Debates of 30 Jan 2019

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Hon Members, western hats are not allowed in the Parliament. So if anyone is in a Western hat, that person may advise himself. [Laughter.]
The Hon Member --removed the Western hat.
Mr Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Item listed 2, correction of Votes and Proceedings and the Official Report.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:30 a.m.
rose
Mr Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Yes, Hon Ablakwa?
Mr Ablakwa 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I tried to catch your attention on page 10 item numbered 11. The name of the assassinated journalist should be Mr Ahmed Hussein-Suale. It is a compound name. Could it be corrected accordingly?
Mr Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Member. It would be corrected accordingly.
Mr Speaker 10:30 a.m.
The Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, 29th January, 2019 as corrected is hereby admitted as the true record of proceedings.

Hon Members, we have a Statement by way of a tribute to Ahmed Hussein- Suale Divela , a slain journalist by Mr Ras Mubarak, Hon Member for Kumbungu.

10. 40 a. m.
STATEMENTS 10:30 a.m.
Mr Ras Mubarak 10:30 a.m.
May I start by wishing all members and staff a happy new year? Mr Speaker, everyone in this House and those watching from their homes know that we are a nation in mourning, mourning not just our late colleague — Emmanuel Kwabena Agyarko, but also mourning a slain journalist, Ahmed Husssein-Suale Divela.
He was in traffic when two unidentified men on motorbike shot him three times. I know the whole House would join me in paying tribute to Divela, a young man whose name -- Divela -- in Dagbani translates “it is well”. He was only 31 years and lost his life serving humanity in the best way possible.
Mr Speaker, he was one of the hard- working and dedicated journalists in our country. We think of his widows, children and wider family and friends in this very difficult time. His death is a stark reminder
of the very real danger our journalists are exposed to on a daily basis.
The job of journalists all over the world has gotten more dangerous than we thought, in spite of democratisation across the globe. Every now and then, we hear of one horrendous assault on a journalist or another.
In Europe, for example, we have had three killings of journalists over the last year. One of them was Daphne Caruana Galizia. Daphne had led the Panama Papers investigation into corruption in Malta. This promising young lady was blown by a car bomb near her home in October 2017.
In March last year, 27-year old Slovak investigative journalist and his fiancée were killed at their home outside Bratislava. Jan Kuciak was shot twice in the chest while his fiancee was shot in the head.
Mr Speaker, in Bulgaria, a popular investigative reporter was raped and murdered. All of these people were investigating corruption or had done some corruption related investigations when they were killed.
In this Chamber, Mr Speaker, Hon Members expressed their disgust at the manner in which Saudi Arabian journalist Jamal Khashoggi was tortured to death in an unspeakable manner inside the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Istanbul.
His death shook the world and many optimists like me who thought we had perhaps seen the end of such brazen assault on journalists. Little did all of us know that on our own soil, one of our own ---Ahmed Hussein Suale Divela would be shot to death on the streets of Accra.
Mr Speaker, the unthinkable manner in which the likes of Ahmed Hussein Suale and Jamal Khashoggi were killed should jade all of us from our sleep, to do everything within our powers, not just to smoke out the perpetrators, but to ensure that, society never witnesses such human cruelty on innocent men and women.
International morality indeed once again put to test and how we respond would determine how far we want to go to protect and defend human rights, freedom and justice.
What happened in our country, in Turkey, in Malta, Bulgaria and other places where such barbarity has been visited on innocent journalists is unacceptable.
Lovers of the rule of law would have to show that we frown upon such rogue behaviour, else beastly elements in our society would be emboldened to continue thinking it is okay to cause journalists to die in freak accidents, shoot journalists as happened here, or dismember them as they did to Khashoggi or plant bombs in their cars.
There is no doubt journalists have no shortage of enemies -- people whose corrupt deeds are exposed or people who simply are not happy with a story journalist carry out.
Ahmed Hussein Suale Divela had no shortage of such enemies' I call them cowards. He had worked for Tiger Eye Private Investigation (P.I) and had done stories or investigations that may not have gone down well with some people.
All manner of suggestions have been made as to who might be behind his killing and we risk prejudicing investigations if we encourage such guesses.

The police must be encouraged to be thorough and professional in their work and the public should be encouraged to come forth with any information that might lead to the arrest of those who committed this heinous crime.

Mr Speaker, we owe it to ourselves, to our children, to our grandchildren, and to our country and humanity to ensure that persons with such rogue mentality do not succeed. Enough, we say, is enough. Let us put an end to this cowardly attempt at silencing journalists.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Mubarak, for this well researched Statement made.
rose
Mr Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Yes, Hon Minister?
Minister for the Interior (Mr Ambrose Dery) (MP) 10:50 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, I would want to first of all thank the maker of the Statement, and to say that the murder of the journalist, Ahmed Husseini-Suale, is most unacceptable and should be condemned by all. It has been condemned by the Government.
The first statement was by the Hon Minister for Information, which made it clear that such deeds were unacceptable, and condemned it in no uncertain terms. It also called on the Police to deal with the investigations expeditiously.
After that, a day later, Mr President made the point very clear that such an act was most unacceptable and also reiterated the point that the Police should deal with it, and deal with it seriously.
Mr Speaker, on the 18th January, 2019, which was a day later and on a Friday, I visited the headquarters of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) to make sure that the position that had been declared by the Government on this matter was in sync with activities, to make sure that the Police were taking the matter very seriously.
The interaction took over two hours, and I was convinced that the Police equally took a very serious view of the matter.
Mr Speaker, indeed, the very day that the murder was reported, the Ministry of the Interior responded by getting in touch with the Police. The Director General of the CID was then in Yendi, also taking care of some business, but she was recalled, and another officer was sent there.
Since then, the Police have been working seriously on this matter. It is an event that we all must condemn. It is an incident that would be investigated and whoever is found culpable would be dealt with.
Mr Speaker, we must however put this in context. It seems to me that the Hon Member for Kumbungu only talks about the fate of journalists, but I believe that whiles we are working hard to get the perpetrators, we should not create the impression that there is a certain culture of being intolerant of journalists in this country to the extent that they are killed.
Mr Speaker, we lost an Hon Member of Parliament, who was murdered, but does that mean that such is the fate of Hon Members of Parliament? We believe that these are unacceptable acts. They are abominable acts we would have to deal with, and we would deal with them.
Mr Speaker, Government is very much committed to free expression and the records are there, that the present President of the country was the Attorney-General at the time when the frontiers of free expression were pushed further by the repeal of the Criminal Libel Law.

The importance for freedom of expression of media practitioners in this country cannot be overemphasised. We know that they contributed immensely to establishing the democratic dispensation that we have in Ghana. They continue to play a very important role.

We at the Ministry of the Interior acknowledge their support in a number of the programmes like -- Anti-Galamsey, Operation Cow Leg and all those activities that have been put in place geared at making sure that we eliminate criminals in this country. So, we are the first to miss the anti-services of the journalist.

Indeed, they contribute to the anti- corruption stance of the Government, and we are committed to making sure that the programme exists. So, he is missed sorely as far as that is concerned. The Government has gone ahead to put legislation in place and appointed a Special Prosecutor.

So the Government would not sit idle and let anybody, regardless of a person's position, create the impression that we would want to stifle freedom of expression and eliminate journalists who are prepared to help the Government to make sure that corruption is dealt with. They help us to make sure that the country is secure.
Mr Speaker 10:50 p.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Minister for the Interior.
Hon Okudzeto Ablakwa -- ?
Mr Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa (NDC --North Tongu) 11 a.m.
I am most grateful, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to this Statement.
I would want to begin by commending Hon Ras Mubarak for the timely and impassionate delivery of this tribute to the slain journalist, who has departed this world at a very tender age.
Mr Speaker, Chapter 12 of the Constitution of our country is dedicated to the freedom and independence of the media in Ghana. Article 162 states, and I beg to quote:
“Freedom and independence of the media are hereby guaranteed”.
Mr Speaker, successive Governments, at least, since the inception of the Fourth Republic, have done so well to pursue this ideal and objective as enshrined in our Constitution. We would notice that consistently, we have done very well in the global press freedom index over the years.
Only last year, Ghana went up three places from 26th on the global ranking scale to 23rd, which made us the best country for press freedom in Africa. That led the international organisation, Reporters Without Borders, to select Ghana to host the World Press Freedom Day on 2nd and 3rd May, 2018.
It was a very significant feat that we all celebrated and welcomed, and we were all proud about.
Sadly, this incident threatens to erode the gains that we have made all these years as a country. We have seen how virtually every international organisation has issued a statement on this matter to ask Ghana not to depart from the stellar example that we have projected to the world all these years.
The United Nations (UN), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), Federation of International Football Associations (FIFA), Transparency International, the International Press Institute, the International Federation of Journalists, Media Foundation for West Africa, the West African Journalist Association, the Global Investigative Journalist Network and many more issued statements.

Local reputable organisations like the Ghana Bar Association (GBA), the Ghana Journalists Association (GJA), the African Centre for Parliamentary Affairs (ACEPA) and many others have added their voice.

Mr Speaker, this is a matter that we cannot downplay. I take solace and confidence in the submission of the Hon Minister for the Interior a while back that the security agencies are on top of the situation and are doing everything to unravel this assassination and to bring to justice, those who perpetrated this dastardly act.

While commending the Hon Minister for the Interior for the assurance, I believe that as a House, we should support him

and all the state institutions with responsibility with this matter giving them all the assurances that we can marshal to get to the bottom of this matter.

Mr Speaker, in doing so, it should not be out of place to even see the possibility of seeking international collaboration. In the matter of the kidnappings, Government ought to be commended for soliciting international support and we know that international support has arrived to help unravel the mystery surrounding the kidnappings.
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon Member, you would keep within the parameters of what is before us. When you do these things deliberately, as if one is being smart, it is not in the best interest of the House. Please, keep within what you are saying and go on.
Mr Ablakwa 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am only saying that we should all support the efforts being made and that this support should not be limited to only --
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon Member, do not go into other territories.
Mr Ablakwa 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I will be guided.
Mr Speaker, we are all interested in ensuring that the perpetrators are identified and punished so that this would not occur again. We do not want to lose the shining example that we have collectively achieved as a country.
Undercover journalists should feel safe to carry out their duties and Ghana should never feature in the list of those countries who have such occurrences.
Not too long ago, this House condemned the killing of Jamal Khashoggi and we do not want to be part of that narrative. We trust that we would all
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Member.
Mr Alexander Afenyo-Markin (NPP -- Effutu) 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to add my voice on this all important matter. Let me first commend the Hon Member who brought this matter to the attention of this august House.
Indeed, in so doing, he has complied with your directives some months ago that when there are issues of national importance, we bring them to the House for discussions instead of limiting ourselves to the media space.
Mr Speaker, a journalist going about his duties must do so without fear. Therefore, for a thing like this to happen to a fellow citizen, it ought to be condemned in all uncertain terms and I add my voice to the many who are condemning this heinous crime.
When we find ourselves in a situation of peril, we walk to the Police who have a constitutional mandate — So far, they have assured us that they are on top of the issue.
Mr Speaker, not long ago when we had lost hope in the matter of the murder of a former chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), the Police came out with a report that one of the alleged suspects --
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon Member, the key role would be that we comment on this issue. This is because deviations may sooner than later create difficulties for all of us.
Please, proceed.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, all I am trying to say is that --
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
Do not tell me what you are trying to say. I am telling you what you must say. [Interruption.]
Mr Afenyo-Markin 11 a.m.
Very well.
Mr Speaker, in accord with your directive and the rules, I want to say that the Police would have to be allowed to do their work.
On the 19 th of January, the Daily Graphic reported that the National Democratic Congress (NDC) General's Secretary has issued a statement urging all of us as citizens not to allow any scapegoating in the matter of this nature and urged all Ghanaians to have confidence in the Police in investigating this matter.
Mr Speaker, I would want it to be on record in this House that, that position taken by the NDC is a very patriotic position which straightaway de-politicise the matter.
If all of us; the civil society and all persons of interest would read carefully, the verbiage and the language used in that statement, which suggested that some of these things may have a wider network and so, it is important to look into all aspects of it, it will indeed help.
I fully adopt the content of that Statement as though it were mine for the purpose of my contribution.
Mr Speaker, let me also refer to the learned J.A. Appau in the matter of Issah Abass vrs Tagor. This is a matter that went on appeal. It was a criminal appeal and in the process, --
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon Member, will you convince me as to the relevance -- ? [Laughter]
Mr Afenyo-Markin 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, yes. The relevance of what I am about to say is that the learned Justice of the Court of Appeal in his introduction to his ruling, stated among others that in determining the guilt of an accused, it is not about newspaper reports nor public outcry but looking out for the essential ingredients of the offence; critical evidence. To arrive at that destination --
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
There is no accused before the court now and so, shall we conclude? [Laughter.]
Mr Afenyo-Markin 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, very well.
So, it is important that even --
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
We are at the investigation stage and not the determination of guilt stage. Please, conclude.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, to conclude, in applying that position mutatis mutandis, since we are at the imposition stage --
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
This investigation does not even hold and so do not even apply it.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, very well.
I would urge this House, particularly so when the Committee of Privileges have even had a referral to conduct their work in a manner that would ensure --
Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Hon Member, let us leave out the Committee of Privileges. We are all aware of it and they always know how to do their work.
Hon Member, please conclude.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, to conclude, I would want to urge all Hon Colleagues not to allow partisan and emotional persuasions to lead them to make comments that may undermine the constitutional mandate of the Ghana Police Service. Mr Speaker, somebody's father, husband and a dear one is dead.
Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Hon Member, your final word.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, a citizen has met his untimely death and this should be our pre-occupation to assure the journalists and colleagues that somebody would do a great job to protect all of us.
Mr Speaker, I would thank you for the opportunity.
Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Hon Members, I would take a contribution each from both Sides. and then move to the Hon Leaders.
Dr Bernice A. Heloo (NDC -- Hohoe) 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this very important discussion. I would also thank the Hon Member who made the Statement and all those who supported it to bring out the fact.
Minister for Information (Mr Kojo Oppong-Nkrumah) (MP) 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity and I would want to commend the Hon Member who made the Statement aptly.
Mr Speaker, press freedom is an issue that the Republic of Ghana holds in high esteem. Indeed, journalists in this country have the opportunity to go about their work with a high level of respect and freedom.
Mr Speaker, journalists have the opportunity to ply their trade in the highest levels of safety in this country as compared to many other jurisdictions.
What has happened is a very unfortunate incident which ought not to be associated with the culture of media practice in Ghana, and that is why it is important that the security agencies who are responsible for conducting a thorough investigation are given space and opportunity to do their investigation and
come to a conclusion so that the perpetrators of this act could be held accountable.
Mr Speaker, but as we comment on these matters, we should also be cautious so that we do not create an impression that journalists and journalism is an endangered enterprise in this country because if we do, it would, in the long- run, affect our nation's image on the global stage; the kind of investments we would get in Ghana; and the kind of perception that people would hold of our country.
So while in one breath we would encourage the security agencies to quicken their steps on this issue, let us also be measured in our commentary.
Mr Speaker, our thoughts and prayers are with the family of the deceased. Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity.
Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Thank you very much.
Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, if I have your kind indulgence, I would yield to the Hon Ranking Member for Defence and Interior, Mr James Agalga, to wrap up.
Mr James Agalga (NDC -- Builsa North) 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity.
Mr Speaker, I wish to highly commend the Hon Member who made the Statement for this timely intervention. This Statement could not have been made at a better time when the fact of the death of Ahmed Hussein-Suale is still very fresh in our minds and hearts.
rose
Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Hon Member, are you in legal bibs?
Mr Afenyo-Markin 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, no.
Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
What do you rise for?
Mr Afenyo-Markin 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, you advised all of us to use this platform to ventilate our views.
Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Leave my advice for now and state the main point.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the main point is that the Hon Member who is on his feet now, defied your earlier order in Mr Okudzeto Ablakwa's case by first going on radio on this matter when he should have patiently waited for this opportunity to make his point.
Mr Speaker, there is an Order in this House and you made it in Mr Okudzeto's case that when it is an important matter, it should be raised on the Floor. Mr Speaker --
Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Hon Member, you have seriously misunderstood the example that you are referring to.
Hon Member, please continue.
Mr Agalga 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you.
Mr Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Hon Member, for now, we do not know the nexus between the murder and press or media freedom. Leave that till later. If a doctor is murdered, it does not mean it has got to do with medical practice necessarily. Let us wait till the nexus is established between his profession and the motive behind his murder.
Do not presume. So please, that is out of the record. Go on.
Mr Agalga 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, following the death of Ahmed Hussein- Suale, several calls were made for the security apparatus of State to be proactive in dealing with the case of murder.
The calls were made given the fact that at the time of Ahmed Suale's murder, we had also recorded quite a number of high profile murders in our country, the first being the murder --
Mr Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Hon Member, you would stick to the Statement before us, and this is what I have been saying. You are out of order in that regard. Please proceed.
Mr Agalga 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is refreshing this morning to learn from the Hon Minister for the Interior that the security agencies of State have not gone to sleep and would do everything within their
power to unravel the mystery surrounding the death of Ahmed Suale --
Mr Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Hon Member, please choose your words carefully. Gone to sleep? Nobody ever thinks the Police would go to sleep, so do not talk about that. We are not on radio. We are in the Honourable House of Parliament.
I know the implications of saying somebody has gone to sleep. That is not what we are talking about here. Please put your statement well, otherwise, if you have finished, you may sit.
Mr Agalga 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have a lot to say, but from the beginning, I believe I have suffered a lot of heckling.
With the greatest respect --
Mr Speaker 11:20 a.m.
And I protected you from the heckling.
Mr Agalga 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, with the greatest respect, we are contributing to a Statement made in this House on the murder of a journalist --
Mr Speaker 11:20 a.m.
And it shall be guided by our rules. It must not provoke debate, it must not be frivolous, it must not impute motives, et cetera, and I will make sure you operate within those parameters.
Please go on.
Mr Agalga 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the murder of Ahmed Hussein-Suale has placed Ghana on the international spotlight as far as our human rights record is concerned. In fact, I dare say that our human rights record on the international plain has suffered a sizeable dent.
In this House, when we all made contributions on the particular issue of the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, I never
thought in the wildest of my dreams that Ghana was soon to be next on the international plain for discussion with regards to --
Mr Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Hon Member, wait.
You are comparing the case of a person, a known enemy of a regime, situations that came out of murder in a particular place, to wit an embassy and so on and so forth. That can easily show the cause of a person's death in murder, but I am advising you that the fact that a lawyer has been killed does not mean that the killing has to do with his legal profession.
The fact that a doctor has been killed does not mean he has been killed because he is a doctor, so please wait until the police -- the mere fact that a journalist has been killed does not mean that the motivating factor is his journalism. What are you talking about?
If somebody has a problem over a woman and he happens to be a journalist -- and that is why I say you must wait for the police to investigate before you come to such unfortunate conclusions.
Hon Members, nobody would want to debate in this House that because a journalist has been killed, it means that somebody killed him because of journalism. We would know that at the end of the investigation.
Hon Member, you are being presumptuous. Kindly conclude.
Mr Agalga 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, with the greatest respect, I would like to place on record that the Hon Member who made the Statement made specific reference to the murder of Ahmad Khashoggi. I have not made any conclusions. I am making a comparative analysis --
Mr Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Hon Member, please, you are not speaking in the same parameters as the man who is the owner of the Statement, no. Please proceed.
Hon Members, I want to make it very clear, and let Hon Members get it. If a lawyer is murdered, it does not mean he has been murdered because he is a lawyer. Who says that? What kind of logic would that be?
We have to wait till we see the result, so please, Hon Member, do not be presumptuous. Kindly contribute to the debate.
Hon Majority Leader? Majority Leader (Mr Osei Kyei-
Mensah-Bonsu): Mr Speaker, let me also lend my voice in support of the Statement made by Hon Ras Mubarak relating to the gruesome murder of the journalist, Ahmed Suale.
I would want to believe that the Hon Member brought this Statement under our Orders, that is Order 72, and that it is a matter of urgent public importance. It should engage the attention of all of us.
Mr Speaker, that murder indeed is a dastardly act that must be condemned by all Ghanaians of good conscience. It is a heinous crime and a despicable act that must be thoroughly investigated by the police for us to get to the conclusion of this matter.
Our Constitution provides in article 13(1) which I quote with your permission:
“No person shall be deprived of his life intentionally except in the exercise of the execution of a sentence of a court. In respect of a criminal offence under the laws of Ghana of which he has been convicted.”
Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
In this case, we do not know of any
court ruling against him, and yet the life of this person has been terminated. That should concern all of us.
Mr Speaker, the Constitution in article 15(1) guarantees respect for the dignity of all persons. It provides that the dignity of all persons shall be inviolable”.
Article 162(1) of the Constitution provides that no person, especially journalists, should be penalised or harassed for the content of their publication.
Freedom and independence of the media are hereby guaranteed.
If indeed it is found out that the life of this journalist was terminated because of what publication that he participated in, that would be a serious indictment on the State, which is Ghana as a country.
In that case, one could relate to the fate of journalists, but for now, there is no such evidence.

That is why I disagree with my Hon Colleague who made the Statement when he posed the rhetorical question, “Is that the fate of our journalists?”

Mr Speaker, it would then appear that he has established a prima facie case, that this person has been murdered because of what he participated in, but he knows that that has not been established yet and so we should not jump into conclusions.

I agree with the sentiments that have been expressed generally, that indeed, it is a heinous crime even if we disjunct it from his performance as a journalist. It cannot be tolerated.

Mr Speaker, the Hon Member also said that this is an attempt at silencing journalists. He has concluded the investigations, tried the case and come to a conclusion that that indeed is an attempt at silencing journalists.

Again, for now, at least, we cannot establish that as a fact. So we should be cautious, especially when we speak as Hon Members of Parliament in this matter.

Mr Speaker, the President goes about looking for investors to come and invest in this country. No investor is a ‘‘Father Christmas''.

They would want to know and be assured of the security of their investments and if without any established evidence, we ourselves inflict a mortal wound on the country even when the police have not concluded their investigations, that can only be said to be unfortunate on the part of Hon Members of Parliament (MPs) who make this statement.

Mr Speaker, again, I call on us to be very cautious in what we say. That is why I also disagree with an Hon Colleague who said that when a journalist is killed the way we are experiencing; as if journalists are on continuous basis killed in this country. This is a serious matter that has happened. It has never happened this way before, at least, not in living memory.

Mr Speaker, while we should all condemn it, we should not make it appear as if that is the order of the day in this country. We should be careful. We should not play to the gallery in this matter. We are tarnishing the image of this country unnecessarily, at least, when the police have not finished their investigation.

This trial, by whatever, outside the confines of the court cannot be justified, whether it comes from people who are not MPs or Hon MPs, but it is all the more serious if it comes from Hon MPs who have no established basis and yet, they make the conclusive statements that this is the fate of journalists.

In that regard, they conclude that the person has been murdered because of what exercise he participated in which we all profited from. I was the first person to register to go and watch the exposé that was unveiled at the Accra International Conference Centre (AICC) and when others felt that it was not the best, I stood for him and that company and urged that they should continue. So, Mr Speaker, we should not be hasty in our conclusions.

Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister for the Interior gave the assurance that Interpol has been invited in this matter. It needs no repetition that Ghana wants this collaborative effort from our partners so that we get to the bottom of this.

It does not do any person any good if his country is insecure regardless of the Government that is in place. It does not do the image of this country any good and it does not beckon investors to come and invest in our country, especially when we know that at this level of development, we certainly need investments and investors, domestic and international, to come and complement the effort of Ghanaians and the Government.

Mr Speaker, finally, I believe we should all end on this note and call on the police to conduct the investigations expeditiously and demonstrate the competence that we would want to associate with them. We must admit, in many instances, matters that have gone

under police investigations have taken too long.

The case of our own departed Hon Colleague, the Hon J. B. Danquah Adu is well known to us. We cannot allow these things to go on intermittently and they would not end any time soon. It does not do the image of this country and the security services any good.

So, Mr Speaker, we must urge them and I am happy to learn from the Hon Minister for the Interior that they have placed at the disposal of the Ghana Police Service the necessary resources and logistics to accomplish this task.

As a country, we should rise in unison to say that never again should these killings continue. We should see the end of these killings in what dastardly acts that have sufficiently agitated the conscience of this country and resolve not to go under such a regime again.

Mr Speaker, I thank you very much for the opportunity offered.
Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Majority Leader.
It is important that Hon Members should express their disgust when such unfortunate events occur in our country.
At the same time, commiserate with relevant persons in such circumstances but we must be very careful we are not drawn out into causative factors -- the cause of whatever must have happened -- and Hon Members should please take note for the future and for that matter, go to town and presume that a doctor has been killed because he is a doctor or a university lecturer has been killed because he is a university lecturer and so on and so forth.
Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
That can itself mean diverting appropriate attention by way of the investigators and these are things that we must learn to improve upon as a Parliament so as to do our public duty without hampering others in also doing their duty in the same circumstances.
I thank you very much for your contributions.
Hon Members, at the Commencement of Public Business. Item listed 4 -- Presentation of Papers.
The following Papers are to be presented -- Minister for Finance.

Hon First Deputy Speaker, if you would please proceed to take the Chair.

Hon Majority Leader, what is the state of affairs? Are we presenting the Paper?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we would stand down items listed numbers 4 and 5 and move to item numbered 6, which is the Consideration Stage of the Right to Information Bill, 2018.
Mr Speaker, I am hoping that between today and tomorrow, we should be able to finish it.
Mr Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon Members, item listed 6, Right to Information Bill, 2018, at the Consideration Stage.
BILL -- CONSIDERATION STAGE 11:40 a.m.
  • [Continuation of Consideration from 29/01/19]
    • Mr Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    There is an amendment to clause 78(i) on the Order Paper.
    Chairman of the Committee, where are we?
    Chairman of the Committee (Mr Ben Abdallah Banda) 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we did not conclude clause 78 because the original position of the Committee was that clause 78(2) paragraph (e) should be deleted, but I have a different opinion upon a second thought of it.
    Mr Speaker, to that extent, I would want to seek your leave to abandon clause 78 as proposed. This is because in any right to information regime, people who are indigent are exempted from paying fees before they could access information.
    On the basis of this, I do not believe it would be appropriate for us to legislate that people who cannot afford should pay fees before they can access the information.
    MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, kindly repeat proposition on clause 78.
    Mr Banda 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, what I said was that with your leave, I would want to withdraw it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    The application is that clause 78 be deleted. What is being withdrawn? I do not get it. Is there a proposed amendment which is being withdrawn?
    Mr Banda 11:45 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Very well. So clause 78 stands as it is.
    Item numbered (iii) on page 3 on the Order Paper.
    Hon Opare-Ansah?
    Is there anybody who would want to move the proposed amendment on his behalf?
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for New Juaben South?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is nobody to move the proposed amendment on his behalf. [Laughter.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    I did not need you to announce that to me. [Laughter.]
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, have you considered that? Do you believe we can work without the proposed amendment as contained in item numbered (ii) on the Order Paper?
    Mr Banda 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have read the Hon Member's proposed amendment and I believe that it is proper to the extent that, if the institution would be put to the expense of converting information from one format or medium to the other, then it is fair and proper that the applicant be allowed to bear the cost of the conversion of the information.
    Mr Speaker, on the basis of this, I wholeheartedly agree to the proposed amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Very well.
    In that case, I would permit you to move the Motion on the proposed amendment for it to be debated on his behalf.
    Mr Ben Abdallah Banda (on behalf of
    Mr Frederick Opare-Ansah) 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 78 -- add the following new subclauses:
    “(5) Where a request is made for information to be provided in a medium or format in which the information is held, the information officer may request the applicant to pay the reasonable cost of media conversion of reformatting.
    (6) Where a request is made for information to be provided which information must be transported either physically or electronically, the information officer may request the applicant to pay the reasonable cost for the cost of such physical or electronic transportation.”
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Let me start from the back.
    Yes, Hon Dakura?
    Dr Dakura 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to differ on the proposed amendment because I believe in fairness that asking for information has a basis for what we are trying to pass; the ‘'Right to Information Bill' -- and it simply requires us to support the provision in whatever format for the person asking for the information.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have dealt with this already. In the previous Consideration of the Bill, we dealt with ‘'payments of deposit'' and said that if we require the payment of a deposit as a condition precedent for accessing information, that would serve as a fetter.
    So we said that no applicant should pay a deposit, but he or she would be entitled to pay the cost of production and this includes the production of the material in any form. I do not know why they are bringing this back because it has been dealt with already.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Member, can you refer to the specific clause so that we are assured that it is in accord with what is already there?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the original provision suffered amendments and I am trying to get the exact amendment to satisfy this House, that we had dealt with it. We said that the applicant — There is a premium of deposit but we said that the applicant must not pay a deposit but must pay for the cost of production.
    That was when we were considering photocopies et cetera, and so I want the amendment — I will satisfy this House with it as the debate continues.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Very well.
    Can we defer the decision on this one and satisfy ourselves that we probably have dealt with it in another form?
    Amendment deferred by leave of the House.
    Clause 79 — Retention of fees and charges
    Mr Banda 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 79 -- delete.
    Mr Iddrisu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman in a very simplistic manner has said the intention is to delete clause 79, why? He must give us basis.
    Mr Speaker, as we look at the original Bill, it is on retention of fees and charges. We know that the Minister for Finance comes to this august House with the fees and charges and it is usually per every Budget Statement amended. Is it the intention that this institution would retain fees? If they would do so, then we do not have to delete it.
    Do we intend that they would charge fees? That is the matter we were even debating under clause 78. The fees as we charge would naturally go into the Consolidated Fund by virtue of the provisions of the Constitution. But if it is the desire of this House that the institution retains some of the money to undertake some of their administrative expenses then we can make provision for it.
    Mr Speaker, if the Hon Chairman could explain why he wants it — ? [Interruption] — If we want them to retain it, which should be because once the money gets into the kitty of the Consolidated Fund, it becomes difficult.
    So I will oppose him until he convinces me, otherwise why should they not retain some of the fees? Other than that, they cannot function. We all sit here; in Parliament and approve moneys, yet the Ministry of Finance would tell us that throughout the year, only 31 per cent to 32 per cent of it was released.
    We want this institution to function and function well. Therefore, they should be able to retain some of the fees and charges which would inure to them in the discharge of their duties.
    Mr Banda 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, definitely, the public institutions that provide information to applicants, somewhere along the line, would be taking fees. Yes, there is a fee taking regime, but the Committee thought and felt that this was something that could be dealt with administratively between the public institution and probably the Ministry of Finance.
    More especially so, where we have an Act that regulates and governs retention of fees and charges. It is on this basis that the Committee felt that to the extent that there is an Act in existence, it would be better to delete this one and leave the arrangement between a particular public institution and the Ministry of Finance.
    Mr Speaker, if Hon Members also feel that it ought not to be the case but we should maintain it in the Act, that is subject to the overriding consideration of this august House.
    Mr Chireh 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the Motion to delete it. This is because we have an Act already specifying what to do. Apart from that, if we see clause 62 which deals with the funding of the Commission, we stated there that they can
    have administrative charges, unless that too has been amended.
    This is not the way to capture it now because beyond the Constitution, we have gone further to determine this.
    So the deletion would be in order, so that what is already existing, almost every now and then, the Hon Minister for Finance would bring the list of institutions that ought to retain a certain percentage of what they get. So we should not now be referring you to the Constitution again. The deletion is in order.
    Ms Safo 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I stand in the middle, which is that, inasmuch as the justification of the Hon Chairman for the deletion is the fact that there is already an enactment that deals with fees and charges, and for that matter, there is no need to reproduce same in this Act, I would rather we couch the clause in such a way that a cross-reference is made to that relevant Act so that we do not give the details for retention of fees, relating to the Right to Information Act, where fees and charges are taken by the Commission.
    Then relevant provisions of the Fees and Charges Act or enactment should apply, so that we are not reproducing but cross-referencing another enactment which is of relevance to that provision. I think that is allowed in drafting, so that we do not lift and put it in again for purposes of repetition and emphasis. I think cross-referencing should be made to that relevant Act.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Hon Members Order! There is too much noise in the Chamber.
    Hon Members, let us be clear about the fees and charges. Does it apply to every Agency? The information can be sought from any Agency so even cross-
    Mr Iddrisu noon
    Mr Speaker, probably, because we did not deal with clause 78 exhaustively, and probably because Hon Inusah Fuseini was seeking to refresh our memory on earlier decisions that were taken — My understanding is that, this Commission would not charge any fees for its service.
    Therefore there would be no ‘fees' to retain. If that is it, then the Chairman is right and we would delete it because they are not supposed to charge fees. They are only supposed to allow people to pay for reproduction of voluminous information, as I understand.
    Mr Speaker, but I agree with your guidance, that if we so wish that this
    Commission will retain some fees and charges, clause 79 may not be elegant. We should just say that “The Commission shall, subject to the approval of the Minister for Finance, retain any fees” and then we can refer to any applicable law.
    This is because to assume that there is Fees and Charges Law does not automatically make this Commission a beneficiary of it. So I agree with you on that.
    Mr Speaker, but I believe that this Commission would not charge fees, therefore there is nothing to retain. If that is the basis for it, then the Hon Chairman is right that we should delete clause 79, because it serves no purpose.
    But if we intend that the Commission would charge fees, then we would have to clean up clause 79 because the way it reads is not right. We cannot make a law and say ‘a public institution'; we are talking about this Commission.
    So, “the Commission shall, subject to the approval of the Minister for Finance retain such fees and charges” and we would now relate it to the law that the Hon Member referred to.
    I thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Chireh noon
    Mr Speaker, I am sorry to have misled my own Leader. The fees in this clause are dealing with institutions that provide information and charge people. So the issue of retention should not arise because they are supposed to do that to enable them produce the information for the applicant.
    Therefore whatever arrangement exists in those institutions, as to whether their money should go to the Consolidated Fund, -- it should go there. If it is that they should also retain whatever IGF they
    get, it is a different matter; it is not for the Commission. Once it is not for the Commission, we do not need to legislate it.
    The third reason is that they are talking about the Constitution but I do not know which part of the Constitution says that we should retain moneys. It is a law we passed, so I think that once it does not apply to the money of the Commission, we should not have it.
    It would just be the normal way of any institution which qualifies to retain or in a normal situation where you charge the expenses that would enable you to offer the service that you are supposed to give. So I still support the deletion.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
    Hon Members, now I think the Hon Minority Leader has introduced something else. Hon Members, is it fees or charges? I ask because we have said that there would be no fees. However, one would pay for the cost of providing the information to the person who is in charge and I think that should be retained by the agency.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini noon
    Mr Speaker, we have gotten it.
    Mr Speaker, this provision in clause 79 was inserted because of the provision in clause 24 where we have said that there would be payment of deposit. So the payment of deposit was not tied to the reproduction; so that was public funds.
    If one is going to access information, he or she pay a deposit whether it costs a pesewa or GH¢100, he or she would pay a deposit and that was public funds. But we deleted clause 24 in its entirety, because we thought, that would be a fetter.
    Mr Speaker, we amended clause 26 and I would soon satisfy you why we should reject Hon Opare-Ansah's amendment. We amended clause 36 to provide for reproduction cost.
    It is not a service but the cost of reproducing the information, so it does not go into the Consolidated Fund. It is just for the information because we thought that if we put cost to it, it would be a fetter on the enjoyment of the right and that is why we recommended that this be deleted.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
    Hon Chairman, so probably the first amendment should be to remove “fees” and have “Retention of charges” and then it would just be the ‘charge' which is the assessed cost that the applicant would pay.
    Mr Banda noon
    Mr Speaker, I believe that is basically the rationale behind it. Strictly speaking, the institution would not be charging any fee because what they would be taking is cost that may be occasioned as a result of probably printing, reproducing or converting the information from one format to the other. To that extent, that may not be a fee but may be classified as a charge.
    Mr Speaker, so that being the case, I would take a cue from your good self and with your leave, further amend clause 79 by the deletion of “fees” and maintaining “Retention of charges”. This is because they would take charges for reasonable expenses or costs that they would be incurring in the course of their work.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
    Hon Members, the proposed amendment is in the heading of clause 79 and it is to delete “fees and” --
    Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker noon


    should respect your guidance. I do not see how clause 79 can survive in any form and character without a decision on clause 78; let us look at the two clauses together.

    Therefore to put the Question on clause 79 when we have not taken a decision on clause 78 would disenable our good intensions in this Bill. The two clauses are related, notwithstanding the review we have done.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
    If you read clause 78, it is in accord with the discussions we have had so far. This is because the fees part is bad. Fees shall not be charged for the time used for reproduction or anything; it only means that you would pay the reproduction cost. That is the reason “Retention of charges” is the appropriate heading because there is no fees.
    I will put the Question.
    Mr Opare noon
    None

    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
    Hon Member for Suhum, what did you want to say?
    Mr Opare-Ansah noon
    Mr Speaker, I was up on the amendment that you just put the Question on.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
    Hon Member, I would still hear you; what did you want to say in respect of that?
    Mr Opare-Ansah noon
    Mr Speaker, clause 79, the deletion —
    Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
    Hon Member, we were not deleting clause 79 but amending the heading to now read ‘Retention of charges' instead of “Retention of fees and charges”.
    Mr Opare-Ansah noon
    Mr Speaker, there is an amendment standing in the name of the Hon Chairman of the Committee and myself for deletion.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
    Yes, it has been debated but we realised that we had to amend the heading first. So if you would now want to argue the amendment that stands in your name and that of the Hon Chairman, I would hear you.
    I have heard arguments in respect that and we were going to abandon the proposed amendment but --
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the reason I had submitted the proposal for the deletion was in respect of the earmarked funds at the position was in respect of the earmarked funds and the MDAs Retention of Funds Act of 2007 (Act 753) which was passed by this House, where we have given specific powers to the Ministry of Finance to annually, as part of the Budget Statement, come to this House to tell us how much IGF any particular institution is allowed to retain?
    I thought it was not in order if we bypassed that law and started putting into different Acts and asking some institutions to retain funds. That is why I thought we should delete that entire clause on the retention of IGF.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just as I said earlier, we thought the deletion was proper but I now accept your compromised position because the moneys that would be received for the
    reproduction must be accounted for. Yes, it is not IGF but it must be accounted for. So I support the compromised position that we delete, “fees” and leave, “charges”.

    In fact, I accept the compromise position because we must account for it. -- [Interruption] -- It should not go because it is supposed to be a reproduction cost. [Interruption.] No, it is not IGF because it is not for a service] -- [Pause.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Now, I think the position is clear --
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is a consequential amendment in clause 79(2), so I thought I should draw your attention.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon Member for Suhum, our position is that when we say that there would be no fees and clause 78 has listed all the things that we would not charge fees for because it is in the public service, if one wants the information to be printed for them, they would pay for the paper.
    We would want the agency printing the document to hold the money, so they could replace the paper which has been used. That is what we are discussing now and that is why we cannot delete clause 79, otherwise, they would have no power
    to hold the money to replenish their stock and be able to print it for another person. That is the position now.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my understanding then is that, clause 79 would not talk about retention because there is a provision there which talks about the fact that they would have to retain the funds. That was my worry because of the provisions in the earmarked funds and the Appropriation (No. 2) Act of 2017.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    I do not know how you would put it --
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, by extension, every fee that is levied or charged by any institution is in recovery of some cost that they expend for some service that they are delivering. So we could by a stretch of that argument say then that, for every department or agency of Government, some account must be created and those funds deposited in them.
    That is why we made that law and said that because of the capping instituted by Government, per the annual budget, let Government come and tell us that, for this year, this institution can retain 66 per cent, 100 per cent or that much of their IGF. Otherwise, let all the funds go to the Consolidated Fund.
    Mr Chireh 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the amendment he is talking about does not arise. Indeed, we do not want them to be overcharging. It is only when one overcharges for a reproduction of information that one would have money to put somewhere.
    In any case, if all these institutions generate IGF, they already have in one form or the other accounts for this IGF. Therefore, this should be deleted because we should not encourage them to charge
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon Member for Wa West, I would want 50 pages of this reproduced. Should I go and bring my paper or you would use your paper? If you use your paper, it should be replenished. Therefore, the cost of it should be borne by me. That is what we call a charge. It is not a fee.
    I think a fee should be differentiated from a charge, otherwise, they would have no power to ask you to pay any money for the service. If you do not pay any money, they could only give the first five people who come.
    After that, they would say, well, the information is available but we have no paper to print it for you. That is what we would want to avoid.
    Hon Ranking Member, propose your amendment as contained in the line 2 of clause 79 (1).
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is a consequential amendment. I beg to move, delete “fees and” in the Head note and in clause 79 (1), delete, “fees” and insert, “charges”. In line 1 of clause 79 (2), delete, “The fees” and insert, “charges”.
    Mr Speaker, these are the amendments proposed.
    Mr Banda 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the proposed amendments.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon Members, I would put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 79 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon Members, shall we return to clause 78? Hon Ranking Member, did you find the information relating to clause 78?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, on the 13th day of November, 2018, which was a Tuesday, we considered the Right to Information Bill, 2018.
    The Hon Chairman of the Committee, the Hon Minority Leader and the Hon Frederick Opare-Ansah moved the Motion for the deletion of clause 24.
    Mr Speaker, clause 24 has the headnote “Payment of deposit”. The floor was opened, a debate ensued, the Question was put to and agreed to, so it was deleted. So there is no payment of deposit.
    Mr Speaker, we proceeded to clause 26 of the Bill and in clause 26, the Hon Chairman proposed an amendment.
    The amendment was to the effect that subclause (1), lines (2) and (3), delete “public institution has by notice demanded payment of a deposit in relation to the application, and…” Then further in line 4, delete “deposit” and insert “prescribe processing fee for reproduction of information”.
    So we have already said that in clause 24, any payment at all to be made by the applicant would be in respect of reproduction of information in any form, whether electronic, audio or by disc. Immediately the applicant requests, even if it is transliteration of the information, we have to charge the applicant on only the reproduction cost.
    So respectfully, I was saying that Hon Opare-Ansah's amendment is well intentioned because the applicant must pay but in clause 24, we are reconsidering that cost. Any cost in its entirety, to be paid by the applicant, would be reproduction cost no matter how it is described.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Opare-Ansah, in view of this, would you want to move your proposed amendment?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:20 p.m.
    Not at all, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker, the essence of clause 78 is to describe and define for those elements that would go into what he is describing in clause 24. That is why in clause 78, we are now even providing for some categories of persons, who would be
    exempted. This is because by his argument, once we have said that the reproduction cost must be paid, then everybody must pay for the reproduction cost.
    But in clause 78, we are seeking to exempt certain persons. In the same vein, clause 78 seeks to clarify that reproduction in certain instances based on the fact that requests that are coming from applicants may involve certain cases which may change, the nature of how the information is stored.
    For that matter, that should become part of the reproduction cost whereas a couple of cases had already been stated in the Bill itself.
    Mr Speaker, what I sought to do was to add on to that list, some items which had not been taken into account by the Bill. So his argument does not persuade me to abandon my proposal. So if you would, I could go ahead and further explain why the proposals I am making should be considered.
    Mr Speaker, there are two proposals that I made. In the first one, I am talking about where a request is made for information to be provided in a medium or format in which the information is held -- If, for instance, information is held on magnetic tapes, which is probably from the 1980s or 1990s, today, it is easier for somebody to take that information away on a compact disc.
    So one would make a request that he needs such information on a compact disc format because he probably does not even have the means to read the information off a magnetic tape.
    So it would require the institution converting that information from the original media which is the magnetic tape
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    In this case, one has the right to access the information but you are bringing in transportation. This law would not regulate transportation. You can access it. It is there and one can come and make a copy if he wants to and it can be made for him. But to transport it beyond the location is not intended to be a part of the remit of this Bill.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are talking about giving copies and paying for the cost of those copies.
    So what I am saying then is that if those copies so happen to be in Accra and somebody goes to a Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA), like the nice one you built in Bekwai, and says he wants a copy of some files from the DVLA
    office in Accra he could be told that it would cost GH¢10 to transport or he can take a vehicle and come to Accra and access it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    One's right is to access the information and so he should access it where it is located. But if you want it to be moved to another playfield, I think it is a private arrangement one would want to make and we should not constrain any agency or put it in the law such that any agency would be required to take on that responsibility as well.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we could leave that leg of the amendment and look at the first one which has to do with the media conversion.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    I am being reminded that we moved an amendment filed by you in which you said that if the application is to office A and the information is held at office C, the application should be referred to office C to be accessed. So if we approve this, it would defeat that amendment we have already passed.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that was in respect of two different institutions. It was not in respect of the same institution. It was where one makes an application to an institution and they realise that it should not have come to them. Here, we are talking about the same institution, so it does not in any way defeat it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    But is the essence not the same?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in any case, I already withdrew that leg of the amendment. [Interruption.] Not both but the one that involves the cost of transportation.
    But let us look at the media conversion.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Very well, so the proposed amendment numbered (vi) is withdrawn. So we could now discuss the proposed amendment numbered (v).
    Mr Chireh 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that the Hon Member should just withdraw both proposed amendments.
    The argument that he makes in the proposed amendment numbered (v) that the applicant is to pay a reasonable cost with the conversion, that is what the Hon Ranking Member already raised in relation to what we approved earlier. So, it is part of the cost of production. Therefore, I believe the Hon Member should also just accept it, and withdraw that, otherwise --
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon Member, are you on your feet?
    Mr Shaibu Mahama 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would definitely want to support the proposal moved by the Hon Opare-Ansah.
    Mr Speaker, the first leg should be allowed to hold because it has to do with the medium. We would want to access the information, but we would want it in a certain medium.
    So an officer may inform a person of the format of the available information, but if one would want it in a different medium, then he must inform the person of the cost that goes with it. I agree with that one that it should be left that way.
    Mr Speaker, with the second aspect, I believe he has subsequently made a
    provision for the transportation. Information at the district level is restricted to that area, so if one is at the district and would want to access information beyond that district, then it should be the person's private arrangement.
    If it gets to the office of the district and they tell the person that such information could, for instance, only be found in Accra or Koforidua --
    Mr Speaker, it is therefore not the officer's duty to tell a person to pay an amount for him to get an information across to them. So I agree completely that the second leg should be taken off, but we should maintain the first leg because of the nature of the formatting.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon Members, the question I would want to ask is whether it derogates from the entire clause in any way? If we add the proposed amendment numbered (v), does it derogate? This is because the proposed amendment numbered (iii) talks about if one would want it to be translated into a language other than the language in which it is held.
    Proposed amendment numbered (iv) also talks about converting it through a transcript. Now, the Hon Member would want to add converting of it from one format to another. How do we call it -- ejusdem generis? Is it different and does it derogate from the format in clause 78 in any way? If it does not, then we should add it, so that we save time.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am not very sure whether we would not be putting an extra obligation on the provider of the information because we cannot be sure of the kind of formatting that the applicant would request for.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Banda 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that the concern raised by the Hon Anyimadu- Antwi has been well taken care of under clause 29, which deals with the manner of access.
    Mr Speaker, under clause 29(3), it says that where access cannot be given in the form being requested by the applicant but can be given in a different form, the information would be given in that form and there would be an explanation as to why access cannot be given in the form requested by the applicant.
    Mr Speaker, so in the case of Hon Opare-Ansah, with respect to his proposed amendment, if information cannot be given in the format being requested for by the applicant but can be given in a different form clause 26 has taken care of it, so it is out of the
    abundance of caution that I stood up a few minutes ago to support the proposed amendment of the Hon Opare-Ansah.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon Members, let us put the Question.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Opare-Ansah, I would give you the last opportunity.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we should be very careful in the consideration of this particular proposal. Technology changes so fast, and I can guarantee us that there are lots of data and information being held across several organisations.
    But if we went there today that we would want access to an information and they presented us with the current format in which the information -- some are even in punched card format. There is information stored in this country today in punched cards, so where would we get punched card readers on our own, when we have got a room full of punched card information?
    Mr Speaker, when one goes to the Ghana Broadcasting Corporation (GBC), they have got cassette tapes, full of information, but we cannot even find a video cassette player these days, and yet we would want to have access to the video.
    So we should be able to request that we would want those ones in CD format, so that we could be able to have useful access to those information. That is what this proposed amendment is in respect of.
    In any case, with what the Hon Member for Asante Akim Central refers to, in sub- clause (3) it talks about language, so what
    if one comes and says that he would want an information in Latin? Yesterday, we were told by an Hon Member across that Latin is dead.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    The Hon Member is not a catholic, else he would not have said that.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:30 p.m.
    So Mr Speaker, clearly -- but the provision says that in any language. What if one comes to make a request and there is nobody within the jurisdiction who would be -- there is a language called “Yiddish”, and there are only two sisters left on this planet, who speak Yiddish, so where would we find them to come and do its translation for us?
    Yet we have put it in the law that one could come and ask for any language. But of course, we understand, as the Hon Chairman has pointed to us, that in the law, there is a provision that if the institution cannot reproduce in that format, then it would write to a person to indicate why they cannot, so I believe we should adopt this particular one.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon Members, let us conclude this one.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Yes, Hon
    Ranking Member, I would hear you last on this one.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the Hon Member's argument, and I also appreciate your call, if it would spoil the -- this is because we would have to make progress and finish it.
    Mr Speaker, after reading carefully subclauses (3) and (4), I believe the Hon
    Member is trying to deal with a lacuna. Even though it appears to have been covered early on, there could be other forms that the applicant might require.
    So, if the applicant so requests and the institution can do it, then the applicant must pay a reasonable cost for the change. So, I withdraw my opposition and support the proposed amendment numbered (v) for us to make progress.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 78 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 80 -- Responsibility of the Commission.
    Mr Banda 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 80 delete.
    We seek to delete clause 80 because the items listed there are well-captured under the functions of the Commission which can be found on page 27, clause 46, of the Bill. Clause 45 also deals with the powers of the Commission. To that extent, clause 80 becomes redundant.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 80 ordered to be deleted from the Bill.
    Clause 81 -- Annual reports by public institutions
    Mr Banda 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 81 subclause (1), line 1, delete “three months” and insert “sixty days”.
    Mr Speaker, we want specific days, and we would want to be certain about when time begins to run and end. When we say
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Member for Daboya -- ?
    Mr Shaibu Mahama 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree completely with the Hon Chairman; except that in the first place, we agreed to reduce “three months” to “two months”. That was why the amendment says “sixty days” instead of “three months”. The ordinary interpretation would have been that it should have been ninety or ninety- one days.
    So, from “three months” to “sixty days” means that we had already agreed that we would reduce it from three to two months, which is now converted to sixty days. This is just for further clarification.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 81 subclause (2), paragraph (a), line 1, delete “access” and insert “information”.
    So, it would read:
    “The report shall include the number of applications for information during the reporting period”.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    It is straightforward.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, Clause 81 subclause (2), paragraph (d), line 1, delete “High” and in line 2, at end, add “if any”.
    Mr Speaker, it would read 12:40 p.m.
    “The number of applications to the courts for judicial review and the results of the reviews if any”.
    The reason is simple -- it is because some matters would go to the High Court and others can even travel to the Appeal Court and subsequently to the Supreme Court.
    So, to say the “High Court” would be restrictive because matters would not always end at the High Court; they may travel beyond the High Court to the Appeal and Supreme Courts. That explains why we seek to delete “High” and maintain “Court”, so that it would cover all courts.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 81, add the following new sub- clause:
    “(4) The Minister shall by the 30th of June of each year, lay before Parliament, an annual report on the activities of public institutions and the Commission in respect of the preceding year based on the annual reports of the public institutions.”
    Mr Speaker, the rationale is to ensure that activities of public institutions and the Commission are reported to Parliament by the Hon Minister by a specific date. This is the reason behind the proposed amendment.
    Mr Shaibu Mahama 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am not sure “by 30th” makes it specific. If we could do “on or before the 30thof June” --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, it has been proposed that you delete “by” and insert “on or before 30th of June”.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Hon Member --
    Mr Ahiafor 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, for consistency, “by 30th” is alright since it could be interpreted to mean on or before: For the sake of brevity on or before is longer than “by 30th”, so we should go by what the amendment says.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Hon Member, but I think “on or before” is a more elegant legal language than “by”.
    Where are the senior lawyers? Often, the language used is “on or before”; “by” does not appear to be a very good language.
    Mr Chireh 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, do not impose old ideas on us. [Laughter.] We want brevity -- “by 30th”, we know that it should be before. The report should be there by 30th June. If it is for purposes of making things more complex, as a Legislature -- let us just leave it as it is.
    If Mr Speaker recommends it -- This is a Cavendish rendition, so we could go according to it. Otherwise, “by 30th” is so
    clear; it could be before. If there would be confusion, they could just say so; but “by the 30th is clear.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    My interest is what we do with those reports, and how we enforce them.
    We have put in many legislation requirement agencies to report to the House, some do and when they do and we get them as individual Hon Members, what does the House do with it? Others do not and nobody enforces it by asking them and so, why do we continue to put that there?
    Hon Chairman, what do we seek to achieve by requesting that they report to the House and what do we intend to do with the report?
    Mr Banda 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we intend to put a legal obligation on the Hon Minister to report to this august House per the stipulated time or date. In the event where the Hon Minister fails to comply as stipulated by the law, you do know better than I do that the Hon Minister can be compelled by an order of mandamus to perform his or her statutory functions.
    Mr Speaker, but --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    The question is, those that bring the report to us, what do we do with the reports as a House?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is the House where the laws are made and it is unfortunate that we have a peculiar barrier in our Constitution.
    When we review annual reports from various institutions, it tells us how the laws we have made previously are
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    I am still lost. I said that do we want it for individual Hon Members information or for action by the House? This is because so far, this is my tenth year and I am not aware if we have discussed any Agency's report or have given directions or acted if they do report at all.
    Or we have required any head of Agency to come and explain to a Committee on television why they have not brought their report.
    So why do we keep asking them to do that when we do nothing with them or we do not require them to do it when they do not?
    Mr Chireh 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
    I think that if we look at it, any time we put it in this legislation, we expect the institutions and the Hon Ministers who supervise them to submit it. What I know since I also came here in the year 2005 is that, they are referred to the subject matter committee and --
    So what has happened is that, that is part of Parliament's duty of supervising the activities of the Executive and oversighting. In fact, this is the oversight function --
    Now, quite a number of institutions, as you rightly pointed out, have not even submitted. Some have come and the last time we talked about the universities, the
    issue was that the universities have brought their reports but have not been distributed but anytime they are brought, they lay them and you refer them to the appropriate committee to report on. When they come back, then we debate.
    Mr Speaker, recently, if you also noticed, there have been publications in the media about the Hon Minister for National Security not reporting as per the Security and Intelligence Act, 1996 (Act
    526).
    So it is something that we again, as Hon Members of Parliament, can ask questions on why there was no report for these number of years? Or when the report has come, what have --
    In fact, it is the Table Office that must make sure that you, together with the Leadership of Parliament, all these reports because we need to know -- We have created many institutions, some of them are working very well and others are not.
    Some have challenges with their laws and it is only through their reports that we would be able to advise or help the Executive to perform their functions.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
    Mr S. Mahama 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I can appreciate your frustration about [Interruption] -- and I think that it is shared by many others in this august House.
    Mr Speaker, I have not been long here but I think I also share in the frustration. We may just be lucky this time around because the rate and pressure with which civil society and the entire nation have put pressure on us to bring this Bill to fruition, I hope that when we eventually pass this Bill, they would be the same people who would follow up on reports to get what we need to have --
    I hope that with the inclusion of that, in this particular Bill, we would have the results; the reason and the intendment of why we want reports presented to this House.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Very well. Yes, Hon Ranking Member?
    Alhaji Inusah A. B. Fuseini 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is a really good time to air views about reporting mechanisms of Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) to this House.
    Time and again at Committee meetings, we are confronted with issues of reporting the semi-yearly reports which is required under the Public Financial Management Act (PFMA) of the Ministries to submit to this House.
    When they fail, refuse or neglect to do so, we are rendered impotent as we cannot do anything and it is a requirement which we labour to put it in the law.
    It is for us to monitor, and as one of our Hon Colleagues said, we have to exercise our supervisory jurisdiction and to know whether the moneys that we have so approved are being used for the intended purposes and to even know whether the Hon Minister for Finance is meeting his obligations to those public institutions.
    Mr Speaker, because we do not have power to punish, when they do not report, we lament like the Hon Speaker has lamented and this is a serious lamentation. Because this one is the Right to Information Bill, we must know how Ghanaians are responding to it, whether they are fetters or impediments put on their way.
    This is because the initial building blocks to construct this regime might be difficult and so, we need to have an institutional reporting mechanism to know how it is being implemented and that is why we put this one here.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Does anybody remember the last time we had a report from the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ)? Is this more important than the CHRAJ report?
    I am raising these things because truly, we make the laws and it is important that we know but do we ensure that they do them or when we receive them, we do not use them for the purpose for which we get the reports?
    So I am deliberately bringing these matters up so that we decide how we move forward in that respect. Anyway, let us consider the amendment; we said that ‘by 60 days' or ‘on or before'? Which one?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, again, I think that one way that we can cure this mischief is to task the Committees because when the reports are laid, they are referred to Committees but the Committees fail to bring their reports; all of them.
    Mr Speaker, so, one way to cure --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    It is only the Auditor-General's report that we regularly get reports on and the Committees review and report to the House. Yes, the Public Interest Accountability Committee (PIAC) has just put in their report.
    Anyway, so, the proposed amendment is that we add a new clause 4.
    Ms Safo 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before you put the Question, just a deletion in the first line after “30th of June”, we delete “of” so that it reads;
    “The Minister shall by the 30th of June each year”.
    If we were using the “on” or “before” then the “off” would become relevant. But the way it stands, “The Minister shall by the 30th of June each year …”. --
    Mr Speaker, so, I beg to propose a further amendment that “of” after “June” should be deleted.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    The next amendment would be to include the new clause 4 --
    Hon Member for Asante-Akim Central?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought you were putting the Question on the entire clause because I wanted to take you back but I would wait for you to finish taking the clauses.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    I am putting the Question on the entire clause.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, then with respect, I would raise my point.
    Mr Speaker, an amendment was made on clause 81 2(d) with respect to the deletion of the word “High” with respect to the court. Mr Speaker, but I looked at clause 38 and a provision had been made that when it comes to judicial review the jurisdiction would be the High Court.
    But here, it talks about the number of applications to the High Court for judicial review and the results of the reviews. So specifically, we cannot run away from the High Court.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Hon Member, you were not paying attention to the Hon Chairman because his explanation was that we cannot assume that the process would end at the High Court, because some one may appeal against the decisions of the High Court and it may go up to the Supreme Court. So a “court” would then cover all the final results.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    I would now put the Question that a new clause 4 should be added to clause 81.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, following from where the Hon Deputy Majority Leader proposed that the “of” should be deleted, I was conferring with her that then the entire “of each year” should be deleted because there is the word “annual” in the second leg of the statement.
    Mr Speaker, so, it would read “The Minister shall by the 30th of June lay before Parliament, an annual report …”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    I have withdrawn that for you.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 81 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 82 -- Reports by the Minister to Parliament.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, you and the Hon Minority Leader filed this one but I think it is obvious.
    Mr Banda 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, rightly so.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause - 82 - delete.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 82 ordered to be deleted from the Bill.
    Clause 83 -- Limitation of period for exempt information.
    Mr Banda 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 83 headnote, delete “exempt information” and insert “information exempt from disclosure”.
    Mr Speaker, we seek to delete “exempt information” and insert “information exempt from disclosure”. Mr Speaker, the two are the same but this august House has adopted the second phrase, and so for the sake of consistency, we have to amend it to fall in line with what has been adopted by this august House.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Item numbered (xi).
    Mr Banda 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 83 subclause (1), line 2, delete “twenty-five” and insert “thirty”.
    Mr Speaker, it would read “Information classified as exempt information under Section 5 to 18 ceases to be exempt informations on the expiry of thirty years. Mr Speaker, we have extended it from twenty-five years to thirty years so that where the information is exempt on the
    basis of reasons aforementioned in the preceding clauses -- on the expiry of thirty years that information would no longer be deemed as classified information but they would be declassified and could be released to the public.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    What informed the change from twenty-five years to thirty years?
    Mr Banda 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Committee in its wisdom thought that twenty-five years is too short a period, and thirty years is long enough for any classified information to be declassified. Mr Speaker, that is the reason.
    Mr Speaker, I am hearing that the Public Records and Archives Administration Ghana (PRAAG) Act says thirty years -- There is an existing Act that declassifies exempt information upon the expiry of 30 years and I have been prompted that that is the reason we extended this from 25 to 30 years.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Item numbered xii.
    Mr Banda 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 83 subclause (2), line 5, after “individual” insert “public safety, national security, national economic interest and international relations with any other country”.
    Mr Speaker, it would now read “On the expiry of the period specified in subsection (1), a person may seek access to the information and the public institution which has custody of the information shall give access in accordance with the procedure
    Mr Banda 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 86 line 1, delete “willfully” and insert “wilfully” and in line 5, delete “ one year'' and insert “six months”.
    Mr Speaker, there is a spelling mistake, “wilfully” was erroneously written. It goes with one “l”, and we are also seeking to shorten the six months' period. So it would read;
    “A person who wilfully discloses information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act commits an offence, and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not less than two hundred and fifty penalty units and not more than five hundred penalty units, or to a term of imprisonment of not less than six months and not more than three years or to both the fine and the term of imprisonment”.
    Ms Safo 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I wish to further amend this proposition that the sentence ends at “or to both”, so we do not repeat the fine and the term of imprisonment, because it has been earlier referred to.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 86 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 88 -- Extension of time
    Mr Banda 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause -- delete.
    Mr Speaker, we are seeking to delete the clause because we do not want public institutions to be hiding under the extension of time to be unnecessarily delaying the processing of applications of those seeking for information.
    We want to compel them to work within time and to work very assiduously to ensure that whatever time is given them to provide the information, they act within the stipulated time.
    Mr Speaker, it is on this basis that the Committee in its wisdom felt that extension of time is unnecessary and same has to be deleted. I so move.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 89 -- Application to the private sector
    Mr Banda 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8 -- transpose to become subclause (1) of clauses 90.
    So if I understand you correctly, the text is not being amended, but it is being added to clause 90. So we do not have to vote.
    I am directing that clause 89 should become a sub clause of clause 90. I so direct.
    Clause 89 ordered to form part of clause 90 as a subclause.
    Clause 90 -- Regulations
    Mr Banda 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 90 -- opening phrase, after “may” insert “in consultation with the Board”.
    So the new rendition reads;
    “The Minster may in consultation with the Board by a Legislative Instrument make regulations”.
    The purpose is to ensure that the input, views and perspectives of the Board are also taken into consideration, because the Board is practically in touch with the affairs of the institutions and the Commission.
    To that extent, if the Minister intends to bring any Legislative Instrument, it is fair and proper that the views and perspectives of the Board are also solicited for.
    It is on this basis that it is being proposed that the Minister may do so in consultation with the Board.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 90 -- add the following new subclauses:
    “(2) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, extend the application of this Act to the private sector.
    (3) The legislative instrument made under subsection (1) shall specify.
    (a) the provisions of the Act which shall “apply to the private sector;
    (b) the type of information to which access should be given;
    (c) the exemptions which shall apply to the private sector as they apply in the public sector; and
    (d) the court procedures that may be enforced to make available the requisite information.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    My question is why in this case, are you not asking that it be done in consultation with the Board?
    Mr Banda 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe this is a very good question, and I would therefore take a cue from your good self and seize this opportunity to further amend it, because once it has to do with Legislative Instrument to extend the scope of the application in relation to the private sector, I believe same must be done in consultation with the Board.
    So I agree with you, unless Hon Mahama has a different opinion.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Daboya?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.


    entirely. I have nothing contrary to that, and more so when we have at the premise that it is private sector that is funded by public funds.

    So if there is the need to extend it, it means that it is a Board that is in consultation with the management of the institution.

    They would know the private sector areas that are funded by public funds. Therefore I agree that we add “in consultation with the Board”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Very well, so we shall insert --Is it in subclause
    (2)?
    “The Minister may, in consultation with the Board…”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    I will put the Question on the entire clause 90.
    Mr Banda 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to avert our minds to clause 89(1) in the Bill which has been transferred to clause 90. It appears the two clauses are not substantially different because if you read clause 89 (1) carefully --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    It is virtually the same thing as --
    Mr Banda 1:20 p.m.
    Yes, it is the same.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    So, what we needed to do was to delete the clause 89(1) and not to transpose it to clause 90 because -- Or is it the transposition that has been done here as the proposed amendment? I think so.
    So, the direction still stands.
    Mr Banda 1:20 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Very well, so the direction still stands. It is the same thing.
    Dr Dakura 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise just to seek some clarification on clause 90(2) on the usage of the word “may”. I wonder why it should be “may” as if it is only the public sector that is likely to have information because as we are aware, the private sector should be --
    The subclause should read:
    “The Minister will, in consultation with the Board, extend the application of this Act to the private sector.”
    It should not be “may”. The Minister should do it by right of reason that the law applies to both public -- [Interruption].
    Some Hon Members 1:20 p.m.
    “Shall”.
    Dr Dakura 1:20 p.m.
    I am sorry. It should be “shall”. I thank you the lawyers very much. That is why you are here to correct us.
    Mr Speaker, in any case, I still think that the new rendition should be “shall” and not “may”. This is my opinion.
    So the new rendition should be:
    “The Minister shall, in consultation with the Board, extend the application of this Act to the private sector.”
    That is the proposed rendition I would want to see in the Bill and not “may”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, the Hon Member says that it should read:
    “The Minister shall, in consultation with the Board, extend the application of this Act to the private sector.”
    What is your view?
    Mr Banda 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “shall” is mandatory. If we want to go by “shall”, that is all right. It therefore means that even where Legislative Instrument is not needed, the Minister must still bring one before Parliament. But strictly speaking, I do not have any entrenched position on this.
    Mr Speaker, if it is “shall”, I do not have a problem.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to support my Hon Colleague. Clause 90 (3) reads:
    “The legislative instrument made under subsection (1) shall specify
    (a) the provisions of the Act which shall “apply to the private sector;”
    So if it is not mandatory, how would we have a regulation that would specify the provisions of that Act that shall apply to the private sector? By this provision, we are saying that the Minister would as a matter of necessity have to bring a Regulation. Clause 90 (3) (a) must stay.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Hon Member, I beg to differ. When we say “may”, it means that the Minister would determine as and when it is necessary and if he does determine that it is necessary to apply, then, it is not the entire Act that would apply, but specific sections of the Act which would apply to the private sector.
    The private sector is like a citizen. The law applies to it as it does to you, but when it comes to its private matters, it is regulated by the Companies Acts of 1963 (Act179).
    When we choose that we should have access to its information as if it is a private organisation, then, it should be by some other legislation.
    If I am a private lawyer and I do not do any business with Government, and for example, I just represent cocoa farmers, why would a person come for information from me? But if for example, I represent Parliament and there is information, which by virtue of the fact that I work for Parliament the public may like to access, then in that case, the law may apply to the specific ones.
    That is why I do not think it should be “shall” because we cannot make it applicable to all private sector organisations.
    It is rather private sector organisations which may have use of or do business with public sector organisations which we would be required to share information or have access to. That has been the thinking all the years we dealt with this matter.
    Dr Dakura 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I still hold my view on the use of the word “shall” because in this country, we are all aware that the private sector is where all the things happen. They only smear political and public officers with the little bit of things that get us into trouble.
    So I still believe that the new rendition should use the word “shall” to apply as mandatory to the activities of the private sector.
    I do not see why at some point, it should be a determining factor to encourage or have access to that information. I still think
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    I beg to differ because the private sector does not hold public information and you are looking for information which somebody holds on your behalf.
    This is right to access the information which the person holding it does so only because you have appointed him to hold that information for you.
    If I were a taxi driver, what is your interest in what I do? I do not use your public funds, so you have no right to ask me except the tax authority which may require me to declare my -- That is not access to information so, that is where the difference is.
    Whenever it comes to regulations, because it is not in all circumstances that we need them, we use “may” because we do it as and when it becomes necessary. That is the essence.
    Very well, I will put the Question on the entire clause 90.
    Mr Magnus Kofi Amoatey 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before you put the Question, I would want us to look at clause 90(3)(d) which reads:
    “the court procedures that may be enforced to make available the requisite information.”
    Mr Speaker, I am of the view that if it has to do with court procedures, that is the preserve of the court and not the Minister. Therefore, I pray that we delete paragraph (d) because it is a no go area
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    If you decide to go to court, you do not determine which procedure - The procedure is given. You only have to know the correct one to apply.
    Mr Banda 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member is right.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    So, we would delete clause 90(3)(d).
    Mr Banda 1:30 p.m.
    Rightly so, Mr Speaker.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 90 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 91 -- Interpretation
    Mr Banda 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment listed as item numbered (xviii) on the Order Paper stands in the name of Hon Frederick Opare-Ansah, but it has been taken care of by a contrary decision by the House. His amendment therefore falls.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Hon Members, item numbered (xviii) on the Order Paper has been overreached.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, item numbered (xix) on the Order Paper.
    Mr Banda 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 91 -- add the following new
    Interpretation:
    “Government” means any authority by which the executive authority of the Republic is exercised;”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, are you using the constitutional interpretation? This is because the Constitution defines ‘'Government''.
    Mr Banda 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we took if from article 295 of the Constitution. It says:
    ‘'government'' means any authority by which the executive authority of Government is duly exercised.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Is that what is exactly in the Constitution?
    Mr Banda 1:30 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, except that we deleted the word ‘'duly''.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Why did you delete it? You cannot change what is in the Constitution. Let us use the constitutional language.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, we would use what is in the Constitution, which says:
    ‘'… executive authority of Ghana is duly exercised''.
    We would delete the word ‘'Republic'' and insert the word ‘'Ghana'' and then add the word ‘'duly''. That is what is in the Constitution.
    Yes, Hon Deputy Majority Leader?
    Ms Safo 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have a bit of a
    challenge because it is already defined in the Constitution and the indication the Hon Member gave before he left for his Committee meeting was that, he is
    abandoning that proposed amendment because --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    That is not his proposed amendment; this is the Hon Chairman of the Committee's amendment.
    We would adopt the constitutional language. I direct that the draftspersons adopt the language as in the Constitution for the definition of ‘'Government''.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Item numbered (xx) on the Order Paper.
    Mr Banda 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this proposed amendment should also be abandoned because there is, ‘'a Minister'' means the ‘'Attorney-General and Minister for Justice'' and so, it is not the ‘'Minister for Information''.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    So, a decision has been taken in respect of that already.
    Mr Banda 1:30 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Item numbered (xxi) on the Order Paper.
    Hon Opare-Ansah, you came in on time. You are proposing a new interpretation -- or it does not come under clause 91?
    Hon Opare-Ansah, let me be guided. This ‘'Add the following new clause:'', is it intended as an ‘'interpretation''?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, not at all. It is a new clause and so, we would have to finish with all clauses before we consider additional clauses.
    Question put and amendment agreed to
    Clause 91 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    numbered (xxi) on the Order Paper.

    Hon Member for Suhum, you may now move your Motion?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, new clause -- add the following new clause:
    “Information relating to Council of State
    (1) Information is exempt from disclosure;
    (a) if it has been received from the President in the per- formance of the Council's counselling function to the President;
    (b) if it is being prepared for submission or being sub- mitted to the Office of the President in response to a counselling request from the President;
    (c) if it is being prepared for submission or being submitted in response to a counselling request from any other authority in accordance with law; and
    (2) Information which contains factual or statistical data and which does not disclose information concerning a decision, deliberation, discussion or advice of Council is not exempt information”.
    Mr Speaker, the reason is that earlier, we approved for certain information in the Office of the President and Cabinet to be considered as information exempt for disclosure.
    Mr Speaker, the relevant clauses are clauses 5 and 6. Clause 5 has the headnote; ‘'Information from the Office of the President and the Vice President'' and clause 6 has the headnote; ‘'Information relating to Cabinet''.
    Mr Speaker, the Council of State has the primary function of advising the President and so, the President sends request for advice to the Council of State and they prepare their briefs in response to the advice that has been requested for.
    So in practice, information that has been prepared within the Council of State as an advice to the President, the substance is no different from information that is being prepared within the presidency itself for the President and I thought that the kind of exemption that we are granting to the information that is being prepared within the presidency must be extended to cover the Council of State because of the peculiar function they perform in advising the President.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Hon Members, the proposition is that the exemption we have granted to Cabinet and to the Office of the President should be extended to the Council of State. It is for the consideration of the House.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the responsibility of the Council of State would be to advise the President. And if we look at clause 5, it has been taken care of. It says;
    “Information from the Office of the President and of the Vice President.
    5(1) Information is exempt from disclosure.
    (a) if it is prepared for submission or has been submitted to the Office of the President, or
    (b) if it contains matters the disclosure of which would reveal information concerning opinion, advice, deliberation, recommenda- tion, minutes or consultation made or given to the President or the Vice President and it is likely to…”
    And so whether it is an advice from the Council of State, et cetera it is covered under clause 5.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I anticipated this kind of argument and that is why in proposing my amendment, I made reference to the headnotes of clauses 5 and 6. This is because clause 5 refers to information from the Office of the President.
    And so in reading clause 5, we should be mindful of what it talks about, that is, information emanating from the Office of the President and having all those descriptions that are enumerated there.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Hon Member for Suhum, it appears that we may have amended the headnote so it covers all that. If we did, then the proposed amendment may not be necessary; but if we did not, then we would consider it. — [Pause]
    Hon Member for Suhum, the Votes and Proceedings dated Tuesday, July 17, 2018, shows that we amended the
    headnotes so that it read; “Information for the President and the Vice President”. So irrespective of where it is coming from, it cannot be disclosed.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that being the case, I will withdraw this proposal.
    Amendment withdrawn by leave of the House.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    So we will go to the Transitional Provision.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, exactly so.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move that a new clause -- add the following new clause 1:40 p.m.
    “Transitional Provision
    The provisions of section 18 and other consequential sections shall come into force 12 months from the date on which this Act is assented to by the President”.
    Mr Speaker, this is to add a transitional provision. I am worried that when the President assents to this Bill after its passage by Parliament and the next day, institutions are not ready and applications start flooding in, it could even result in a whole lot of judicial reviews and cases, simply because the institutions were not ready.
    So I thought we should add such a provision which would delay the coming into force of a section of the law, particularly, the provisions of section 18 and other consequential sections.
    Mr Speaker, claus 18 deals with the procedure for access, where one actually sends in the application to an institution. And the other clauses would, of course,
    Mr S. Mahama 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is a preliminary objection which I will take for and on behalf of Hon Yieleh Chireh.
    Mr Speaker, in the first place, if the proposed addition is to stand, it should not be under transitional provisions but under Commencement.
    Suffice it to say that I stand strongly to oppose it anyway and so it may not even come under Commencement or Transition.
    Mr Speaker, it is about information. Does it matter when the person kept it? There is already information lying down and people want to see it, and so why do we give a time line and say that after the President assents to it, it takes people twelve months to be able to access information that was gathered just today?
    Mr Speaker, this Bill should not seem to look like we are giving the right to information with the right hand and taking it back with the left hand. Access should be access unfettered.
    Time limitation — Unless to the extent that the institution has an issue generating that information--- But to put a stumbling block for its commencement to start twelve months after —

    I am sure the people who have admonished us to pass this Bill into law and to make information available will now start wondering why we will pass this beautiful law and now say that they should wait until one year after this has been done before they can ask for information.

    Mr Speaker, I strongly oppose this proposed amendment and I believe that we should get it off.

    I thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Magnus Kofi Amoatey 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I also wish to oppose the amendment proposed and in doing so, I wish to draw your attention to clause 85 - Application of Act to existing and future information.
    Mr Speaker, clause 85 as we have just adopted means that information in existence prior to the assent of this Bill could be accessed. So whether you delay it or not, it could still be accessed. Therefore, I humbly suggest that we drop the amendment proposed.
    Mr Bernard Ahiafor 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am vehemently opposed to the proposed amendment under the transitional provision as indicated. If it is anything to go by, it should be by commencement.
    Mr Speaker, at the end of the day, Ghana wants the Right to Information Bill to be passed into law. What then would be the essence of passing the Right to Information Bill into Right to Information Law only for the law to say that it can only come into force after a period of twelve months? It defeats the very purpose for which we are in a hurry to pass this particular law.
    So, the law should come into force immediately after the President has given it a royal assent. If it is the wish of the President that this law should not come into force until after one year, then the President can delay the giving of the royal assent and then comply with the Constitutional provision relating to that.
    Mr Speaker, on this note, I am vehemently opposed to the proposed amendment.
    Mr Chireh 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as my Hon Colleagues have already indicated, it cannot be ‘transitional provisions' because if there was an existing facility or system and we are now passing a law, that is only where we would be talking about transition. So it is when this Bill would come into force. In the jurisdictions that the Hon Opare-Ansah is citing, they gave

    Mr Speaker, let me say twelve months. What is the reason for having the Act passed, assented to and we should wait till twelve months later?

    What would they have done? If the Hon Member had indicated to us that for this reason, we think that this would not be in place and that would not be available for which reason we would be preparing like the examples he is citing with other jurisdictions -- but no, he is just talking about the Bill coming into force in twelve months. Why then would he just say that we should sit down today and finish the Bill today?

    Mr Speaker, all this while, everybody was promising the Right to Information for over two decades. So it would be ridiculous looking at the period that we have spent wanting to pass this Bill only for us to pass the Bill and say that people should wait for another twelve months - - no way.

    I believe that we should not ridicule this Parliament and we should not let anybody think that we are afraid of the Right to Information Bill. Why? What are we hiding?

    So I believe that it should come into force as soon as it is assented to. But if people have fears about disclosures, that is another matter. But I do not believe that Parliament should ridicule itself after saying let us pass the Right to Information Bill for two decades and today we have the opportunity to pass it only to say it takes effect twelve months later -- that is not fair!

    Mr Speaker, I thank you.

    those who feel that it should be ‘commencement', I disagree because I did not seek to postpone the commencement of the entire Bill and that is why I called it ‘transition'.

    Large sections of the entire Bill would commence immediately the President assents but portions of it would delay and that is the reason I used ‘transition'. I said clause 18 and consequential sections because some sections draw their effect from what happens in clause 18.

    Mr Speaker, let me draw the attention of the House to clause 3 as contained in the current Bill. With your indulgence, I beg to read:

    “3. (1) A public institution shall, within twelve months from the date of the coming into force of this Act, and every twelve months after that date, compile and publish an up-to-date official information in the form of a manual.

    4. The Minister shall, in consultation with the Public Services Commission, issue guidelines for the preparation under section 3 of the manual by a public institution.”

    Mr Speaker, you can find bits and pieces of this throughout the Bill and this suggests that time is indeed required for institutions to prepare adequately to meet the requests that would come from the public in respect of granting them access to information.

    That is the reason I did not say that after the House has passed this Bill and the President has assented to it, the entire Bill should stand suspended for twelve months. It is only in respect of putting in

    request so that those twelve months as even stipulated in clause 3 would be granted to institutions to be able to prepare adequately to meet these requests --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon Member, you would hold on.
    Hon Members, having regard to the state of business of the House, I direct that the House sits outside the regular Siting hours.
    Hon Member, you may continue.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am just cautioning that yes we are legislating, but we must also make sure that we take the good of the country into consideration. Aspects of the law say that if I apply and I am not given the information within some time, I go for review and I can proceed to court; on one hand it is saying the institution has twelve months to even prepare.
    So it behoves us to look at these provisions and ensure that by the time the applicant is sending an application to an institution, there is no room for the institution to say that the law gives me twelve months to prepare anyway and I am not ready and so I cannot even meet this request.
    Mr Speaker, that is my humble opinion and I would urge my Hon Colleagues across the aisle who today seemed to suggest that somebody is running away from information. In about a year of tabling this in Parliament, we are almost at the tail end of the consideration stage of this Bill.
    So, it cannot be said that Hon Members on our Side of the House -- how long were they in Office? For eight years or something like that and they could not even ever do a Second reading of this Bill. And while we are at the tail end of the
    Consideration Stage of this Bill, they would want to suggest that we are afraid to give Ghanaians access to information.
    Mr Speaker, I rest my case.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon Member, if you would remember, at a point, a leader from that Side of the political divide said it was not the priority of Government.
    Hon Leader, you would have the last word; so let me listen to Hon --
    Mr Emmanuel K. Bedzrah 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am particularly happy that today by the close of today, at least, this House would pass this Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    We would finish Consideration.
    Mr Bedzrah 2 p.m.
    We would finish with the Consideration and probably by the close of this week, the House would pass this Bill and it would be assented to immediately by His Excellency the President.
    This is because we are in a hurry to make sure that the Right to Information is on course. In that vein, I stand to ask my Colleague, Hon Opare-Ansah, to stand down his amendment not to give any transition period to allow access to information as soon as we pass this Bill.
    Mr Speaker, if clause 18 as he mentioned has been given to allow the various institutions to compile data and information for us to access, it is already in the Bill which would be passed into law. Therefore, I do not see why we should allow another 12 months for it to mature before we pass it on.
    Mr Speaker, let my Colleague, Hon Opare-Ansah, who I believe very soon would become -- to step down his amendment.
    Dr Marfo 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I seem to see wisdom in the proposal that has been made by the Hon Opare-Ansah because, at the end of the day, much as we would want to pass a law to meet the expectation of the public to have access to information, we should also have in view the practicality of the law.
    We should not be seen to be passing a law that would overwhelm the public institutions.
    As the Hon Opare-Ansah has just said, if we pass the Bill today and the President assents to it and tomorrow, everybody is on the public institutions demanding information and they are unable to provide --
    So to the extent that the provision is only seeking to provide space for these public institutions to have some time to put their houses in order so that when that period is over, people could easily have access to information.
    I believe we would have to look at the practicality of the application of the law that we would want to pass. If one year is too long, which perhaps, I believe so, I would propose that we reduce it to six months. I think six months is adequate for public institutions to prepare themselves to provide information to the public.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Hon Member, what is in clause 18 which is sought to be suspended that is so difficult to do? Is it the appointment of information officers?
    If information is available, somebody is keeping that record any way, even though the person may not be designated
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.


    Hon Opare-Ansah, I am not clear. What is in clause 18 that is difficult? If the information is available, somebody is the record keeper or somebody has custody of it. What is so difficult; is it the part dealing with the oral application in a language which may be converted into writing?

    What is the difficulty for which reason should the Bill be suspended or its enforcement be delayed for another year?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am happy you said, if the information is available and if there is somebody; what if there is not?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    What if the information is available but there is nobody in charge of it?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 2 p.m.
    Yes, there is nobody designated as information officer.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    No, it is because you are calling the person information officer. It may be in my office. My secretary is not called information officer but she is the one holding it.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, but we first need to designate her as the information officer per this law for her to perform these functions because the law is clear on who would perform certain functions. It is the information officer so designated by the institution.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Why can I not designate my secretary if she is the one holding it?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am happy we are having this discourse because clearly it shows that there is work to be done -- [Interruption].
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    There is somebody responsible. We could call that person information officer if we choose.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is in the determination of all these little matters that I am thinking that because of what is contained in clause 3 -- If one sends a request to an institution and the institution responds to you that the law gives me 12 months to put my house in order and I am still in the process of doing same, so, at this time, I am unable to respond to your request, what would be your reaction and why should we as lawmakers make a law that contains that kind of lacuna?
    This is what we have to draw our attention to cure, and that is what I am urging us to do.
    Mr Speaker, I do not think my political party and the Government it has given birth to or myself has any information we would want to shield, otherwise, we would not be in such a hurry to let the people of Ghana have access to information but it is to ensure that we do not create chaos by bringing a law which on the one hand is giving institutions 12 months to prepare and on the other hand, giving the citizenry immediate access to what has not been prepared for. That is all.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I get the sense that the Hon Opare-Ansah is bringing to the House, but I failed to see the capacity in which he is doing that because this is a Bill promoted by the Executive.
    They have come to us to pass this Bill for them. They have not told us that they have a problem -- [Laughter] -- that is where I fail to see his capacity.
    rose
    Alhaji I.A. B. Fuseini 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, they have not told us they have a problem in accessing --
    Hon Opare-Ansah is now telling us that the Executive is not ready. Is that what he is saying? Is he part of the Executive?
    Mr Speaker, the problem is that one does not create the desire and take away the performance. It is not done. In this country and in this House, there are only two Bills that we have deferred their operations; the Constitution itself which was voted upon in May to take effect in January the following year because there were certain things to be done before then.
    We passed the Representation of the People's Amendment Law (ROPAL) and deferred -- [Interruption].
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Hon Member, you have the Floor, so, please ignore him.
    Hon Opare-Ansah, you are out of order. [Laughter] Kindly resume your seat.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we passed ROPAL and the Electoral Commission told us that if we are going to implement it, then we would need to go abroad and register members. So, it could not have immediate implementation.

    Mr Speaker, I would beg him to drop his amendment because it is not in tandem

    with the express intention of the Executive who are the promoters of this Bill.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member for Tamale Central asked in what capacity I made this amendment. It was in my capacity as the Hon Member of Parliament for Suhum. [Laughter.]
    Mr Speaker, I thought I came to this House with him, but I now remember that I came about a year and a half before him. So, he may not have recollection of what this House did in respect of the National Lotteries Authority Bill. When it came to this House, the intention of the Executive then was to create a monopoly.
    The memorandum accompanying the Bill stated that the State wanted to create a monopoly. This House said no. The structure we see today, where we have the lotto marketing companies under the National Lotteries Authority as a regulator, was a creature of this House. It was not the intention of the Executive.

    They would have -- [Laughter.] It is because they know that the legislative power lies with us. So we must live up to our Responsibility and to properly shape the thinking that the Executive brings here, which we think would be of benefit to our people.

    Mr Speaker, I see no reason for my constituents in Suhum to request access to information from an institution, only to be told that they are not ready because the law gave them a number of months.

    That is why I am here to ask that we ensure that by the time our constituents send in their requests, those institutions have no excuse under the law to say that they are not ready.

    Mr Speaker, I rest my case.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Now, I would hear Hon Ahmed Ibrahim.
    Mr Ahmed Ibrahim 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you very much.
    Mr Speaker, I first of all congratulate you for doing a very good job. You started this Bill that we are debating today when we came to Parliament. I remember when you used to be called “ the Acting Ranking”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    That was a long time ago. [Laughter.]
    Mr Ahmed Ibrahim 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that was a very long time.
    Mr Speaker, in all this, we made sure that we had this law in its right shape. This afternoon, God being so good, you are in the Chair in a higher capacity to make sure that we put an end to this Bill.
    Mr Speaker, we are here as the representatives of the people who elected us. Whatever we do here, we represent them. The President of the Republic has brought a Bill to Parliament that he wants to give the very people that we represent the right to access information.
    We have said that we want to tell the President that he should not give it now; he should prolong it for one other year. What would we tell our constituents? Whether we like it or not, the moment we finish this and put the twelve months in the Bill, you and I, the very people who thought that we could not pass this --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Hon Leader, with due respect, we are at the Consideration Stage. What other people think and otherwise - let us come back to the Chamber.
    Mr Ahmed Ibrahim 2:10 p.m.
    In deference to the Chair, Mr Speaker, I take it on board.
    Mr Speaker, prolonging the commencement date of this Bill is like wedding a lady to a man, and telling him that he cannot sleep with his wife for 12 months. Who would agree to this? [Laughter.] How could my appetite be whetted, and I am told I cannot sleep with the bride unless after 12 months? [Interruption.]
    Mr Speaker, Ghanaians are geared up to put this law into use. Once the Hon Member who proposed the amendment failed to justify the reason for asking for prolonging its commencement, I appeal to all my Hon Colleagues here, including him, that he must not put stumbling blocks on the road for the Right to Information Bill,
    2018.
    We must pass it and allow the President to do whatever he wants; that is his vision. Let us support the President to make sure that whatever rights he wants to give to Ghanaians are given to them.
    With these few words, Mr Speaker, I thank you and the President. I call on every Hon Member here to support the work of the President to make sure that we pass this Bill. It would be written in gold
    everywhere that the Parliament of Ghana has passed the Right to Information Bill, 2018. If we have brought something that is good but we put in a bad aspect, that would not go on well.

    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Anyway, I think that we should remember that it has been a little over a year since we passed the Special Prosecutor Act.
    The repercussions on us have been that the Special Prosecutor is now setting up -- he is recruiting and other things, and the public is bashing him for not doing the work even though the positions and other things he would have to do would take time.
    Probably, it is in that vein that our Hon Friend made the argument that we could pass the law and it is ready, but it would take time for the people to operationalise it. Setting up of the Commission - but well, that is this House.
    Hon Deputy Majority Leader -- ?
    Ms Safo 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe you have allowed a number of submissions on the proposed amendment that has been put on the Floor by the Hon Member for Suhum.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that the basis for his proposed amendment is not farfetched. It is actually in clause 3 of the Bill that we have considered. The difficulty in having the enactment passed and at
    the end of the day, implementing it becomes a challenge -- clause 3 talks about the institutions actually having a period of 12 months to put up an up-to- date information on an official site or manual.
    Mr Speaker, inasmuch as the Government is committed to pass this Bill -- indeed, we have demonstrated that we are committed to pass this law to enhance our democracy. That is why it has consistently been placed on the Order Paper for consideration.
    Mr Speaker, I believe the proposed amendment by the Hon Member for Suhum actually invites all of us to think about the way forward when it comes to the effective date of this Bill.
    I believe that we would actually need the input of our two Hon Leaders, your good Self and the Rt Hon Speaker on this matter. We should not rush through it and let it be an argument between us on the Floor.
    I believe that the Hon Deputy Minority Whip, who is acting for the Hon Minority Leader, does not have express instructions from him; the same applies to my good Hon Self from the Hon Majority Leader.
    So I believe that at the Leadership level, as we are vested with the legislative power, in the same vein, we could consider some of the issues that deal with the practicality or implementation of Bills that come out at the end of the day.

    I believe that we have all been co- operative in ensuring that we go through all the various clauses one after the other and the public is also eager to find out at the end of the day, the final conclusion of this Bill.
    Ms Safo 2:20 p.m.


    Mr Speaker, but we should not spoil the icing on the cake. I humbly propose that at the Leadership level, we do it as soon as possible and then we come back on the Floor and move on.

    So that is my humble submission.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    Hon Members, I am not going to put the Question on the proposed Transitional Provision but I would want us to do one last amendment (Long Title) also proposed by Hon Member for Suhum.

    All right. There is a clause 92 in which there is no proposed amendment and so, let us put the Question on clause 92.

    Clause 92 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    There is a proposed amendment to the Long Title, let us do that.

    The Long Title: An Act to provide for the implementation of the Constitutional rights to information, held by a public institution subject to the exemptions that are necessary and consistent with the protection of the public interest in a democratic society to foster a culture of transparency and accountability in public affairs and to provide for related matters.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this particular amendment was in support of an earlier proposed amendment which could not hold and was withdrawn. So this would be accordingly withdrawn.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    In deference to our Hon Leaders, I think that the issue on board is important which we should negotiate as a House and agree on something. Let us not put out a law which, later becomes a matter for public discussion on its implementation.
    So at this stage, I will bring the Consideration Stage to an end so that tomorrow after the Leadership's meeting on the matter, we can come to a conclusion.
    This brings us to the end of the Consideration Stage of the Right to Information Bill, 2018.
    Hon Leaders, it is 22 minutes past 2 o'clock and unless there is any other matter, I wish to bring proceedings to a close.
    Yes, Hon First Deputy Minority Whip?
    Mr Ahmed Ibrahim 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we do not have much to say and it is already past 2 0'clock and so, the House is in your hands but as you have said, we will go and do the consultations and report accordingly.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    Hon Deputy Majority Leader?
    Ms Safo 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are in your hands.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    Very well. In that case, the House is adjourned till Thursday 31st January, 2019, at 10 o'clock in the forenoon.
    ADJOURNMENT 2:20 p.m.