Debates of 29 Jan 2019

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:20 a.m.
ANNOUNCEMENTS 10:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Hon Members, there is correspondence from H.E. the President though belatedly, it would be read. It is dated 17th January, 2019.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Hon Members, correction of Votes and Proceedings of Saturday. 22nd December, 2018.
  • [No correction was made to the Official Report of Friday 30th November, 2018]
    • WELCOME ADDRESS 10:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker 10:30 a.m.
    Hon Members, I presume you all had safe and comfortable journeys from your constituencies or working locations to the House. I am delighted to meet you again in the House and you are looking more refreshed for the work ahead of us.
    Your wellbeing is of course always of great concern to me. And I thank the Almighty God for travelling mercies and pray for continued guidance for each and every one of you throughout this Meeting and beyond.
    A few days ago, we gathered in grief for the committal of our brother, friend and colleague, the former Member of Ayawaso West Wuogon, Hon Emmanuel Kyere- manteng Agyarko to eternity.
    He played a critical role in the quest for making the House and country a better place for which we shall remember him for.
    Hon Members, much is expected of us and if we could continue to be humble, affable and exhibit the usual high sense of duty, I am of the opinion that we could
    make a high mark in public perception of the House and its Members.
    This Meeting will be eventful. His Excellency, the President of the Republic will present a Message on the state of the Nation to the House as required of him by the Constitution, and we shall receive him in style.
    Work on the much awaited Right to Information Bill (RTI) is expected to be concluded and passed to law. Similarly, the Conduct of Public Officers Bill which has been with the House for quite some time, will be worked on and passed. The same will be with regard to the Affirmative Action Bill.
    During the Meeting, about Thirty-nine (39) Bills and Twenty-five (25) Instruments are expected to be laid before the House. We shall assiduously work to pass them into laws as expected of us.
    I am pleased to inform Hon Members of the establishment of the Legal Services Department and recruitment of some relevant personnel. This gives us hope that the much anticipated legislation through Private Member's Bill will hopefully commence during the Meeting.
    Members may use the platform to tighten grey areas of many of the existing legislations or legally make actionable some of the challenges we face in our daily routines.
    The Parliamentary Service Board is expected to complete discussions with His Excellency, the President of the Republic on parameters of the “Precincts of our Parliament” and indeed, the establishment of an Enclave.
    This will give Parliament the freedom of determining special usage for its development and more importantly, control access of its Precincts.
    Mr Haruna Iddrisu 10:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, let me thank you for the opportunity and also welcome you.
    I would want all of us to be thankful to God and the Almighty Allah for bringing you, your two Deputies, the Leadership and all Hon Members of Parliament back to this House in the Third Session of the Seventh Parliament of the Fourth Republic of Ghana for the First Sitting of the First Meeting of this Parliament.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to use this opportunity to wish our Hon Colleagues a joyous, productive and an eventful 2019. May we serve the people of Ghana better, and may we serve them with integrity.
    Mr Speaker, in doing so, it is important that we remind ourselves as Hon Members of Parliament, that there are dire consequences for the betrayal of the public trust, and all of us must endeavour in the things that we do to at all times uphold the public trust.
    Mr Speaker, much is expected of us as legislators in the exercise of our oversight, legislative and investigative role, to serve the sovereign people of Ghana and in ensuring optimal and judicious use of Government resources, and more importantly, to hold Government and its Ministers accountable and the actions related to it.
    Mr Speaker, in Parliament, we expect that you would provide the needed leadership as you are doing, and to ensure that we adopt a new improved Standing Orders. This matter has been on in the last decade and we have no excuse further in postponing the unveiling of a new Standing Orders which would guide the work.

    We have often been told that a stronger Parliament reflects in stronger Committees and therefore, we would expect that we would bring closure to the important matter of the Standing Orders.

    Mr Speaker, I would also want to join you to welcome Lt Col John Hayes Kusigeyem Buntugah (Rtd), the new

    marshal who showed his skills here this morning. The Leadership through you have gotten Parliament a new Marshal.

    We all know what the role of the Marshal is and we wish him well and trust that he would acquaint himself with the Standing Orders and support you to maintain law and order and perform other duties.

    Mr Speaker, I would also want to note whiles commending you, of your efforts in getting C.I. 11 revised, which is the Constitutional Instrument under article 124 (5) of the Constitution, which affects all the members and workers of the Parliamentary Service and to assure them, workers of Parliamentary Service, of your commitment and dedication to ensure that merit is rewarded within the Parliamentary Service and that opportunities are made open to them for progression defined within the new policy.

    Mr Speaker, I would also want to join you as you remarked on Dagbon in commending President Nana Addo Dankwa Akuffo-Addo and all former Presidents who have played a role since 2002. The singular courageous action of the installation of Ya-Na Abukari II, in my view, remains a monumental legacy of the Administration.

    Mr Speaker, undoubtedly, it is a challenge to the people of Dagbon to unite Abudu's and Andani's alike, and we have been challenged to restore the pride, the dignity and the honour of the Dagbon State and to ensure that its time tested traditions are respected.

    Mr Speaker, we joined the President and the people of Dagbon -- but there are issues that must be addressed and addressed properly in order that we are better guided. I am sure that some of our Hon Colleagues who want to do more reading -- you yourself an academic --
    Mr Speaker 10:40 a.m.
    Thank you very much, Hon Minority Leader.
    Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I must join you in welcoming Hon Members back to the House for the commencement of the First Meeting of the Third Session of the Seventh Parliament of the Fourth Republic. I want to believe that the Christmas break afforded us all the opportunity to spend some time with our families and constituents.
    May I seize the opportunity of the occasion to express my profound appreciation to Hon Colleagues for the exhibition of such patriotism demonstrated in the Sittings of Parliament that encumbered 6 out of 7 days in every week in December 2018.
    We had to Sit on Mondays and Saturdays for 3 weeks running, and that was unprecedented and remains unprecedented in the anal of Ghana's Parliament: I am most grateful, especially to those Hon Members who sat throughout those wee hours to transact business of Parliament, indeed Ghana, shall remain eternally grateful to them.
    I thank God Almighty for sustaining our lives throughout this period and bringing us back safely to perform our constitutionally mandated duties. I pray that the good Lord will see us through this Meeting peacefully.
    Mr Speaker, last week, the nation witnessed the investiture of Ya-Na Abubakari Mahama, the new King of
    Dagbon. On behalf of Parliament and on my part, I do congratulate and involve the grace and blessings of Allah on him.
    I commend the people of Dagbon for this great achievement and the manner in which they conducted themselves during the installation of this great leader.
    Of course, this would not have been possible had it not been the painstaking efforts of the Committee of Eminent Chiefs, namely, the Asantehene, Otumfuo Osei- Tutu II, the Yagbonwura, Tuntumba Boresa Sulemana Jakpa and the Nayiri, Naa Bohugu Abdulai Sherifa.
    It is our fervent hope that the people of Dagbon shall from hence live in peace and harmony to facilitate the restoration of Dagbon and to ensure its rightful position in socio-cultural sphere of Ghana.
    The President of the Republic, Nana Addo Dankwa Akuffo-Akuff-Addo and his lieutenants must be commended for this tenancy, the culmination of what we witnessed at Yendi last Friday.
    Mr Speaker, just this month, our country has witnessed a number of unfortunate incidents.
    Many Ghanaians have expressed concern about security in the State, especially, against the backdrop of the gruesome murder of the undercover investigator, Ahmed Hussein-Suale and the Public Affairs Manager of Tema Port, Josephine Asante, just to mention a few.
    It is important for Parliament to urge the Police Service to relentlessly pursue these cases to their logical conclusion for justice to be served.
    Mr Speaker, the kidnapping of the three (3) girls in Takoradi in the Western Region is also worrying. We understand the police are working to unveil the people behind these sickly acts.
    We would want again to urge the Police to speed their step for us to come to a realisation of indeed, who is behind these unfortunate incidents that are threating the security of this country.
    Mr Speaker, before the House proceeded on recess, a number of issues had not been concluded. Notable among them is the Right to Information Bill. I would like to assure the public that we would work to ensure that this Bill is passed soonest at this meeting.
    We ourselves assured the nation that if for want of adequate space, since we had to deal with the Budget which was time-bound, we could not pass the Bill in December.
    The House shall deal with it in the very first weeks upon resumption. That is exactly what we have programmed to do and it is not due to any pressure from anywhere.
    We know and would do what is right and pertinent for God and country with the Committees, I urge Committee Chairmen, and leadership Clerks to work hard to present their reports to the Plenary to enable the House conclude those businesses.

    Mr Speaker, this Meeting is programmed to deal with many Bills, from Education, Agriculture, Energy, Health, Railways, to mention just a few. As at the last count, there were about 49 Bills. I have asked the various Ministers to prioritise those of them. This is because if we are
    Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:50 a.m.


    able to even do the Bills, it is not possible to do one Bill per day.

    It is not possible to transact business and complete business on each Bill every single day, which is why I have asked my colleagues, the Hon Ministers to prioritise and let us know which ones are of urgent importance and that Parliament needs to finish with them.

    Mr Speaker, in the previous meetings, not too many Members of Parliament participated in the crafting and smithing of enactments. I would plead with Hon Colleagues to demonstrate greater interest in law making. This is because, arguably, it is the most critical function of Parliament. And yet when it comes to dealing with Bills, we do not see too many people in the Chamber.

    Mr Speaker, as we all know, a number of reforms are currently ongoing which are intended to strengthen Parliament to meet the challenges of the changing times. The Standing Orders, the Regulations of the Parliamentary Service Act of 1993 (ACT 460) and the Strategic Plan are all being reviewed to enable us perform our cardinal functions effectively.

    I am aware that the review of the Parliamentary Service Staff Regulations in particular, has been concluded and the Board has also almost finished its consideration and approval. What is left is for the appropriate processes to be invoked to bring the Implementation of the reviewed C.I (II) to speed up in order for the staff to enjoy the anticipated benefits.

    That will provide some motivation to further lubricate the system.

    In much the same way, Mr Speaker, I am trusting that the Standing Orders

    Committee would be served with the Reviewed Standing Orders in order for the Committee to apprise themselves of the status of the review and thereafter submit their reports to Parliament.

    I would want to believe that this Meeting will bring the business of the review of the Standing Orders to a closure, in order for us to do what is necessary and appropriate, arising out of the review of the standing Order.

    Mr Speaker, in this meeting, the House will hear the President's State of the nation address on the 21st of February, 2019. Thereafter Parliament will debate the address of the President.

    I would entreat Hon Members to endeavour to be in the House early and our support staff, especially our Clerk and his Deputies, the Table Officers, Hansard Department and all who are working behind the scenes to propel Parliament, a happy and prosperous New Year.

    I would also want to wish the President and all the Ministers a productive New Year which will translate into qualitative improvement in the lives of Ghanaians.

    To the Press, say a Happy 2019 to you all. It is my hope that; you would be poised to deliver as always quality service for the advancement of this House.

    Mr Speaker I thank you for the opportunity.
    Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, you may want to make an addition?
    Mr Iddrisu 10:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, just for the record. I need to recognise the three eminent Chiefs; the Asantehene, the Nayiri and the Yagbonwura led by His Royal Highness, the Asantehene in chatting what has become the successful investiture and installation and
    enskinment of a Ya-Na and the normalcy that have returned to the Dagbon State, so that the record would appropriately capture my commendation which is extended to them.
    They should still police the process to ensure that the other issues are dealt with.
    Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
    Leadership, thank you very much for your remarks.
    Hon Members, we have here, the Business Statement which we would admit out of turn by the invocation of Standing Order 53(2). For that matter, I would call upon the Hon Majority Leader to present same.
    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 10:50 a.m.
    Chairman of the Business Committee/ Majority Leader (Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah- Bonsu) 10:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you very much. I believe this is a genuine oversight because we are used to the presentation of Business Statements on Fridays. So
    when it has to be done on Tuesdays -- I guess we can forgive the oversight.
    Introduction
    Mr Speaker, the Committee met yesterday, Monday, 28th January 2019 and arranged Business of the House for the First Week ending Friday, 1st February
    2019.
    Mr Speaker, the Committee accordingly submits its report as follows 10:50 a.m.
    Arrangement of Business
    Formal Communications by the Speaker
    Mr Speaker, you may read any available communication to the House if there are any.
    Question(s) Mr Speaker, the Business Committee
    has scheduled the following Ministers to respond to Questions asked of them during the week:
    No. of
    Mr Speaker, the Committee accordingly submits its report as follows 10:50 a.m.
    Question(s)
    i. Attorney-General and Minister for Justice -- 2
    ii. Minister for Roads and Highways -- 5
    Total Number of Questions -- 7
    Mr Speaker, Two (2) Ministers are expected to attend upon the House to respond to Seven (7) Questions during the week. The questions are of the following types:
    i. Urgent -- 1;
    ii. Oral -- 6
    Statements
    Mr Speaker, pursuant to Order 70(2), Ministers of State may be permitted to make Statements of Government policy. Statements duly admitted by the Rt. Hon. Speaker may be made in the House by Hon. Members, in accordance with Order
    72.

    Bills, Papers and Reports

    Mr Speaker, Bills may be presented to the House for First Reading in accordance with Order 120. However, those of urgent nature may be taken through the various stages in one day in accordance with Order 119.

    Pursuant to Order 75, Papers for presentation to the House may be placed on the Order Paper for laying. Committee reports may also be presented to the House for consideration.

    Motions and Resolutions

    Mr Speaker, Motions may be debated and their consequential Resolutions, if any, taken during the week.

    Mr Speaker, the Business Committee welcomes all Hon. Members back from the recess. The First Meeting is expected to span Eleven Weeks and would be demanding of all Hon. Members. All Hon. Members are therefore implored to brace themselves for the task ahead of us.

    Conclusion

    Mr Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 160(2) and subject to Standing Order 53, the Committee submits to this Honourable House the order in which the Business of the House shall be taken during the week under consideration.

    Statements

    Presentation of Papers--

    (a) Convention on the International Hydrographic

    Organisation as Amended by the Protocol of 2005.

    (b) Protocol of 2005 to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA Convention).

    (c) Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf,

    2005.

    (d) International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001.

    (e) Protocol of 1998 relating to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS),

    1974.

    (f) Protocol of 1988 relating to the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966.

    (g) Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, 2007.

    (h) Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, 2009.

    (i) Request for waiver of Import Duties, Import VAT/ GETFund Levy, Import NHIL, ECOWAS Levy, EXIM Levy, Special Import Levy amounting to the Ghana Cedi equivalent of eight hundred and two, two hundred and sixty-two euros (€802,262.00) on project materials and equipment to be imported for the implementation of the “Services for the Enhancement of Nationwide Water Network

    Management” Project by the Ghana Water Company Limited

    (GWCL).

    (j) Request for waiver of Import Duty, VAT and other applicable taxes on vehicles with engine capacity not exceeding 2000cc for Foreign Service Officers and Analogous appointees.

    (k) Report of the Finance Committee on the Annual Report of the Public Interest and Accountability Committee (PIAC) on the Management of Petroleum Revenues for the year 2017.

    Consideration Stage of Bills--

    Right to Information Bill, 2018. (Continuation)

    Committee sittings.

    Statements

    Motion --

    Adoption of the Report of the Committee on Lands and Forestry on the illegal Felling and Harvesting of Rosewood and its Attendant Destruction of the Environment in the Builsa South District.

    Consideration Stage of Bills--

    Right to Information Bill, 2018. (Continuation)

    Committee sittings.

    Urgent Question --
    Mr Rockson-Nelson Etse Kwame Dafeamekpor (South Dayi) 10:50 a.m.
    To ask the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice why the General Legal Council has not issued and/or renewed licenses of lawyers who were formerly Circuit Court Judges and Magistrates.
    Questions--
    *483. Mr Rockson-Nelson Etse Kwame Dafeamekpor (South Dayi): To ask the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice the steps the Chief Justice has taken to appoint Judges to the High Courts in Hohoe and Ho.
    Statements
    Consideration Stage of Bills--
    Right to Information Bill, 2018. (Continuation)
    Committee sittings.

    Questions--

    *521. Mr Eric Afful (Amenfi West): To ask the Minister for Roads and Highways when the following roads will be continued and completed: (i) Asankrangwa town roads (ii) Samreboi town roads (iii) Asankrangwa - Asankran - Bremang.

    *522. Mr Eric Afful (Amenfi West): To ask the Minister for Roads and Highways whether the Ministry is aware that the road between Samreboi through Woman-No- Good to Prestea has been closed
    Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, I thank you.
    Any contributions?
    Yes, Hon Samuel George?
    Mr Samuel Nartey George 11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to thank the Hon Majority Leader for the Business Statement that has been presented.
    However, I would like to suggest to the Hon Majority Leader that the Hon Minister for the Interior should also be programmed to appear before the House to brief the House on the state of security in the country.
    This is as a result of given the recent incidents in the past few weeks, so that as representatives of the people, we can communicate that. I would be most grateful if that could be considered by the Business Committee.
    I thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Ras Mubarak 11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am very grateful for the opportunity.
    Mr Speaker, on item listed (i) on page 1 of the Business Statement, there is an omission of a ‘thousand'. It should read eight hundred and two thousand, two hundred and sixty-two euros. But the ‘thousand' has been omitted; if it would be corrected.
    Mr Speaker, on item numbered 1 (j) which is also on the first page, what is the value of tax waivers that are being proposed per the request? I do not see how much Parliament is being asked to waive as far as those waivers are concerned.
    Mr Speaker, finally, the 31st of January, 2019 is the day that has been slated for the by-election at Ayawaso West Wuogon. Considering the enormity of interest from both Sides in the by-election.
    We know for a fact that Hon Members from both Sides of the aisle have even indicated they might want to perform some polling agent duties.
    Is there any way that the House could look at giving the day off to Hon Members of Parliament, considering the interest, so that we can go and perform our political civil duties as far as the by-election is concerned?
    Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah 11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, in inviting the Hon Majority Leader to present the Business Statement, you referred the House to Standing Order 53 (2). I beg to read with your permission:
    “By leave of Mr. Speaker the Order of Business set out in the Order Paper may be altered on any particular day.”
    Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance; the Business Statement is not captured on the Order Paper. The practice in this House is that if there is business to be conducted, which is not on the Order Paper, an Order Paper Addendum is supplied.
    My understanding on the altering of business would be that business set out in the Order Paper can be moved forward. So, I seek Mr Speaker's guidance if it is the case that we can transact business which is not captured on the Order Paper?
    Mr Ahmed Ibrahim 11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would just want to comment on one or two issues and resume my seat.
    Mr Speaker, on page 1, item listed1 (i), the figure that is quoted there has disparity between the amount in words and that in figures. Which of them is the correct one?
    Mr Speaker, considering this week, the Hon Majority Leader said the State of the Nation Address would be presented, hopefully, by the 21st of February, 2019. This means that the moment it is presented, debate would arise in this House and we are going to be very busy.
    But if we look at the main business for this week, it is only the Right to Information Bill that is advertised for consideration on the Business Statement. We could add the Payment Systems (Amendment) Bill, so that the two would be running side by side.
    I believe we started considering that in the last Meeting and could not finish. This would enable us to do some good business before the State of the Nation Address is presented to the House. These are the two issues I would want to raise.
    I thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member for Ningo Prampram, Mr Samuel Nartey George, is urging us to invite the Hon Minister for the Interior to come and give us some briefings.
    Mr Speaker, the Business Committee is a Committee of the House and no Committee on its own conjures up its own programme and then acts on same. There would have to be a necessary referral to the Committee before the Committee can programme. So, if there is nothing before the Business Committee, the Committee on its own cannot programme anything.
    [Interruption] Mr Speaker, if the Hon Member is
    requesting the Rt. Hon Speaker, he cannot do so in plenary; he knows what to do.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
    Hon Samuel George, has been here for two years now and he knows what to do.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that the issue contained in the matter may be germane to the House and indeed to the country. So, we would think through and see what to do appropriately.
    Mr Speaker, Hon Ras Mubarak drew our attention to an omission in page 1, item numbered 1 (i). I believe certainly that that must be the printer's devil and the correction would be effected appropriately. It should be eight hundred and two thousand, two hundred and sixty-two euros and should be captured as such.
    Mr Speaker, the one that he related to in item numbered 1 (j) is again spot on.

    What was written there was indicative and we expected the Ministry of Finance to supply us with the exact figures. The Hon Deputy Minister is supposed to submit the figures to us and if they are not able -- I know they are in a meeting now. Is he here? [Interruption] All right.

    They requested that if he was not around, I should lay the Paper for them. Now that he is here, I believe, he could supply us with the details.

    Mr Speaker, Hon Mubarak is urging that we take Thursday off. Thursday cannot be a holiday for us. We need to come and do some work. It is in recognition of what is anticipated that for the entirety of this week, the load is really light for us.

    As he knows, for Bills, we are dealing with only the Right to Information Bill,

    2018. That should answer the question of the Hon Second Deputy Minority Whip. We took that strategic decision to lighten the burden on us this week.

    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman of the Finance Committee has drawn your attention to Order 53 (2) and has said that we cannot vary what is non-existent. I do not know his own understanding of the Orders.

    Mr Speaker, if we are talking about the Business Statement, it is never captured as an item -- [the Hon Member turned to address the Hon Chairman of the Finance Committee] -- because it is considered a Statement.
    Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, you should address me. [Laughter]
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am addressing you.
    Mr Speaker, the Business Statement is considered a Statement. There is place for Statements and that is whhy you called for its alteration. I believe if the Hon Member had really perused the document before him better, he would have seen that there is a place for Statements, which variation you called for.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you very much.
    Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Hon Members, I will address the matter of enlistment or otherwise of the Business Statement. There are various saving clauses for good purpose in the rules. If we refer to Order 5 on page 2 of the Standing Orders, it reads:
    “In case of doubt these Orders shall be interpreted by Mr Speaker as he deems fit.”
    And Order 6 says:
    “In all cases not provided for in these Orders, Mr Speaker shall make provisions as he deems fit.”
    These provisions are not there for decorations. Contemporary lawyers would tell you that it is the application of the purposive definition by our Supreme Courts in recent times to give business efficacy to matters of State.
    This is a good example of that. It is purposive, clear and a definitive application of the discretion given to the Hon Speaker to let Business continue in the House.
    Hon Members, you would realise that it is not all our applications that are made in writing and placed in advance, but they may be made orally even on the Floor of the House. This is a purposive application to give the House and its work business efficacy.
    Hon Members, the Business Statement is accordingly admitted as presented.
    Item listed 3 -- Statements.
    The Hon Majority Leader will make a Statement.
    STATEMENTS 11:10 a.m.
    Majority Leader (Mr Osei Kyei- Mensah-Bonsu) (MP) 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, when the funeral of our Hon Colleague, the Late Hon Emmanuel Kwabena Kyeremanteng Agyarko came to be held, Parliament was still in recess.
    So as it has become the practice, we could not have any tribute read in his memory. Today being the first day upon reconvening, it is only appropriate that we have a tribute read in his memory.
    I would accordingly read a tribute by Parliament in memory of the Late Hon Emmanuel Kwabena Kyeremanteng Agyarko.
    And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord henceforth; Yea, saith, the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them (Rev. 14:13, King James Version).
    Even as mere mortals, we do-recognise the need to commemorate the renowned dead, and have enshrined in the hearts of succeeding generations their virtues worthy of emulation.
    For Parliament as an institution, the Late Hon Emmanuel Kyeremanteng Agyarko-is undoubtedly one of such virtuous characters the House has known, and November 21, 2018 which recorded the demise of this personality would continue to resonate the loss to the House.
    The Hon Member's association with the Parliament of Ghana dates back to 2013 when he entered Parliament, as the Member for the Ayawaso West Wuogon Constituency.
    Hon Kyeremanteng was a distin- guished statesman who was primarily concerned about nation building. He would forever be remembered by Parliament, as an agent of change, a purpose driven industrialist, an honest and selfless politician and a patriot.
    As a distinguished pharmacist, Hon Kyeremanteng took keen interest in the work of Parliament and availed the House of his knowledge, skills and expertise both
    Majority Leader (Mr Osei Kyei- Mensah-Bonsu) (MP) 11:20 a.m.
    at Plenary and in Committees, in matters of governance as well as science and technology.
    He served on the Committee on Health and the Government Assurances Committee and also chaired the Committee on Environment, Science and Technology.
    Hon Kyeremanteng was an ardent advocate who supported the promotion and security of Ghanaian business interests and utilised legislative tools available to him to further that agenda.
    Contributing to a debate at the Consideration Stage of the Ghana Investment Promotion Centre Bill, Hon Agyarko sought to canvas support of his colleagues for an amendment to reserve the importation of certain goods for Ghanaians. He said:
    “Mr Speaker, it is with specific reference to the issue of reserving the importation for the Ghanaian. Mr Speaker, as far as history goes, the Ghanaian has been at the forefront of this business... Mr Speaker, I think a few things have come up in the industry that create a very threatening situation for the Ghanaian ...we believe that it is necessary to reinforce this for the Ghanaian because there is no law. But Mr Speaker, there is a clear danger looming ahead of us.
    Mr Speaker, the real danger is that to the extent that this economy continues to improve, if all the indices continue to do well, we would have all of them flooding inland, what would happen is that they would elbow
    out the Ghanaian who has held the fort...Mr Speaker, there is a history; if something happens and something goes wrong with our economy, I can assure you, all of them would go away....”

    The Hon Member was of the firm conviction that, the time had come for specific policy intervention to preserve, protect, encourage and propel the growth and development of the local industry and not just the enactment of appropriate legislation for the sector.

    He also believed that appropriate policy measures could create the necessary environment to harness funds for economic and industrial development projects through private initiatives, and thus minimise over-dependence on the Ministry of Finance for funding of all development projects.

    The Late Hon Member's background in institutional regulation came in handy on matters of law enforcement for protecting life and property. In this regard, he called for the resourcing of regulatory bodies and proffered solutions founded on practical experience. Emphasising the need for law enforcement in his contribution to a Statement in Parliament on the collapse of a building, he stated:

    “Mr Speaker, the imperatives are that, as a nation, we must begin to enforce the laws. When somebody has to put up a building, all of us must learn to do the proper thing...I am not too sure but I would want to believe that there must be a law in this country that requires a certificate from a competent professional. Mr Speaker... the crux of what is happening really and truly is just pointing to a regulating

    failure. ...Mr Speaker, I would want to ask, do we really have competent, well qualified architects, engineers, quantity surveyors in the Assembly? If we do, we should begin to ask some questions. ...We have become a country where everybody want a shortcut and we would not stick to the regulations.”

    Upon joining the august House, the Hon Member's primary role of representing his constituents was not lost on him when contributing to national matters. Indeed, he seized every opportunity on the Floor of the House to champion the interest and well- being of his constituents and Ghanaians as a whole.

    He was not just concerned about effective and efficient delivery of health services including the needed health infrastructures and pharmaceutical products for the treatment and prevention of diseases; education and its full complement of facilities-water, electricity and good road, was a critical part of the deliverables of good governance.

    He was also very much concerned about the safety of lives on our highways and was, in this regard, a chief crusader for road safety. He gave full expression to this noble task in his Statement on the Floor in which he drew attention to the loss of lives of students of the University of Ghana through road traffic accidents and called for measures to curb the situation.

    The late Kyeremanteng, consumed by passion and sympathy for the loss of lives of these precious souls, decried:

    “Mr Speaker, it is a very sad circumstance that has occasioned the making of this Statement. Within the week of the 18th to the 25th of

    January this year, three Level 100 students of the premier university of our dear nation, the University of Ghana, Legon, which is situated in my constituency, lost their lives through road accidents. ...The 2009 World Health Organisation Global Status Report on Road Safety put the number of people who die each year on the roads at approximately 1.3 million and between 20 - 50 million sustaining non-fatal injuries globally. The Report further states that, road traffic injuries remain a major public health problem, particularly for low and middle income countries, and children and young adults aged between 10 and 29 years are the most vulnerable.

    Hon Agyarko had always maintained that the use of science was sine qua non for the transformation of the economy and the lives of the people of Ghana, and never ceased to champion this view on the Floor of the House and any other fora whenever he had the opportunity.

    It was therefore not uncommon to find his contributions on national development issues dwelling largely on the need for the Government to provide adequate financial resources to support science and technology. Indeed, this was how he expressed his satisfaction as the Chair of the Committee on Environment, Science, Technology and Innovation during deliberations on the Floor.
    Mr Speaker once again, I beg to quote 11:20 a.m.
    “Mr Speaker, the African Union (All) in one of its protocols has directed that every African country must spend about one per cent of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on science, technology and innova- tion. Mr Speaker, it is gratifying to note that between the fiscal years
    Mr Speaker once again, I beg to quote 11:20 a.m.


    of 2016 and 2018, this has gone up from about 0.20 per cent to about 0.35 per cent. Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would quote something that was said, about 60 years ago by Mr Pandit Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India: He said and I beg to quote:

    “. . . it is science alone that can solve the problems of hunger and poverty, of insanitation and illiteracy, of superstition and deadening custom and tradition, of vast resources running to waste, or a rich country inhabited by starving people ....who indeed could afford to ignore science today? At every turn, we have to seek its aid...The future belongs to science and those who make friends with science”.

    In contributing to debate on the 2017 State of the Nation Address, his focus, as usual included issues related to science and the environment in particular. He stated:

    “...Environmental degradation has consequences. The one that comes up is what all of us term climate change. Maybe we can all not talk about the size of it but all of us feel the consequences. It rains when it must not, and when we are all expecting it so that the farmers can plant, it does not come. When this happens, agriculture fails. When agriculture fails what it means is that about 50 per cent of the population is in danger of not being able to achieve any livelihood at all…”

    He was a staunch advocate for transformational change, and saw this as condition precedent to sustainable growth and development. He therefore, called for consistent and sustained effort in this regard.

    Hon Kyeremanteng was an honest and friendly gentleman who related so well with all colleagues on both Sides of the divide and staff of the Parliamentary Service. His usual perpetual smile was both disarming and infectious.

    He was a selfless politician who lived and demonstrated the beauty of democracy by supporting any cause which in his view, promoted the interest and dignity of humanity irrespective of whether he derived any gains therefrom.

    As a politician and a business man, he was seen as a person who always put the interest of society above his own. While sticking to his political philosophy, which was liberal democracy, he was not given to dogmatism such that one could hardly notice any trait of partisan political colouration in his dealings with Hon Colleagues.

    He led a humble life and found joy in service to humanity. Indeed, the family, the people of Ayawaso West Wuogon Constituency, the New Patriotic Party, Parliament and the nation as a whole have lost a husband, father, a son, a brother, nephew, an uncle, a true friend and a true gentleman, model Parliamentarian, a democrat, a true patriot, a philanthropist and a statesman.

    The entire nation will surely remember him for his frankness, open-mindedness, critical but affable nature, his selflessness and, particularly, his dedication to duty and sense of responsibility to Ghana.

    Needless to say, our sense of loss at his passing on is poignant. We would have wished to have him for many more beautiful years to enable us work together. We however, must be grateful to God to have had him with us. Thoughts of him will forever linger in our hearts and minds long after we have wiped our tears, and he will be dearly missed.

    May the soul of Hon Emmanuel Kwabena Kyeremanteng Agyarko and the souls of all the faithfully departed ones rest in perfect peace in the bosom of the Good Lord till we meet again.
    Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Thank you very much, Hon Majority Leader. Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Iddrisu 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the --
    Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Would you want to conclude?
    Mr Iddrisu 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, rightly so. If you --
    Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Yes, Hon --?
    Mr Ras Mubarak 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much --
    Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Ladies first. Hon Member, I was not even looking there. [Laughter]
    Dr Bernice A. Heloo (NDC -- Hohoe) 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you.
    I rise to contribute to this tribute on behalf of the Committee on Environment, Science and Technology of which the Hon Member was the Hon Chairman. I must say that the entire Committee is really grieved by this sudden demise of our Chairman.
    Mr Speaker, Hon Agyarko was very professional and affable in dealing with the Committee. In fact, he did not go according to political divide but treated us all equally and also gave us the opportunity when the need arose.
    Mr Speaker, I recall a visit by a team from Liberia which came with a rather difficult subject that we all found difficult to deal with effectively.
    Hon Agyarko used his past experience and especially his knowledge in the field of science and technology and guided all of us to deal with the matter in a very professional manner to the extent that the delegation was very happy and invited us to Liberia.
    The Hon Agyarko was so hardworking and when I listened to the history for the last three months leading to his demise, it gives an indication that he was still working when he knew he had an ailment. He represented us so well that after each meeting, he would ask how we fared. That gave us the opportunity to also give our views on whatever transpired at the Committee meeting.
    Mr Speaker, the Committee on Environment, Science and Technology is now an enviable Committee for Hon Members as they vie to join us. This is just because of the leadership of the late Hon Chairman.
    He changed the face of the Committee to the extent that we are really recognised. We want to promise that we will continue on the path that he trodded and also work better so that the Committee will be the first among all the Committees in his memory.
    With these few words, I pray that the Hon Member's soul rest in the bosom of the Lord and also use this opportunity to console his family; the children and everyone associated with his death.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity and may God bless and keep him in His bosom.
    Mr Seth Acheampong (NPP -- Mpraeso) 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to add my voice to the tribute being paid by the House to our former Hon Collegue; the late Emmanuel Kwabena Acheampong Kyeremanteng Agyarko.
    Mr Speaker, he was a gentleman that every Hon Member across the divide of this House loved; he would smile and laugh with everybody and was very affable. I followed him closely because he never cared about the age difference between us. He would humbly ask me; ‘Kwame, how did I fare? Did I do it nicely? Was I gentle? Did I do it well?”
    Mr Speaker, typical of all of us, when it was wrong, we would tell him and if we were wrong, he also told us.
    I am an Hon Chairman, though he was my Hon Chairman because I belong to the Committee on Environment, Science and Technology, and just as has been said, he demonstrated his knowledge in the sciences.
    Anytime we met with professionals, the Hon Agyarko would let us appreciate that indeed, he was a scientist; and not that alone, he was a person who had worked and been a leader in public office. He brought all that to bear.
    Mr Speaker, he gave us a formal or normal traditional knowledge that upbringing offers every nurtured soul and he would point it directly to us that he did not think that we were right on a point and we should apologise to the fellow.
    The Ayawaso West Wuogon Constituency has lost a great servant and I pray that they will find a befitting replacement.
    Mr Speaker, words would not be able to afford us the needed description we would want to offer our late Hon Colleague but we would leave it in the hands of our Maker. May his soul that has returned to Him be kept; and may our Maker keep him in His bosom and ensure that on the day which we all do not know that it would dawn on us at the time of our calling, we would all unite again and mother Ghana would forever and ever be grateful it had children like himself and us.
    I am very saddened but after what I witnessed last Saturday when we all offered our last respect to him, it became a unique respect that was well paid to our late Hon Colleague.
    Mr Speaker, I know that I am not the right person to thank the Republic and its managers and leaders; His Excellency the President, the Vice President and your good self.
    You spent the whole day mourning our Hon Colleague which demonstrated our love for him “I believe that he is equally happy and those of us who knew him, we would say that we thank each and every soul that spent time to share in the time that the family was in grief and I know that at the right time, the family would speak to the hearing of all of us.
    I thank you for the opportunity to add my voice to the tribute paid in his honour this morning.
    Mr Emmanuel K. Bedzrah (NDC -- Ho West) 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to also add my voice to the tribute that is being paid to our departed Hon Colleague.
    Mr Speaker, last Saturday as we witnessed the memorial service, the Rev Minister who preached the message
    quoted a scripture from the Bible that our late Hon Colleague posted on his Facebook walls. As I travelled back to my Constituency, I pondered over that scripture.
    Mr Speaker, permit me to quote Psalm
    90:12:
    “So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom”.
    That was the scripture the Rev Minister who preached at this memorial service quoted that our late Hon Colleague posted on his Facebook wall, when he heard that one of his constituents had departed. He asked, “what is it at all in this life”?

    Mr Speaker, we have all been voted for as Members of Parliament. The comments and tributes we heard about our late brother show clearly that he had served his constituency to his best ability.

    He had done that which a Member of Parliament -- a Member of Parliament who had become a husband to widows, father to the fatherless and everything to everybody, to the extent that the preacher said he had a nickname called “ eda ho plain”, meaning that he is so open when it comes to issues of openness.

    I understand that his constituents would come to him and he would give them the last money in his pocket out. That is the work that our brother has left with us. So I ask myself, being a Member of Parliament, philanthropist and all that we are to everybody, at the end of the day, what shall we be remembered for?

    Mr Speaker, as we sit here, most of us could be sick. Do we go for our regular check-ups? If we do, what are we saying about ourselves? What are others saying about us? Should we come back here one day and give a tribute about you or when one is no longer a Member of Parliament, would we say that the person had walked the surface of the earth and left a legacy to follow?

    Our brother left a legacy; and to the people out there whom he served, today Emmanuel Agyarko is no more. He is no longer on planet earth. He is gone with all the pressure that was mounted on him. He has gone to continue his work somewhere else. What about those he served? What are they going to do for his children? What are they going to do for others?

    When we walk around as Members of Parliament, when we come to this House, we also carry burdens. We have issues, but because people see us laughing, they do not know that some of us are not even well. People think that we have everything, and the money in our pocket is for everybody.

    Mr Speaker, let us be honest. Let us be like Mr Emmanuel Agyarko who would smile, and if he did not have, he would continue to borrow and give to others. Let us also remember that we have children whom we need to leave property and legacies for.

    Mr Speaker, with these few words, on behalf of the Government Assurance Committee of which I am the Ranking Member -- he has contributed to the growth of the Committee. When we had our retreat recently at Ada, he contributed effectively for the growth of the Committee.
    Mr Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Thank you very much, Hon Member, for words well spoken.
    Mrs Patricia Appiagyei (NPP-- Asokwa) 11:40 a.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to add my voice to the number of commendations made here in respect of the late Hon Emmanuel Kwabena Agyarko.
    Mr Speaker, I happened to be in the same Committee with Mr Emmanuel Agyarko, and it is worth noting that if you wanted a committed personality as far as parliamentary duties were concerned, I would say that Mr Agyarko exhibited that characteristic. It is also worth noting that he was such an affable person and was selfless in everything that he did.
    Having worked with him as the Chairman of the Committee on Environment, Science and Technology -- since I happen to be the Hon Deputy Minister -- for that sector I have observed that he contributed a lot to our national agenda, because he was a man who had so much knowledge about science and technology. He was widely read and he knew what he was talking about at any point in time.
    Mr Speaker, I noted that Mr Emmanuel Kwabena Agyarko was one person who did not want to be idle for even a minute. He would not even sit down doing nothing for ten minutes, to the extent that the last day I saw him in the Chamber, I inquired
    of him, “Hon Member, when are you going to sit down continuously for about 30 minutes?” this is because he had a number of things running in his mind.
    I also noted that he was always about seeking for opportunities for Hon Members of the Committee.
    I would like to state that for the first time in the Committee's performance, a number of the Committee Members were introduced to a number of international conferences, where they received a very wide knowledge of what was happening especially with emerging issues with regard to the Paris Agreement, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), et cetera.
    I believe that we have lost a gem, and it is rather unfortunate that at this point in our lifetime, when we are looking at our climate issues and how we can integrate the SDG objectives into our national policies, we have to lose a character like this.
    Mr Speaker, I regret it so much, and I pray that his soul would rest in perfect peace.
    With these few words, I thank you very much for the opportunity.
    Mr Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Thank you very much, Hon Member.
    The last two contributions, and then the Hon Minority Leader.
    Hon Yieleh Chireh?
    Mr Joseph Yieleh Chireh (NDC -- Wa West) 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much for this opportunity to pay tribute to my late Hon Colleague -- my only Colleague who has left me in this House alone. It is not good.
    Mr Speaker, the gentleman we are paying tribute to is a manifestation of a pharmacist, because if you know, our profession has a saying and the emblem is amicus humani generis, that is, friend of the human race.
    So he was manifesting that. He was a friend of the human race. As all would attest to, he did not discriminate. He was hardworking and always ready to serve others.
    When I met this young man he was a few years behind me in school, but the memorable occasions that I can mention here is when I came to Parliament and he was then the Chief Executive of the Food and Drugs Board, now Food and Drugs Authority. We worked very closely in terms of legislation to improve upon what we now have.
    He initiated a lot of projects in that institution, and we were all happy that as a pharmacist, he helped to restructure and rebuild the institution. He was part of the transformation from Food and Drugs Board to Food and Drugs Authority.

    Again, when he became an Hon Member of Parliament, he followed and because of his background, he worked closely with the Committee on Health which I chaired. So the Leadership of the Committee decided that he should be a permanent member.

    His contribution to the Committee sometimes was more than that of the Hon Members of the Committee. He was full of energy, as we all know, he was hardworking he helped the Committee tremendously and I believe that if we all work like he did, we can improve our relations in Ghana.

    As a politician, I do not have to talk about what he did. I experienced it and it is a big loss for all of us. One thing that all of us should remember is that the tributes, attendance and the show of solidarity with him in death tells us how we should conduct our business because the man knew he was sick but I did not know.

    It is sometimes very good that people do not get depressed because they have a condition. He did not show it. He went ahead and worked to the last day and I believe that it is an inspiration to all of us. No matter what the situation is, we should continue to serve human beings, the nation and Parliament. It is shorter in terms of all the contributions that we could have had from him.

    I plead that the family and all his associates would take this loss very seriously, but at the same time be happy that this is a man that we are all happy about, especially what he did. He left a position that we all envy.

    Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity.
    Mr Daniel Titus-Glover (NPP -- Tema East) 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would also like to contribute to the Statement made by the Hon Leader on our Brother, Friend and everything in the Chamber.
    Mr Speaker, there is a saying that an upright tree does not last long in the forest. Anybody who wants to use a tree, particularly, when one comes from the forest area and goes into the forest and a tree is upright, he would want to cut it and use it for something in the home.
    Hon Agyarko, apart from being a brother and a friend, was full of passion. He was a gentleman who was very hardworking and so intelligent. One thing I can remember my brother for is his spirit
    rose
    Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    I am afraid, the Hon Minority Leader would conclude as I said.
    Mr Haruna Iddrisu (NDC -- Tamale South) 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, let me thank you for the opportunity to pay tribute to the late Hon Emmanuel Kwabena Kyeremanteng Agyarko, and in doing so, commend the Hon Majority Leader who made the Statement in recognising Hon Agyarko's contribution to the public service of Ghana.
    Mr Speaker, the late Hon MP for Ayawaso West Wuogon was a former CEO of FDB and history will remember him for some major reforms of that institution as a health regulatory institution. To quote the Hon Yieleh Chireh, Hon Agyarko remained a friend of the human race.
    Mr Speaker, when this House determined the membership and chairmanship of Committees, my sense was ideally to think of him to belong to or chair the Health Committee but he remarked to me politely that “Hon Leader, I would want to be in the Committee on Environment, Science and Technology.”
    Mr Speaker, Hon Agyarko was one person who teased the minds of many because he did not naturally believe in the superiority of his own wisdom so, he would ultimately refer to you as “Leader”
    or “Kwame” and ask, what do you think? This was in order that he would appreciate your view point on any matter.
    Mr Speaker, he was given a befitting burial, thanks to your presence and that of the national leadership as an Hon MP. Apart from Kokrokro where he was noted as eda ho plain, one remarkable thing we can do as a country to the memory of the late Emmanuel Kwabena Kyeremanteng Agyarko is to depoliticise the exit and entry into Ghanaian public service. That is what we can do in his memory.
    12. 00 p. m.
    He was not personally too happy after leaving office as the CEO of FDA, maybe, particularly, the circumstance of his exit and the fact that maybe he was not treated in a manner which he probably viewed as meritorious.
    In one debate in this august House, he sat in his usual Seat as one Hon Member from my Side of the House was making a case about disappointments in the public service when there is a change of office in Government.
    Then, he whispered: “what about me? What about me?” He referred to how he was removed from office as Chief Executive Officer of the Food and Drugs Board.
    I hope that as we eulogise him, this country would learn some lessons, which would inform us to make appropriate determination of how people enter and exit the public service. And they must do so as Ghanaians regardless of their backgrounds.
    Mr Speaker, we attended the One Week Ceremony at his church. He was also a
    good Christian and a God-fearing person. Indeed, the officiating Pastor at the One Week Memorial shared with us some text he had been sent to deal with which was about an immediate plight of somebody who was affected.
    I am sure he did so honestly, believing that it could be him. Mr Speaker, therefore, we could only wish him eternal rest in the bosom of his Lord.
    Mr Speaker, to our Hon Colleague Members of Parliament, another lesson we could discern and learn from the Hon Agyarko was that he was subject-matter specific. If we go into his debates and contributions in this House, it bothers largely around two areas: one, matters that promote science and health; and two, matters that promote Ghanaian indigenous businesses. That was his subject.
    We would arguably see him contributing to a debate specifically on a matter that promoted science. It is therefore not for nothing that in one of our debates, as the Hon Majority Leader referred to, he was questioning how much the Government of Ghana was dedicating to science education against what we had pledged to do at the level of the African Union.
    There was a certain percentage, maybe, ten per cent of GDP going into it and the fact that Ghana was doing 0.26 per cent to one 1.0 per cent for it.
    So, to our Hon Colleague Members of Parliament, we do not need to be Jacks of all trades; we could dedicate ourselves to one specific subject-matter and make a mark out of it.
    Mr Speaker, may the soul of the Hon Agyarko rest in perfect peace. We do convey to the family; the wife and the
    Mr Haruna Iddrisu (NDC -- Tamale South) 11:50 a.m.


    children, our deepest sympathy and condolences.

    I thank you for the opportunity.
    Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Thank you very much. Hon Members, shall we have our usual one minute's silence accordingly?
    A minute's silence was observed.
    Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Hon Members, at the commencement of Public Business. Item listed 4, Presentation of Papers. Item 4 (a)(i)?
    Hon Minister for Transport? -- [Pause] Hon Majority Leader—
    rose
    Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Muntaka?
    Alhaji Mohammed Mubarak Muntaka 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, immediately after the Statement, I have been up trying to catch your eye before the pronouncement of Public Business. I do not know if you would still permit me to --
    I had wanted to come under Standing Order 53 (1) (i) which is on “complaints of contempt of Parliament.” Mr Speaker, I make this complaints of contempt of Parliament against my own Hon Colleague Member for Assin Central, Hon Kennedy Agyapong for the embarrassment, uncalled for comments and incitement of public against a member of the public that unfortunately had led to the death of that gentleman.
    Mr Speaker, I made reference to article 122 of our Constitution and with your permission, I read:
    “An Act or omission which obstructs or impedes Parliament in the performance of its functions or which obstructs or impedes a member or officer of Parliament in the discharge of his duties, or affronts the dignity of Parliament, or which tends either directly or indirectly to produce that result, is contempt of Parliament.”
    Mr Speaker, my emphasis here is “affronts the dignity of Parliament”. If we look at our Standing Order 28, it also confirms this but I would like to take you to the Oath every Member of Parliament swears before he becomes a Member of Parliament. Page 137 of our Standing Orders; the Oath of a Member of Parliament:
    I………. having been elected a Member of Parliament do (in the name of Almighty God swear) (solemnly affirm) that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Republic of Ghana as by law established; that I will uphold, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana and that I will faithfully and conscientiously discharge the duties of a Member of Parliament. (So help me God).
    Mr Speaker, if we look at this solemn oath that each and every one of us takes before he becomes a Member of Parliament, we swear to be Members of Parliament to uphold the laws of this country. And the laws of this country, specifically, the Criminal and Other Offences Act, Act 29, is against inciting the public or any person to do anything wrong.
    Mr Speaker, if you permit me, I would play the voice of my own Hon Colleague that led to the unfortunate reason why I am doing this to the hearing of all of us.
    Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Hon Member, you would spare us that for now. So Kindly make the main point.
    Alhaji Muntaka 12:10 p.m.
    Very well, Mr Speaker. I would further want to refer you Erskine May, which is a well-recognised document that guides every Parliament. Mr Speaker, on contempt, this is what Erskine May has to say:
    “The dignity offered to the House by well-spoken or written, published reflecting its character, on proceedings have been punished by both the Commons and the Lords upon the principle that such act of abuse tends to obstruct the House in the performance of its function by diminishing the respect due them.”
    Mr Speaker, the comment made by my Hon Colleague would definitely diminish the respect due us. This is because we are held in a very high esteem as members of our societies hence when we are coming to the House and returning to our homes, even an officer of the State, a police officer, cannot easily arrest us. They must go through due processes.
    It is on these bases that we are held in a very high esteem and we need to carry and conduct ourselves in a very high standard; we need to operate within a very high standard.

    Mr Speaker, the comment made by my Hon Colleague is an affront to this House and it is my view that if we take the Codes of Conduct that this House passed very recently and to be specific reference to paragraph 1 very recently.
    Mr Speaker, with your permission, I read 12:10 p.m.
    “The purpose of this Code of Conduct is to assist all Members in the discharge of their obligation to the state, the House, their constituents and the public at large by
    a) Establishing the standard and principles of conduct expected of all Members in undertaking their duties.
    b) Setting the rules of conduct which underpin these stan- dards and principle and to which all Members must adhere and in so doing ensuring public confidence and trust in the standard expected of all Members and the commitment of the House to uphold these rules.
    Further in paragraph 2, it says:
    “The conduct applies to a Member's conduct which relates to any way to his or her membership of the House. The code does not seek to regulate the conduct of Members in their purely private and personal life unless such conduct significantly damages the reputa- tion and integrity of the House as whole or of its Members generally.”
    Mr Speaker, paragraph 4.9 12:10 p.m.
    “Honour and Dignity of Parliament and the Parliamentarians:
    A Member of Parliament shall conduct him or herself in a manner that reflects creditably on the dignity of the House and not to conduct him or herself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his or her position of the House into disrepute.”
    Mr Speaker, paragraph 4.9 12:10 p.m.


    Mr Speaker, lastly, people are of the view that the police might have started investigation but I refer you to article 123 of the Constitution:

    “Where an act or omission which constitutes contempt of Parliament is an offence under the criminal law, the exercise by Parliament of the power to punish for contempt shall not be a bar to the institution of proceedings under the criminal law.”

    Mr Speaker, this means that even when the proceedings of the person being prosecuted for offending any of our laws is ongoing, it does not bar us as an institution from punishing that person for contempt.

    It is on this basis that I humbly request you and the House to refer my Hon Colleague, the Member for Assin Central to the Privileges Committee so that I would be able to provide all the videos and evidence that I believe would lead to his being found guilty and punished so that the dignity of this House and the way the public views us would continue to be of Honourable Members not the type whose utterances is unbecoming of a Member of Parliament.

    Mr Speaker, with these comments, I would invite you and the House to refer my Colleague to the Privileges Committee.

    Thank you Mr Speaker for the opportunity.
    Mr Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Thank you very much Hon Member.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member has raised issues about
    the conduct of another Hon Member. In his opinion, that Member's conduct amounts to a breach of privilege and therefore, it is contemptuous of Parliament and he is inviting you to refer the Member's conduct to the Privileges Committee.
    That could be foundationed in our Standing Orders. That is order 31. So Mr Speaker, I do not think that where we are now, we have to litigate this matter on the Floor. Let it go to the Privileges Committee and the Committee would decide whether any breach has occurred or whether no breach has occurred.
    I think that is the way to handle this matter. This is because for now, we cannot litigate this matter in plenary. We have not heard what our Hon Colleague said and I think that we cannot allow the playing of a tape in plenary. It cannot be entertained here.
    Mr Speaker, I guess you could go by Order 31 and refer it to the Privileges Committee and then we could take it from there.
    Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    The matter is accordingly referred to the Privileges Committee for Consideration and Report.

    At the Commencement of Public Business -- Presentation of Papers, by the Hon Minister for Transport.
    rose
    Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon Member, you should resume your seat.
    Yes, Hon Minister for Transport?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister for Transport came to the House in the morning, but he had something to do in the Ministry.
    I would therefore advise that given the order of Business, it may take a while for us to get to the presentation of his Papers. So he has asked permission to leave and come back.
    Mr Speaker, we would come back to it, but the Hon Deputy Minister for Transport is here, and so I would like to seek permission for the Hon Deputy Minister for Transport --
    Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    So you would want to seek permission for the Hon Deputy Minister for Transport to present the Papers?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Deputy Minister for Transport is here, so we could --
    Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    By the nodding of his head, I believe that the Hon Minority Leader is agreeable.
    Mr Iddrisu 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, rightly so. After conclave with you, I saw the Hon Minister relate to the Hon Majority Leader, so the Hon Minister was here and there should be no problem.
    Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    All right. The Hon Minister should take note.
    PAPERS 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon Members, we would move on to Paper 4(a) (ii).
    By the Deputy Minister for Transport (Mr Daniel Nii Kwartei Titus-Glover) (on behalf of the Minister for Transport) --
    Protocol of 2005 to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA Convention)
    Referred to the Committee on Roads and Transport.
    Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon Members, we would move on to Paper 4(a) (iii).
    By the Deputy Minister for Transport (Mr Daniel Nii Kwartei Titus-Glover) (on behalf of the Minister for Transport) --
    Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platform Located on the Continental Shelf, 2005.
    Referred to the Committee on Roads and Transport.
    Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon Members, we would move on to Paper 4(a)(iv)
    By the Deputy Minister for Transport (Mr Daniel Nii Kwartei Titus-Glover) (on behalf of the Minister for Transport) --
    International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001.
    Referred to the Committee on Roads and Transport.
    Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon Members, we would move on to Paper 4(a)(v).
    Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon Members, Papers 4(a)(vi).
    By the Deputy Minister for Transport (Mr Daniel Nii Kwartei Titus-Glover) (on behalf of the Minister for Transport)
    Protocol of 1988 relating to the International Convention on Load Line.
    Referred to the Committee on Roads and Transport.
    Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon Members, we would take Paper 4(a)(vii).
    By the Deputy Minister for Transport (Mr Daniel Nii Kwartei Titus-Glover) (on behalf of the Minister for Transport)
    Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, 2007.
    Referred to the Committee on Roads and Transport.
    Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon Members, the Hon Second Deputy Speaker could please get ready to take the Chair.
    Hon Members, we would move on to Paper 4(b)(i), by the Hon Minister for Finance.
    Hon Members, has Paper 4(a) (viii) not been laid?
    All right, we would take Paper 4(a) (viii) then.
    By the Deputy Minister for Transport (Mr Daniel Nii Kwartei Titus-Glover) (on behalf of the Minister for Transport)
    Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environment Sound Recycling of Ships, 2009.
    Referred to the Committee on Roads and Transport.
    Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon Members, we would take 4(b) (i), by the Hon Minister for Finance.
    Hon Majority Leader, who is to present this Paper?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Finance Minister has sent one of his Deputy Ministers to do the laying of one of the Papers. The Hon Minister himself is caught up in some other equally --
    Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, is Paper 4(b) (i) not ready?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
    The Hon Minister for Finance is not here, but his deputy is here.
    Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    So you are therefore asking that the Hon Deputy Minister presents the Paper? From the smile of the Hon Minority Leader, I do not believe that there is any objection. The Hon Deputy Minister for Finance may therefore lay the Paper.
    Hon Members, Paper 4(b) (i)
    By the Deputy Minister for Finance (Mrs Abena Osei-Asare) (on behalf of the Hon Minister for Finance)
    Request for waiver of Import Duties, Import VAT/GETFund Levy, Import NHIL, ECOWAS, Levy, EXIM Levy, Special Import Levy amounting to the Ghana cedi equivalent of eight hundred and two thousand two hundred and sixty-two euros
    (€802,262.00)
    Referred to the Finance Committee.
    Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon Members, we would move on to Paper 4(b) (ii).
    Mrs Abena Osei - Asare 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to seek your leave to step Paper 4(b) (ii) down.
    Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Very well.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee?

    Very well, Hon Members, we would move on to Paper 4(c).

    By the Chairman of the Committee --

    Report of the Finance Committee on the Annual Report of the Public Interest and Accountability Committee (PIAC) on the Management of Petroleum Revenues for the year 2017.
    Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon Members, we would move on to the item listed 5 -- Right to Information Bill, 2018, at the Consideration Stage.
    BILLS -- CONSIDERATION STAGE 12:20 p.m.
  • [Conjtinuation of debate from 12/ 2018]
    • Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Chairman of the Committee (Mr Ben Abdallah Banda) 12:20 p.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause subclause (2), paragraph (b), delete.
    Mr Speaker, we seek to delete paragraph (b) of the clause, which is 12:20 p.m.
    “the information requested was previously in the public domain; or …”
    MR SECOND DEPUTY SPEAKER
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:28 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, you may go over your amendment.
    Mr Banda 12:28 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before you came, I was on clause (69) of the Bill, sub clause (2). The proposal is to delete sub clause (2), which reads:
    “An applicant who requests access to information which is reasonably believed to be necessary to safeguard the life or liberty of a person may apply directly to the Commission for a review of the decision if that person.
    (a) Refused access to the information; or
    Mr Banda 12:28 p.m.


    (b) Receives no notice of the decision of the public institution or the relevant private body within forty-eight hours of the request.”

    Mr Speaker, before we went on recess, the Committee was of the opinion that this sub clause should be deleted, but some Hon Members of the House were of a different opinion, and so we could not bring the consideration of this subclause to a closure. We however, still maintain that clause (69) subclause (2) be deleted.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:28 p.m.
    Hon Members, the Hon Chairman has moved for the deletion of subclause (2), paragraph (b).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:28 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Ranking Member?
    Alhaji Inusah A. B. Fuseini 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just like the Hon Chairman of the Committee said, we had said that clause 69 (2)(b) was a trigger, where an information has been requested and an appeal has been filed, but no decision or notice of a decision has been sent to the applicant. In that case, he is left in a limbo.
    Mr Speaker, what clause 69 (2b) seeks to do, is to put a time frame within which the applicant should be notified of the decision, and if the applicant is not notified after 48 hours then his or her automatic right for a review of a decision upholds and that was why we were of the view that it should be left there.
    If not, where the applicant appeals against a decision to refuse him or her information and the application is not dealt with, he or she has no cause of action. If
    clause 69(2)(b) is deleted, the applicant would be left with no cause of action. That is why we thought it should not be deleted.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    The Hon Chairman of the Committee has moved for an amendment, but the Hon Ranking Member of the Committee has opposed it. Is that what I get now?
    This is because the Hon Chairman of the Committee has impressed on us to delete, but the Hon Ranking Member's position is that it should not be deleted because the applicant would have no cause of action.
    It looks like the Committee is not in agreement on this proposed amendment, but the Hon Chairman of the Committee is doing so, for and on behalf of the Committee. That is the crux of the matter. I would want to know from the Hon Chairman of the Committee why this is coming from the Committee?
    Mr Banda 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not agree that if this is deleted, the applicant would not have any opportunity to appeal against a decision. In any case, we all do know that right from the information officer at the public institution, there is a right of automatic appeal to the head of the public institution.
    Mr Speaker, all we would want to say is that if the applicant's application is refused by the information officer, he or she must not straight away appeal against the decision to the Commission.
    What we want to say is that the applicant must go through the process and take the appeal to the head of the public institution and if same is refused or denied, then the next step is for him or her to take the appeal to the Right to Information Commission.
    We are against the applicant taking the appeal straight away from the information officer to the Right to Information Commission. We believe that, that would be sidestepping the processes of the appeal.
    The applicant should rather take the second step to the head of the public institution and thereafter if that is refused, to the Right Information Commission.
    Mr Speaker, this is the basis or the gravamen of our submission.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, I do not know what happened to clause 69(1). This is because it has outlined in detail the processes that you just spoke about and now you talked about clause 69(2).
    So it is after the applicant has exhausted the internal processes that clause 69(2) would come in and that was why they raised that issue -- that is after the applicant has exhausted all the processes at the institution and has not heard anything from the institution. What should the applicant do? That is what clause 69(2) is about.
    Ms Safo 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe we would take a cue from what you have said. Before we went on recess the position that was preferred by the Hon Ranking Member of the Committee was the sense of the House that, clause 69(2)(b) should remain and not be deleted.
    You have given the background and the reasoning having reference to clauses 33 and 34 which talks about exhausting internal review so that if clause 69(2)(b) is deleted, it leaves no room for the applicant to go further with the review process.
    Mr Speaker, there was no ruling on it, but the sense of the House was that, clause 69(2)(b) should remain even if not for anything, for purposes of emphasis.
    Mr Dafeamekpor — rose —
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon Member, do you want to be heard?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 12:30 p.m.
    Indeed, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker, as the Hon Deputy Majority Leader said, this was publicised to be taken before we went away. So we were hoping that the Hon Chairman of the Committee would not raise this matter today. It is supposed to survive.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon Member, are you talking about before the House went on recess or ‘'before you went away''? [Laughter]
    Mr Dafeamekpor 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am guided. It is ‘'before the House went on recess''.
    Mr Speaker, I was hoping the Hon Chairman of the Committee would not raise this matter today and was also hoping he would abandon the proposed amendment. This is because it falls in tandem with the arguments that underpin the survival of this clause in the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Well, the Hon Chairman of the Committee is articulating the position of the Committee and I do not know whether they still hold strongly to it. If they do, we would allow the debate to continue and then you would have to take the decision.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, what is your position?
    Mr Banda 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would take a cue from my own Hon Members who are now forsaking me [Laughter]. I would abandon the proposed amendment.
    Mr Banda 12:30 p.m.


    Chairman of the Committee, I am most grateful. I would proceed to put the Question on the whole of clause 69.

    I do not have any notes to guide me as to whether there were earlier amendments to that clause and I do not see any proposed amendments on it, but I see the Hon Chairman of the Committee on his feet.

    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    Mr Banda 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to make a consequential amendment to the deletion of the phrase ‘' or the relevant private body'' in clause 69(1)(c).
    Mr Speaker, it has already been agreed that public institution would include private bodies or private institutions, so there is no need to repeat ‘'public institution'' with “or the relevant private body''. That is the only amendment I would want to seek effected.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    So, the proposed amendment to clause 69 (2) (b) is to delete the words ‘'public institution''
    Mr Banda 12:30 p.m.
    No, Mr Speaker, we would rather delete the phrase ‘'or the relevant private body'' — and wherever it appears same would be deleted.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    The Votes and Proceedings of Saturday, 22nd December, 2018 with regards to clause 69 says:
    ‘'Clause 69 — Amendment proposed — Subclause (1), add a new paragraph as follows:
    (d)The request for the information is time bound.
    (Mr Fredrick Opare-Ansah)''
    It was moved by Hon Fredrick Opare- Ansah, debated, the Question was put and it was agreed to. That is what happened to clause 69 subclause (1). A new paragraph was added. And then you moved to clause 69 subclause (2), where the debate on it was deferred. That is what is on the Votes and Proceedings.
    And so you are now referring to clause 69 subclause (1) paragraph (c). Are you making an application for us to go back to that?
    Mr Banda 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, rightly so and with your leave. Because it has not been advertised, I would seek your leave to have that amendment effected. But it is something that has been —
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Well, Hon Members, since we are still on clause 69, I think I would grant the leave and we can then do the right thing with regard to clause 69 subclause (1) paragraph (c). And so Hon Chairman you could move the amendment to that.
    Mr Banda 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 69 subclause (1), paragraph (c), line 1, after “institution”, delete “or the relevant private body”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would now read 12:40 p.m.
    “the head of the public institution is the information officer of that body.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Hon Chairman you need to look at it again.
    Mr Banda 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the point here is that it has already been agreed that we would maintain “public institution” and not “or the relevant private body”. This is because, according to the Interpretation section, public institution includes
    relevant private bodies. And so wherever “relevant private body” appears, same has been deleted.
    And the relevant private body appears here too. And so based on our earlier agreements that wherever “relevant private body” would be deleted —
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    I do understand the basis, but it is the way you have couched the amendment. This is because you want us to delete only “or the relevant private body”, and then you tried reading the new rendition to be, “the head of the public institution is the information officer of that body.” And it is not elegant.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the Hon Chairman must also abandon this amendment because the basis upon which he is coming does not hold. When we look at page 43 of the Bill, public institutions is defined to include private institutions — agreed.
    But relevant private institutions are those institutions that would be added to the list of private institutions by a Legislative Instrument (L.I.).
    They are different. And so yes, public institutions include private institutions, but where we have “relevant private institutions”, these are the institutions that, subsequent to the passage of this Bill into a law, the Minister may by Legislative Instrument add to the list, and that is provided in the definition.
    And so we cannot read the public institutions to include private institutions and relevant private institutions. They are two different categories of institutions, and that is why it has been defined.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    According to the Interpretation part of the Bill, there are two different things altogether.
    I thought that the proposed amendment would have been to rather add to the clause 69 subclause (1) paragraph (c), the word “institution” so that it would read: “the head of the public institution or the relevant private body is the information officer of that institution or body.” That would make it complete.
    Hon Chairman what do you say to that?
    Mr Banda 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, we do not have to be repeating, “or the relevant private body”. The reason is that, all along, from the beginning of the Bill up to the point that we have gotten to, wherever “public institution” appears, “the relevant private body” has been added.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    The Interpretation does not include relevant private bodies. It talks about private organisation. Organisation is more specific, but body goes beyond organisation.
    Mr Frederick Opare-Ansah 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the Hon Chairman has to abandon his proposed amendment and indeed take a cue from the earlier proposal you made to include “institution” before “body”.
    Mr Speaker, those private institutions included in the definition for public institutions are those that receive public resources. And the relevant private bodies refer to private bodies that perform public
    Mr Banda 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, when we read the definition of “public institution”, specifically, the portion dealing with private institution, and when we juxtapose same with the interpretation or definition for “relevant private body”, there is no difference.
    Mr Speaker, the first one is a private organisation that receives public resources or provides a public function. And when we read the definition for “relevant private body”, it says, private bodies performing a public function. And so what is the difference?
    Mr Speaker, it means that the definition of “public institution” is expansive enough to cover the definition for “relevant private body”. This is because the private institution has been interpreted to mean two things; a public institution that receives public resources or provides a public function.
    And so there are two definitions for a private institution. And when we read the definition of “relevant private body” carefully, all that it says is that, “a relevant private body means a private body that the Minister may by Legislative Instrument add to the list of private bodies performing a public function.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, if you therefore delete “the relevant private body” from clause 69 subclause (1) paragraph (c), the Minister would therefore not have the opportunity to come out with that L.I that would list those relevant private bodies to be applicable to this clause.
    This is because the Hon Chairman would be excluding that list from the ambit of this clause and that is the reason it is important to retain it.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Let me allow the Hon Deputy Majority Leader - she stood up a number of times.
    Ms Safo 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe the cue you gave should guide all of us. I would urge the Hon Chairman of the Committee to do exactly so.
    This is because the argument being proffered by him to substantiate the deletion of the phrase “relevant private body” to the extent that if we come to the definition section on page 43, “public institution” as being defined actually includes private institution.
    Mr Speaker, but just as you have rightly said, even if you go further on the same page 43, “relevant private body” has again been defined.
    If the intention of the draftsperson or whoever is making this law, which is Government, was to leave it like that, which is that, public institution includes relevant private body, it would not go further to define. It means that there is obviously a distinction and in drafting, it is so clear.
    So the distinction the Hon chairman must advert his mind to, respectfully, is that “public institution” although defines it in generality to include ‘private institutions' whether the private institution is performing a function or receiving -- that is the general definition that has been given.
    When we come to the specificity of it, the intent is that there would be a distinction from public institution against relevant private body and that is the reason it has gone further to define it.
    Mr Speaker, so, if you go back and read clause 69 (c), I think that the earlier amendment by including ‘institutions and bodies' would make it complete rather than the position of the Hon Chairman in seeking to delete ‘relevant body' but to rather leave it like that.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read as you earlier directed 12:50 p.m.
    “the head of the public institution or the relevant private body is the information officer of that institution or body.”
    Mr Speaker, I thank you.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Banda 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would abandon the proposed amendment.
    But what I would like to say by way of conclusion is that I thought once a private body has been well defined and well captured; a public institution has been well defined to include a private body.
    And the definition of a private body has also been given, so why then should we give the Minister the discretion to determine which body is a relevant private body? This is because to my mind, a private body has been well defined; which is that a body that receives public money or that performs --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, it is not pleasant for your proposed amendment --
    Mr Banda 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I abandon the proposed amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Chairman, it is not pleasant for the House to be defeating your proposed amendments on the Floor, particularly so as your Hon Members are no longer with you.
    We learn every day and so there is a change of mind. But it is important to know that it is not practicable to include all those things. We cannot anticipate all the bodies, organisations or institutions and so you give that discretion to the Minister.
    Society is dynamic; as we grow, some of these things would crop up and so the Hon Minister is given the discretion to list. So there is nothing wrong with that one.
    Mr Chairman, but I am just urging you to at least listen to your own members and the House and do the needful, so that we can proceed. I intend to finish this Bill today; the Right to Information Bill, 2018 would have to be concluded today. So I am giving notice so that in all your submissions, you keep that in mind.
    Hon Ranking Member?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you have spoken our mind.
    The Hon Chairman of the Committee should know that we are coming back from recess and so we are very refreshed. We were entitled to change our mind after sleeping over the provisions.
    Mr Speaker, but I rise to support the amendment of the Deputy Majority Leader to insert in clause 69(1)(c) after the word “that”, “institution or”.
    I thank you.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    I would
    want to hear the Hon Chairman before I put the Question.
    Mr Banda 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I abandon the proposed amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    We are grateful, Hon Chairman.
    Hon Members, at the conclusion of the debate, the Question is that clause 69(1)(c) be amended by the inclusion of the words “institution or” in line 2 of that subclause after that. So it would read:
    “Despite section 68, a person may make an application to the Commission without exhausting the internal review procedure under this Act where
    (c) the head of the public institution or the relevant private body is the information officer of that institution or body.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 69 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Hon Members, I was told that you just returned from recess and that you are fresh, so I would want to hear you when I put the Question.
    We would move to clause 70.
    Clause 70 -- Right to make representations
    Mr Banda 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause add the following new subclause:
    “(5) The Commission shall have the power of the High Court with reference to the examination of a witness”.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that this is a straightforward proposed amendment. We are seeking to vest the Commission with some powers of the High Court when it comes to the examination of witnesses. They can subpoena and punish for non- attendance and others.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Quashigah?
    Mr Quashigah 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, -- [Interruption]
    Mr Speaker, I would come back later, please.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Effutu?
    Mr Quashigah 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I will come back.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Yes, the Hon Member for Effutu?
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would just want the Hon Chairman of the Committee to clarify the issue of punishment. As part of the justification for the amendment, he says that, the Commission would have the power to punish.
    Mr Speaker, it is important that he clarifies what form of punishment that the Commission would give out.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, did you mention -- ?
    Mr Banda 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, some of us do know that when a court makes an order for a witness to appear or where a witness is subpoenaed to appear before the court, that ruling or decision is an order of the court, and where an order of the court is flouted, the consequences of that amounts to contempt of court. Mr Speaker, that is my understanding of flouting an order of the court.
    To the extent of the explanation that I have given, where the Commission is given the power to subpoena witnesses to appear before it to be examined on oath, any witness who fails or refuses to appear before the Commission to the extent of the explanation that I have given has flouted the order of the court for which reason that witness could be cited for contempt.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, you may need to go further than that. It may be important to look at the constitutional provision and adopt that. That is, enforcement of attendance, examination of a witnesses, et cetera. is clearer than what is stated here.
    Yes, Hon Member, let me hear you.
    Mr Ahiafor 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, normally, when a witness fails to appear, the court would subpoena. When one disobeys that particular subpoena, the court would issue bench warrant for the person to be arrested and brought to court.
    The court does not necessarily impose punishment on that particular witness. It is a bench warrant that is issued for the arrest of the witness. When the witness is arrested, he or she is brought to court.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member, that is why I tried to draw your attention to the provision of the Constitution because what you are referring to is just enforcement of attendance of witness.
    If we could adopt the provision of the Constitution, we could not go wrong with that.
    Hon Member for Effutu?
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would humbly suggest to the Hon Chairman of the Committee to take a cue and arrest his own application for the appropriate thing to be done because if the essence of this amendment is to give the Commission the power to punish as per your own words, then I daresay that the Commission cannot have such powers and this House cannot legislate to give the Commission that power.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Well, I do not know about whether the power of the House to legislate in that respect could be taken away by any law. The final authority is to make the law rest with the House. The House could make and unmake any law, so that aspect of your submission is quite doubtful.
    I would urge the House to adopt the rendition in article 103 (6) of the 1992 Constitution. It would cover all that we are talking about.
    If we think that any of the rights or privileges or powers is rather beyond that of the Commission, we could eliminate it and restrict it to article103 (6)(a) and (b) of the Constitution and leave article 103 (6) (c) which deals with issuing a commission or request to examine witnesses abroad. I think that rendition is better.
    Yes, Hon Deputy Majority Leader?
    Ms Safo 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that we
    would go by your guidance and adopt the language that is provided for in article 103 (6) as you rightly referred us to, except to say that, the amendment being sought by the Hon Chairman of the Committee on clause 70 (5), is in relation to the enforcement of attendance of witnesses and not necessarily punishment that follows thereafter.
    If we were extending it to the punishment thereafter, then the argument by the Hon Member for Effutu would come in. Then, the question arises whether the Commission is being equated with the powers of a court so that when witnesses fail to attend or when a subpoena is subsequently issued, what happens thereafter if the witness fails to attend upon the Commission?
    Mr Speaker, clause 70 (5) does not go beyond that, so even with the insertion of article 103 (6) as you rightly said, we would restrict it to only article 103 (6) (a) which is, “enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, affirmation or otherwise”.
    If we venture to add article 103 (6) (b) and (c) as part of clause 70 (5), we would be going outside the remit of the Commission, properly so called, and the problems we would run into as raised by the Hon Member for Effutu, would arise.
    Mr Speaker, I would further urge the Hon Chairman of the Committee that we restrict ourselves to the attendance of witnesses, which is in relation to the powers of the High Court being given to the Commission and not go beyond. If we go beyond, then, the issue about --
    Mr Speaker, if the witness fails to attend upon the Commission, then the Commission would do the proper thing by asking the Police or go to court for a
    proper order for the bench warrant to be issued for the relevant witness to appear before the Commission.
    The Commission cannot suo motu do it, so we should restrict our amendment to only article 103 (6) (a) which is, “enforcing the attendance of witnesses”. If we go beyond that, then the Hon Member for Effutu would be right.
    Alhaji Inusah B. A. Fuseini 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Deputy Majority Leader, except that, I think article 103 (6) (b), “compelling the production of document” is relevant.

    Well, Mr Speaker, I think that article 103 (6) (b) is important to the extent that, this is right to information and the information might be in a document.

    Well, Mr Speaker, I think that article 103 (6) (b) is important to the extent that, this is right to information that, may be in a document, where the information officer refuses, neglects or defaults the production of the documents, which is a subject matter of appeal before the Commission, the Commission should have the powers to compel the attendance of the witness and the production of the documents.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    That was the guidance I gave earlier. Unless you disagree --
    Mr Ahiafor 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the entire provision in article 103 (6) would be needed because at the hearing, there may be the need to examine a witness abroad.
    The Commission should also be given that particular authority. We need to realign the proposed amendment to article 103(6). That is how it is, regarding Parliamentary Committees, even in our Standing Orders.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    You have to look at the practicability of issuing a Commission -- or request to examine witnesses abroad by a Commission in this country.
    Parliament is an arm of Government and the powers of the Committees, by virtue of the Constitution, permits us to have those powers. The Constitution does not create this Commission; this Commission is a creature of a statute of Parliament. So there is a difference.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if I have a case before the Commission and Hon Quashigah happens to be my witness but he does not live within the jurisdiction, what happens?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    You would go through the legal process.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:10 p.m.
    If this power is taken away from the Commission, it would not be able to take that particular evidence from Hon Quashigah who lives outside the country.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    The relevant legal institution would do that and submit to the Commission.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:10 p.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    There are some technicalities, as you know, involved in this process. The Commission, as established, may not have those powers to do that.
    If we look at the functions of the Commission -- I did not preside when you deliberated on that. We are to look at the functions to see whether we could give them all these powers. It is important for us to look at the Bill holistically. That is a proposal from you, so I would leave it to the House to take a decision.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:10 p.m.
    Very well, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Quashigah 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, to support what he said, if it is about practicality, these days, technology has made it really easy for communication with people abroad. It could even be done on Skype, teleconferencing, et cetera. So if it is not about the law but practicality, it is possible that a witness abroad could be engaged by the Commission if need be.
    Thank you.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    The same technologies have put in place so many measures for faking and carrying out fraudulent activities. So I do not know how reliable those technologies would be. It is for the House to take the decision.
    Hon Chairman, a lot of proposals have been made. What do you say to that?
    Mr Banda 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I go by the proposals and specifically support that we take all that is listed under article 103(6) because the necessity of article 103(6)(c) may arise in subsequent years.
    Even if the necessity of article 103(6)(c) cannot be activated now, it is better to legislate for it now than in subsequent years when it becomes necessary. We
    Mr Banda 1:10 p.m.


    would then have to bring the whole law back to Parliament for an amendment.

    Mr Speaker, I support the submissions of my Hon Colleagues, except to plead that we take article 103(6)(a), (b) and (c) because article 103(6)(c) is equally as important as article 103(6)(a) and (b).

    This is because they may examine a witness who may have to bring certain documents that may be of relevance to the issue before the Commission. In article 103(6)(c), the witness may not be within the jurisdiction, and it may become necessary to examine such a witness.

    So I am of the humble opinion that we maintain article 103(6) (a), (b) and (c), and incorporate same into the Bill.

    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, do we go beyond powers to rights and privileges, or are we to restrict ourselves to the powers only? This is because the article we have referred to talks about powers, rights and privileges of the High Court or a Justice of the High Court at a fair trial. I would want to couch the new rendition and put it before Hon Members.
    Mr Banda 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in order to enable the Commission to work very effectively, I propose that we give it the powers, the rights and the privileges of the High Court to the extent that all these relate to article 103(6)(a), (b) and (c).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Hon Members, I have gotten the sense of the House, and I proceed to put the Question on clause 70, add the following new subclause:
    “(5) The Commission shall have the powers of the High Court or a Justice of the High Court at a fair trial for
    (a) enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, affirmation or otherwise;
    (b) compelling the production of documents; and
    (c) issuing a commission or request to examine witnesses abroad.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before you put the Question on the entire clause 70, with your leave, I would want to move that clause 70, subclause (4), delete.
    Mr Speaker, clause 70(4) states, and I beg to quote 1:10 p.m.
    “Where a witness fails to appear, the Commission may apply to the court for an order to compel the attendance of that witness”.
    That is embedded in the amendment that we have carried out, so subclause (4) would then be superfluous.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, I hope you have heard him.
    Mr Banda 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    I grant leave for it to be done.
    So, you can move for the deletion of clause 70(4).
    Mr Ahiafor 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity.
    I beg to move, that clause 70, subclause (4), delete.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Quashigah 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, rightly so. I humbly want to invite you to clause 70 (1) (a) where it says that “applicant and the requester”.
    I think that the applicant and the requester should be the same person, and if the applicant is the same person requesting, it would be unnecessary to have the requester. So clause 70 (1) (a) should rather end on the “applicant” and the “requester” could be comfortably be deleted.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, what is the difference?
    Mr Banda 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, strictly, there is no difference because the applicant is the same as the requester applying for the information.
    In some Right to Information laws, they use ‘requester' instead of an ‘applicant' but we have at all material times used “an applicant”.
    Mr Speaker, so, we would delete, “and the requester”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 70 as variously amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Clause
    71?
    Clause 71 -- Notices and communications
    Mr Frederick Opare-Ansah 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 71 -- subclause (3), paragraph (e), insert “Ghana and other” after “between”.
    Mr Speaker, it is clear that the provision is making reference with relations between Ghana and other States, but I believe the draftspersons may have put the generic form of the provision there, that is to impair relations between States. We have to be clear that we are talking about “between Ghana and other states”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, any comments?
    Mr Banda 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support his proposed amendment because it brings more clarity to the provision; “Ghana and other States”. Obviously, we are looking at the impairment of the relationship between Ghana and other States.
    The way it has been crafted now, I believe that the clarity has not been brought to bear on the provision and so I support his proposed amendment.
    Mr Quashigah 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I appreciate the wisdom in the proposed amendment to give it some specificity, but if we say to an appropriate court, this is obviously contained in the laws of Ghana and the clause in itself has indicated an appropriate court. —
    Mr Speaker, if it is appropriate, I do not think that we should necessarily bring Ghana and others as being proposed by the Hon Opare-Ansah. The way it is, in my view sits well, and the amendment, though relevant, may not be necessary.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Well, you
    may be addressing a different issue but the issue, that has been raised and clarified is clear. We are dealing with clause 71 (3) (e) but you may be referring to clause 71 (1) (e) which does not talk about: “impair relations between Ghana and other States”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 71 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 72 to 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 76 -- Protection in respect of actions for defamation or breach of confidence
    Mr Banda 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 76 -- headnote, delete and insert “Immunities”
    Mr Speaker, the body of the clause will explain what is being captured under clause 76. We were of the view that, the headnote, as it is at the moment, is a lengthy one, and we wanted to achieve brevity and so, what will then substitute the current headnote is “Immunities”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman, there are still further amendments to clause 76.
    Mr Banda 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 76 -- subclause (1), lines 1 and 3, delete occurrences of “or other person” and in line 4, delete “access to”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 1:30 p.m.
    “An information officer or other person is not liable to any action, claim, suit or demand whether criminal or civil for an omission or action taken by that Information officer or other person who acting in good faith and in the course of duty provides information to an applicant or in compliance with the provisions of this Act”.
    Mr Speaker, it appears to me that the expression “occurrences of” is not captured in clause 76 (1), but the “access to” is captured, unless probably I did not read it well. Reading it, I did not come across “occurrences of”.
    So Mr Speaker --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    It is just telling us that anywhere the words “or other person” occurs in that subclause, delete . That is why they used the “occurrences”. Wherever those words occur in the subclause, delete. It does not mean the word “occurrences” is part of the subclause. That is my understanding. So we can go on.
    Mr Banda 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much. Then it would read this way;
    “An information officer is not liable to any action, claim, suit or demand whether criminal or civil for an omission or action taken by that Information officer who acting in good faith and in the course of duty provides information to an applicant or in compliance with the provisions of this Act”.
    Question proposed.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    We still have further amendments to clause 76, standing in the name of the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    Mr Banda 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 76 subclause (2), line 1, delete “access to” and in lines 2 and 5, delete occurrences of “access” and insert “information”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read;
    “The giving of information under this Act or the making of a decision to give information does not constitute, for the purposes of the law relating to defamation or breach of confidence, an authorisation or approval of the publication of the information by the person to whom the information is given”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Hon Members, this is straight forward, and so I would put the Question.
    Mr Quashigah 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was getting a bit confused in that, giving access to information and then giving information may not necessarily mean the same thing. For instance, if I give access for somebody to use the computer to access that information, I have allowed him.
    The ability to allow for the individual to really seive out the kind of information that he or she is looking for is not the same as me handing over information to the individual, and that is why I think that giving access to information is relevant.
    Mr Speaker, I see the “access” in this context as necessary. It is also different from the earlier amendment made in clause 76 (1), where we have deleted “access to” in line 5 of clause 76 (1). Over there, it is
    appropriate, but in the context of subclause (2), giving access to information is not the same as giving information.
    That is why I believe that the “access” being proposed by the Hon Chairman for deletion should rather stay.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Our Act is dealing with right to information. Some Acts deal with access to information, some deal with freedom of information, and so the terminologies differ.
    The illustration you gave of a computer is not information, and the immunities they are talking about in the headnotes cannot be referring to access. It is talking about giving the information, that is why I think the proposal from the Hon Chairman makes sense.
    I can see that Hon Bernard Ahiafor wants to make a contribution.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity.
    Mr Speaker, rightly stated, the Act is talking about right to information, and the computer example that he has given, at the end of the day the person is given the information, so the process is the access.
    You cannot have a right to the information without the element of giving the person the access, so when we are talking about information, the process by which you get the information is also included. So the immunity should cover all those things.
    So the amendment proposed by the Hon Chairman is in the right direction, and I would urge my Hon Colleague to abandon his proposed amendment.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    a proposed amendment to clause 76(1), coming from Hon Frederick Opare-Ansah. Is the Hon Member for Suhum available or he has abandoned his proposed amendment?

    Hon Member, are you still preparing to be on your feet?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am present, available, willing and ready.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    You may proceed.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 76 subclause (1), lines 3 and 4, delete “acting in good faith and”.
    Mr Speaker, I believe this provision is very subjective as to how to determine whether somebody acted in good faith. If it is in their line of duty they acted in their line of duty. I do not know why we should look for whether they acted in good faith or not.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, do you want your Hon Member to take it up?
    Mr Ahiafor 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the principle of “acting in good faith” applies in law. For instance, in insurance, it is equal to the principle of uberrimae Fidae that, acting in good faith. We are giving immunity to people who would act in good faith in giving out the information, but not those who would act recklessly.
    So, one needs to act in good faith. Even if one has the duty to perform, he must do it very diligently and reliably and not recklessly and then come under the immunity.
    So, I am opposed to the proposed amendment that we should delete “acting in good faith”. It should be part of the clause.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Hon Member, what about the maxim of omnia praesumuntur? As he stated, if the person acts in an official capacity and that presumption of the person acting in good faith is recognised by law -- That is the Latin maxim I quoted.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that maxim is even in our Evidence Act which presumes that an official Act performed is deemed to have been done in good faith.
    Mr Speaker, we are dealing with information here and though one is performing an official act, the Information Officer, there is the tendency for you to be reckless to give out information that is even classified.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Why are you imputing that? Omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would yield to you.
    An Hon Member 1:40 p.m.
    We are not lawyers.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    I spoke Latin. It is not a matter of just law.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you know Latin is now a dead language, but in law, it helps a lot.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    When did it die?
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the days I used to study Latin are long gone and I would want to tell him that it is not dead. As a Catholic, I sing Latin songs all the time.
    Mr Speaker, if he as a Lawyer says that in the Evidence Act if one performs an official duty, he is presumed to be acting in good faith, how much more here? So, he has defeated his own argument. That is a higher place than here.
    I believe that he should just step it down and not go there. If acting in the course of duty is done in the Evidence Act, then I believe this should be consequential and so, he should presume that the person in his official capacity acts in good faith. He should back down. He should not bring any additional dead languages here.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe strongly that I have been convinced by the Chair in withdrawing my opposition to Hon Frederick Opare-Ansah. I was influenced by the principle of uberimmae fidae.
    Mr Alexander Afenyo-Markin 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have tried very hard to understand the proposed amendment and I cannot hide my opposition any longer.
    Mr Speaker, the issue of good faith as I understand it to be in the said rendition suggests that in the ordinary course of work, if a person is doing so, knowing very well that he has followed due process and there are no apparent irregularities in such action, such a person would not be liable for any breach of confidentiality or there would not be any defamation suit that would be brought against the person. Mr Speaker, that good faith does the qualification.
    Now, if we take away “good faith” per the amendment which has been proposed on the Floor, then per my understanding, we are opening it up to suggest that there is no way we can measure a person's
    conduct in that position. We would open the floodgate, so anybody in that position would now want to do anything knowing that he is covered by the law.
    Mr Speaker, I would give you an example. An Hon Member of Parliament arguing on this Floor would be more mindful of certain things knowing that the law expressly protects him, that if he makes certain submissions on the Floor of this House, somebody out there cannot bring up an issue of defamation against him on the Floor.
    But if he says the same thing elsewhere, there are matters of law that may go against him.
    If the Hon Opare-Ansah proposes that we should delete “acting in good faith”, what are we trying to do? Open it up? No, because, Mr Speaker -- [Interruption] In my view, it does not close it.
    We are saying that the initial premise of one being protected by the law if one acts in good faith -- and the definition of “good faith” in my view, is where one has acted regularly, so that the reasonable man would not read otherwise into one's conduct. That is my understanding.
    If we take that away, then it means that anybody there would now do anything no matter how irregular it may appear to be but then come under the protection of the law that he is not liable and that he cannot be sued. [Interruption] Well, that is the presumption but then, Mr Speaker, we have tried to qualify it.
    Mr Speaker, a policeman --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Hon Member, you are just throwing red herrings into this debate. Why are you doing this? You are trying to tell us that in all those things, we would have to add in
    good faith. Do we have to do that? It is something that has been presumed by law and also legislated in our Evidence Decree. Why do you want to take us backwards? I insist that we have to finish this Bill today.
    Hon Member, do you want to continue?
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am not to debate you; I am to take a cue from you and I would do so.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Hon Members, I will put the Question.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am pushing; the debate is still at its secondary stage.
    Mr Speaker, Hon Opare-Ansah is a senior Member of this House and he knows how some of these controversial matters are resolved; we debate them.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:50 a.m.
    But there is no controversy in this matter.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, Hon Akoto Osei has raised an issue, I have seen my respected senior Hon Colleague, -- [Interruption]-- the former Hon Minister for Roads and Highways and I have seen a Back-Bencher also up.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:50 a.m.
    He has not spoken yet.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:50 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, but they are — [Interruption.]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:50 a.m.
    Let me recognise the Hon Member for Tamale Central.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, my very good Hon Colleague and friend is inviting me to support him and I do support him so seriously because when I saw Hon Opare-Ansah's proposed amendment, I asked why he would want to remove it. The immunity here was not intended to be absolute. It was not.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:50 a.m.
    No immunity has ever been absolute anywhere in law—
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, immediately we take “good faith” out of this construction, we are left with one leg.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:50 a.m.
    Hon Member, all official acts are done in good faith.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:50 a.m.
    No, Mr Speaker. That is a presumption.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:50 a.m.
    Yes, it is rebuttable, but it is a presumption.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we do not want that presumption and that is why we have indicated it here. It is just a presumption — I think article 23 of the Constitution Act — [Interruption.] First of all —
    A public officer is presumed to be acting in official capacity.

    Mr Speaker, there is no obligation and it is a rebuttable presumption. We are saying that the condition has been put here, so that it could be rebutted. There are two conditions here that are rebuttable; the first one is “good faith” and the second one is “in the course of duty”.

    Mr Speaker, let me try to convince my good friend and brother, Hon Dr Akoto Osei that if a person gives me information, was negligent or defaulted in giving me information and I can demonstrate that that person was not the official who was mandated by this law and he was not acting in the course of duty, he is liable to prosecution. That is number one.

    Number two, even if he gives me the information or denies me the information and I can demonstrate that his denial was founded on absolute bad faith, and the information at all material times was available but he refused me that piece of information, he is not immune even though he was acting in the course of duty.

    Mr Speaker, what I am saying is that the provision says that they are protecting in respect of defamation or breach of confidence. Whether his refusal is breach of confidence or defamation that person must act in good faith to be immune from prosecution.

    Mr Speaker, the amendment is walking on a broken leg and wobbling. I pray you to request that he withdraws the amendment because if we go by the amendment, we are moving slowly towards invoking common law principles to be able to defeat a person who has acted in bad faith in office.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:50 a.m.
    Hon Members, I would suspend Sitting for only ten minutes, then we could resume this debate, which to me is needless as a guide. I am suspending the House for ten minutes.
    1.56 p. m. -- Sitting suspended.
    2.10 p.m. -- Siting resumed.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:50 a.m.
    Hon Members, the House is called to Order. We are still on clause 76 (2.)
    Yes, Hon Member for Effutu?
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it appears that Hon Opare-Ansah is not ready at all to yield. I have impressed on him severally to withdraw his application, but he would not.
    On my own part, all those who stood along with me seemed to be abandoning me. So, for peace to prevail, I would yield to him and withdraw my opposition so that we can make progress.
    Mr Speaker, I withdraw my opposition to the amendment.
    Question put and amendment agreed to
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:50 a.m.
    Hon Members, we are still on clause 76, and there is another proposed amendment which stands in the name of Hon Frederick Opare-Ansah.
    Hon Member, you may move your amendment.
    Mr Fredrick Opare-Ansah 1:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 76 -- add the following new sub-clause: (1) An information officer or the person who provides access to an applicant in compliance with the provisions of this Act shall not be liable for any consequential use to which the information provided will be put.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:50 a.m.
    Hon Member, have you moved the Motion?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, I have moved the proposed amendment accordingly.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:50 a.m.
    Have you seen your proposed amendment, and gone through it yourself?
    I thought that even if you wanted to move it you would have been informed by earlier amendments to the Bill and, maybe, re-crafted it differently. Do you still want to move it in this form?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to amend it further.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 1:50 a.m.
    ‘'An information officer or the person who provides information to an applicant in compliance with the provisions of this Act shall not be liable for any consequential use to which the information provided will be put''.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:50 a.m.
    Hon Member, in clause 76 (1), we had earlier on put away ‘'or the person'' and it was restricted to ‘'the information officer''.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, this shall be so amended.
    The new rendition then would be:
    ‘' An information officer who provides information to an applicant in compliance with the provisions of this Act shall not be liable for any consequential use to which the information provided will be put''.
    Question proposed
    Mr Ahiafor 1:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe this is an absolute situation. By law, I am under obligation to give the information, so once I have performed that obligation, I cannot be held liable for whatever a person uses the information for. But we do not legislate over the absolute.
    So if the argument of the removal of “good faith” is that it is presumed by law that an official duty is presumed to be performed dutifully, then why do we want to propose that we should legislate over the absolute? I am under obligation to give the information. Once I have performed my official duty, I cannot be responsible for the consequence.
    Mr Chireh 1:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, Hon Opare- Ansah is not learned, but the way he has been contributing makes everybody feel that he is a learned Colleague.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:50 a.m.
    Actually, he is learned, but he is not a Colleague.
    Mr Chireh 1:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is knowledge to you alone. This House has not been -- [Interruption.]
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am learning and he is my Hon Colleague Member of Parliament [Laughter.]
    Mr Chireh 1:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, being learned is not by association. One does not become learned by being in Parliament for long; there are procedures one must adopt.
    Mr Speaker, this particular provision is not welcome at all to the Bill. First of all, why would we presume that -- If we put it in the Bill, the implication is simple. It means that anybody reading this can then
    give information which is bad and one could use it and he or she would not be liable.
    The subsequent use of the information I get from an officer really should not be his or her concern. If I use the information and he or she gives it in good faith and I misapply it --
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister should withdraw the proposed amendment, so we could continue. He has been moving these Motions and we plead with him that some of them are not legal.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it seems the Hon Members of the learned fraternity are in agreement, right from the Hon Chairman of the Committee to your good self, I get the sense that this is implied, superfluous and totally unnecessary, so I withdraw the proposed amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:50 a.m.
    Hon Member, thank you very much for the withdrawal, but the truth is that you are learned, even though you are not a learned Colleague of Hon Bernard Ahiafor. You are an Hon Colleague to him in Parliament. You are learned and nobody can take that away from you.
    The Hon Richard Quashigah seated by you is learned.
    Question put and amendment agreed to
    Clause 76 as variously amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 77 -- Protection in respect of certain criminal actions.
    Mr Banda 1:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 77 -- delete.
    Mr Speaker, the reason is that, clause 77 is superfluous because clause 76 has well taken care of it. This is because clause 77 says ‘'protection in respect of certain criminal actions'', but when we read clause 76 carefully, it takes care of both criminal and civil immunity.
    To that extent, clause 77 becomes irrelevant and that is the basis for the proposition for its deletion.
    Mr Ahiafo 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to support the Hon Chairman in this direction. A careful look at clause 76 subclause (1) states clearly whether it is civil or criminal; and so whether it is a civil or a criminal action, the immunity covers the person. So there is no need to have clause 77, which would create a separate criminal immunity.
    Mr Speaker, clause 76 takes care of clause 77, hence clause 77 is superfluous and must be deleted.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    Hon Members, it is very clear and so we do not need to debate it.
    Question put and Motion agreed to. Clause 77 ordered to be deleted from
    the Bill.
    Clause 78 — Fees and charges of public institution.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the confusion in clauses 77 and 78 which led to the repetition of clause 77 is from the headnote.
    So I was wondering if you could direct the headnote to be properly captured that this is protection against criminal and civil action. This is because, the first one was protection in respect of action for defamation or breach.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    We amended it to “immunities”.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:20 p.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, clause 78.
    Mr Banda 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 78 subclause (2) paragraph (e), delete.
    Mr Speaker, but I would leave this to my Hon Colleagues to decide whether the deletion is proper. — [Laughter]—This is because upon a second examination am beginning to change my mind that it should stay.
    This is a proposition of the committee, but upon a closer examination of the paragraph, I tend to say that if an applicant is an indigent, he or she must apply free of charge to access information. This is because, just below paragraph (e), there is an opportunity for a person with disability to apply for information free of charge.
    If that is the case, why should the same opportunity not be given to somebody who is indigent? But I leave it to this august House to decide whether the deletion is proper, but I have a different opinion.
    Mr Chireh 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the draftspersons and the proposers of the Bill found it important to include paragraph (e), which is “information to an applicant who is an “indigent” Just like the Hon Chairman is saying, if we have those who have disabilities excluded from paying fees, then I think that naturally, we should leave it.
    Of course, there is always an argument about how to determine whether somebody is indigent. But of course, there
    should be measures including the income level et cetera. So I also think that we should leave it and not delete it. It should be part of the Bill.
    The Hon Chairman has convinced himself that he is only moving it on behalf of the committee, but this House now has the full possession of this recom- mendation.
    Mr Speaker, and so I would recommend that we tell the committee that it should be part of this. If the Hon Chairman has doubts as to whether to exclude it or not -- it should remain part of the Bill, that an indigent should get a free charge.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    Who is an indigent? Would you define it in the Act or can you draw my attention to any legislation where it is adequately defined, so that it could guide the implementation of this legislation?
    Mr Chireh 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, fortunately for me, I can see the Hon Minister for Gender, Children and Social Protection seated opposite me. They are supposed to bring policies and legislations to guide how to determine these. And I know that a lot of work is going on already in terms of social protection policy.
    Mr Speaker, but you know that currently, we determine who is an indigent through social welfare. There are people who cannot pay when they go to hospitals and anything that requires payment. These people are referred to the Social Welfare Department and they have a measure and a determination.
    But as I am saying, the formula for it ought to be in a legislation where one can always tell that this person qualifies for this benefit. So in my view, we can always determine that by looking at the income level of the person, and the recommendation should come from the social welfare officer.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the idea for inclusion is good but the standard is not provided. And so it could be a recipe for chaos in the implementation of this Act. That is why the Hon Chairman and the committee decided it be deleted.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    It is work in progress. We do not have established policy now. Look at the laws and the words being used. The words used are “indigent”, “ability to pay”, “cannot pay”, “poor” et cetera. Look at those terminologies.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe we should keep the provision, as the Hon Chairman seems to rescind the decision of the committee to delete it. And we should go further to propose an interpretation as to who an indigent is.
    Mr Speaker, I believe we have social welfare scheme in this country, where the government periodically pays some amount of moneys to a group of persons we refer to as the Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP) beneficiaries. There is clearly, a mechanism to determine who qualifies for those benefits.
    Once we continue to churn out these lists and periodically continue to make these transfers, it presupposes that there is a certain group of people in this country who cannot on their own survive without that kind of support from Government. And it would form the initial basis for our definition.
    Indeed, the process of legislation also serves to trigger the Executive to take certain decisions.
    So if there is now a legislation to make a determination by, let us say, the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection as to who an indigent is and it is now grounded in law and it becomes the basis for people to enjoy free access to information, then clearly, it would somehow put pressure on that Ministry to come forward with the legislation that would help define who an indigent is.
    Mr Speaker, so I believe we should maintain it and go forward to actually put a definition to it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    My worry is about the term that is being used. Is that what is used in the other schemes that you are referring to? Is the word used there “indigent”?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am just trying to check from certain portions in the Constitution, as to the appropriate terminologies that we have been using. In all the areas, we talk about “disabled, the aged, children and other vulnerable groups”.
    So, the terminology used in the Constitution has always been “vulnerable groups” -- vulnerability -- and not “indigents”. The principle is not understood but I do not know whether we can use that terminology -- indigents.
    This is because I have seen at two places that when they are talking about social objectives of the Constitution, article 37 used the terms “disabled, the aged, children and vulnerable groups”.

    Mr Speaker, when you go to other areas where the emphasis is on discrimination, again, they are talking about “vulnerable groups”. So, I do not know which better term to use in the circumstance even though I appreciate the principle as I said earlier.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    The principle is generally accepted; it is the language or terminology to use --
    Dr A. A. Osei 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Ghana Statistical Service has a definition for the poor in Ghana and that is what he is referring to. There is a definition that instead of indigents, -- Perhaps, we should look at that terminology.
    There is a definition of who is poor in Ghana; if that is what the Hon Chairman is looking for, then we should seek to use that language because it is official.
    Certain groups of people are said to be below the poverty line, defined by, I think, when they live on less than a dollar a day. If that is what the Hon Chairman is looking for, then we should keep it and use the official definition of poverty to capture that.
    Mr Banda 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with the language of the Hon Majority Leader except to avert the minds of Hon Members to the fact that just in our last Meeting, we passed the Legal Aid Commission Bill.
    We used two categories of persons who can access legal aid; the first category of persons are those who would want to enforce a provision of the Constitution and the second category are those who are indigents.
    So, “indigent” is not in the Constitution but it is a word that we used in the Legal
    Aid Commission Bill which is now Legal Aid Commission Act. So if we would want to know the definition for indigents, we can refer to the Legal Aid Commission Act that deals with the word ‘indigent' extensively and comprehensively.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    How is your memory in that respect; is there any definition of indigent in that Act?
    Mr Banda 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I should think so. But I cannot say it with so much certainty. But I know that we passed the law Bill and there is a provision on indigents and persons who would want to enforce provisions of the Constitution. These are the two categories of persons who can access legal aid.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    We are looking at that implementation of the provision. If there is lack of clarity and certainty, there would definitely be some problem in its enforcement.
    Mr Chireh 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are talking about the terminology -- that is true. We are also talking about how to determine. But if we have the Legal Aid Commission Act, how would one determine who is an indigent and needs to be given legal aid services? Similarly, so long as the term has been used in our legislation, we should feel comfortable to use it.
    The methodology, as I am saying, can always be determined because we have the mechanisms of the Social Welfare Department. As the Hon Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation has said, the Ghana Statistical Service also has terminology about how to determine such things.
    We already give money to Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP) beneficiaries -- that again is part of policy determination.
    Mr Speaker, I also do not want the way the Hon Majority Leader always wants us to use words and terms that are in the Constitution. This is because the Constitution was drafted for a certain purpose.
    We are making a specific law and so if we just go and borrow “vulnerable” from the Constitution and add to this, it would be unworthy.
    So I still think that the methodology of determining should not be a hindrance for us to leave the provision as it is. I plead that, that in itself would put pressure on Social Welfare Department or anybody who is determining that. If the determination is not fair we would all get to know. But I believe that it is enough basis for us to leave it as it is in the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    The reason I am raising it is the fact that we are going for a critical and valuable item. And we have stated here that time is of essence; it should not be delayed.
    So one states that he or she is an indigent and then the information officer refers it to the bodies we are talking about to determine whether he or she really is an indigent before the officer can release the information for free. Then we would defeat the purpose of a lot of provisions in the Act. That is the reason why we would want to have clarity and certainty in this matter.
    But if that term was used in the Legal Aid Commission Act, it might have been defined there. So we would have to crosscheck to be certain; we cannot just assume.
    Hon Majority Leader, have you found it anywhere?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was just referring to article 294 and what we did; the term is not found there. But then Parliament provided for the grant of legal aid to indigents.
    So we need to cross check now to know what we meant by indigents and then if it has application here, we import it. So I think I may want to suggest to the Hon Chairman that for the time being, we step it down and crosscheck with that; I guess we can continue tomorrow.
    Dr A. A. Osei 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought the issue really is the definition of “indigents” but the principle of having this is accepted by everybody here.
    I was not sure because you said it should be stepped down; the Hon Chairman has already stepped down his amendment. He is accepting what is in the Bill which means he has stepped down what is in his proposed amendment; if that is what he means, I do not have a problem.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, early on, I think I was trying to see what we did in an earlier provision when we deleted “indigents” in this same Bill. I was trying to inform myself what occasioned that otherwise, we would appear inconsistent in what we are doing.
    That is what, I am saying that we can task the Committee to investigate why we did earlier. I was trying to go through what we did, so we are not inconsistent with what we do.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, I would stand down the clause 78 because they say there are other things to be done which I do not see the Hon Chairman and Members propose.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is exactly what I am saying.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Hon Members, even if we look at line 1 of clause 71(1), we have not proposed any amendment to “access to” which we dealt with earlier. It is an applicant seeking information but it says, applicant seeking access to information. You have not proposed any amendment to it.
    So, for certainty and because we must know the class of persons we are exempting we just do not open it up.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation?
    Dr A. A. Osei 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just want to be guided. It is about 2.30 p.m. and I do not recall the announcement of Sitting beyond extended hours; so I was wondering, are we or are we not having an extended Sitting?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Minister, you are right. It looks like we should have earlier announced that Sitting would extend beyond the normal Sitting hours.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, when it was time for that announcement, you had suspended Sitting. When you came back
    -- 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    No! No! No! -- [Laughter] -- Not at all.
    Hon Members, let us stand down this one and crosscheck before we proceed on the proposed amendment.
    Hon Members, clause 78 is accordingly stood down.
    Clause 79 -- Retention of fees and charges
    Mr Opare-Ansah 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there were some amendments in clause 78 under my name. [Interruption.] But that is not controversial. We can take it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Sorry, I thought that you were looking at others which are not also proposed and urging that we should reconsider the whole of the clause 78. That is why I decided to stand it down, but if you want us to take the other amendments of clause 78, we could do so. [Pause.]
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, on the consideration of the Bill, we stand down clause 78 and go to clause 79. Tomorrow, we would come back and take clause 78.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    You want some new clauses to be added and they are all talking about the issue of cost. You are even using terminologies like, “to pay the reasonable cost of media conversion”. I do not know what “reasonable” means. So let us stand the whole thing down and do it holistically when we get to clause 78 again.
    Mr Chireh 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is important because a new clause means that you have considered all the clauses already in the Bill before we can add a new clause. If we go ahead and add a new clause and end up not even accepting the other amendments, there would be a problem.
    He should be patient for us to finish with all the existing clauses. It is only when we finish that, could we then add a new clause.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Hon Member for Suhum, be guided by what your Hon Colleague has said.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am guided.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Hon Members, clause 79 -- [Interruption.]
    Yes, please, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    I would want to suggest that, given the signals by Hon Members, maybe, we suspend further consideration of the Bill and come to continue tomorrow. Hon Members gave indication that they would want to do some last minute “ways and means” and, I guess, we would grant them the permission to engage in such endeavours.
    Mr Speaker, but the issue that my Hon Colleague, the Member for Wa West, has introduced is very paramount: I do not want us to go back.
    Mr Speaker, you would remember that when we were dealing with the Petroleum Revenue Management Bill we had to hop ahead of so many provisions to deal with certain provisions and then come back. We migrated forward and backward to deal with them because it was considered as pivotal matters which needed to be dealt with at the time.
    In principle, I think what he said, as I espoused at the time, which was not taken, though, is that we should, for purposes of consistency, go step by step. Once we are not even done with a provision, to deal with additions when the main body has not been worked on becomes a difficulty.
    Mr Speaker, but as I said, I may want to propose that we bring the transaction of Business to a close and continue tomorrow.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, I am guided by your submission but the instruction I got from the Rt Hon Speaker was to complete the Bill today. If you, in charge of Government Business, says that we could take a date, I would be guided by it.
    I had announced the instruction earlier from the Rt Hon Speaker that Hon Members should focus for us to finish the Bill today. Coming from the Leader of Government Business, I would have to be guided by that. Unless otherwise stated, I would proceed to adjourn the House.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, when you so announced it, we put ourselves in that condition of mind to finish the Bill. Even though we know that it is past 2.30 p.m. getting to 3.00 p.m. and today being the first day of the resumption of Parliament, we have already showed this level of seriousness. But if the Hon Majority Leader has spoken, who can defy him?
    Mr Speaker, I thought that when he stood up to speak on the Floor, he would have addressed Hon Yieleh Chireh's assertion that he jumps to the Constitution to provide words -- [Laughter].
    I thought that was actually commendable because that provides us with some level of certainty that these words in the Constitution have undergone some interpretation in the Court and if we are to import them, it would provide certainty for law making.
    Mr Speaker, it is past 2 2:40 p.m.
    30 p.m. getting to 3:00 p.m. and we are definitely in your hands. We had wanted to complete but we are unable to -- [Interruption]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Well, once we stood down a clause, it meant that we could not complete today. We could take refuge in that and adjourn.

    House and we would end the Consideration Stage of the Bill for today.

    Hon Members, I now proceed to adjourn the House.
    ADJOURNMENT 2:40 p.m.