and they would say no, they are allowed only to hold it for 25 years. Once the person has come after 25 years, it is no longer there.
This law applies to every institution of the country. And so I think it is relevant. I would put the Question.
Mr Banda 2:22 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not know whether it could be improved upon a little? Instead of saying “… has been destroyed in accordance with the time frame required by law for keeping the information …” would it be right to say: “… has been destroyed in accordance with law”?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:22 p.m.
I think it is better.
Have we got the appropriate rendition?
Question put and motion agreed to.
Clause 22 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:22 p.m.
That brings us to the end of Consideration Stage of the Right to Information Bill, 2018 for today.
Hon Members, before I bring proceedings to a close, I would want to thank all of you who cooperated with us and did not challenge my ruling for the suspension of all Standing Orders on quorum -- [Laughter] -- so that we could reach where we have reached. I thank you.
Hon Members, it is way past our closing time. I accordingly adjourn proceedings until Friday, 9th November, 2018 at 10 o'clock in the forenoon.
ADJOURNMENT 2:22 p.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 2.26 p.m. till Friday, 9th November, 2018 at 10.00 a.m.