Debates of 20 Mar 2019

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:14 a.m.

VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:14 a.m.

Mr Speaker 10:14 a.m.
Hon Members, Correction of Votes and Proceedings and the Official Report.
Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, 19th March, 2019.
Page 1… 30 --
rose
Mr Speaker 10:14 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Mr Ayariga 10:14 a.m.
Mr Speaker, one of your Committees, the Appointments Committee to be precise, has been sitting; there is no show that the Committee has sat, neither is there a record of those who attended.
Mr Speaker 10:14 a.m.
Definitely, the Table Office should see to that and publish the attendance accordingly.
Page 31…41?
Hon Members, the Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, 19th March, 2019 as corrected is hereby adopted as the true record of proceedings.
Hon Members, the Official Report of Friday, 15th February,
2019.
Any corrections, please?
Mr Speaker 10:14 a.m.
Hon Members, item listed 3, Questions.
The Question is addressed to the Hon Minister for Lands and Natural Resources.
rose
Mr Speaker 10:14 a.m.
Yes, Hon Whip?
Mr Nyindam 10:14 a.m.
Mr Speaker, with your leave, the Hon Deputy Minister is here on behalf of the Hon Minister, to respond to the Question.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 10:14 a.m.
Hon Deputy Minister, you may take the chair.
The Question stands in the name of the Hon Member for Dormaa West.
ORAL ANSWERS TO 10:14 a.m.

QUESTIONS 10:14 a.m.

MINISTRY OF LANDS AND 10:14 a.m.

NATURAL RESOURCES 10:14 a.m.

Mr Speaker, going forward, we will 10:24 a.m.
i) continue with the education and community awareness programmes to prevent illegal activities;
ii) enforce the forest laws and regulations as well as implement various strategies to arrest and prosecute forest offenders;
iii) create Military camps in some identified hotspot Forest Reserves to prevent further encroachment; and
iv) engage the Traditional Authorities to entreat their subjects to refrain from illegal exploitation of forest resources.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity.
Mr Speaker 10:24 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Minister.
Hon Member, any supplementary question?
Mr Halidu 10:24 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, the problem with chainsaw operation in the Mpameso Forest and the Adakrom Forest is that there is a lucrative business in Dormaa Central, that is the wood village. Today, if we go there, all the woods in the village are chainsawed, which I believe the laws of this country bans.
Mr Speaker, I would therefore want to ask the Hon Minister what they are doing to seize chainsaw operations in the Dormaa Wood Village?
Mr Speaker 10:24 a.m.
Hon Members, order!
Yes, Hon Minister, your answer?
Mr Owusu-Bio 10:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you.
Mr Speaker, the question was a bit vague. The Hon Member could please come again.
Mr Speaker 10:24 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Mr Halidu 10:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, for clarification, I believe --
Mr Speaker 10:24 a.m.
Hon Member, just a moment.

Hon Member, you should make yourself clear.
Mr Halidu 10:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the question is, I believe the laws of the country ban domacuts; but as we speak, there are parts of domacuts in the Wood Village in Dormaa, which is the reason the Forest in Diabaa and Adakrom are being destroyed.
Therefore I would like to know what the Hon Minister or his Ministry would do to seize the domacuts in the Dormaa Wood Village?
Mr Speaker, thank you.
Mr Speaker 10:24 a.m.
Thank you, Hon Maiga Halidu.
Yes, Hon Minister, I hope you get the question now.
Hon Minister, please, what do you intend to do?
Mr Owusu-Bio 10:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, fortunately, our attention has been drawn to this issue, so we would go to the Dormaa Wood Village to ascertain. If that is the case, we would take the necessary action.
Mr Speaker 10:24 a.m.
Hon Member for Dormaa, the Hon Minister says that the necessary action would be taken after further investigations.
Mr Halidu 10:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am done. Thank you.
rose
Mr Speaker 10:24 a.m.
Hon Member, this is a constituency-specific Question, so let us make progress.
Hon Minister, thank you very much for attending to the House and responding to our Questions. You are respectfully discharged.
Hon Members, we would move on to the item listed 4 -- Statements.
Hon Members, there is an urgent Statement by the Hon Member for Chereponi. It is agreed by the Hon Leaders of the House that this Statement would be made without any controversies, and the Hon Member for Saboba would respond accordingly; that would end the matter.
Yes, Hon Member for Chereponi, you may kindly make your Statement.
STATEMENTS 10:24 a.m.

Mr Samuel A. Jabanyite (NDC -- Chereponi) 10:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to make a Statement on the Floor of this august House on the recent outbreak of violence between Anufors (Chekosis) and Konkombas in the Chereponi and Saboba Districts.
I speak with a heavy heart and wish to note that this unfortunate development has come at a time when reasonable progress has been made
in resolving the long-standing impasse between the Anufors and Konkombas in the area. The situation is tense.
As I speak, I could be called that a community is under attack; just this morning, there has been an attack in the Nambiri area in the Saboba District.
Mr Speaker, it all started in June, 2018 over who holds the right to a two-acre land in a community called Naduni in the Chereponi District between two groups who have co- lived close to a century.
It was seen and treated as a communal violence by the District Security Committee (DISEC), Regional Security Council (REGSEC) and other stakeholders to restore peace in the community.
Mr Speaker, again on 1st January, 2019, there was a renewed clash in the same Naduni community, apparently seen as a rekindle of the earlier clash, but this time round, it was extended to 20 more communities in the two Districts.
Again, a reinforcement of the Military and Police by REGSEC and other stakeholders such as the Chiefs and opinion leaders worked 24/7 to consolidate peace, law and order in the area.
Peace was seen to have been restored until 15th March, 2019 when an unknown person shot and wounded a young man in the arm and leg in a community called Naweiku in the Chereponi District.
Mr Samuel A. Jabanyite (NDC -- Chereponi) 10:34 a.m.


Mr Speaker, this incident triggered the renewed conflict, which has raged on in the last five days. In all these instances, many human lives have been lost; grain banks torched; animals such as cattle, goats and sheep killed and stolen; close to 75 communities are wholly or partially torched. Several hundreds of people, especially women and children, have been internally displaced and are in other neighbouring Districts such as Yunyo, Gusheigu, Bunkprugu and also Togo.

Mr Speaker, indeed, only last Tuesday, 12th March, 2019, an important Committee set up by the Government to seek a lasting solution to the conflict submitted its final report to the Hon Minister for the Interior. The report is currently being considered by the Government. This latest outbreak of violence is indeed a major setback.

Mr Speaker, this conflict must be seen and treated as a serious national security issue, so as to prevent it from escalating into other districts and regions because these two ethnic tribes are mainly farmers who are dotted in nearly all the agricultural regions of Ghana.

Mr Speaker, it is in the light of the above that I wish to urge for maximum restraint from all sides in the conflict. I also wish to urge the security agencies to enforce the law and ensure that all perpetrators of any form of

crime in the area be made to face the full rigours of the law. The perpetrators of these conflicts inflict unimaginable pain on ordinary and innocent victims.

Mr Speaker, I also wish to call on individuals in leadership positions from the area, the Government and non- state actors, youth groups and opinion leaders to bring their influence to bear, by engaging both tribes to lay down their arms and allow peace to prevail. There should be genuine commitment to resolve the issues on the part of all such leaders in words and deeds.

We should also forgive one another, let it go, and restrain from the blame game. This will bring a complete ceasefire.

Mr Speaker, I wish to thank REGSEC and the General Office Command (GOC) in particular, for the swift responses to the distress calls whenever DISEC calls to them. Mr Speaker, but for them, the situation would have been worse.

Mr Speaker, I pray your good Hon self to invite the Hon Ministers for the Interior, National Security and Defence to brief your august House on strategies put in place to nib this unfortunate situation in the bud and also refer this matter to your Committee on Defence and Interior for a thorough review and report to this august House.
Mr Speaker 10:34 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Member for Chereponi. The Hon Member for Saboba would give a response.
Mr Charles B. Bintin (NPP -- Saboba) 10:34 a.m.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the Statement. I would also want to thank the Hon Member who made the Statement for bringing this to the attention of the House.
Mr Speaker, the developments in the two Districts Saboba and Chereponi are really worrying. It is a fact that a lot of lives and property have been lost.
Apart from that, schools have been closed down, contractors working on all projects in the two Districts have left, and businessmen and women are not able to move freely any longer, so there have been a lot of restrictions. These two Districts are already made up of very poor inhabitants, so the situation is getting worse.
Mr Speaker, it is in this light that I would want to add my voice to that of the Hon Member who made the Statement to call on the leaders of these two tribes to stop the blame game. Using the media to accuse one another would not do us any good; we should rather use the media to call on our people to see the need to resolve this matter and put this behind us.
This is really a needless conflict, and one cannot even understand what is at stake that the Konkombas and the Chekosis, who have lived together for several years would now have to fight.
Mr Speaker, we as Hon Leaders in these two Districts need to come together. The security agencies are
doing very well, but they cannot solve the conflict because it is district-wide.
A lot of villages are affected; the road network to some of the villages are very bad and victims cannot even get to some villages. It behoves the leaders to dialogue to find out what the actual cause is, so that this issue could be resolved.
As the Hon Member who made the Statement said, the security agencies are doing very well; REGSEC is very up and doing, the General Commanding Officer of the Northern Command and the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) Commander would respond when they are called 24 hours, so we need to thank them.
I would also want to thank the police for doing very well; the Divisional Commander in Yendi has been moving to ensure that things are brought to normalcy, but the facts remain that the police still need to deploy more officers to support the military.
Mr Speaker, Saboba and Chereponi are two different districts, and the conflict is now in full-scale. So it would be right if the military could give Saboba its separate command; that could help us. I believe this should be brought to the notice of the Military.
We have complained and reported, and I hope that they would listen to us and give us a separate command from Chereponi. Currently, the Saboba Commander is under the
Mr Speaker 10:34 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Members, for this peaceful discourse on the matter. By way of Parliament's voice, we pray that the traditional leaders in these areas should please work towards smoking a peace pipe in the interest of particularly, the children in the area whose schools are now in a limbo.
I would ask the Clerk to Parliament to invite the Hon Minister for National Security to meet with myself, the Hon Majority and Minority Leaders and the two Hon Members of Parliament for the Chereponi and Saboba constituencies to have a discussion at 1.00 ‘o'clock in the afternoon in my office for us to know the way forward.
We must handle this matter as a delicate one; we all just want peace in the circumstances. After that, the

Hon Leaders would advise themselves as to what further steps this Honourable House may take in that matter.

I thank you very much.

Hon Members, at the Commence- ment of Public Business.
Ms Sarah A. Safo 10:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we are not ready to take item numbered 5 but item numbered 6 on the Order Paper is ready.
Mr Speaker 10:34 a.m.
Hon Deputy Majority Leader, what is happening to item numbered 5 on the Order Paper?
Ms Safo 10:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, item numbered 5 --
Mr Speaker 10:34 a.m.
I asked because essentially, we have done a yeoman's job as Parliament to have tackled this matter with every assiduity but it still hangs in our books. We would want to clear it, so what is the problem?
Ms Safo 10:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, I would want to reserve any comments on that until the Hon Majority Leader is here himself.
Mr Speaker, but item numbered 6 on the Order Paper is ready.
Mr Speaker 10:34 a.m.
Hon Members, item numbered 6 on the Order Paper -- Motion.

We would stand this down because I have seen surprise on the face of the Hon Member on whom this has been thrust at this moment.

Hon Chairman of the Committee, you would please lead us on.
Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah 10:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman is ready. [Laughter.]
Mr Speaker 10:34 a.m.
We always appreciate your readiness.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 10:34 a.m.

STAGE 10:34 a.m.

  • [Continuation of debate from 19/03/2019]
  • Chairman of the Committee (Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah) 10:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, you would recall that yesterday, we got to the Interpretation section and there were two outstanding issues; one was the interpretation of “designation” and the other being the interpretation of “Ghanaian company”.
    Mr Speaker, you asked that for the interpretation of “Ghanaian company”, and we deferred to the Attorney- General's Department. So, we consulted with the Attorney-General's Department and they have given us the all-clear because it originally came from them.
    The only addition for that one would be for us to make some further amendments in the body --
    Mr Speaker 10:34 a.m.
    Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, I am sure you are with us?
    Mr Joseph D. Kpemka 10:34 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker 10:34 a.m.
    I do not see so, please. So I am bringing proceedings to your attention. You do not need to answer just be attentive.
    Hon Chairman, you would please proceed.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 10:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the definition of “Ghanaian company” arose because it was used in clause 8(4) of the Bill. Clause 8 (4) reads and with your permission, I beg to qoute:
    “An applicant shall have at least a thirty percent equity parti- cipation of a Ghanaian company or person in the payment service business of that applicant.”
    Mr Speaker, we are advised to further amend clause 8(4) to read 10:34 a.m.
    “An applicant shall have at least a thirty percent equity participation of a Ghanaian company that is
    Mr Speaker, we are advised to further amend clause 8(4) to read 10:34 a.m.


    wholly owned by a citizen of Ghana.”

    So before we go to the Third Reading, we would take clause 8 through a Second Consideration stage and amend same, but the definition for “Ghanaian company” would hold as it is.

    Mr Speaker, again, in clause 23 --
    Mr Speaker 10:34 a.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, why would you want to go through a Second Consideration Stage?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 10:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the definition did not sit well with you, and I am saying that --
    Mr Speaker 10:34 a.m.
    No, you would proceed. At the Consideration Stage, we have relaxed the rules so all that is needed to be done, we would clean it by way of going forward and backwards where necessary.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 10:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I said that “Ghanaian company” is used in clause 8(4) and in clause 23(f). It reads in 23(f) that:
    “the person has at least a thirty percent equity participation of a Ghanaian company or person.”
    The advice from the Attorney- General's Department is that clause 8(4) should read:
    “An applicant shall have at least a thirty percent equity participation of a Ghanaian
    company that is wholly owned by a citizen of Ghana”.

    Mr Avedzi — rose --

    Mr Chireh — rose --
    Mr Speaker 10:34 a.m.
    Hon Members, at least, please let him land.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 10:34 a.m.
    Hon Members, maybe, a little background information would do. Yesterday we defined “Ghanaian company” in the interpretation section. The Rt. Hon Speaker had issues with the definition so he asked us to confer with the Attorney-General's Department.
    Now, the Attorney-General's Department is saying that for our definition to stay as it is, we would have to make some further amendments to clause 8(4) and 23(f). So I am only drawing attention to clause 8(4) and 23(f) ,which we would amend at the Second Con- sideration Stage but not now. So we can keep the definition of “Ghanaian company” as captured on the Order Paper.
    Mr Chireh 10:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that you gave a direction that, today, under the Consideration Stage, we would relax the rules and finish it.
    If the Hon Chairman of the Committee has been given this opportunity, he should amend clauses 8(4) and 23(f) after which he would move to the other ones.
    Otherwise, the alternative for him is to make these amendments here based on the understanding we have for what we would do subsequently. So, we would take what has been listed on the Order Paper, unless we insist that we go back.
    Mr Speaker, but you have graciously given him the opportunity to amend these clauses now.
    Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
    All you have got to do, do them now [Laughter.]
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 10:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you. Clause 8(4) amendment proposed -- delete and insert the following;
    “An applicant shall have at least a thirty percent equity participation of a Ghanaian company that is wholly owned by a citizen of Ghana in the payment service business of the applicant”.

    Mr Speaker, the Table Office wants me to take that one again.
    Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
    Yes.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 10:54 a.m.
    Clause 8(4);
    “An applicant shall have at least a thirty percent equity par- ticipation of a Ghanaian
    company or person that is wholly owned by a Ghanaian citizen in the payment service business of that applicant”.
    Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
    Hon Members, just a moment. If we may be seated for now -- just to inform you that we have a delegation in the House from the Norwegian Parliament pursuing a familiarisation tour and studying our country. They are Hon Members of the Foreign Affairs Committee of Parliament and I wish to introduce them;
    1. Miss Anniken Huitfeldt
    2. Miss Ingjerd Schou
    3. Miss Marianne Marthinsen
    4. Mr Gunnar Holm
    5. Miss Merethe Elvestad
    We wish you a good stay in our country and you are most welcome to the House.
    rose
    Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Mahama Ayariga, I have seen you.
    Mr Mahama Ayariga 10:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the rendition being proposed is inappropriate.
    Mr Speaker, he is proposing that it should now read;
    “An applicant shall have at least a thirty percent equity par- ticipation of a Ghanaian company or person wholly owned . . .”
    Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
    Just a moment. Were you the --
    Mr Ayariga 10:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, but when he rendered it --
    Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
    Hon Member, just be patient. Yes, Hon Member?
    Mr Ayariga 10:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, when he rendered it, he added “person” and that is where the problem is.
    Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
    Very well. I am being told --
    Mr Ayariga 10:54 a.m.
    He should --
    Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
    Can you read it without the word “person” and let us see?
    Mr Ayariga 10:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it reads;
    “An applicant shall have at least a thirty percent equity participation of a Ghanaian company wholly owned by a Ghanaian citizen in the payment service business of that applicant”.
    That will be a better rendition but even then --
    Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
    You mean without the word “person”?
    Mr Ayariga 10:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, without the word “person”.
    Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
    Very well. This is because the Hon Chairman of the Committee appeared to be agreeable to that.
    Mr Ayariga 10:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes. Even then, I believe that the original rendition here envisages two situations; one in which the Ghanaian is represented through a corporate vehicle and so that is a Ghanaian company. But it is also possible for the Ghanaian not to use a corporate vehicle but on his own shares in the applicant's company itself.
    So this current rendition eliminates the second alternative in which the Ghanaian is not participating through a corporate vehicle but as a person owning shares in the corporate vehicle.
    Mr Speaker, so I believe that they should have a situation where the rendition should rather be;
    “An applicant shall have at least a thirty percent equity par- ticipation by a Ghanaian citizen or a Ghanaian company with shares wholly owned by a Ghanaian citizen”.
    In this case, the two situations will be adequately taken care of; one in which the Ghanaian is participating as an equity shareholder in the applicant's company and the other in which the Ghanaian is acting through a corporate vehicle which is wholly owned by the Ghanaian but which has thirty percent equity shareholding in the applicant's company.
    Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
    Hon Member, kindly repeat the rendition.
    So, your rendition will be --
    Mr Ayariga 10:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it will be;
    “An applicant shall have at least a thirty per cent equity participation of a Ghanaian citizen or a Ghanaian company wholly owned by a Ghanaian citizen or a Ghanaian”.
    Mr Speaker, it captures the two situations; the draftspersons may tidy that a little as we need to capture the two alternatives.
    Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
    Very well. Hon Joseph Yieleh Chireh, how do you capture the two?
    Mr Chireh 10:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, what he is saying is completely different from what we intend to do. This is because when he says; “wholly owned”, it is a problem --
    Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
    He being who? There is no “he” or “she” here. [Laughter.]
    Mr Chireh 10:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
    You mean what the Hon Chairman is saying --
    Mr Chireh 10:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes. So what I am saying in effect is that we should not be introducing the words; “wholly owned” there. It should still be the thirty percent participation.
    However, in any case, we have the Companies Act and it defines who is a Ghanaian in terms of a company or which company belongs to a Ghanaian
    citizen. So let us look at that in respect of even the Companies Act that we currently have to address this issue.
    Mr Speaker, essentially, the Hon Chairman of the committee made the same amendment he is also making by saying that; “a Ghanaian company in which a Ghanaian citizen has at least thirty percent shares of equity participation . . .”
    In which case, he and the Hon Chairman -- but when he introduces the element of “wholly owned”, that is completely not the issue here. This is because we are starting with thirty percent participation and he is talking about “wholly owned”; they do not match.
    rose
    Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, wait till others have contributed, then you may come in. Yes, Hon Ayariga? [Pause.] Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Iddrisu 10:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much. I appreciate the fact that I have the opportunity before the Hon Ayariga and to remind him to refer to page 10, clause 8.
    The reference in this Bill is to a “body corporate” so how the second leg of his rendition will sit in is equally important. However, what we should do to the Hon Chairman's amendment --
    A Ghanaian company means a company which is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1963. And then, refer to the specific section as it is
    Mr Iddrisu 10:54 a.m.


    defined -- When we go to the Schedule section of the Companies Act, 1963, it defines what we are anticipating with the Hon Chairman's rendition.

    Mr Speaker, so I think that we should reference the Companies Act section and even the words, “wholly owned” will no longer be necessary.

    I so submit.
    Mr Ayariga 11:04 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you start from clause 8(1), it says that the applicant should be a body corporate. That is essentially what it says. It could be a body incorporated in Ghana or a body incorporated elsewhere but registered in Ghana, but would still be a body corporate that is recognised by the laws of Ghana.
    Mr Speaker, it could be a body corporate where the shares are entirely owned by a foreign national but still a corporate as envisaged by clause 8(1).
    Mr Speaker, what clause 8(4) seeks to do is to ensure that there is Ghanaian equity participation in that business. So, it is insisting that that equity participation must be 30 per cent to 70 per cent where the Ghanaian would own 30 per cent and the non-Ghanaian would own 70 per cent or the Ghanaian could own more but must have a minimum of 30 per cent stake in that company.
    There are two ways this could be achieved and one is that the Ghanaian could actually be a 30 per cent equity holder in the body corporate which is originally registered to transact the business and where the Ghanaian is a shareholder in that body corporate as mentioned in clause 8(1).
    Mr Speaker, the second mechanism by which this could be achieved is when the company exists and the Ghanaian also registers his own company and it takes a 30 per cent equity in the body corporate mentioned in clause 8(1).
    Mr Speaker, so, if you read the original rendition, as has been proposed, it says that:
    “An applicant shall have at least a 30 per cent equity participation of a Ghanaian company or person …”
    Mr Speaker, it is either a company or a person but he seeks to amend it; in the amendment, he eliminates the alternative of a “person.”
    Mr Speaker, that is why I am saying that if he eliminates the alternative of a person, then he would deny individual Ghanaians of owning shares in the existing corporate entities. They may have to register a company and that company would take 30 per cent shares and this is not the original intention.
    So, if we are amending it, then it must capture the two formations; the first one being that an individual Ghanaian could own 30 per cent shares and the second one being that an individual could register his
    company and own it 100 per cent and with that he could apply to get 30 per cent shares in the company that is applying for the licence.
    Mr Speaker, that is the intention of the proponents of this Bill and the amendment that he is proposing does not capture this.
    Mr Speaker 11:04 a.m.
    Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Iddrisu 11:04 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, Hon Ayariga has just fallen into what I referred to in clause 8. Mr Speaker, a body corporate does not anticipate a person or an individual. Mr Speaker, it does not. So body corporate registered under --
    Mr Speaker 11:04 a.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, it appears that the Hon Chairman is on a point of order.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:04 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just want to assist the Hon Minority Leader. In clause 8(4), we deleted “person”. So, “person” is not there because if we kept “person” there, then it would distort the intention of the clause. The clause in the opening phrase in clause 8(1) refers to body corporate so in clause 8(4) we deleted “person”.
    Mr Speaker 11:04 a.m.
    That agrees with the position of the Hon Minority Leader.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:04 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is why I wanted to assist him.
    Mr Speaker 11:04 a.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, then on that basis, you could go on.
    Mr Iddrisu 11:04 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was drawing Hon Ayariga's attention so that he would be persuaded that body corporate is body corporate and we do not anticipate a joinder of a body corporate and an individual or a person.
    Mr Speaker 11:04 a.m.
    If the body corporate that was agreed upon is upheld, then it appears that we would not go back to individual participation issues again.
    Hon Ayariga, does that assist?
    Mr Ayariga 11:04 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that to resolve this, the Hon Chairman should let us hear his rendition again.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:04 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment was clause
    8 (4)
    “an applicant shall have at least a 30 per cent equity participation of a Ghanaian company that is wholly owned by a citizen of Ghana in the payment service business of that applicant”.
    Ms Safo 11:04 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the amendment that has been proposed by the Hon Chairman should be further amended by taking out “ and which is wholly owned by a citizen of Ghana”. Mr Speaker, this is because a Ghanaian company is what is being defined and it states that a “Ghanaian Company means a company which is incorporated under the Company's Act, 1970 (Act 179)”.
    Mr Speaker, when you go to the Registrar-General's Department, there are some requisite requirements for registration provided the company is not being registered as a foreign or external company.
    Ordinarily, it is a Ghanaian company once it is incorporated under the laws of Ghana and we have quoted the Company's Act. So, to further state that “and which is wholly owned by a citizen of Ghana” --
    Mr Speaker, I believe that once it is incorporated under the laws of Ghana -- the Company's Bill is before this House again for amendments but the way the proposed amendment stands in reference to the Company's Act, once the company is registered under the laws of Ghana, it is considered a Ghanaian company. So to further go on to say that “wholly owned by a Ghanaian citizen” --
    I think that once the cross- referencing has been done and the Hon Minority Leader is suggesting that we cross-reference the specific section in the Act then we could delete -- because it makes it a bit superfluous.
    Mr Speaker 11:04 a.m.
    Could we have a situation where, notwithstanding our appreciation of the Company's Act, we would want a particular situation that is particularly restrictive and legislate in that regard?
    Mr Ayariga 11:04 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think it is very important to understand
    Mr Ayariga 11:14 a.m.


    what this Bill seeks to do. It is trying to regulate participation in an industry and trying to secure a certain space for Ghanaians and so we are talking about ownership.

    Mr Speaker, there would be a Ghanaian company in which foreigners own a substantial share of that company but it would be Ghanaian because it is incorporated in Ghana; the shares are issued and foreigners could buy the shares. Even though it is a Ghanaian company when they purchase the shares, that would give them the authority to own it.

    Mr Speaker, in this case, the intention is to make sure that even if it is a Ghanaian company, the shares should be wholly owned by a Ghanaian for it to qualify as a participant in the applicant's company.

    Otherwise, an applicant could come deliberately with his company in order to apply. Eventually, then he would register another company which is a Ghanaian company and own all the shares and this would actually give him or her the chance to partnership with the companies and put in an application in which case they would qualify under the proposal by the Hon Deputy Minority Leader. Mr Speaker, no Ghanaian would really be an owner of anything in that business.

    So, in this case, the idea is that a Ghanaian must own the shares and that is why a Ghanaian company in which the shares are wholly owned by Ghanaians is important in this rendition.

    Mr Speaker, but further to the proposal that is being amended, I am saying that in terms of Company Law,

    we could achieve this objective through two mechanisms.

    One mechanism is that the person who is applying under section 8, and come with a company in which he, the foreigner, owns 70 per cent and a Ghanaian owns 30 per cent, and apply. That is the body corporate under the clause 8(1).

    But the other alternative is that you can have the applicant register his company which is initially foreign owned. Then, he would issue shares of 30 per cent to another Ghanaian individual who has registered his company, then he would apply.
    Mr Speaker, the original rendition of clause 8(4) says that 11:14 a.m.
    “An applicant shall have at least a thirty per cent equity participation of a Ghanaian, or persons …”
    If we take out “or person” here, we take out the second vehicle. Even though it is all right to say that the Ghanaian must always go and register a company and take 30 per cent shares in the applicant's company it is all right to render it that way, but that makes it more cumbersome.
    We can have a simple situation where apart from the Ghanaian registering a company wholly owned by the Ghanaian and taking 30 per cent shares, we can say the Ghanaian
    Mr Speaker, the original rendition of clause 8(4) says that 11:14 a.m.


    as a person, can take 30 per cent shares in the original company, which is the applicant's company. That is why the alternative must be stated.

    “A company wholly owned by a Ghanaian or a Ghanaian citizen.”

    This rendition eliminates the second leg which is inconvenient. So today, by your rendition, if a foreigner comes and wants to participate in the payments systems business and brings his company, and I am a Ghanaian who is supposed to participate and get 30 per cent, by your rendition, I must go to the Registrar-General's Department to register my company, own 100 per cent of it, bring that company to him, and he would issue 30 per cent shares to me and then we would apply for the licence to do payment systems, whereas I could have just, on the onset when he was registering the company at the Registrar-General's Department be issued 30 per cent shares for him to take 70 per cent shares.

    Then I, as a person, would participate in his original company and apply for the payment systems.

    Mr Speaker, this is all that I am saying. I do not know why it is so difficult to appreciate this. It is simple.
    Mr Speaker 11:14 a.m.
    In fact, when we get away from the position that we are not talking about the general Companies Laws situation, this Act has an aim to enable Ghanaians to participate in a certain manner in what
    Mr Speaker 11:14 a.m.


    is being created by way of the payment systems; then we can move forward.

    Once it comes with a company or as an individual so that --

    Hon Deputy Majority Leader?
    Ms Safo 11:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, before me, I have the Companies Act of 1963 (Act 179). So I am suggesting that we ought to be very careful in intro- ducing words and expressions that are not in the Act.
    If you come to the First Schedule of the Act, it defines body corporate, company, company limited by shares and company limited by guarantee, existing company, external company, private company and public companies, subsidiary and holding companies, and it goes further to define non-Ghanaian companies and wholly-owned subsidiary, and unlimited company.
    Mr Speaker, with the current law, as we have it, I know these intro- ductions and amendments are part of the Bill that is before us, but the law that we are cross-referencing does not talk about Ghanaian company. There is no definition of expression in to it as “Ghanaian company”.
    It only defines “body corporate” and a “company” simpliciter, which is that, a “company”, simpliciter, is a company that one goes to the Reg- istrar-General's Department to reg- ister and it is deemed to be a com-
    pany incorporated under the laws of Ghana.
    So, to introduce a Ghanaian company and go further to talk about wholly owned and to reference the Act -- With the Act itself, the referencing we are using is alien to the wording in the Act.
    Mr Speaker, I believe we should be able to restructure the wording. If we were using “body corporate”, which is defined in the Act, let us use “body corporate”, and if we are us- ing “company” simpliciter and where reference needs to be made to non- Ghanaian company which is recog- nisable under the Act and so defined explicitly, then we stick to it. But the moment we go into the realm of a Ghanaian company and go further to talk about wholly owned, then we are creating more ambiguity to the pro- posed amendment.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the Hon Deputy Majority Leader would listen to me, all of these arguments have come about because of where we were yesterday. We at- tempted to define “Ghanaian com- pany”. In there, we had the phrase “wholly owned by a citizen of Ghana”.
    Then, the Hon Speaker said this was not in sync with what is in the Companies Act. So we went back to say that let us take off this wholly- owned in the definition of Ghanaian companies so that a Ghanaian com- pany in the interpretation section would read:
    “ ‘Ghanaian company' means a company which is incorporated
    under the Companies Act, 1963 (Act 179).' ”
    We would leave that there. Then, let us take the “wholly-owned by Ghanaian citizen” and insert it in sections 8(4) and 23(7) where “Ghanaian company” is used.
    Mr Speaker, if the position of the Hon Deputy Majority Leader is right, then we do not need this “wholly- owned” at all. As regards what the Hon Member for Bawku Central talked about on the idea of body corporate and persons, the clause seeks to empower the Bank of Ghana (BoG) to license non-bank institutions which are bodies-corporate.
    So this idea of a person does not arise at all. These are body corpo- rate which the BoG seeks to licence. So if you go to the opening phrase of section 8(1), it says, “body corporate”. That is the intention here so the bit about a person does not arise.
    Mr Ayariga 11:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with the argument of the Hon Deputy Majority Leader. If I got her right, what she proposes is that, instead of the rendition “Ghanaian company” it should just be “a company” but the objective of the proponent is that the company must be wholly owned by a Ghanaian.
    So it can be a company wholly owned by a Ghanaian citizen, and it would satisfy the Companies Act and at the same time satisfy the intention
    of the proponents that it is a company already defined by the Companies Act, but the shares will be wholly owned by a Ghanaian.
    If we render it that way, then we would satisfy the intention, which is that it is a body corporate, and body corporates are defined in terms of ownership by the shareholding.
    So if we just say a body corpo- rate and do not indicate who should own it, a foreigner could come and register a company and own all the shares, obtain the licence from the BoG, and we would have lost what we wanted to achieve. So it has to be a company owned wholly by a Ghanaian. That is seen in the shares, and it satisfies that leg.
    However, Mr Speaker, the second leg, which is that the individual -- [In- terruption.] The BoG would only issue the licence to body corporates.
    Now, the body corporates could walk to the BoG in two forms; one in which the body corporate walks to the BoG at the Registrar-General's Department where a Swiss citizen with the technology to implement payment systems, for instance, comes to Ghana, partners a Ghanaian citizen and they jointly register a company at the Registrar-General's Department, and in the incorporation documents, 70 per cent of shares is owned by the Swiss citizen and 30 per cent of the shares is owned by the Ghanaian citizen.
    Mr Ayariga 11:24 a.m.
    That company should qualify to apply for payment systems licence. I hope the Hon Chairman understands what I am proposing.

    The other alternative which is what the Hon Chairman is proposing, which is also equally right, is that the Swiss citizen incorporates a company, owns 100 per cent, but then goes through the motion of selling 30 per cent to a Ghanaian citizen who pays no value for the shares, and his company becomes a 30 per cent owner, and then they jointly apply.

    It is the same thing, but you need to give the citizen the alternative. The easier one is for him to just participate in the original registration of the company, but if the company already exists, then the alternative is that he registers his company and takes 30 per cent.

    Mr Speaker, this is easy. I believe the Hon Chairman is about to agree with me, given the fact that the Hon Majority Leader is providing some direction in the matter.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we stretch the definition of body corporate, would it not include a person? A body corporate should include a person, so that should satisfy you.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, sorry for not being here early enough because I had to engage some visitors that you are hosting.

    I have listened to my Hon Colleagues, and I think that we are having to define a Ghanaian company because it has been used at two places in the Bill.

    If you go to clause 8(4), it is about application for a payment system licence, and (4) provides;

    “An Applicant shall have at least thirty percent equity partici- pation of a Ghanaian company or person in the payment service business of that applicant”.

    I think they have already deleted “or person in the payment service business of that applicant”, so now we have;

    “An applicant shall have at least a thirty percent equity participation of a Ghanaian company”.

    We are struggling now to define what a Ghanaian company should be.

    I think that if we just further amended that provision to read; “An applicant shall have at least a thirty percent participation of a company, not a Ghanaian company, or participation in a company that is wholly owned by a Ghanaian”, we would cure any mischief in any form. So then it would not even be necessary to define a Ghanaian company in the interpretation.

    The second one is in clause 23(f), which provides;

    “The Bank of Ghana shall not issue a licence to a person to

    operate as a dedicated elec- tronic money issuer unless that person complies with the following requirements:

    (f) The person has at least a thirty per cent equity partici- pation in a company that is wholly owned by a Ghanaian”.

    So, we could cure the mischief in the two places. In that regard, we may not even have to define a Ghanaian company, because it would not find expression in the Bill any longer.

    So Mr Speaker, I am sure in my mind for clause 8(4). Let us look at clause 23(f). I think it is about the same lines that the person has at least 30 per cent. That would reflect what obtains in clause 8(4).

    The person has at least a 30 per cent equity participation in a company that is wholly owned by a Ghanaian, because the definition of a company finds expression in the Companies Act of 1963, and if we are not careful, we may inflict a mortal wound on what obtains in the Companies Act.

    Mr Speaker, I have just looked at even the one that we are about to do, the one we are about to --
    Mr Speaker 11:24 a.m.
    So if I get you right, we should abandon any definitions and just be fully descriptive in the two clauses in a manner that would not require any further definition, which would mean therefore that we are not going to enter into the temptation of making the definitions that may create certain difficulties in certain areas.
    When you read the law, it is very clear that the intention is to create ownership for Ghanaians to participate, so if we detail that, we do not even need to define a Ghanaian company.
    Mr Ayariga 11:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the Hon Majority Leader -- if you read clause 23 it says;
    “The Bank of Ghana shall not issue a licence to a person to operate as a dedicated electronic money issuer unless that person complies with the following requirements:
    (a)The person is incorporated as a limited liability company under the Companies Act of 1963 (Act 179)”.
    So here, “person” means company incorporated according to the Companies Act. Now it goes to clause (f) and says;
    “The person has at least thirty per cent equity participation of a Ghanaian company or person…”
    So the intention here is that the applicant for the licence from the Bank of Ghana would register as a limited liability company. In his registration, he can have the foreigner participate with a Ghanaian to do the registration, in which the foreigner owns 70 per- cent and the Ghanaian as an individual owns 30 per cent. That is what the second reference to person means in (f); that is why it says “Ghanaian company or person”.
    ANNOUNCEMENTS 11:24 a.m.

    Mr Speaker 11:24 a.m.
    Very well, before the Hon Chairman comes in with a final rendition, please give me the opportunity to introduce to Hon Members a delegation from Uganda, our sister nation visiting Parliament today under the auspices of the African Centre for Parliamentary Affairs.
    Hon Members, I have the pleasure to introduce to you a six-member delegation from the Parliament of Uganda who are currently in Ghana taking part in a training programme being organised by the African Centre for Parliamentary Affairs (ACEPA).
    The Delegation which is led by the opposition leader of the Parliament of Uganda is here, among others, to interact and share experiences with their counterparts in our Parliament.
    The visit is further intended to create the platform for networking between Hon Members and our Ugandan counterparts with the aim of deepening relations between the two legislatures.
    The Delegation comprises the following:
    Hon Aolbetty Ocan -- Leader of the Delegation;
    Hon Ssemujju Ibrahim -- Member;
    Ms Akullo Caroline 11:24 a.m.
    None

    Mr Manzil Ibrahim -- Information Officer for the Delegation.

    Hon Members, on behalf of the House, I welcome them to Parliament and I wish them fruitful deliberations.

    I respectfully welcome them to Ghana and Parliament on your behalves and wish them fruitful stay in our country.

    Hon Chairman, have we got to make some compromise in this regard?
  • [BILLS -- CONSIDERATION STAGE CONTINUES FROM COL. 285]
  • Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we could adopt the rendition proposed by the Hon Majority Leader with a few amendments. We are now at a stage where we are no longer going to define “Ghanaian company”.
    Mr Speaker 11:24 a.m.
    That would lead us into temptation.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:24 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, so we would not define “Ghanaian company”.
    Mr Speaker 11:24 a.m.
    But we shall make the intention clear within the law itself.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:24 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker. So if the Hon Majority Leader could —
    Mr Speaker 11:24 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, marrying Hon Ayariga's conceptualisation should give us a rendition.
    Mr Ayariga 11:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, they have only agreed with the first part but they still have an issue with the second part.
    Mr Speaker, early on, you asked the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice to pay attention but I do not see him paying attention to the discussion that is taking place. And he is not providing legal advice for the conduct of Government Business. [Laughter.] He should help us in this matter.
    Mr Speaker, I think the first part is solved; there is consensus. If we take out the word, “Ghanaian”, it could just be a company wholly owned by a Ghanaian. That takes care of a situation where the Ghanaian's participation in the business is through a legal vehicle, which is a company that he or she has registered and owns 100 per cent of the shares in that company.
    So Mr A registers his company, owns 100 per cent, goes to take 30 per cent shares in Mr B's company and then, Mr B's company, which is recorded to have 30 per cent shares owned by a Ghanaian company, applies for the licence. That is not in dispute.
    But I am saying that there is a second alternative which the proponents of this Bill had. Mr Speaker, the Bill is coming from the

    Ministry of Finance. And if we look at clause 8(4) and 23(f), both clauses are specific in the mention of “or a person”. Clause 8(4) says:

    “An applicant shall have at least a 30 per cent equity participation of a Ghanaian company or person.”

    So if we take out “Ghanaian”, and it says a company wholly owned by a Ghanaian or a person -- the 30 per cent shares could be owned by a company wholly owned by a Ghanaian or by a Ghanaian directly as a person. That is the intention. So a Ghanaian as a person—
    Mr Speaker 11:24 a.m.
    And the mischief that it would cure is that being a Ghanaian, you do not need to incorporate a company and use that as a vehicle necessarily before one could participate. One could do so directly by virtue of being a person who is a Ghanaian and then owning one-third shares in that company.
    Mr Ayariga 11:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, to make it easy, maybe, we should change the word, “person” to “Ghanaian citizen”. A person in Ghana could just be a foreigner who is a person in Ghana.
    So if the first one says, “company wholly owned by a Ghanaian or a Ghanaian citizen” so that an individual “Ghanaian citizen” could subscribe to 30 per cent of the shares and the company would still be eligible to
    apply for a licence -- Otherwise, we would be complicating the lives of Ghanaians.
    Mr Speaker 11:24 a.m.
    Or “a Ghanaian citizen” to be all-embracing.
    Dr Pelpuo 11:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we look at the same clause 23 that Hon Ayariga has profusely referred to, it does appear that the person is not just the individual person they are talking about. According to clause 23(a), the person should not be given licence unless the person is incorporated as a limited liability company.
    So it should not just be an individual. That person must be incorporated and it is very clearly stated there. It is not just an individual Ghanaian who could walk and take shares.
    Mr Speaker 11:24 a.m.
    The point is; incorporation means human beings taking shares. Human beings are those who are the subjects of incorporation in that regard.
    Hon Ayariga's point is that one does not have to incorporate themselves as Ghanaians before one owns thirty per cent or perhaps, even more in a company to participate in this scheme but rather, directly, as a Ghanaian citizen, one joins the company and one is given thirty per cent shares.
    And that is the essence of that argument. Otherwise, one would go to form a company only to join. But instead of going to form a company to join, one would go and join directly
    and get thrity per cent shares in that company.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am trying to proffer a rendition in clause 8 (4) which would read:
    “An applicant shall have at least a 30 per cent equity participation of a company that is wholly owned by a Ghanaian or person or a Ghanaian citizen in the payment service business of that applicant.”
    Mr Ayariga 11:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is it. But it would be more elegant if we recognise the “Ghanaian citizen” first, and then add the alternative, which is “a company wholly owned by a Ghanaian”.
    So it would be better to say the company in which 30 per cent of the equities are owned by a Ghanaian citizen or a company owned by a Ghanaian.
    Mr Speaker 11:44 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, I hope that you wrote that down. Hon Ayariga, please repeat. Could you write and recite?
    Mr Ayariga 11:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it would read, “the person has at least, a thirty per cent equity…” I am reading clause 23(f) because we are taking clause 23(f) and clause 8(4) together because it is the same thing. So even if we want to take clause 8 (4), it should be:
    Mr Speaker 11:44 a.m.
    If there is any difficulty whatsoever, we shall ask the draftperson to clean it up but I think that is exhaustively narrated.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, before you put the Question, we want to tidy this up a little bit. Clause 8(4) would read:
    “An applicant shall have at least a thirty per cent equity participation of a Ghanaian citizen or a company wholly owned by a Ghanaian in the payment service business of that applicant.”
    Mr Speaker 11:44 a.m.
    Very well. In one way or the other, it comes to the same thing. You come with a company which a Ghanaian fully owns the shares within the payment systems and services sector, or you are part and parcel of the original company which would come first.
    Hon Chairman, please repeat.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the rendition I read said, “thirty per cent equity participation of a Ghanaian citizen”.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, what I read earlier is deemed withdrawn.
    Mr Speaker 11:44 a.m.
    Yes, now what is your new rendition?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we would have to confer.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are dealing with two creatures here. One is a company and the other is an individual citizen. We should be careful about how we craft clause 8 (4) or clause 23 (f). Clause 8, under application for a payment system licence, begins with:
    “A body corporate which intends to operate as a payment service provider shall apply in a prescribed form for a payment system licence”.
    Mr Speaker, it begins with a body corporate. Along the line, we should have space for an individual citizen. We should have space for the grant of a payment system licence to an individual citizen. My Hon Colleague is shaking his head; he should let me finish.
    I am saying so because when you come to clause 9 under, “carrying on payment service business without a licence”, it says:
    “A person who contravenes subsection (1) of section 8
    commits an offence and if that person is
    (a) an individual”
    That is why I am saying that it relates to both company and individual. How best to capture same sense in clause 8(4) -- because I agree with Hon Ayariga that clause 8 (4) should have space for an individual citizen.
    The Hon Chairman attempted to properly capture it and I told him that the rendition is wrong, which is what he is now withdrawing. We should find a neater way of capturing same - the two strands -- for company and individual.
    Mr Speaker, it is the same thing that obtains in clause 23 (f). It relates to both a body corporate and an individual and we should get the two right.
    Mr Ayariga 11:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 9 deals with offences which can be committed by individuals or companies. So an individual who is not registered as a company can sit somewhere with gadgets and carry on electronic payment systems as an individual. When we catch the person, we would punish the person. That is what the first part of clause 9 is dealing with.
    The second part of clause 9 (1) (b) says “a body corporate”. So a body corporate without a licence can also carry on the business. If we also catch members of the body corporate, they would be punished.
    So, the use of “individual” in clause 9(1)(a) and clause 9(1)(b) is because we are dealing with offenses. If we catch an individual and he or she says he or she is an individual and the law says corporation, which they are not, they cannot be punished. So that is not an issue at all and there is no dispute about clause 9.
    Mr Speaker 11:44 a.m.
    The members or directors of a body corporate can be dealt with criminally, whether behind the veil or not.
    Mr Ayariga 11:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, so the rendition as proposed by the Hon Chairman is the best. It should read “Ghanaian citizen or company wholly owned by a Ghanaian”, so that as Mr Speaker tried to explain, the individual Ghanaian citizen can be a thirty per cent shareholder in the body corporate mentioned in clause 8 (1).
    It is like there is Kumasi; I can go straight to Kumasi but you could insist that I go to Cape Coast and pick a vehicle from there to Kumasi. That is simply what we are legislating; meanwhile, there is a direct route to Kumasi which saves me time.
    So I can easily go to the original company applying for the licence and then own thirty per cent shares or more in that company. But, you are saying no, I should not do that. I should go and register a Ghanaian
    company which I wholly own and then use that company to now go and own thirty per cent of the shares in the company that is applying to the Bank of Ghana for licence.
    You are saying that I should go to Cape Coast and pick a bus to Kumasi, when I am in Accra and can go straight to Kumasi which would save me time, fuel and energy. That is what it is about.
    Mr Speaker 11:44 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, conclude this.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think we have gone past the stage where we debate the principles -- Hon Ayariga keeps on debating the principles underpinning the Bill. Let us focus on definition of “Ghanaian Company”, which has brought us to where we are now.
    Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
    No, Hon Chairman, I think we have crossed that bridge. We do not want to go into those waters anymore because of all the difficulties about predefined “Ghanaian Company”.

    When we are descriptive enough in the Act itself, we avoid definition and therefore the temptation of going
    Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.


    Hon Chairman, have you come to a rendition for us?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:54 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, finally.
    Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
    Finally? I hope so.
    Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, please, let us concentrate on what we are doing. Can you read the rendition again?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    “An applicant shall have at least a 30 per cent equity participation of a company that is wholly owned by a Ghanaian in the payment service business of that applicant.”
    Dr Pelpuo 11:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, an applicant shall have 30 per cent ownership of a wholly owned company by a Ghanaian. A company owned by a Ghanaian is qualified to
    purchase or to be awarded a licence and a person who owns 30 per cent of that company is also qualified to be granted a licence. So they are two in one here.
    I think that we should not belabour it. This is because if the emphasis is on the person, what about the company which is also owned by a Ghanaian? Can that company also be granted a licence? The answer is yes. This is because if it is wholly owned, he can take a licence if he has 30 per cent.
    I think that we should deal with a situation where the two of them are qualified and not a situation where we would just say that a person must have 30 per cent ownership, and the person who owns the company completely is the one who would suffer because it is not stated in the law that he could take a licence.
    12. 04 p. m.
    rose
    Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Ayariga?
    Mr Ayariga 11:54 a.m.
    Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that we have tried our best to explain what this Bill is proposing to do. This Bill envisages --
    Mr Speaker, the problem is that when we are debating, the Majority side do not pay attention, and so we would then have to repeat the same argument.
    Mr Speaker, we are looking at -- [Interruption.] All right, I withdraw my statement. The issue here is that to operate a payment service, one would need to obtain a licence from the Bank of Ghana.
    Mr Speaker, clause 8 (1) says that to obtain that licence, one must be an incorporated company which is and that means that it must be a company limited by shares.
    We would however want a situation where the company that applies for the licence has 30 per cent or more Ghanaian equity holders. So 30 per cent or more of the equity in that company that applies for the licence must be Ghanaians.
    Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
    Hon Members, if you would want to have a discourse, at least, you should finish listening to the Hon Member on his feet, and then you could have a discourse on whatever that Hon Member is saying. I am of the view that you actually cannot be listening and discoursing at the same time.
    Mr Ayariga 11:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we would want a situation where the company that applies for the payment settlement licence would have 30 per cent or more of its equity owned by Ghanaians. That is what we would want to achieve and we agree.
    Mr Speaker, there are two ways to achieve that. The first option is to say that a Ghanaian citizen must directly own the 30 per cent shares in
    that company that is applying for the licence.
    That is, the person should go straight to Kumasi. So as an individual, when the person is incorporating and gives you 30 per cent of the shares for whatever payments in terms of consideration, then you are a 30-per cent holder, and the non-Ghanaian is a 70-per cent holder, and therefore, you apply for the payment settlement licence.
    Mr Speaker, the second option is that the company that is applying for the Payment Settlement System's licence is incorporated and 100 per cent owned by a foreigner, for instance, a Swiss, then a Ghanaian would also go to register his company, in which he owns 100 percent, then he uses his registered company to take 30 per cent stake in the first company, which is applying for the licence and then that company qualifies to apply for a licence.
    Mr Speaker, those are the two mechanisms, and I am saying that what they are proposing takes out the option of a Ghanaian directly owning 30 per cent of the shares in the company that is applying for the licence, and that makes it compulsory for that Ghanaian to go and register his own company and use his company to apply for 30 per cent shares in the company that is now applying for the licence.
    Mr Speaker, we would then be imposing a burden, because owning a company these days comes with a lot of responsibilities. Every year, one
    Mr Ayariga 11:54 a.m.


    would have to renew their company's licence, produce auditor's report on their company, produce their Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT) report, and that makes it cumbersome for a Ghanaian, who does not want to own a company directly himself to participate.

    So he can just participate directly in the original company by owning 30 per cent or more of the shares in that company, so that that company would be eligible to apply for Payment Settlement Licence. That is what we are proposing.
    Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
    Should a Ghanaian go from body corporate in order to go and own part of another body corporate, or could that Ghanaian as a person be a direct participant in the body corporate original? That is all that the Hon Ayariga is saying, and if that is so, then we would just make a formulation. The question is clear.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 11:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the word “person” that has been used in clause 8(4) and clause 2 should not be there. Because it does not synchronise --
    Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
    Hon Member, please, we have now got to the point where we are of the general view that the Ghanaian needs not go the circuitous manner in order to achieve his or her purpose. So all we need now is a rendition. So you should please write down your rendition, if any, and then tell us. However, we are not going back to the previous analysis.
    Hon Member, you should help us with the rendition to capture these two scenarios, otherwise, we would discuss this matter ad infinitum. There must be a rendition that captures the two ways of entry, so that it would not be mandatory to go to Cape Coast before you go to Kumasi, going from Accra, which, argument I must say, I get clearly.
    Hon Member, are you going to help in that direction?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 11:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, no, but I must say that I am a little confused with the argument that the Hon Member for Bawku Central is making. This is because in trying to cater for the two scenarios, talking about the body corporate and also, drafting for a person to have participation in a body corporate -- because body corporate is body corporate.
    If it is a body corporate, that interest could be taken off by the incorporation of the company, insofar as we are talking about the interest of whoever should have an interest in there. If we try to go by this way, then it does not synchronise with clause 8(1).
    Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
    We can make it a holistic amendment and replace it with what we think is meaningful, which would also mean that we are no more going to go into definitions. We have got to a certain point and if we do not get that right, we may be going round in circles. We do not want to make any definition again.
    So we would want it to be self- explanatory and capture it afterwards, and to do so, we would want to capture both the individual Ghanaian participant, and the individual Ghanaian owned company participant.
    So you should give us a rendition and then we would be done. We should not even worry about that particular provision there anymore. We should withdraw and replace it with something more meaningful.
    Hon Pelpuo, are you in a situation to help us in that regard?
    Dr Pelpuo 11:54 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker, I just believe that it should read very simple, that “an applicant shall have at least a 30 per cent equity participation of a company”.
    Mr Speaker, it should be just that.
    Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
    Hon Member, I beg your pardon?
    Dr Pelpuo 12:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I said it should be captured as: “an applicant shall have at least 30 per cent equity participation of a company.”
    So, one could either have the whole company to himself or add 30 per cent to it. Once a person is a Ghanaian with that capacity, then he or she is qualified -- so that we do not
    complicate issues. Whether the company has a Ghanaian or foreign nationality, it should have 30 per cent and the person should be qualified.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we should be very clear in our minds with what we want that clause to achieve. First of all, we want the applicant to be a body corporate, and the applicant must have the participation of Ghanaians to the tune of, at least, 30 percent.
    Mr Speaker 12:14 p.m.
    Hon Member, why should an applicant be a body corporate? This is because the applicant may be a Ghanaian and can take shares in the company. Please, justify why a person should form a company in order to take a share.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am not talking about taking shares in a company. It is about the fact that for participation in the payment service business, the company must be a body corporate. So, for a company to apply for the licence, it has to be a body corporate. An individual like myself cannot apply directly.
    Mr Speaker 12:14 p.m.
    That is true.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:14 p.m.
    So, if we are in agreement that it is body corporates that must apply, then the second thing we must look for is that the body corporate must have a 30-per cent share as subscription from Ghanaians. In part, at least, it must be 30 per cent owned by Ghanaians. This is all we would want to say here. The confusion is because of the subject of the clause, which is “the applicant''.
    Mr Speaker 12:14 p.m.
    So give a rendition.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the use of “Person'' does not help.
    Mr Speaker 12:14 p.m.
    Hon Member, give a rendition.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “the body corporate which applies”.
    Mr Speaker 12:14 p.m.
    Hon Member, put the rendition.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker that is what I am doing. [Interruption.]
    Mr Speaker 12:14 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, would you render the rendition?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member is putting down his thoughts.
    Mr Speaker 12:14 p.m.
    No, I want the rendition. Maybe after the rendition, the Hon Member may not find it necessary.
    Hon Member, are you giving a rendition? [Interruption.] No arguments now; I want the rendition.

    say an applicant must be a Ghanaian but we do not add the “person” there would be a problem. For example, by law, a company with 51 per cent Ghanaian ownership is Ghanaian. So if we just say “Ghanaian''and do not add the “person'', then we would also create a problem. Any company with 51 per cent Ghanaian interest is Ghanaian in nature.
    Mr Speaker 12:14 p.m.
    Hon Member, let us hear the rendition by way of a withdrawal and a replacement capturing the fullness of participation because it would help us.
    rose
    Mr Speaker 12:14 p.m.
    Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, do you have a rendition?
    Mr Kpemka 12:14 p.m.
    No, Mr Speaker. We have technical expertise for this. So the House could refer its suggestion to the draftsperson for it to be couched in the manner that would satisfy what we are looking for.
    Mr Speaker 12:14 p.m.
    We would also do an exercise in the meantime. When we get to the time when we want the draftspersons, we would call them. This is the essence of the Consideration Stage, and I am not perturbed at all. We are in good Business.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be:
    “An applicant shall have, at least, 30 per cent equity participation of a Ghanaian''.
    Mr Speaker 12:14 p.m.
    Hon Member, please, read.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    “An applicant shall have at least, 30 per cent equity participation of a Ghanaian''.
    Mr Speaker, “Ghanaian'' covers Ghanaian companies, Ghanaian persons --
    Mr Speaker 12:14 p.m.
    Hon Member, please, put the rendition clearly.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be:
    “An applicant shall have, at least, 30 per cent equity participation of a Ghanaian.''
    So the equity participation of that company, which is the applicant --
    Mr Speaker 12:14 p.m.
    You are adding “equity''. You are describing -- where do we put it?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it would be:
    “An applicant shall have, at least, 30 per cent equity participation of a Ghanaian …''
    Mr Speaker 12:14 p.m.
    Hon Ayariga, are you satisfied?
    Mr Ayariga 12:14 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker; that Ghanaian could come in the form of a wholly owned Ghanaian company or an individual. So, that deals with the problem.
    Mr Speaker 12:14 p.m.
    In fact, it is a summation of what Hon Ayariga has preached all day, and I am glad we have come to a compromised formation. The essence is that it is a withdrawal of the entire clause, and a replacement with this:
    “An applicant shall have, at least, 30 per cent equity participation of a Ghanaian''.
    This is where the draftspersons can now come in because the intention is clear, and they can clean it up.
    How the Ghanaian would come by way of joining the company ab initio or with his company is his business. Essentially, the applying company must have thirty per cent Ghanaian participation, and that is what we have battled with all morning.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, essentially, what we have in the amended clause 8 (4) of the Bill is up to “Ghanaian”. So, we are to delete all the words after “Ghanaian”.
    Mr Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    Are we to replace that with “An applicant shall have, at least, thirty per cent equity partici- pation of a Ghanaian”? I do not understand.
    The essence of what we have been doing, by way of our common stance

    now is “An applicant shall have, at least, thirty per cent equity participation of a Ghanaian.” Where do we withdraw?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was just trying to help the Clerks-at-the-Table to get the rendition right.
    Mr Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    Very well.
    Our replacement now is what Hon Opare-Ansah has rendered as a compromised rendition.
    Hon Ayariga, is that not so?
    Mr Ayariga 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes; except to say that if we just stop at thirty per cent shareholding by a Ghanaian --
    Mr Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    “An applicant shall have, at least, thirty per cent equity participation of a Ghanaian”.
    Mr Ayariga 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “…of a Ghanaian”. I hope that one day a company that is registered in Ghana would not say that they are Ghanaian within the definition of this current arrangement. If we intend this to mean a “Ghanaian citizen”, which is the individual, a Ghanaian can be any company.
    Mr Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    Hon Member, we have got your point; “…of a Ghanaian citizen”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    rose
    Mr Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, do you have a difficulty? [Laughter.]
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would not attempt to challenge your ruling, but I did not hear any aye.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I said aye. [Laughter.]
    Mr Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    I thank you very much, Hon Member.
    Hon Chairman, so the proposed amendment is withdrawn.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, rightly so.

    Clause 8 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Mr Speaker, if we could now go to clause 23(f).
    Mr Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    Please, proceed.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, flowing from what we just did, I beg to move, clause 23(f), line 2, delete all the words after “Ghanaian”.
    Mr Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    So that it will remain --
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “the person has at least a thirty per cent equity participation of a Ghanaian”.
    Mr Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, “of a Ghanaian citizen”; I think we are clear on that -- “Ghanaian citizen”.
    Mr Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    I thank you very much.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, earlier, you had indicated that you would direct the draftsperson --
    Mr Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    No, we said that if we had any difficulty, but we have put the Question to “Ghanaian citizen”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 23 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yesterday, again in the Interpretation section, we had a definition for “designation” that we stood down. I have conferred with the sponsors of the Bill, and they want “designation” in the Interpretation section to read as follows:
    “‘designation' means the identification of a system which the Bank of Ghana intends to supervise”.
    So I beg to move, in line 2, delete “that can pose systemic risk”, so that “‘designation' means the identification of a system which the Bank of Ghana intends to supervise”.
    Mr Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    Hon Members, that is clear enough.
    Any contributions to that for consideration?
    Dr Assibey-yeboah 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader wants me to give the rendition again.
    Mr Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    Please go ahead.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “‘designation' means the identification of a system which the Bank of Ghana intends to supervise.”
    Mr Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    Any system so identified by the Bank of Ghana as one that they would want to supervise -- is that not so?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, rightly so.
    Mr Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    I see the Hon Majority Leader nodding.
    Hon Pelpuo, do you have any difficulty?
    Dr Pelpuo 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it sounds a little non-specific. If we say “designation” means -- without indicating the purpose of the designation, it looks like any other system could be a designation.
    Mr Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    Hon Pelpuo, except that this “designation” arises because of its usage within the Bill. They would want to make what it means quite clear. So it has become a term of art, for that matter in this Bill.
    Hon Chairman, is that your position?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “designation” means the identification
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:24 p.m.


    of a system which the Bank of Ghana intends to supervise”.

    So whether it poses systemic risk or any other risk, the Bank of Ghana would have identified same and would then supervise. So this one encompasses all possible risks.
    Mr Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    It would give them room to manoeuvre.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, any further amendment?
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in view of the amendments we just made to clause 8(4) and clause 23(f), we need to define “Ghanaian citizen” in the Interpretation section. Otherwise --
    Mr Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Hon Member, please, “Ghanaian citizen” is well defined by the Constitution, so we cannot go about defining it.
    Hon Member, objection.
    Mr Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    I would listen to you, please.
    Those things that are well defined in the Constitution --
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you will please listen to me.
    Mr Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Please, go ahead.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you.
    We have the same thing in the Ghana Investment Promotion Centre (GIPC) Act. The use of “Ghanaian citizen” here includes companies that are 100 per cent owned by Ghanaians.
    Mr Speaker, remember that in the rendition that we curtailed, we had “Ghanaian companies and persons”, and we took it off and said “Ghanaian citizen”.
    When we go to the GIPC Act, we have a similar thing there where --
    Mr Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    When we go to where?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the GIPC Act, we used “Ghanaian citizen”, and went on to define it as:
    “any Ghanaian indigenous person or a registered Ghanaian company that is a hundred per cent owned by Ghanaians”.
    Mr Speaker, the reason is that if we do not define it to include companies that are wholly owned by Ghanaians --
    In trying to achieve the 30 per cent equity participation, we said “Ghanaian citizen” could be either a corporate vehicle or an individual.
    Mr Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Hon Member, you may want to look at this at the Second
    Consideration Stage in full if it can be listed.
    Thank you.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, sorry?
    Mr Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    I said that you may want to apply for that as a full matter for a Second Consideration Stage because we are a bit constrained at this stage.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, all right.
    Thank you.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we could take the Long Title.
    Mr Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, Long Title, delete and insert the following:
    “An Act to amend and consolidate the laws relating to payment systems, payment services, and electronic money business, and to regulate institutions which carry on payment service and electronic money business and to provide for related matters”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Long Title as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, I believe we are done.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that brings us to the end of the Consideration Stage.
    Mr Speaker 12:44 p.m.
    Thank you very much, Hon Chairman.

    Hon Members, we shall suspend Sitting for a while for the Hon Second Deputy Speaker to take the Chair.

    12:50 p.m. -- Sitting suspended.

    12.50 -- Sitting resumed.
    MR SECOND DEPUTY SPEAKER
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, I am informed that we are to start with item numbered 8 on the Order Paper,which is the Chartered Institute of Bankers (Ghana) Bill, 2018.
    Is that the case?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes.
    Mr Speaker, yesterday, we worked up to clause 18, so I guess we could continue from there.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
    Hon Members, the Chartered Institute of Bankers (Ghana) Bill, 2018, at the Consideration Stage.
    BILLS --- CONSIDERATION 12:54 p.m.

    STAGE 12:54 p.m.

    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
    Hon Members, we would take clause
    15.

    Yes, I am told clause 15 was moved, debate commenced, and so debate would continue.

    Yes, Hon Member for Takoradi?

    And you are the Hon Deputy Minister for?
    Mr Darko-Mensah 12:54 p.m.
    Aviation.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
    Sorry; I am trying to learn because there has been some reshuffle. You are for Aviation now.
    Mr Darko-Mensah 12:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is a Bill for the Committee on Education. And so I have been asked by the Hon Chairman of the Committee to hold the fort. But I am the Regional Minister for the Western Region.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
    I am to address you as the Hon Minister-designate for Western Region. You have not been confirmed yet.
    Clause 15 --
    Mr Darko-Mensah Mr Speaker, I beg to move, add the following new subclause 12:54 p.m.
    “A body corporate is qualified to be enrolled as a Corporate member of the Institute if that body corporate is the Central Bank or a financial Institution recognised under the Banks and Specialised Deposit-Taking Institutions Act, 2016 (Act
    930)”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Suhum?
    Mr Frederick Opare-Ansah 12:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you look at the Order Paper, you would see “debate to continue”. So the proposal was already moved.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
    Exactly what I stated. The debate is to continue. So has it been moved again?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe we had an extensive debate on this yesterday.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
    We did and I directed the Hon Minister and Hon Chairman of the Committee to go and look at the rendition to reflect the views that were expressed on the Floor yesterday, but it looks like the same thing has been captured on the Order Paper. So, I would put the Question if there is no further debate.
    Hon Members, clause 15, we are called upon to add a new subclause.
    Yes, Hon Minister-designate?
    Mr Darko-Mensah 12:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my understanding was that, instead of fixing the new subclause after clause 15 (ix), the Hon Minister for Education wanted it to come before clause 26.
    So we are supposed to hold on to it to for the time being. Instead of adding it as a subclause, they wanted it as a standalone clause after clause
    26.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
    Hon Member, you are drawing the attention of the House that the sponsor, who is the Hon Minister for Education is urging us to step it down.
    Mr Darko-Mensah 12:54 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, we are stepping it down for the time being so that when we get to clause 26, we can introduce it as a new standalone clause.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
    All right. Let me listen to the Hon Member for Suhum.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yesterday, the understanding we had before leaving together with the Hon Minister for Education was that, body corporate could not be registered as is the case in clause 18.
    So while we are at enrollment, this is the appropriate place to put body corporate to get them as members of the institute.
    When we get to clause 18, and we are talking about registration of members, then we would make modification there to exclude the body
    corporate. So the proposed amendment as it sits now is at the right place in clause 15. That is where we should situate it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as you said yesterday, clause 14 deals with categories of membership, and the membership is listed. Clause 14(a) is on ordinary members, student members, associate members, fellows, honorary fellows and corporate members.
    Now the question is whether all these qualify to be enrolled and registered. The Hon Minister for Education indicated to us that all of them qualify to be enrolled but not all of them qualify to be registered.
    Clause 15 is on qualification for enrollment. All the other members are listed under clause 15. So clause 15 begins with “ordinary members”, which is covered under clause 14 (a); then “student member” is in clause 14 (b). Clause 15 (iii) is “associate members”, which is 14 (c), then you come to “associate member”; that is in 14 (c), and that is also covered in clause 15 (v).
    Fellows as in clause 14(d) is covered in clause 15(6). Then honorary fellow is in clause 14(e), which is covered in clause 15 (viii).
    Now you would realise that there is no place under clause 15 for body corporate, which is what has now been done in the new subclause that
    Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:54 p.m.


    is being added. Mr Speaker, I believe we can take it now.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
    Well, the Hon Majority Leader is repeating what he said yesterday just to support what the Hon Member for Suhum has stated. I agree with them that the proper place for the new proposal is in clause 15. And so we may need to move on as a House. I would not step it down; I would put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 15 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 16 and 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 18 -- Qualification for registration as a member of the Institute.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    We have three proposed amendments all coming from the Hon Chairman of the Committee. So Minister-designate, you may move them for and on behalf of the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    Mr Darko-Mensah 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 18, subclause (1), opening phrase, line 2, after “is” add “qualified to be registered as”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    A person qualifies for registration as a member of the institute if that person is qualified to be registered as --
    Mr Darko-Mensah 1:10 p.m.
    That becomes part of the sentence, and you can have the (a)(1)(i), (ii), et cetera. It is a preamble.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you look at the clause 18(1) well, you would see that there is already a “qualified to be registered as”, but it is captured as paragraph (a); There is no paragraph (b) or (c), however, so I think it is simply to collapse it into one sentence.
    Mr Nortsu-Kotoe 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as he said, we just want it to continue so that there would be no (a) as a paragraph.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    The next proposed amendment is one of drafting. I do not think it is an amendment, so I direct that the draftsperson should capture it as such, because the paragraph (a) is now collapsed and has become part of the subclause 1, and he should do the rendition accordingly.
    I am not sure when we start with subclause (1), we would be starting with roman numerals. Maybe, they would be dealing with alphabets, but that is for the draftsperson.
    We move on to the next proposed amendment to clause 18.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought that one had a typographical error, which we can take, the “honorary”. We can still take it because it has been advertised. Clause 18(1) (a) (v).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Yes, so Hon Minister-designate, please move the next proposed amendment.
    Mr Darko-Mensah 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are on clause 20 -- I thought you had made that --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Well, if you want us to take it as a matter of editing. It was the Hon Majority Leader, and he is not the one to speak to it. He just wanted to draw your attention as the one moving for and on behalf of the Hon Chairman of the Committee, so are you repeating the same thing?
    Mr Darko-Mensah 1:10 p.m.
    So Mr Speaker, should I go ahead?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Yes, if you are accepting what he said.
    Mr Darko-Mensah 1:10 p.m.
    Yes please.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    So I direct that the draftsperson should do the necessary editing to spell the word “honorary” properly at clause 18(1)(v).
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am looking at clause 18 (2), and I believe --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Do you want to propose a new amendment?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, no, clause 18(2) does not belong to clause 18 at all. This is qualification for registration as a
    member of the institute. Now this one is talking about qualification to be registered as a chartered banker.
    It deals with a chartered banker; what a chartered banker needs to go through, the qualification and eligibility criteria. That is spelt out in clause (2).
    Now when you come to clause 17, it deals with qualification for registration as a chartered banker, and that is where clause 18(2) really belongs, after what is there. So there should rather be a clause 17(1).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, I think we just need to delete the one referring to the chartered banker, and let the sentence refer to only the institute.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, no.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    So it would be “a person is not qualified to be registered as a member of the institute if that person has been (a), (b), (c), (d)”, so we delete “ as a chartered banker or”.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think it is all right, because in clause 17 (c), you see that if the person is not disqualified under section 2 of clause 18, then the person can qualify for registration as a chartered banker. There is a cross reference there.
    Also, being registered as a member of the institute, the person needs prior qualification and registration as a Chartered Banker as is the case in clause 18(1)(a)(i), Chartered Banker, under clause 17.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:10 p.m.


    So what clause (2) is saying is that you cannot be registered as a chartered banker, or if you are already registered as a chartered banker, then you cannot become a member of the Institute if any of these things pertains.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    The heading is qualification for registration as a member of the Institute, so you cannot be talking about registration as a chartered banker. That is the issue.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:10 p.m.
    So Mr Speaker, should we move that to clause 17?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Yes. It should be moved and put at its proper place. So we would deal with registration under the Institute.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:10 p.m.
    So there should be a paragraph (d); “a person is not qualified to be registered as a member of the institute if that person has been…” So we delete “as a chartered banker or”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:14 a.m.
    Exactly.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, because of the cross referencing in clause 17(c) if we delete a “Chartered banker,” then it means there is no disqualification for membership of being a chartered banker because clause 17(c) says, it is not disqualified under section 2 of section 18(2). That is what clause 17(c) says.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, what I think would solve it for us is to split “registered” and “chartered banker” and take it to clause 17(c), and then, we would list all the items (a), (b), (c) and (d) as in clause 2.
    When we get to clause 18 (2), we would reference that a person is not qualified to be registered as a member of the Institute as is the case in clause 17(c) for a chartered banker. [Interruption.] Yes, but then, it would have come before clause 18 and we could have referenced it. Otherwise, it would look cumbersome.
    Mr Speaker, I think it is about drafting; they were trying to save space without repeating the set of things so they brought the “chartered banker” rather later. It should have been earlier and we reference this one too backward.
    Mr Darko-Mensah 1:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that as it is now, it is appropriate in the sense that subclause (c)
    references the issue for the disqualification. Therefore, we could take a decision to split it and send it back there.
    But as far as the English language is concerned here, I believe that if we read through it, we would see that there is no confusion. There is no confusion because the first headnote is “qualification for registration as a chartered banker”, and then when we come to clause 18, it says, “qualification for registration as a member of the Institute”.
    So these are two different things but when we come to clause 18 (2), it says:
    “A person is not qualified to be registered as a chartered banker— “
    -- [Interruption] -- Yes, but before clause 17, he had
    made a cross-reference to this, so unless we take a decision to split them, which is also another option -- Mr Speaker, if we read through, the effect would still be the same unless we decide that, for elegance purpose, we want to move the one to the other place. But the effect is the same.
    Dr Donkor 1:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, this confusion comes if we ignore clause 14. In the category of membership of the Institute, “chartered banker” is not listed. So if we just remove the “chartered banker” and then it becomes the members of the Institute, it brings clarity.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:14 a.m.
    Hon Member for Pru, clause 15 talks about “chartered banker”. If we talk about the categories of membership we do not have “chartered banker” there.
    But when we come to clause 15 where we are talking about qualification for enrollment, “chartered banker” is mentioned there.
    Clause 17 talks about the qualification for registration of a chartered banker. That should be the appropriate place for handling issues dealing with chartered banker. I agree that that should be the appropriate place. Chartered Banker; qualification and disqualification.
    And then, when we get to clause 18, we are dealing with qualification for registration as the member of the Institute.
    But if we put the two together in clause 18, it looks like the Chartered Banker would be out of place.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, may I humbly suggest that clause 18(2) would now be on its own, which would affect the numbering, and we deal with disqualification from being registered as a member of the Institute or as a chartered banker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:14 a.m.
    Yes, let us take the new proposed amendment in clause 18(2) first and the proposed amendment from the Committee, as instigated by the Hon Majority Leader, is to delete the phrase, “chartered banker or” from clause 18(2), lines 1 and 2.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:14 a.m.
    Well, I do not have that proposed amendment to make it substantive. I would like us to take the first one which is what is before me. And if anybody decides to move what you are now talking about, it would then be open to debate.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:14 a.m.
    Very well, that is why I am urging the Hon Member to withdraw his amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:14 a.m.
    It is not before me.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:14 a.m.
    It is not before me so there is no withdrawal. You cannot withdraw something that does not exist.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to propose that clause 18(2)—
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:14 a.m.
    Should we not take a decision on the first proposed amendment?
    Mr Ahiafor 1:14 a.m.
    Very well, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:14 a.m.
    Let us take a decision on that first.
    Mr Darko-Mensah 1:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought that since he had notified you of the impending proposal that he wants to make, maybe, it would be the last proposed amendment so that that one could be voted on. I thought that you would allow him to —
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:14 a.m.
    There is a proposed amendment, so I am talking to you to take the decision. If you want to withdraw that one, then do so, so that I do not put the Question.
    The proposed amendment before the House is to delete the phrase, “a Chartered Banker or” from clause 18 (2), lines 1 and 2.
    Question put and amendment negatived.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:14 a.m.
    We could now go to the next proposed amendment. Yes, Hon Member for Akatsi South?
    Mr Ahiafor 1:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, with your leave, may I propose that clause 18(2) stands on its own and be numbered clause 19 and conse- quentially, the numbering would change with the headnote, “disqualification for registration as a member of the institute or as a chartered banker”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:24 a.m.
    Hon Members, the new proposal is to convert clause 18(2) into a

    substantive clause to be numbered clause 19.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it being a substantive clause, then its place comes after we have considered all existing clauses of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:24 a.m.
    I did not get the sense of what you said.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if he were to be proposing a new sub- clause, then because we are on clause 18, we would consider it. However, he is proposing a whole new clause and the rule on new clauses is that we must exhaust the clauses of the Bill before we consider proposals for any new clauses.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, technically, the Hon Member for Suhum is right, but we have been relaxing the rules to provide for such to accommodate such a provision. I would plead that we allow my Hon Colleague to move his amendment.
    I would think that the value of what he is trying to do and the mischief we are trying to cure are the same. But I think he wants further clarity, so we could allow him to move it and then we could take it after clause 18.
    I mean the deletion of clause 18 (2) from clause 18 and then recapturing it under a new headnote.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:24 a.m.
    Hon Members, the relaxation of the rules would go too far. We can accept that he move his amendment to delete clause 18(2) in its entirety to be considered later. But I do not think that we should do it now and give it a new heading. We would be relaxing the rules too much.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the difficulty would be as you know, if we want to stress it. A new clause would have to come with its own headnote and then it would have to be advertised.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:24 a.m.
    Yes, but it is not possible to finish today.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is what I am saying. However, the difficulty would be if the Hon Member is not in the Chamber when we get there. Once we agree to the principle, the Table Office could assist him in getting it right and it would be situated at its proper place.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:24 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, once it is agreed upon, it becomes the amendment of the Committee. So if the Hon Member who initiated the amendment is not available, the Committee could move it.
    Even if the Hon Chairman of the Committee is not around, any other member of the Committee could move it for and on behalf of the Hon Chairman, as the Hon Minister-
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:24 a.m.


    designate did. So, let us make sure we do not relax our rules to the extent that there is no rule to follow.

    It is a very serious matter when you have no rules to follow. It becomes an anarchy, and the House is a House of rules and procedures. That is the fear, so I would accept the proposed amendment to delete sub clause 2 from clause 18 and that would mean that there would be no clause 18(1).

    Since there would be no clause 18 (2), that would definitely be editorial and it would be the draftspersons' work. So let us move the amendment.
    Mr Ahaifor 1:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, delete clause 18(2).
    Mr Speaker, the reason for the proposal is that clause 18(2) deals with both clauses 17 and 18. As a result, it must stand under a new headnote that would deal with disqualification relating to both the membership of the Institute and the chartered banker.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, do you see the labour that my Hon Colleague has imposed on himself? If we had just amended the preamble of clause 18(2) and improved clause 17(c), we would have captured this same sense.
    Now, he wants us to go to purgatory first before we proceed to Heaven. [Laughter.] I cannot just understand this.
    What we sought to do in clause 18 (2) could have tidied it up and then we would have improved clause 17 (c). That would have prevented this new enterprise that he wants to commit himself to. However, I would not pursue it because already, my own amendment is now lost, so I cannot bring it back.
    Mr Darko-Mensah 1:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, in view of the issues coming up, I believe that we might have to do the correction on clause 18(2) by deleting “a chartered banker or” and then restate the whole of clause 18(2) for clause 17(c) and do the necessary corrections. At least, so we do not forget tomorrow and it becomes easier. I think that would be simpler, so we could finish it today.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:24 a.m.
    Hon Minister-designate, that proposal has already been rejected by the House. There is no indication that if we go back, we would not get the same results. I put the Question on it and the House voted against it.
    That is why we moved to the next stage, which is the proposal he put forward. I do not have any indication or get the sense of the House that if we decide to put the Question again on the same issue, the House would not reject it again.
    Mr Darko-Mensah 1:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that, initially, we had not been told about the rule and we thought that we could easily do the new headnote and carry it on from there. However, since this issue has come up --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:34 p.m.
    Hon Members, I want to get the sense of the House. Is it the case that the House is now prepared to delete the phrase “a chartered banker or” from clause 18(2)?
    I can take the risk of going back to put the Question on that. Maybe, the decision was taken on the blind side of the Majority in the House. Is that the case?
    Mr Ahiafor 1:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, technically, he has agreed to my proposed amendment, except the issue raised by the Hon Member for Suhum.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:34 p.m.
    Once there is an “except'', it means there is no agreement. Let us move on. We could take the other position of flagging it for further consideration by the Committee and Hon Members.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just to further plead that just to save time -- As I indicated to him, the original proposal which is now lost, and what he has proposed are about the same thing.
    Maybe, he did not follow what we tried to do, but because that first one is lost, you could relax the rules to accommodate his own and I believe within a few minutes, we could deal with it and then move on.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:34 p.m.
    Hon Members, I would step down the consideration of that clause and get the proper rendition and afterwards put the Question.
    Clause 18 is stood down, and based on the consultation and the new proposed rendition, I would put the Question, but that should not hold us from moving to the other clauses.
    Clause 18 is accordingly stood down.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there was a proposed amendment in respect of the new subclause we added to clause 15 for the enrollment of corporate membership, so we needed to add a new subclause to exempt corporate members from registration. It was part of the discussions.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:34 p.m.
    Which will also be under clause 18?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:34 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Darko-Mensah 1:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 20, subclause (2), delete
    Mr Speaker, with your permission, I beg to quote clause 20(1) which talks about 1:34 p.m.
    “The Council shall, on the successful registration of a person under section 19 and on the payment of the required registration fee, issue that person with a registration certificate that indicates the class of mem- bership of that person''.
    Mr A. Ibrahim 1:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I strongly disagree with the Hon Vice Chairman on this proposed amend- ment. Clause 20(2) is just clear that;
    “A registration certificate is the property of the Institute''.
    If the Hon Vice Chairman said that it should be deleted -- once, a person is given a registration certificate and we say that it is known that the certificate is for the Institution and because of that it should be

    deleted -- What harm would it cause if it is clearly stated where everybody who is given a certificate that he or she belongs to a particular institute and their certificate given is the property of the institution and in case of misconduct and all that, it could be withdrawn? Mr Speaker, I think it should be maintained.
    Mr Quashigah 1:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support this amendment. I think that it is not in dispute that the certificate that is issued at the end of the day is the property of the institute so we do not necessarily need to legislate on that.
    After all, “suspension of legislation'' clearly indicates the process that need to be followed to revoke or suspend the certificates. So deleting subclause (2) is very much appro- priate and I support the amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:34 p.m.
    How would one obtain the certificate of registration if the person does not submit an application? And they are saying that to submit the application, it has to be in writing. That is all sub- clause (2) is talking about and you are saying it should be deleted?
    Mrs Nana A. O. Afriyie 1:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my Hon Colleague also tried to add the “suspension of the registration''. The first one says; “certificate of registration'' and it is the Council that issues the certificate and it has the right to pull it at any time.
    I think we do not need to add it to that one as the Hon Minister said -- we do not support it. We need to leave it because it is their property and
    they have the right to maintain it and if there is any misconduct then they pull it out -- and the law is clear on that.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe the principle underpinning the deletion of clause 20(2) is that certificates issued by institutions belong to the institution. It is not the property of the person to whom the certificate is issued.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have listened carefully to my Hon Colleagues on this matter and I am amazed to hear that a certificate that has been issued to a person for satisfying certain conditions belongs to the Institute, it cannot be.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    Hon Members, actually, I was
    surprised that there is the proposal to delete it.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, Hon Dafeamekpor has given the House ample reason to reject the proposal by the Committee to delete it. He is even disputing what somebody just told us, that this is the absolute and so we do not need to legislate over it, and that is why it has to remain as a matter of fact in law. So we should reject this proposal from the Committee.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Deputy Minister acting for and on behalf of the Chairman?
    Mr Darko-Mensah 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that the argument made by the last Hon Member from the other Side is very correct.
    Not until you have breached the conditions under which you were issued the certificate, that certificate can never be the bonafide property of the institution that issued the certificate because they have issued the certificate based on a certain condition.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that in situations where we allow institutions just to take certificates from people without even giving them the opportunity to defend themselves -- I think it is a problem.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that registration certificate is a property of that person after the person has satisfied those conditions. I do not think there is anything wrong with it. I
    Mr Darko-Mensah 1:44 p.m.


    am not too sure whether the certificate is given to you to be returned; it is given to you for the purpose for which you have gone for the training and for which you have been certified.

    If the person breaches the conditions under which they were issued, then there is a question mark and some procedure can take place for the certificate to be brought back to the Institute. I am not too sure whether there is any other reason why it is given apart from this.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    Hon Members, in that case, the Committee would be prevailed upon to withdraw the proposed amendment.
    Mr Darko-Mensah 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we withdraw the amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    Thank you very much, Hon Deputy Minister.
    I would put the Question on clause
    20.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 20 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    Hon Members, you would need to explore this matter further at your
    own pleasure, whether a certificate issued to a person or an institute that is qualified to practice a profession belongs to the issuing body or the recipient who is qualified to receive the certificate.
    We are not talking about the qualification; we are talking about the certificate. So go ahead and do research on it.
    Clause 21 -- Suspension of registration
    Mr Darko-Mensah 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, add the following new paragraphs:
    “(d)The member is not in good standing for a period exceeding three years;
    (e)The member fails to pay the prescribed fees for a period not exceeding three years.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    The Committee may have to take a second look at this proposed amendment. Unless you are doing some amendment to the main clause 21, “the Council may suspend the registration of a member of the Institute.” He is not suspending the member.
    “The Council may suspend the registration of a member of the Institute where
    (a) an offence in relation to that member is being investigated”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.


    No, in good standing where? The person is not yet a member because the person has not yet been registered.
    Mr Darko-Mensah 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, for membership of any organisation, one will basically have to re-register every year. So, if a member is not in good standing for three years and he or she comes that he/she would want to be registered --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    Hon Member, he renews or he re- registers? They are different things altogether; we renew registration; we do not re-register. Look at it properly.
    Mr Francis K. A. Codjoe 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think given the amendment indicated as subclause (d) which should be subclause (f), actually, I do not think that it falls in line with whatever they are trying to do here. But the paragraph reads: “the member fails to pay prescribed fees for a period not exceeding three years”.
    What it means is that if I do not pay for one month, then they can even suspend or deny my registration. So I am saying that the language there has a problem.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    Clause 21 deals with the situation
    where the Institute has received an application from a qualified person and the Institute is processing that application to register and then the attention of the Institute is drawn to these things, so they suspend the registration -- that is what it is dealing with.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, when you proceed further to read clause 22, it begins to look like the use of the word “registration” is in reference to membership of the Institute. For instance, in clause 22 (b) or (c) or (d), it talks about --
    The preamble is:
    “The Council shall cancel the registration of a member where
    (b) The member is convicted of an offence under this Act or the Regulations;
    (c) The member beaches the Code of Conduct;
    (d) The member is convicted of an offence involving dishonesty;
    (e) The member is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a criminal offence.”
    So it is beginning to look like the use of registration here is in reference to the membership of the members and not the registration process and I suspect that this is what advised the Committee to add those ones to the provisions in clause 21.
    [Pause] --
    Mr Darko-Mensah 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that to make the amendment fall in line, it is the headnote that we might have to look at. It should read; “Suspension of membership”.
    So the amendment that we have made will then fall in line with the clause 21(d), (e) and (f). Then the preamble for clause 21 will read;
    “The Council may suspend the membership of a member of the Institute.
    And (a), (b), (c), (d) and then the (e) will read; “the member is not in good standing for a period exceeding three years”.
    Then paragraph (f) will be;
    “the member is free to pay the prescribed fees for the period not exceeding three years”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    Hon Minister, I believe that should be the proper thing to do. The headnote should be; “Suspension of member” and not “Suspension of registration”. So we need to propose a new amendment to the headnote.
    Mr Darko-Mensah 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, proposed amendment to clause 21 is that the headnote should read; “Suspension of membership” instead of “Suspension of registration”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    Hon Members, there is a proposed amendment to the headnote of clause 21; delete “registration” and insert “membership”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that we should read clause 21 in conjuction with clause 22. I get the impression that in clause 22 we are talking about cancellation of not “registration”, but “membership”. -- [Interruption.]
    What you are saying then means that in clause 22, it should be cancellation of registration or membership? We should be careful there because clause 24 is captured as “Striking off name from register”.
    Mr Speaker, in that case, the person's membership has been completely revoked; in other words, it has been cancelled. So I am just saying that we should look at the import of what we are doing in clauses 21, 22 and 24 as there are some differences. We only need to be --
    Mr Darko-Mensah 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you take clauses 21, 22 and 24, you will realise that if we accept this amendment of “suspension of membership”, it will not conflict with the “Striking off name from register”.
    This is because one is suspension - - maybe, there is an investigation and after it, they might not find any fault and the person's name will be fully restored, but suspension is suspension. Striking off one's name from the register means that they have actually been removed completely.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    It is very important to have had technical people in the House so that
    we could consult on these issues because these are very technical. They are processes that the practitioners or members of the Institute will be very conversant with but we do not have them in the House now. Let me listen to the Hon Minister for Health.
    Mr Agyeman-Manu 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, attaining membership of a professional institute like bankers is just synonymous with other professions. One needs to be registered by going through some examinations and processes and that gives them a certificate to practise.
    If , at any stage of one's practice, it is found out that one acquired the registration certificate fraudulently, they can cancel the registration and delist you from their membership roll.
    Mr Speaker, if on the other hand, one commits an offence, criminal or otherwise, and the person is under investigation, the person's member- ship could be suspended. A certificate that has been genuinely acquired could never be touched, and I believe that we can do these renditions and amendments in line with this thinking.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, truly, there is some confusion with what constitutes “suspension”, “cancellation” and “striking off name from register”.
    Mr Speaker, if you look at clause 22(3) and (4) and with your permission, I read 1:44 p.m.
    (3) “The Council may before cancelling a registration, suspend the member for a period and on the terms and conditions that the Council may determine.
    (4) Where the Council cancels a registration, the name of the person whose registration has been cancelled shall be removed from the register”.
    Mr Speaker, meanwhile, when you go to clause 24, we have “Striking off name from register”, we have to be very clear from the technical persons; I mean the lead institution on this, as to exactly what they want to achieve by each of these four or so terminologies. It is not too clear.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Dafeamekpor?
    Mr Kwabena Ohemeng- Tinyase 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just as the Hon Member has just said --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    Hon Member, I have not given you the Floor. Yes, Hon Dafeamekpor?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just heard the Hon Minister for Health state a certain position in the House that where someone is under investigations, it will be grounds for his or her licence to be revoked or withdrawn pending the outcome of the investigations.
    Mr Speaker, that will be an affront to the Constitutional provision that a person --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    Actually, the Hon Minister did not say what you said. I am sure you were not listening to him attentively.
    Yes, Hon Member for Kade?
    Mr Ohemeng-Tinyase 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just as the Hon Minister for Health said, in all professions, if you have any situation where a person's certificate is suspected to have been acquired fraudulently or the person have been involved in an act which discredits --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    Hon Members, with regard to the Business on the Floor, I direct that Business be held beyond the prescribed period.
    Mr Ohemeng-Tinyase 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, for any instance that a person holds a certificate member- ship and it is under suspicion of fraudulent acts and which requires an investigation into the decency of the person holding that certificate, then the person may be suspended.
    When the person is suspended, then he cannot use the certificate to practice and whatever the certificate could be used to do would be on hold for the period of suspension.
    Mr Speaker, when there has been a conclusion on whatever has been said to be a defect on the certificate and the decision is that the person is not qualified to hold it or does not
    merit the decency to practice it, then finally the certificate would be cancelled.
    The moment the certificate is cancelled, the person would cease to be a member of that professional institute. Therefore the person would be removed from the register of membership and in addition to the cancellation of the certificate, it would nullify the credibility that the person had for holding that professional certificate.
    Mrs Afriyie 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am sure that there is confusion here. There should be winnowing because with the cancellation of the registration -- the person would not yet be a member. But “member” has been used here. For instance, “a member is convicted of an offence under the Act …”
    A member is someone who is already a member and with that the person's name could be struck out, but just the cancellation of registration -- the person is in the process of registering but we are using “member”. Mr Speaker, it should be “an applicant”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, if we take the process from clause 14 -- Categories of membership, clause 15 reads Qualification for enrollment, clause 15; Registration of Chartered Bankers and Qualification for Registration as a Chartered Banker, clause 18; Qualification for re- gistration as a member of the Institute and clause 19; Application for
    registration. Mr Speaker, the application is done under clause 19.
    Mr Speaker, if you come to clause 20 then the person has gone through the processes and has been issued with a registration certificate. Clause 21, which follows after clause 19 would suggest to us that the suspension of registration is not the pendency of the process.
    The person has been issued with a certificate but because of some activities that the person has engaged himself in and has committed an offence thereafter and allegations of misconduct has been made against the member after the issuance of -- or there was a false declaration that was made in the application for the registration as a member of the Institute, then the registration could be suspended.
    Mr Speaker, the suspension of a registration would certainly also translate into the suspension of the member. The member could then have the registration cancelled in clause 22.
    Mr Speaker, clause 24 is on striking off the name from the register finally. Yet before we come to clause 24, we should look at clause 22(3) as has been read out copiously that:
    “The Council may before cancelling a registration, suspend the member for a period and on the terms and conditions of the Council that the Council may determine.”
    Subclause (4) says:
    “Where the Council cancels a registration, the name of the person whose registration has been cancelled shall be removed.”
    Mr Speaker, so I believe that whereas the sense is appreciated it is a mix-bag and we may have to look at how to structure those constructions better. That is why I would agree with the Hon Member for Suhum who proposed that perhaps we should pause and have a winnowing session on this to clean up the system.
    I would want to propose that perhaps we could even begin the consideration of the winnowing process this evening and work to have the Bill go through the Consideration Stage by tomorrow.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that if we should do it today, then we should be in a position to finish up tomorrow.
    Mr Speaker, there is also one outstanding matter that relates to the Right to Information Bill, 2018 that we could deal with and bring the matter to a closure tomorrow.
    So just to appeal to Hon Colleagues, who have filed amendments and have interest, to let us meet this evening to apply ourselves to this critically, come to some determination and finish it up tomorrow.
    Mr Darko-Mensah 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Majority Leader and I think that we must have a
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    Hon Ranking Member?
    Mr Nortsu-Kotoe 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Majority Leader that we should meet quickly over it but the Committee is meeting now and he has suggested that it should be in the evening. So if he could give us a definite time so that we could inform the leadership and do it as quickly as possible.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    I agree to suspend further consideration of the Chartered Institute of Bankers (Ghana) Bill, 2018, and direct that the Committee should go back and do the informal session of winnowing. In doing so, they should also take into consideration, the sequence of the process.
    I think that clause 21 could come before clause 20 where there is application for registration and suspension of registration -- that is before the register in clause 20.
    If there is evidence that these things have happened to the member, then they do not register. So, you should look at that sequence in the further consideration of the Bill.
    Hon Members, with that, we would end the Consideration Stage of the Chartered Institute of Bankers (Ghana) Bill, 2018, for today.
    Hon Majority Leader, in the circumstances, do we take an adjournment or a suspension of the House?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe we can take an adjournment. There are various issues before us.
    I am not too sure how far the Committee on Mines and Energy, and the Committee on Land and Forestry have gone with the consideration of the Ghana Iron and Steel Development Corporation Bill; yet, we need to deal with this.
    Mr Speaker, they have had a meeting on this; yet, since the previous weekend, the Committee has not submitted any Report to this House for us to do a Second Reading of the Bill. I urge the Committee to work on that, so possibly, we could deal with a Second Reading of that Bill.
    For the Right to Information Bill, 2018 and the Chartered Institute of Bankers (Ghana) Bill, 2018, we could deal with the winnowing this evening.
    It is a proposal to the Committee because I understand it has a meeting with some authorities on the matter of the University of Education, Winneba campus. I propose that we

    meet at 5.00 p.m. to deal with these considerations.

    Finally, the Committee on Con- stitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs should also look at the Companies Bill. It is indeed a fat document, but we need to work on it. It has been before the Committee for quite some time now. When they come to the House with their Report, we could begin in earnest.

    We need to start this latest by next week. By the time we apply ourselves to it, we ought to have cleared other matters off the way because it would take a whole lot of the time of the House.

    Mr Speaker, I would want to plead that the committees that have referrals may act much more proactively and diligently than they have been doing to enable us rise at the appropriate time. Otherwise, we cannot rise before 12th April, 2019; perhaps, we may even go beyond it if need be. The committees should help us.

    Mr Speaker, I thank you.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:14 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, are you giving indication that we are to rise around 12th April, 2019? I got the information earlier that it was around 3rd April,
    2019.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I gave an indication at the very outset that the House was programmed to adjourn sine die on
    12th April, 2019. As we started working, I thought we could adjourn earlier, especially given some statutory commitments on the part of the House.
    So I thought we could bring it forward. Just last week, I announced in the House that, probably, we could have even adjourned on 3rd April, 2019 depending on how we transact Business; yet, so many of the referrals are locked up at the committees. They are not releasing the Reports.
    Mr Speaker, in that context, we cannot adjourn early enough. That was why I restated the point that they need to work and submit their Reports early enough. Otherwise, it would become difficult for us.
    Mr Richard K. M. Quashigah 2:14 p.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    As much as I agree with the Hon Majority Leader that there are a lot of Businesses that ought to be done, it baffles me when he said we are to rise on 12th April, 2019 because I was in this Chamber when the Rt Hon Speaker indicated to him and the entire House that there are some international engagements that ought to happen before 12th April, 2019, for which reason it may be prudent for us to come back during the break to continue some Businesses if need be.
    However, as the Hon Majority Leader indicated -- he was very emphatic. That means we would rise on 12th April, 2019, or even beyond. When the Rt Hon Speaker indicated that, at least, they should consider matters between 3rd and 5th April,
    Mr Richard K. M. Quashigah 2:14 p.m.


    2019 except maybe I never heard the Rt Hon Speaker properly.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:14 p.m.
    The Hon Majority Leader simply said it is conditional. If we are able to move faster to finish the Businesses, we would definitely rise around 3rd or before 5th April, 2019, but there are some critical Businesses he drew our attention to that we should finish before we rise.
    So depending on how quickly we handle matters, we could rise earlier or later. I think that was what he drew the attention of the House to.
    Really, I do not know why the Right to Information Bill, has been held up for all this while because we did a lot of work on it and finished it. Getting it its Third Reading, a few issues came up, and for all this while, it has been held up. The tongue lashing of Parliament and Hon Members of Parliament is still ongoing as a result of the non-passage of this Bill.
    I would want to urge the Hon Majority Leader to, at least, use some, if not his real but residual powers, to ensure that this Bill is passed as quickly as possible. There should be no further delay in the passage of the Right to Information Bill, 2018.
    Yes, Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, on that one, I think we have cleared all the hurdles. There were some policy matters between the
    Ministries of Information and the Office of the Attorney-General and Ministry of Justice which we have sorted out.
    Unfortunately, just when we thought we could bring it to the House to continue with the completion of the Consideration Stage, we had some communication from civil society and the Ghana Media Commission that they still want us to look at certain things.
    The people who are saying that -- as you used “tongue lashing” -- are the very people who are also sending in some further proposals for amendment. They are saying we should stall it and consider what they are bringing, but they go out there and lambast us. I cannot understand.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to believe that whatever it is, by close of day on Friday, we should have finished with the Consideration Stage and, perhaps, even do a very speedy Third Reading of it once we sort these two things out.
    Mr Speaker, the other matter that my Hon Colleague, Mr Quashigah, commented on was for his information and not for his commentary. Whether he agrees with me is another matter. It is a piece of information to the House that we should work assiduously if we want to adjourn early.
    So the Committees should help us to rise early. That is all that I am saying. If we finish the transaction of Business before the 3rd April, 2019, certainly, we would do that.
    The meeting is slated for 5th April, 2019, and both the Hon Minority Leader and I are supposed to make some presentations on behalf of the African Group. On 11th April, 2019, I am supposed to represent the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA), Africa, to make a presentation on behalf of the African Group in Canada.
    I might not go because of this. If I do not go, Africa will lose out; but it depends on what we do here.
    Mr Speaker, the plea still holds that the Committees should work hard, fast and timeously to release us for the proposed adjournment on either 3rd or 5th April, 2019; otherwise, we would go to 12th April, 2019.
    Mr Joseph B. Naabu 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity.
    I heard the Hon Majority Leader saying that the Committees are not presenting their Reports early; that they are delaying.
    I would like to tell the whole House that the way they select Hon Committee Chairpersons and Ranking Members favours some particular people. When somebody who is not supposed to be there is favoured and put there, how would the person work effectively?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, I wanted to listen to Hon Richard Acheampong, and then you take both on board.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this requires prompt response because my Hon Colleague has been in this House for two terms, and he should know that the Committee on Selection is headed by the Rt Hon Speaker.
    Is he indicting the Hon Speaker for not working to his satisfaction? Is that the case? If that is the case, it would be appropriately communicated to the Rt Hon Speaker that he is not properly constituting Committees.
    If that is the case, he should come clean. The Rt Hon Speaker owns the Committee on Selection; it is not the Hon Leaders. The Rt Hon Speaker is the Chairman. Is he indicting the Rt Hon Speaker? If so, he should tell us.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
    It is not time for question and answers. [Laughter.]
    The decision is taken by the House, but the Committee is headed by the Rt Hon Speaker. The Committee then presents a Report to the House for a decision. Once that has happened, it is a decision of the House, and it is binding on all of us.
    Mr Richard Acheampong 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this certainly is vintage Hon Richard Acheampong. He behaves like the typical Carthaginian. Even if he presents one with a gift, one should be worried.
    Mr Speaker, no committee in this House is composed of one person. There are several Hon Members who comprise a committee, and if there is lethargy on the part of a committee, it is a collective responsibility. It is not a one-man show, and he knows what I am talking about.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
    Well, I still reiterate my call on you, Hon Majority Leader, to use your powers. I know that your powers are constrained.
    As in the case of the Right to Information Bill, 2018 the House is ready and willing to pass it; but issues of policy have cropped in, and two Ministries are holding us up. The public is blaming Parliament for not passing the Bill.
    The system we adopted for ourselves, too, the Majority Chief Whip is supposed to be whipping the Hon Members, not the Leader. That is why he is the Hon Majority Chief Whip. So the Leader would have to
    prevail on the Hon Majority Chief Whip to whip the Committee Members.
    The Hon Majority Chief Whip has powers over all Hon Members, not only the Members on his Side, and he would do so through the Hon Minority Chief Whip to get Hon Members to make available the necessary Reports on referrals.
    So please, let us do our best to finish all the Businesses that are urgent. It is not everything we can complete before the 5th April, 2019, so that the House would rise. There are other very compelling matters that would definitely take Hon Members out of the House.
    Whether the House or not, there are some things that some Members must, of necessity, be involved in, particularly the Hon Leaders. They would have to be there because I had been compelled when I was in their shoes to do the same. So please let us work hard and make sure we finish these matters before 5th April, 2019, more importantly, the Right to Information Bill, 2018.
    We should give notice to the relevant Ministries that we can no longer wait on them. We may be compelled to complete it without whatever they are doing.
    There is no perfect law anywhere in the world, and what we have done is one of the best in the world so far, so there is nothing wrong with us passing it. If need be, there is nothing
    wrong with us coming back to make those necessary amendments to the Bill.
    So I would urge that they come before the House latest by next week, failing -- or you prefer this week?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as you said, it is a matter of policy. It is sorted out. What we need to do now -- I sounded the Hon Minister for Information on the new proposals that have come from civil society. We should sit down and see if we could factor them into the Bill.
    So perhaps, if it is necessary, we may capture some of them during the Second Consideration Stage. Other than that, nothing prevents us from completing it. That is why I am saying that it is even possible to bring matters to a closure latest by Friday.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
    Yes, that is good news; but let us also know that civil society should be informed that these things are evolutionary. They are not revolu- tionary, so some of the proposals could be legislated upon but they could be held up when it comes to issues of implementation.
    So we should take all that on board. With that, I proceed to adjourn the House.
    ADJOURNMENT 2:24 p.m.

  • The House was adjourned at 2.34 p.m. till Thursday, 21st March, 2019, at 10.00 a.m.