Debates of 4 Jun 2019

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker 10:12 a.m.
Hon Members, we have communication from the President.
ANNOUNCEMENTS 10:12 a.m.
SPACE FOR COMMUNICATION FOR THE PRESIDENT -- 10:12 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:22 a.m.
Mr Speaker 10:22 a.m.
Hon Members, correction of Votes and Proceedings dated 31st May, 2019.
Mr Speaker 10:22 a.m.
Hon Members, we also have the Official Report of Thursday, 4th April 2019.
Any corrections?
Mr Speaker 10:22 a.m.
Hon Ayariga?
Mr Mahama Ayariga 10:22 a.m.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 53(1)(l) - Complaints of Contempt of Parliament. With your leave, I would want to raise a matter that relates to an attempt to abridge the privileges and constitutional provisions.
Mr Speaker 10:22 a.m.
Standing Order?
Mr Ayariga 10:22 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am coming under Standing Order 53(1)(1), which states the order of Business, and that at this stage, a Member might raise complaint of contempt of Parliament and Standing Order 72 -- a personal statement by a Member.
Mr Speaker 10:22 a.m.
Please proceed.
STATEMENTS 10:22 a.m.
Mr Mahama Ayariga (NDC -- Bawku Central) 10:22 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
As you would recall, sometime last year, the Office of the Special Prosecutor wrote to your good self, requesting you to release me for investigations by that office.
Mr Speaker, you very graciously, in spite of all the constitutional protections that are accorded a Member of Parliament, indicated to me that I should go ahead and avail myself for investigation. I complied with your instructions.
Mr Speaker, the investigation has been ongoing. I have appeared before investigators at the Office of the Special Prosecutor and the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) so many times in the course of last year and part of this year. I was
Mr Speaker 10:22 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Ayariga. This, indeed, is a very important issue that touches and concerns the entire Parliament of the Republic's constitutional rule and democracy.
I would like to hear from - I said this is a very important -- apparently, some are not hearing me -- [Pause] -- But could we hear the Hon Ayariga? I would ask the Leaders to give guidance to me.
But let me ask Hon Ayariga -- Hon Ayariga, you were supposed to be there today. I know of certain developments; so what is your approach towards your being in court this morning? You have categorically stated that as you stand here before this Honourable House, no court of competent jurisdiction has issued a warrant or any form of summons for you to appear before it. In fact, I want to have this clarification; is that the case, and for that matter, what is the development on this day when you were invited? If you could share it with this House so that it would not be within my personal knowledge only.
10. 32 a. m.
Mr Ayariga 10:22 a.m.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
This morning, I instructed my lawyers to be in court and to inform the court that today, Parliament is in Session and Sitting and it is the reason why I am unable to attend court today. When the case was mentioned and all the other accused were arraigned, I was absent and my lawyer informed the court that I am in Parliament and unable to attend because Parliament is in Session and Sitting. I am informed by my lawyer.
So far, a warrant has not been issued by the court and I have been informed by my lawyer that the court insisted that I should appear before it. But I am waiting to be guided by you, who is also here as the custodian of this House, its rules and procedures, and the integrity of this House so far as the Constitution protects it. So, Mr Speaker, I am ready to go to court at any time but I am waiting for your guidance. The Constitution is clear on the matter. I cannot be forced to court when this Parliament is in Session and Sitting.
It would clearly amount to an infringement on article 122 of the Constitution. Mr Speaker, article 122 binds everybody; the Executive, the
Judiciary and Parliament. So it is a constitutional provision that is not subject to anything unlike other constitutional provisions that are subject to other conditionalities; it is not subject to anything.
So, Mr Speaker, this is the latest development this morning, that my lawyers were in court but the judge insisted that I should come. Mr Speaker, even though as I speak, the service has not been effected on me -- no service has been effected on me. And the correspondence from this Parliament to the court informing them that their service is wrong, and therefore, the process returned to them is also part of their records. That is the latest development.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 10:22 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Ayariga.
An Hon Member -- rose --
Mr Speaker 10:22 a.m.
Hon Member, just a moment, we want to go by certain steps.
You did indicate in our pre-Sitting meeting that the case is stood until one o'clock and you did indicate that from this House, you would go there as a matter of making a point. But you would appear before the court on
Mr Ayariga 10:22 a.m.
Very much so, Mr Speaker. Just before Sitting, you invited me to conference on the matter and I did indicate that given the disposition of the Judge, I am a law- abiding citizen; I am an Hon Member of this House; I have no intention of violating a court order. My initial position was based on the fact that no service has been served on me by the court and now that I have information from my lawyer that the court is sitting and has actually issued an instruction that I must attend, I intend to comply and to go to the court with a certification from you, Mr Speaker, that this Parliament is in Session and Sitting, inform the court that I have constitutional objections to being compelled to be in court on days when Parliament is Sitting so that I could invite the court to take a decision on that matter.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 10:22 a.m.
Thank you very much. I wanted clarity, particularly for the records because the letter is almost about ready in a form of a draft.
Hon Minority Leader, may I hear from you briefly, and then the Hon Majority Leader.
Minority Leader (Mr Haruna Iddrisu) 10:22 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we have heard the Hon Mahama Ayariga, the representative of the people of Bawku Central in Parliament legitimately elected as Hon Member of Parliament, with exercising not only his legislative role but a representational role.
Mr Speaker, article 19 of the 1992 Constitution provides 10:22 a.m.
“(1) A person charged with criminal offence shall be given a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court.”
More importantly:
“(c) presumed to be innocent until he is proved or has pleaded guilty;”
Even though the preliminary matters are for you to guide this House and take a decision which, probably, may become a rule of thumb to guide this Parliament and future Parliaments on how Hon Members of Parliament would appear before any court to respond to any criminal summons. It would be a useful rule of thumb which
should enrich our parliamentary and constitutional jurisprudence.
Mr Speaker, Hon Members of Parliament are not above the law; we cannot be! Indeed, it is our moral duty to pass the laws, so we should be the first to uphold the laws. I would assure you that the Hon Ayariga would respect the letter and spirit of the Constitution and any other laws of Ghana.
Mr Speaker, he has invoked articles 117, 118 and 122 of the Constitution in particular. Mr Speaker, what he has asked you to do is for us to be guided; what is a parliamentary privilege and what is immunity relative to a criminal proceeding or to an allegation of crime? Is he entitled to a partial immunity? It is for this House and or the court to lift that immunity.
Mr Speaker, you have that power. That is why the Constitution refers to you 10:42 a.m.
you are the guardian of the privileges and immunities of Hon Members of Parliament and that is why if we read Erskine May and other authorities, even Statements we make on the Floor -- That is why it is sometimes useful that Hon Members should not be speaking more on radio but on the Floor of the House because on the Floor, they are protected by the parliamentary privilege and immunity.
Mr Speaker, appearance before the court and performing the duties of a Member of Parliament; the framers of our Constitution did not want a situation when a Member of Parliament would be obstructed from undertaking his lawful duties.

Mr Speaker, more importantly, if we are not privileged and lucky to have Presidents who respect due process -- I heard President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo make a commitment to it faraway. Our Presidents since the Fourth Republic have demonstrated it, but if tomorrow, we have Presidents who are cowed by Parliament and its strength, they might walk this path to weaken this institution and its Members.

It is my view that Members of Parliament should not be invited on the basis of trifle or frivolities, and a prima facie case should be established even before we are invited. Mr Speaker, as he has made the application, the ruling is yours. We should be guided by the development of parliamentary privileges and immunities under the Westminster system.
Majority Leader (Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu) 10:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, even though I was a bit late in entering the Chamber, I was observing the Hon Member for Bawku Central make his case in the House. He alluded to article 117 which is very unambiguous about immunity of MPs, the Clerk and the Speaker from service of process and arrest. It provides that:
“Civil or criminal process coming from any court or place out of Parliament shall not be served on, or executed in relation to, the Speaker or a member or the Clerk to Parliament while he is on his way to, attending at or returning from, any proceedings of Parliament.”
Mr Speaker, article 118(1) provides and again I quote 10:42 a.m.
“(1) Neither the Speaker, nor a member of, nor the Clerk to Parliament shall be com- pelled, while attending Parlia- ment to appear as a witness in any court or place out of Parliament.”
Article 118(2), puts the matter beyond that. It says:
“(2) The certificate of the Speaker that a member or
the Clerk is attending the proceedings of Parliament is conclusive evidence of attendance at Parliament.”
Mr Speaker, the language of article 122, in my opinion, provides further fortification and it indicates:
“An act or omission which obstructs or impedes Parliament in the performance of its functions or which obstructs or impedes a member or officer of Parliament in the discharge of his duties, or affronts the dignity of Parliament or which tends either directly or indirectly to produce that result, is contempt of Parliament.”
Mr Speaker, an application has been made to you which relates to a matter in court. One would perhaps raise issues about whether the matter, if pronounced here, may amount to sub judice. Would it affect the case in the court in any manner? That would be prejudicial.
We must avail ourselves of best practices in this regard and I am looking at Erskine May on matters awaiting judicial decision. It provides on page 441 that:
(1) “Cases in which proceedings are active in the United Kingdom courts, shall not be referred to in any motion, debate or question.”
It goes on to define what is meant by “active”, which is:
“Criminal proceedings are active when a charge has been made or a summons to appear has been issued, or, in Scotland, a warrant to cite has been granted.”
Criminal proceedings cease to be active when they are concluded by verdict and sentence or discontinuance, or in cases dealt with by the courts martial, after the conclusion of the mandatory post-trial review.”
Mr Speaker, in this case, the relevant provision is in (1)(a), that is 10:42 a.m.
“Criminal proceedings are active when a charge has been made or a summons to appear has been issued…”
Mr Speaker, I am informed by my Colleague, Hon Ayariga, that as we speak, no summons has been issued from the court and been set on him. If that is so, then our comments on this cannot be construed as being sub judice. That is where I take my
Mr Speaker, in this case, the relevant provision is in (1)(a), that is 10:52 a.m.
liberation from, to be able to comment on this.
Mr Speaker, as I said, the language in the Constitution appears very clear. That notwithstanding, I am aware that the particular construct in articles 117, 118 and 122 exist in the Constitutions of all Commonwealth countries. In the event of infractions or suspected infractions, how do these jurisdictions respond? That should be very instructive to us.
Again, Erskine May is replete with such instances and how Parliaments deal with them and how jurisdictions respond, and that I believe should be very instructive to us. We are not an island and should learn from what happens in Canada, Australia, India, South Africa and so on.

Mr Speaker, the other matter that should also attract our attention is article 17. My Hon Colleague cited article 19 of the Constitution. Article 17 provides, and I beg to quote:

“(1)All persons shall be equal before the law.

(2) A person shall not be discriminated against on grounds of gender, race,

colour, ethnic origin, religion, creed or social or economic status.”

Mr Speaker, we should read the Constitution holistically and come to some determination. I believe that it is not about Hon Ayariga. If it is Hon Ayariga today, it could be Hon Inusah Fuseini, Hon Yieleh Chireh or Hon Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu tomorrow. [Laughter.] So we are in this together; that is why this requires critical thinking.

There has been some conflicting responses from the courts in respect of Hon Colleagues. I do not want us to go on that path, as to what happened to Hon Dan Abodakpi and Hon Adamu Dramani Sakande. Maybe, at the time, we did not avail ourselves of this opportunity, which then makes it clear that the courts responded in two different ways as far as those were concerned.

Mr Speaker, so I think the time has arrived for us, as a House, to put our heads together on this very dicey matter and come to some determination. I guess whatever determination that we arrive at would provide some instruction to the courts because the privileges and immunities of Hon Members of Parliament are not put in the Constitution just to flower it. We have very important

historical antecedents, and that is why it finds expression in the Constitutions of all Commonwealth countries.

Mr Speaker, as I said, when suspected infractions happen, how do the courts in the various jurisdictions respond? That should also inform us appropriately how our courts and Parliament should respond. As I said, we are not in an island. So I guess this requires serious and critical thinking and analysis to find a common ground, so that we serve communities and our people. Yet we should also respond to the beaconings in the law.

Mr Speaker, for now, this is what I will say. I think we need to apply critical thinking to determine, going forward, what should be the best way to respond to this matter.
Mr Speaker 10:52 a.m.
Thank you very much.
Hon Members, this requires some reflection and thinking from the point of the Speaker, and we shall take a short break for me to come out with a ruling that should stand the test of time because, this is a critical time.
We will resume in half an hour.
10.55 a.m. — Sitting suspended.
Mr Speaker 9 a.m.
Hon Members, Sitting was suspended a while for us to resolve a matter. Respectfully, this is my ruling on the application of Hon Mahama Ayariga on his invitation by a letter from the Special Prosecutor to appear before the High Court today, Tuesday, 4th June, 2019 at

Hon Members, this ruling is made following the issue of privilege raised by Hon Mahama Ayariga on the receipt of a letter from the Special Prosecutor of the Republic, requesting the Speaker to release Hon Ayariga to appear before a criminal court today Tuesday the 4th of June 2019. The Hon Ayariga has indicated he sent his lawyers to court to represent him and indicate that his partial immunity will not allow him to attend court when Parliament is Sitting.

The Hon Member further indicated that out of respect, and to avoid a battle between the legislature and other organs of State, he would attend the court at 1 pm and bring his side of the immunity before the court. The Hon Member referred to our Constitution, and respectfully I echo the following:

a. Article 117 which reads “Civil and criminal processes coming from any court or place out of Parliament shall not be served on, or executed in relation to, the Speaker or a member or the Clerk to Parliament while he is on his way to, attending at or returning from, any proceedings of Parliament.”

b. Article 118(1), which reads, “Neither the Speaker nor a member of, nor the Clerk to Parliament shall be compelled, while attending Parliament to appear as a witness in any court or place out of Parliament.”

c. Article 122 which reads “An act or omission which obstructs or impedes Parliament in the performance of its functions or which obstructs or impedes a member or officer of Parliament in the discharge of his duties, or affronts the dignity of Parliament or which tends either directly or indirectly to produce that result, is contempt of Parliament.”

Our Constitution provides that no person is above the law. Indeed, Hon

Members of Parliament are not above the law. Luckily, it is obvious that Hon Members are mindful of this and no person should canvass this point, which is rather spurious. Nevertheless, the Constitution gives certain limited immunity to MPs and it is for good reason. Any invitation that would obstruct a sitting MP is not acceptable by our 1992 Constitution. All law-abiding citizens must respect this as a provision of the highest law of the Land.

Notably, the provisions allow space to try an MP. This is where practicality comes in. In the case of Hon Dan Abodakpi, the court hearings were held on Mondays and recess periods of Parliament. This allows trial to go on and satisfy the constitutional provisions. Court sittings can even be held from day- to-day during vacation and with a particular case being heard exclusively by the Judge to expedite trial, and fulfil the constitutional requirement. Students of the Rule of Law, Separation of Powers and constitutionalism will appreciate this position.

During the First Republic of Ghana, the Preventive Detention Act (PDA) was applied to detain opposition MPs, only for them to be absent from the

House for 14 days and then dismissed from Parliament. This is dangerous for human rights and democracy, as this can be employed by criminal charges and trials which will prevent the people's representatives from representing them.

Our constitutional injunction against cross carpeting is also to protect representative government. The price for liberty is eternal vigilance. If 20 opposition MPs at any time should be put before court by a regime, which aims at destroying representative governance, what should we do? This is not the day for visionaries to start protesting.

Suppose trials are over the place, Bawku, Tumu, Enchi, Aflao, et cetera, can Parliament function? What if arraignments before courts are timed just before crucial votes in the House?

The history of these privileges must be studied by lovers of freedom. In England, at one stage, the Crown did all it could to inhibit Parliament with arrests, et cetera. Hence, the need for protection which evolved till we have captured it in our Constitution. We need sober reflection of these matters. Our Constitution allows for a possibility that some day, a President's party would be in the minority. Should we

allow him to use certain tactics to cripple the majority through trials?

Hon Members, the constitutional document that we the people of Ghana gave ourselves in 1992 contemplates that the exercise of political authority will function in a way that limits Government and secures liberty. An important cog in the proper functioning of that mechanism is the aspiration of our founders that the three co-equal branches of Govern- ment will work independently. As noted by the late learned Chief Justice Wiredu:

“The scope and extent of the doctrine of the separation of powers...under the constitution, 1992 is to ensure that each arm of state in the performance of its duties within the framework of the Constitution, 1992 …act[s] independently and should not be obstructed in the exercise of its legitimate duties or be unduly interfered with”.

It is therefore of critical importance that in the dealings of arms of government and other State actors, care is taken to ensure that legitimate duties are not interfered with or
Mr Speaker 1:09 p.m.
obstructed. The Constitution must at all times be the guiding light.
As Hon Members are aware, our laws provide that civil and criminal processes coming from any court or place out of Parliament shall not be served on, or executed in relation to the Speaker or Member or Clerk to Parliament while he is on his way to, attending at, or returning from, any proceedings of Parliament.
As I understand it, and as our courts will not tarry to agree, the purpose of this constitutional provision is to ensure that the legitimate Business of Parliament is not disrupted. These privileges and immunities ensure that any agency exercising some form of the executive power does not use these powers to stultify, obstruct and in any manner act to affect the lawful exercise of parliamentary duty by Parliament as a whole or by its individual members. Parliamentary privileges and immunities are considered essential for Parliament, as an institution, and its Members, as representatives of the people, to fulfil their functions. They do not exist for the personal benefit of the Speaker, Members or Clerks. The object of parliamentary privileges and immunities is to safeguard the freedom, the authority and the dignity of Parliament.
The privileges and immunities were never intended to place Members of this House above the very laws our democracy mandates us to make; neither were they intended to secure an absolute immunity for Members in a way that is reminiscent of the dealings of despots and dictators.
I am reminded particularly of the words of the late Justice of the Supreme Court, Amua-Sekyi, J.S.C. who said with an eloquence of which he was known, that:
“The medieval fiction that the ‘king can do no wrong', which the sophist interpreted to mean that if the action was wrong, then it was not that of the king, has no place in a republican setting which prides itself on all citizens being equal under the law and therefore obliged to act in conformity with it.”

Hon Members, in any event, the House does not Sit all year round, neither does it undertake its activities all year round. Similarly, Members are not perpetually on “their way to, attending at, or returning from, any proceedings of Parliament.”

There are periods of recess and there are periods within a week when the House does not Sit or work in Committees. A process from a court or a place may be served on that Member during those periods, or during times which do not offend article 117. Also, as has been the practice, the courts, noting the constitutional injunction, have been minded to schedule court sittings to accommodate the legislative calendar so as to “ensure the smooth administration of the judicial, legislative or executive governance of the State”. It is my prayer that any agency desirous of serving civil and criminal processes on the Speaker or any Member or Clerk to Parliament remains mindful of what these relevant Articles say and the gloss that time-tested practices have conferred on Parliament. Hon Members, to do this in any other way breaches the 1992 Constitution.

Hon Ayariga has agreed to appear before the court by 1 pm. He is hereby accordingly released today. I trust that reasonable arrangement will be made to try him (as he is surely not above the law), but in a manner which will enable him to represent the good

people of Bawku Central. In the interim, as he is presumed innocent also by operation of the law till proven guilty, I trust the Court will also act accordingly.

This is my considered ruling on this matter raised by the Hon Ayariga.

Hon Members, at the Commencement of Public Business.

If the Hon First Deputy Speaker will take the Chair.

Item numbered 4, Presentation of Papers by the Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs.
PAPERS 1:09 p.m.
Mr Speaker 1:09 p.m.
Item numbered 5. The National Road Safety Authority Bill, 2019, at the Consideration Stage.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 1:09 p.m.
STAGE 1:09 p.m.
  • [Continuation of debate from 31/05/ 19]
    • Mr Samuel Ayeh-Paye 1:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 11, subclause (2), paragraph (d), before “Inspectorate” insert “Regulatory.”
    Mr Speaker, it will then be;
    “Regulatory Inspectorate and Compliance Directorate.”
    Mr Chireh 1:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman needs to tell us why he is adding; “Regulatory”. This is because where it is, if it says; “Inspectorate and Compliance Directorate”, “Inspecto- rate” means they have to inspect and find out whether things have been done or not. “Compliance” is to ensure that they are complied with. I do not know what the term “Regulatory” would add because the “Inspectorate” and “Compliance” are regulatory in nature. We enforce the regulations, which are somewhere else, but to now add it --
    Is the Hon Chairman saying that the terms “Regulatory” or “Inspectorate” are also “directorate”? However, we are combining two things that go together -- “Inspectorate” and “Compliance”. We could have one “directorate” but if we are adding “Regulatory”, what is it for?
    So how many people should be in this “directorate”? “A Regulatory Inspectorate and Compliance” is the correct thing to do; therefore, adding “Regulatory” is absolutely unne- cessary unless he can explain to me why he is adding “Regulatory”.
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 1:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the other day when we considered the other clauses, we said that not only the inspectorate and compliance orders will be in the “regulatory”. The Hon Minister for Transport will then give regulations of which there will be other things that need to be regulated by the Authority, which is different from compliance and the inspec- torate.
    Mr Speaker, that is why we want to add “Regulatory Inspectorate and Compliance” so that it will embody all other objectives that the Authority wants to achieve.
    Mr Chireh 1:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my argument is that if we want to comply with something and somebody goes
    to do inspection to ensure com- pliance, that person is enforcing; but we must have regulations as to what could be done. So if I go to inspect and they have done it, and I say they should comply with what they have done or have not done, we do not need to put “Regulatory” there to make this complete; “Inspectorate and Compliance Directorate” is adequate.
    Mr Speaker, the regulations would come. As we know, when we pass regulations, these would all then be enforceable and we would make sure that they are complied with. That is why we do not need to add “Regulatory”, which is already part of what we would do. It is a simple thing to have regulations about road safety.
    If I see that one's tyres are not good, and as I inspect, I say what one is doing is bad; one is using old tyres, so he or she should comply with the standards of fixing tyres. That is enforcement of regulations.
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 1:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, let us see the regulatory powers of the Authority. We have the private transport companies such as the VIP Jeoun Company Limited. Today, we have VVIP Transport Limited and
    “VVVIP Transport Company” all sprayed in red. When they commit any offence or are involved in accidents, media men find it difficult to know which company is VIP or
    VVIP.
    So this Regulator, the National Road Safety Authority, will regulate and license these companies with colour codes. If VIP is registered with red and the inscription is “VIP”, another company cannot be registered red and named “VVIP”.
    These and others are the regulatory powers of the Authority. That is why we would want to separate the department that would be in charge of that regulatory power inspectorate, and compliance. I believe that department is very important and I urge Hon Members to accept this amendment.
    1.21 p.m -- [MR FIRST
    DEPUTY SPEAKER IN THE 1:09 p.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:09 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Tamale Central?
    Alhaji Inusah A. B. Fuseini 1:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the amendment proposed by the Hon Chairman.
    The National Road Safety Authority itself has been established
    Alhaji Inusah A. B. Fuseini 1:09 p.m.


    as a regulatory body. That is the object of the law. It has been established as a regulatory body, and that is captured in the second line of the long title, “to coordinate and regulate activities.”

    When we look throughout, we see compliance of standards but not regulations. So we added it to complete exactly what the law seeks to do; firstly, to establish the National Road Safety Authority as a regulatory body and, secondly, to regulate the activities of other regulatory bodies.
    Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just as the Hon Ranking Member of the Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee has said, when we look at the functions of the Authority, we stress in clause 3 (1) (e):
    “(e) co-ordinate, monitor and evaluate road safety activities, programmes and strategies;”
    It has evaluation, and 3(1) (h):
    “(h) ensure compliance with any laid down road safety standards and procedures for the development, use and provision of any road safety related infrastructure, service or undertaking;”
    Mr Speaker, as the Hon Ranking Member of the Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee has indicated, the Authority itself could also issue notices to regulate --
    “(j) issue notices in the form of directives, procedures or cautions to persons to provide for or correct irregularity in procedures, standards, practices and operations in order to prevent or minimise road traffic crashes, fatalities and injuries;
    Mr Speaker, this is another authority that the Authority is clothed with. This should find expression in the directorates. We have a directorate that relates to regulation, inspection and compliance.
    I thought, maybe, the issue is why not separate the regulatory function from inspectorate and compliance. We could do that but, certainly, we need regulation.
    Mr Chireh 1:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this was exactly the point I made; but if we create a directorate, we would put three functions. However, if we look at inspection and compliance, that is to regulate. It is either put in regulatory directorate, in which case the person does with compliance and inspection at the same time -- If we would want to create one directorate with three
    functions, that is a bit of a problem. If we add a regulatory directory, I have no difficulty — where we are adding it, which has something very similar to people who want to regulate. This is because one cannot inspect without authority. He must have the regulation that the thing is wrong or good, for which reason he goes to inspect. He has to enforce, and that is when we talk of compliance.
    Mr Speaker, but if we now say, “Regulatory Inspectorate and Compliance Directorate”, how could it be? If we think it is a regulatory function, we should let the two constitute the regulatory function, in my view. If we would want to have a directorate for regulation, what does that mean? What would they do?
    Dr Anthony A. Osei 1:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not follow the argument of my Hon Colleague, the Hon Member for Wa West. I suspect what he wants to tell us is that the Regulatory Directorate should stand on its own, but he cannot say inspectorate and compliance constitute regulation. That cannot be the case. I think because of the importance of regulation, it is better that it may stand on its own. Then, the regulatory must be there; but equating compliance and standards to
    regulations, I do not know where he got the idea from.
    In my view, if the Hon Chairman does not mind, instead of adding it to “compliance” and “standards”, we have a line that says regulatory directorate. That may satisfy him.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the very issue of my Hon Colleague from Wa West is that we can have three units in one directorate but subclause 2(b) provides for research, monitoring and evaluation directorates. These are three units in one directorate. That shoots down the argument he made.
    However, I would want to believe -- The Hon Minister is here. This is a matter of policy. If we would not create too many directorates, I want to believe that we could create a directorate for regulations.
    Mr Speaker, if we look at the functions, “regulation”, in (j), is to 1:09 p.m.
    “(j) issue notices in the form of directives, procedures or cautions to persons to provide for or correct irregularity in procedures, standards, practices and operations in order to prevent
    Mr Speaker, if we look at the functions, “regulation”, in (j), is to 1:09 p.m.


    or minimise road traffic crashes, fatalities and injuries”;

    Mr Speaker, this is a directorate that is so much dependent on research work. So I believe it could stand alone if the Hon Minister does not find it offensive.

    I agree with the Hon Member for Wa West that we could separate it, but it is not to say that they are units in one basket. As I have said, we have three units in basket in subclause 2(b). I think, going forward, we can do it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:29 p.m.
    I would want you to guide us. What role would the regulatory directorate perform; just issue the regulations? Would that be sufficient to say they just do regulations, or they would ensure compliance? Are they different? If one body issues the regulations, another ensures the compliance? It is when you ensure compliance that you regulate.

    That is why I think, probably, they belong to one unit because the regulation itself is the function of the entire Authority, but somebody would

    ensure that it is complied with, then the Authority would ensure regulation.

    Anyway, I also think that “Planning and Programmes Directorate” and Research, Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate” talk about the same thing.

    Hon Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation. I believe the first two can be merged into one directorate.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, Planning and Programmes Directorate cannot be monitoring and evaluation; the two are completely different functions. I do not do any planning at all, but I do monitoring and evaluation.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:29 p.m.
    At the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA), they have a director for Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:29 p.m.
    DVLA? That is part of the problem they have. [Laughter.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:29 p.m.
    Is that a problem?
    Dr A. A . Osei 1:29 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Chireh 1:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you have headed DVLA before, so you
    understand the issue, but we are talking about creating directorates. The whole function of this Authority is regulation — [Interruption.] It is. I am telling you. [Laughter.]
    A directorate should not be created separately to make or enforce regulations. What is compliance? My point is that if we let it stand as a directorate, it would be superfluous because everything about this Authority is regulations.
    It is about how to regulate road safety and how to regulate what should happen so that people do not have accidents or crashes. So my plea is that we do not need to add “Regulatory”. The whole function is regulation. Mr Speaker, “Compliance” and “Inspectorate” are all right. I am advising him, but if he does not agree, I would not insist.
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 1:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not think adding “Regulatory” subtracts anything from the directorate that we could want set up. As Hon Yieleh Chireh said, the main function of the Authority is to regulate. If we add “Regulatory” it means we are not leaving anything under the regulatory powers of the Authority.
    Mr Speaker, talking about giving it a different directorate, if we look at
    the amendments that would follow after this, we could give the Board some flexibility to create a new directorate if they deem it fit.
    So in creating a different direc- torate, and at the same time giving them that flexibility to create new directorates is not necessary. It would create a lot of directorates. I believe it is better we add “Regulatory” to the “Inspectorate and then the Com- pliance Directorate” so that we would give the Board the flexibility to create new directorates if they deem it fit.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 1:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 11, add the following new subclause:
    “(3) The Board may establish any other directorate that the Board considers necessary”
    Dr Abdul-Rashid H. Pelpuo 1:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I wonder whether the repetition of the word “Board” in the same sentence cannot be replaced with “it”.
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 1:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:29 p.m.
    The question was not directed at you. I would give the Floor to somebody else.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe the Hon Chairman should complete -- The reason is that he stops at “the Board considers necessary”.
    Suppose the Board considers a committee to take vacations, this would make him do so. So it has to be necessary for the effective functions of the Authority and not just “it considers necessary”.
    We can have a crazy Board that would create a committee that has nothing to do with the body. We should not give them room. We have seen examples elsewhere. It should read: “considers necessary for the effective functions of the Authority” to relate to the work of the Authority, not just to say “it is necessary”.
    Mr Chireh 1:29 p.m.
    I do not see Dr Akoto Osei's argument.

    We do not need to repeat all that. When the Board considers it necessary to create a directorate, it

    means that they have seen the need to create that directorate, and it would enhance the work of the Authority.

    Once something is necessary, it means it must be done. That is the English language. [Interruption.] If it is necessary, and the Board decides that it is necessary, it means that in their view, they can effectively support the work of the Authority. I support the amendment fully; let us go for it.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we look at paragraph (q) under “Functions of the Authority” it reads:
    “perform any other relevant function for the attainment of the object of the Authority”.
    Now, the Board is the governing body of the Authority, and they ensure the performance of those functions. The functions are all relevant for the attainment of the objects of the Authority. So it may be superfluous if we added those words as being prescribed by the Hon Member for Old Tafo, and indeed, the Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation.
    To that extent, I may think that it may not be necessary, safe to add the word “relevant” to read: “The Board may establish any other relevant directorate that the Board considers necessary”.
    The relevance would be being able to relate to the functions of the attainment of the object of the Authority. Otherwise, it may be another cure if we added those other words. We could just qualify it.
    “The Board may establish any other relevant directorate that the Board considers necessary”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:29 p.m.
    “Relevant” and “necessary”. [Laughter.]
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, relevant and necessary are equal but different words.
    Mr Speaker, secondly, we do not need to add what the Hon Leader has provided. When we bring this provision after subclause (3) or before it, we can only construe this provision:
    “The Board may establish any other directorate that the Board considers necessary.”
    Mr Speaker, “other” can only be construed in terms of what comes before it. So in the nature of planning and programmes, in the nature of research, so any other -- so in that nature. So it cannot be the committee for taking holidays. It should be in the nature of what goes above.
    So Mr Speaker, I also agree with the Hon Majority Leader that this one interpreted in law is ejusdem generis. It can only be in the nature of what is up there. We do not need relevance. It would be in that nature.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:39 p.m.
    I want to ask you to persuade me. I am behaving like a judge. Do we actually need this clause?
    Alhaji I.A.B.Fuseini 1:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was part of those who proposed the clause, so I have to justify it.
    First of all, it exists in most of the legislations that we have passed, and secondly, it is consistent with the practice of this House. Thirdly, it grants the Board the discretion to add to secure the effectiveness of the Authority where necessary.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:39 p.m.
    It also gives room for people to establish frivolous directorates just to accommodate other people. That is the other side.
    Mr Chireh 1:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as you said at the beginning, if you read the subclause (1), it says:
    Mr Chireh 1:39 p.m.


    “the Authority may, for the performance of the functions of the Authority under this Act, establish directorates of the Authority”.

    That one gives the need, so when I saw the amendment I thought that it was really not necessary. It does not worry if we leave it there, because that Authority is in subclause (1). At any time, they can easily establish a directorate.

    That is what it states, so we do not need to come and say this again, but if they insist on it --
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support Hon Yieleh Chireh. Since we have subclause (1), we do not need this new clause. It is superfluous.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:39 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, what do you think? I think subclause (1) actually takes care of that.
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 1:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, having gone back to read clause 11(1) again, I believe it tries to cure the very thing that the new proposed clause is meant to do. I would therefore seek your indulgence to drop this amendment.
    Mr Speaker 1:39 p.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Agbodza 1:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to find out whether we can make a little amendment to clause 11(1). It currently reads;
    “The Authority may, for the performance of the functions of the Authority under this Act…”
    I am asking whether we could not make this better to read;
    “The Authority may, for the performance of its function under this Act, establish a directorate and Authority”.
    This is because we have already mentioned that “Authority may for the performance of the function of the Authority”. What else could we have been talking about?
    We have already said “The Authority”, so my point is that we do not need to use “The Authority” twice in that rendition. We should change it to;
    “The Authority may, for the performance of its functions under this Act, establish a directorate of the Authority”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “Authority” should not be
    misconstrued as the Board. Clause 11(1) provides for the performance of the functions of the Authority under this Act, to establish additional directorates of the Authority.
    The amendment being proposed relates to the Board, which is the operating vehicle. It is for the Board to do that. The headnote of clause 11 is “Directorates of the Authority”, which is right. In that regard, if we want to maintain subclause (1), we should change “Authority” to “Board”.
    If we want to delete this new proposal from the Committee, then we should rather delete the word “Authority” in subclause (1) and insert in its place “Board” to read:
    “The Board may, for the performance of the functions of the Authority under this Act, establish relevant directorates of the Authority”.
    It is for the Board to do that. How does the Authority on its own do that? It is the Board that should do that.
    So, in principle, if we are to delete the proposal from the Hon Chairman, then we should amend clause 11(1), because the operating vehicle is the Board and not the Authority itself.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:39 p.m.
    Can we look at the interpretation section?
    “Authority” means the Authority established under this Act.”
    “Board” means the governing body of the Authority esta- blished under this Act”.
    I believe they refer to the same thing.
    Hon Minister, let me hear you.
    Mr Kwaku O. Asiamah 1:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not intend to challenge your authority, but I want to seek clarification per the decision you just gave to refer to the interpretation section.
    Are you by this section saying that wherever we see “Authority”, we can interpret it to be the Board? It is not.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that the rationale behind giving these additional powers to the Board is that we interpreted it that the Authority is the National Road Safety Authority, which has a Board, so the Board is different from the Authority itself.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:39 p.m.
    The Board is a sub-component of the Authority, but the Authority by word is only a frame. It is the Board plus
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:39 p.m.


    officers, employees and even contractors and assignees that would constitute the Board.

    So, in this instance, it may not be possible for the Authority to do things, but it acts through its officers and Board members.
    Mr K. O. Asiamah 1:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my view is that if we say the Authority, then the Chief Executive Officer or the head of the institution can then establish that function following that he runs the Authority.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are not deleting the whole provision. I agree that the Authority is an artificial creation. It can only act through its governing Board, and that is why clause 11(2) is important.
    The opening phrase of clause 11(2) tells us that it is the Board that would do that, that is why the opening phrase, “Without limiting subsection (1)” is there. It reads:
    “Without limiting subsection (1) the Board shall establish the following directorates…”
    So it is the Authority -- it is not “the Authority shall establish the following directorates for the Authority”. It is the Board, but it acts
    for the Authority, and that is why the opening phrase is there. The Authority cannot act at all; it is the Board that acts for the Authority.
    Dr A.A.Osei 1:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think we ought to cure this deficiency by going to clause 11(1) and replacing “Authority” with “Board”. Clause 11(2) for the first time brings the “Board”, but clause 11(1) says “Authority”. It did not say “Board”, so it is better we replace “Authority” with “Board”, so that it is very clear.
    Clause 11(2) would then follow automatically. Where does the phrase, “the Board” come from? Clause 11 (1) should read “The Board may…”, so that there is no ambiguity. That would solve the problem.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:49 a.m.
    Hon Members, there could also be an alternative I would want to propose. The Board, once established, becomes a directorate of the Authority. So instead of capturing it as:
    “The Authority may, for the performance of the functions of the Authority under this Act, establish…”,
    we could capture it as:
    Mr Kwame G. Agbodza 1:49 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe it should be captured as “shall have directorates” because without the word “directorate”, it would not be able to function. So instead of the use of the word “may”, I believe it should be captured as “shall have”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:49 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Wa West, you shouted “No”.
    Mr Chireh 1:49 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the phrase already provided would do. The Board can decide that they can perform all the functions and create divisions. So the use of the word “may” is still appropriate, but once the Hon Member insists on the use of “shall” - - in fact, we also know that in court, sometimes, the two words are used interchangeably, depending on the circumstances. [Interruption] --
    Mr Speaker, the court sometimes may interpret the word “may” to mean “shall”. The word “shall” as a term in drafting has lost meaning in many cases. Initially, where “shall” is used, it meant “must”. So we have even started introducing words that are more emphatic than “shall”. We could have a false “shall”. In drafting language, we realise that in many cases, we have a false “shall”. However, once it satisfies the Hon Majority Leader, we should use “shall” instead.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:49 a.m.
    Hon Adwoa Safo, I have not heard your voice in a while.
    Ms Safo 1:49 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I tend to agree with the proposed amendment to use the phrase “shall have”. Mr Speaker, I believe that other Hon Members have given reasons for that, but this is just to draw your attention to the Public Procurement Act --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:49 a.m.
    Hon Member, give me just a minute.
    Hon Members, having regard to the state of Business of the House, I direct that the House Sits outside the regular Sitting hours.
    Ms Safo 1:49 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was drawing your attention to a similar provision that appears in the Public Procurement (Amendment) Act; it is just to guide us and it is in tandem with the proposed amendment by the Hon Majority Leader.
    Mr Speaker, in section 8, it says 1:49 a.m.
    “The Authority shall have a Secretariat with the divisions and structures determined by the Board as may be necessary for the effective execution of its functions”.
    It therefore buttresses the point by the Hon Majority Leader that the determination of a creation of directorates is the mandate of the Board. It uses the phrase “shall have”, and it again gives that authority or mandate to the Board to determine and not the Authority.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:49 a.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Members, I am advised that there is a consensus rendition. We would like to hear it so that I put the Question on it.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:49 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that we could simply have a construction like this:
    “The Authority shall, for the effective performance of the functions under this Act, have directorates”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:49 a.m.
    Would you still want the word “effective” there?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:49 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, that is the common construction. Instead of saying “effective and efficient”, sometimes, we could just say “effective”. So it should be captured as “…effective performance of the functions under this Act, have directorates.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:49 a.m.
    Hon Members, this is the new proposed rendition, and it is for the consideration of the House.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 11 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 12 -- Regional offices of the Authority
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 1:49 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 12, subclause (2), delete “a regional office” and insert “the office of the Authority in a region”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would then read 1:49 a.m.
    “A Regional Road Safety Director shall head the office of the Authority in a region.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:49 a.m.
    So should it be captured as “in a”, or should it be “in the”?
    Some Hon Members 1:49 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it should be, “in a region”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:49 a.m.
    Hon Members, we would move on to the item numbered 5(iv).
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 1:49 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 12, subclause (4), line 1, before “functions”, delete “the” and insert “any other related”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 1:49 a.m.
    “A regional office of the Authority shall perform any other related functions of the Authority as the Board may direct.”
    Mr Chireh 1:49 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not believe that we need to change the original rendition because the office in a region has to perform the functions of the Authority. The primary function has not been given, and yet we say “any other related functions”. What other related functions? It should be where and how it is now, and that is, “…perform the functions of the Authority as the Board may direct” and not “any other related functions.”
    The primary function is to do things that the Authority does nationwide, but in that region. If we put it as “any other related”, what other related functions? It must be just the functions that are prescribed by the Authority.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:59 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I oppose the amendment in terms of the very provision. The regional office of the Authority exists in the region as the Authority, and that is true. So when one finds “may direct” ending that sentence, it can
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:59 a.m.
    Mr Chairman, why do you want to start with “any other”?
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 1:59 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are talking about road safety and safety as we all know, is supreme and we do not want to restrict the Authority in performing functions that would ensure road safety. So in order to make the Authority a bit flexible to deal with safety issues, we say, “any other related function”.
    Mr Speaker, “any other related functions” means issues relating to road safety. If we restrict them by the way the Hon Member for Wa West has proposed -- and during the discharge of their duties get to the point that somebody has built a house close to a road which exposes people to danger in the usage of the road, it is related to road safety and the National Road Safety Authority must be given the powers to handle such issues.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:59 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, look at clause 3(1) (q) which reads :
    “perform any other function that is necessary for the attainment of the object of the Authority.”
    That is the function of the National Road Safety Authority. So if the regional office performs the functions of the Authority, it does not need “any other” again because that power is already part of the powers of the Authority.
    Mr Chireh 1:59 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, what the Hon chairman argued cannot even make legal sense because they cannot do “any other related functions” which have not been given in the Act. What we are talking about may be a function under another institution or another regulator. The regional office can only perform the functions that the Authority at the national level performs.
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 1:59 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, instead of withdrawing the amendment, I would like to further amend it for it to read: “A regional office of the Authority shall perform any functions of the Authority as the Board may direct”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:59 a.m.
    Let me listen to the Hon Deputy Minority Leader.
    Ms Safo 1:59 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that the Hon Chairman should take a cue from your good self. I believe that the referral to section 3(1)(q) gives that holistic function of the Authority. So if we refer to “the functions” here, it encompasses all and other related functions.
    So, Hon Chairman, I believe that Mr Speaker gave you a guide, and you should accordingly take a cue.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:59 a.m.
    In that case, the amendment should actually be to delete “ as the Board may direct”. We leave the word “the” at the place it is and add “of the Authority” and end there.
    Mr Chireh 1:59 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I move that we leave the subclause as it is, but delete the rest of the words after “Authority”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:59 a.m.
    No, the earlier amendment has been abandoned, and the new amendment is to delete all the words after “Authority” in subclause 4, line 2. It that all right?
    Hon Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation?
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:59 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, when the Hon Member started, he said the rendition as it is should stay.
    It cannot stay as it is. He should say that he wants to amend it; it cannot be as it is.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:59 a.m.
    Very well, let us make progress.
    The new rendition would now be:
    “A regional office of the Authority shall perform the functions of the Authority”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:59 a.m.
    Item numbered 5(v)?
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 1:59 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 12, subclause (5), line 1, delete “Road Safety Director” and insert “Office of the Authority” and in line 2, delete “Units of the Metropolitan, Municipal and” and insert “Unit of the”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would then read 1:59 a.m.
    “The Regional Office of the Authority shall collaborate with the Road Safety Unit of the district assemblies for the purpose of establishment of road safety committees in the districts.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:59 a.m.
    Hon Members, the proposed amendment is for the consideration of the House.
    Hon Member for Wa West, I thought you wanted to say something.
    Mr Chireh 2:09 a.m.
    How the Hon Chairman read it was not clear but with the explanation he has given, I think it is all right. What it means is that he has amended the first part to read “Office of the Authority” and then, with the rest, we only leave out the details. Because as he correctly said, “district assemblies” include metropolitan and municipal assemblies.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 12 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 13 ordered to stand part of Bill.

    Clause 14 -- Functions of the Director-General
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 2:09 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 14, subclause (1), line 2, delete “is” and in line 3, delete “functions under the this Act” and insert “the functions of the Director- General”.
    Clause 14(1) would then read:
    “(1)The Director-General is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the affairs of the Authority and answerable to the Board in the performance of the functions of the Director- General.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:09 a.m.
    Why do we want to delete “is” in line 2? Does it change anything?
    Mr Chireh 2:09 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am totally confused about his amendment because the Director-General is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the affairs of the Authority and he is answerable to the Board in the performance of functions under this Act.
    I do not know what we want to amend there, but if we want to say, “under the functions of the Director-
    General”, that is a different matter. As it is, the first “is” is faraway, so it needs to be repeated in the other line, where he is answerable. We cannot leave it to be part of that again. So unless the Hon Chairman wants to amend something substantive, I do not think there is the need for it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:09 a.m.
    I am still waiting to understand why we want to delete “is”.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:09 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we want to delete it because there is one preambular phrase -- “The Director-General is”, so the first one is the, “Director-General is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the affairs of the Authority and answerable” -- To get it clearly, if we had divided it into paragraphs, it would have been:
    “The Director-General is
    (a) responsible for the day- to-day administration of the affairs of the Authority
    (b) answerable”
    We would not bring “is” again because it is defining -- it is because they are combined, that is why we are not getting it clearly. It is defining “the Director-General is responsible for the
    day-to-day administration of the affairs of the Authority and answerable to the Board in the performance of --”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:09 a.m.
    Hon Member, by your explanation, they are two different things and you are trying to combine them by “and”? They are not the same things put together by “and”. They are different things; he or she is responsible for the day-to-day administration and is also responsible to the Board. They are two different functions and I think the “is” should stay because the ideas are different. Anyway, I am not supposed to take part in the debate.
    Mr Chireh 2:09 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, you are absolutely right. He defeated his own argument because he has not paragraphed it. If he had it paragraphed, it means that he would repeat “ is answerable”. Once he has not -- As I said, the first “is” is far away from the other one, so it must be repeated. [Laughter]. So you are perfectly right, that we put the Question but I do not agree to this amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:09 a.m.
    I think that the proposed amendment may be abandoned. Hon Chairman, what do you think?
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 2:09 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, taking a cue from you and listening to
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:09 a.m.
    Do you think it is necessary? So where are the functions again? The functions are under the Act and they cannot be anywhere else. So I think there is nothing wrong with the clause and we should let it stand as it is. When those doing the winnowing are tired, they confuse us. I am sure they got tired along the way. I think that the clause should be as it is.
    Hon K. T. Hammond, I am giving you the Floor now.
    Mr Hammond 2:09 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was actually rising to say hello. I have not seen you in a long while, that is why. [Laughter.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:09 a.m.
    I thought you wanted to contribute. There are only a few matters you take keen interest in, such as the energy sector. I thought for once, you wanted a change.
    Mr Hammond 2:09 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not have that authority to --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:09 a.m.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr Chireh 2:09 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I recommend that we leave the subclause as it stands, because as you rightly said, anything we are talking about, including the functions of the Director-General is in this Act. So we do not need to change anything there.
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 2:09 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the reason for “the functions of the Director-General” replacing the “the functions under the Act” is to specify -- This is because there are so many functions others would perform in the Act, so in saying, “functions of the Director-General”, we just want to specify that we are talking about the functions that would be performed by the Director-General.
    Mr Chireh 2:09 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we want to help the Hon Chairman and he is complicating his own case. In this Bill, we have functions of the Director- General. When it is passed, it would be an Act that says he has functions. So if we even say, “under this Act”, we are also referring at the same time to those functions that have been spelt out for him. We do not need to spell them out again.
    Why does the Hon Chairman want to make an amendment when there is no need to do so? He should withdraw so we move fast, otherwise, he is delaying himself.
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 2:09 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I withdraw this amendment, so that clause 14 (1) would stand as it is.

    Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 15 -- Road safety inspectors
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 2:09 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, subclause (1), line 2, before “Inspectorate”, insert “Regulatory,”.
    Mr Speaker, this is a straight- forward and consequential amend- ment.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:19 p.m.
    Today, where are the other Members of the team? I cannot see Hon Ahiafor and the Hon Member for Daboya.
    Mr Chireh 2:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as you are pointing out, the Side of the Majority are in a conference; everybody is talking, including the Hon Minister. He is always talking with somebody and not listening to what we are doing for him.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:19 p.m.
    Hon Member, you are out of order.
    Mr K. O. Asiamah — rose --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:19 p.m.
    Hon Minister, are you supporting the proposed amendment? I have already ruled the Hon Member out of order.
    Mr K. O. Asiamah 2:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want to make an appeal to you. Hon Fifi Kwetey who started this Bill and abandoned it is here, so I would like him to support us.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:19 p.m.
    Hon Minister, you are out of order. [Laughter.]
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:19 p.m.
    Hon Members, item numbered (ix). Hon Chairman, have you already moved the amendment on item numbered (viii)?
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 2:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are on item number (viii).
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 2:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, subclause (2), opening phrase, line 3, before “transport” insert “road”.
    Mr Speaker, we have many modes of transportation but we are talking about road safety, and so, indeed, we are referring to road transport.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:19 p.m.
    Hon Members, item numbered (ix)
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 2:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, subclause (2), paragraph (a), at end, add “of road transport operators”.
    Mr Speaker, we are specifically talking about road transport, and we are referring to the operators of the road transport section of the transport Department.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:19 p.m.
    Hon Members, item numbered (x).
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 2:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, subclause (4), opening phrase, line 2, delete “subregulation” and insert “sub- section”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:19 p.m.
    The amendment should rather be, delete “subsection” and insert “regulation” because “subsection” is already there. Is that right?
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 2:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, rightly so.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:19 p.m.
    And so we should delete subsection (2) and insert regulation (2). Is that right?
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 2:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want to seek your indulgence to drop this amendment. This advertisement came into effect when there was a mishap in the Bill at the winnowing level. And so the new clause is taking care of that amendment so I will drop it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:19 p.m.
    Very well.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:19 p.m.
    We will move to the item numbered (xi).
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 2:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, subclause (4), paragraph (a), line 1, delete “procedure, standard” and insert “standard, procedure”.
    Mr Chireh 2:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is no need to interchange it. First of all, we are talking about examining whether any procedure, standard, a rule or regulation that is reasonably required for the endeavour is being complied with. And so there is no issue of making it a standard procedure because it is a procedure and a standard. They are separate. And so this amendment would not fly.
    Mr Agbodza 2:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we read the clause again, I think the Hon Chairman should reconsider it. If, for instance, I say, “examine whether any procedure, standard, rule or regulation that is reasonably required for the endeavour is being complied with,” I think it should read the other way round.
    We are trying to find out whether there is a breach of any of these things. But if we say, if any of them are being complied with — because the point is that we want all of them to be complied with. So I believe the rendition appears wrongly. And so I would propose that it should rather read;

    Mr Speaker, the point is that any of these must be complied with.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:19 p.m.
    But the amendment is to rearrange them, and the issue is whether we want a rearrangement.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we want the rearrangement, because when we go to “Functions”, paragraph (h) is on standards and procedure. When we go to paragraph (i), I think we have amended that one, paragraph (j), where procedure came first. We amended it to read, “standards and procedure”, and we want consistency.
    When we move to paragraph (l), it also reads, “procedure and standards”, which was amended to “standards and procedure.” And so we want it to have some consistency, which one comes first, and that is why we are amending this. It is the same effect, except —
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:19 p.m.
    But in all that, you have used “and”— “standard and procedure”, but in this amendment, it is “standard, procedure”. So it would not bring it in conformity with the —
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the comma comes in because we are dealing with many. It does not stand alone. It is in conjunction -- But we

    cannot be introducing the word “and” throughout. The comma replaces the use of the word “and”. But it does not change anything. It is just for consistency.
    Mr Chireh 2:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it changes everything. If we say, “standard procedure” — I am saying they should stand as they are because we are talking about procedure as well as standard and the rest of them follow. People are asking, why “any” — It is because we are saying, “any procedure, any standard, any rule, or any regulation that is reasonably required for the endeavour is being complied with”. So as it stands, there should be no alternation or changing of positions of this, and making standard now, “qualified procedure”. No.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:29 p.m.
    I do not think that it would make any difference either way, so I will put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 2:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, subclause (4), paragraph (c), lines 1 and 2, delete “period that the inspector
    considers necessary” and insert “a period of not more than forty-eight hours”.
    Mr Speaker, we are giving the Road Safety Inspector the power to confiscate an item that poses danger to the road. Looking at how the paragraph stands, it gives the Road Safety Inspector discretionary powers to decide when or how long he would detain those seized items. Here, we are giving the Road Safety Inspector, at least, 48 hours to decide what to do with the seized items.
    Mr Rockson-Nelson E.K. Dafeamekpor 2:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree that this was a matter we considered at the winnowing level but I was hoping the Hon Chairman of the Committee would -- [Interrup- tion.] We did so because this would dovetail into the constitutional provision of producing a witness or arraigning an accused person before court within 48 hours. We could not have been promulgating a law outside that remit. So this is the basis upon which we are effecting this amend- ment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:29 p.m.
    Hon Member, are you equating items seized with detention of human beings? If I am to seize your shoes, is that the same as detaining you? [Laughter.]
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we made the point that even where human beings are arrested on a supposed charge of committing a criminal offence, we are supposed to produce or arraign them before a court within 48 hours. With that thinking or jurisprudence behind that phraseology in the Constitution, it would just be fair that when one seizes items, one must within 48 hours make this arrangement that we speak of.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:29 p.m.
    We must be careful what we want the seizure to achieve. Seize and detain for the period that the Inspector considers necessary, an equipment or device by means of or in relation to which it is believed, that the road safety standard, a provision of this Act or any other enactment have been contravened.
    Are we giving the Road Safety Inspector the power to punish? Is the seizure a punishment because it appears to follow from a contraven- tion? That is the problem I want your opinion on. If it follows from a contravention and he has to seize it, whether it is 48 hours or not, is that a punishment? If it is so, is it to be given to the Road Safety Inspector?
    Yes, Hon Member for Adaklu?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:29 p.m.
    Hon Members, reading it again, I think the purpose is to determine whether or not that equipment is being maintained
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:29 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, you would have the last word.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I opposed this at the winnowing level but the argument was that, why do we give the Road Safety Inspector large discretionary powers? I agree with your thinking; he goes to an office -- For instance, there is a testing office with equipment for the lighting systems of vehicles and the equipment is faulty and he seizes the equipment. Until the equipment is repaired and conforms to standards, he cannot release it. If he releases it, they would still use the faulty equipment, and that is why he considers it necessary to be put there. But at the winnowing level, I was asked why I wanted to give the road safety officers the powers to -- But I agree with you; that was my thinking as well.
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 2:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, from practical experience as a test officer at DVLA, when people brought their vehicles for inspection to be awarded roadworthy certifi- cates, they at times came with fog
    lights which were meant for heavy duty vehicles in the foggy areas and were not supposed to be used in this country. When we seized them, the drivers fought us and demanded them.
    So there is the need for us to have a cure for this -- The question you posed was, what next after the 48 hours? We should try to assist the road Safety inspector to either go to court or use the law enforcement agencies to take over from there, if, after 48 hours, the Road Safety Inspector thinks that the road user does not need to use the equipment or device again.
    Mr Speaker, if we could amend it in such a way that the clause would give us what the Road Safety Inspector should do after the 48 hours, it would be of help.
    Mr Samuel A. Akyea 2:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, some-times, it is not the timelines but the proper exercise of discretion. Regarding human right issues and constitutional imperatives that we do not detain somebody beyond 48 hours, the one who has been at the end of this decision can always challenge it at the court that this is an improper exercise of discretion. Why should equipment be detained for this long? With the greatest of respect, we do not even need timelines; it is not necessary.
    If one is seriously affected by the exercise of discretion by the Road Safety Inspector, one could challenge that the detention is capricious; it is malice aforethought and not reasonable. The court of competent jurisdiction would ask you to come and justify the detention or order the release of same.
    Mr Speaker, so I am of the humble view that we should not make it too regimented for the Road Safety Inspector.
    Dr Zanetor Agyeman-Rawlings 2:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, under the same clause, it states, “an equipment” and it should not carry an article. So I beg to move, delete “an” to read, “equipment or a device”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:29 p.m.
    All right you are proposing that we add ‘a' before equipment or “a” device.
    Dr Agyeman-Rawlings 2:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there should not be the word; “an” in front of “equipment” but there needs to be an article in front of --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:29 p.m.
    Very well. The draftspersons will take note and make the amendment.
    Mr Agbodza 2:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the proposal by our Hon Senior Colleague, that we do not need a timeline will be problematic.
    If the road safety officers, as they may be called, go to a testing outfit and find out that some of the equipment being used or the procedures undertaken are not up to scratch and they say that the outfit should close down henceforth, until they come back to determine whether they are right or wrong, they cannot operate again, and that will also be problematic.
    So I think that it should be the reverse that within 48 hours, they should make a decision if they need more than 48 hours, the safety officers should rather go to court to determine why such testing outfits need to be closed down for more than 48 hours.
    Mr Speaker, so I think that the 48 hours is appropriate but the road safety officers should rather go to court to determine why they should close testing outfits for more than 48 hours.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:39 p.m.
    I think if you read the clause carefully, we want to give the inspector the power to determine whether the equipment should be returned to use but we did not state so that within the 48 hours, they should file a report whether the equipment should be
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:39 p.m.


    returned to use, repaired or not. However, I think that the amendment should rather be effected in such a way to declare on the limit of the power we are giving to the inspector.
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 2:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the National Road Safety Authority will have the regulatory powers and we know that they are going to regulate and inspect the equipment used by the Driver Vehicle and Licensing Authority (DVLA) and other players in the road sector.
    Mr Speaker, we know that the DVLA is giving some of its inspection units to the private testing centres and so competition may arise among these private inspection centres and at a point in time, an inspector can go to ‘Centre A' and say that your equipment does not meet the standards or you are using a device that is not up to standard.
    So until they decide, you cannot use it to work and in order to avoid that, we want to amend it in such a way that the road safety inspector will not have that freedom to decide whether or not an organisation or company in the industry will work.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:39 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, I agree with you that we should give limits but we have not
    defined -- If you read the two clauses of 4(a), (b) and (c), you should determine whether the person is following the procedure.
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 2:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I did not end. I want us to flag this, come back and have a second look at it and draft it in such a way that it will be useful.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:39 p.m.
    All right. I think so. So we will defer the Question on clause 15 and go to clause
    16.

    Clause 16 -- Secretary to the Board
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 2:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 16, subclause (1), line 2, delete “a person” and insert “any of the presons”.
    Mr Speaker, clause 16(1) will then read;
    “The Director-General shall, acting in consultation with the Board, designate any of the persons appointed under section 17 as Secretary to the Board'
    Mr Ahiafor 2:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with the principle behind the
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:39 p.m.
    That would include cleaners, carpenters and messengers --
    Mr Ahiafor 2:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are tying it to a provision of clause 17 and if you are not part of the ‘other staff' appointed by the President under article 195 of the Constitution, you will not be in that particular bracket to be chosen from.
    So instead of saying; ‘any of the persons', it should be;
    “The Director-General shall, acting in consultation with the Board, designate any person appointed under section 17 as Secretary to the Board”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:39 p.m.
    Apart from the Director-General, has any other staff been mentioned previous to clause 17?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:39 p.m.
    Is there no other? So the ‘other staff
    appointed' will be all the staff apart from the Director-General and that will include cleaners, messengers and people who may not qualify to be ‘Secretary to the Board'. That is why I think that using the word; ‘any' under clause 17 may be too wide.
    Mr Ahiafor 2:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is why the provision is not giving a blanket power to the Director- General. We are saying that the Director-General, will do it in consultation with the Board and so, if the Director-General in consultation with the Board, feels that a messenger appointed by the President under article 195 of the Constitution is fit to be a Secretary, then they would delegate power to that particular person.
    So once it is tied to this particular manner, we strongly believe that the Director-General, in consultation with the Board, will do the proper thing by making a good choice.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:39 p.m.
    You do not see that the danger is possible? If I am the Director-General and my niece or nephew is desperately in need of a job and the only vacancy is for a cleaner, I will appoint her as cleaner and then elevate her to -- because she comes under clause 17 and I elevate her to a secretary --
    Mr Ahiafor 2:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, then we are in danger considering all the
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:39 p.m.
    You would recognise that in the public service, they often say; ‘a person not below the rank of so and so' but not below the rank of Assistant Director. Do you get me? You know that you cannot bring somebody who has not attained the position of Assistant Director -- that is to safeguard the danger of a mischievous person --
    Mr Bernard Ahiafor 2:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I admit to your submissions so that we can further improve on the rendition.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:39 p.m.
    I think that ‘any person' or ‘other person' are the same but if you say; a “foreign officer”, probably, you should add ‘not below the rank of' --
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 2:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the clause says that the Director-General in consultation with the Board.
    Mr Speaker, at times I think it is important that we allow discretion of such personalities we put to head institutions and Boards. Here, I do not think giving the Director-General to consult the Board of the Authority to appoint a Secretary to the Board, he would go and pick anybody who cannot perform the functions or go below certain ranks in the Authority.
    So I think my proposed amend- ment should stand, and Hon Members should support the amendment.
    “16. (1) The Director-General shall, acting in consultation with the Board …”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:49 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, in that case, what is truly the difference between what is there and what you are proposing? They are really the same.
    A person appointed under clause 17 is the same as the proposed amendment. If you do not intend to bring any limitations or qualification, we should just leave it as it is.
    Yes, Hon Member for Tamale Central?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think stretching clause 16(1) has actually opened it to criticism that, indeed, it could be any person. And so what we can do is sdto insert after person “with the relevant qualifica-tion” to read:
    “16. (1) The Director-General shall, acting in consultation with the Board, designate a person with the relevant qualification under section 17 a Secretary to the Board.”
    This is my proposed amendment.
    Mr Agbodza 2:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this would not be necessary in the sense that if you read clause 17, it talks about article 195 of the Constitution, and the process of appointing people under article 195 takes care of that. It says the Public Services Commission would have to be involved. I do not think the Public Services Commission would approve a cleaner, in the right sense, or approve anybody to serve in certain capacities.
    Article 195 would have dealt with that right from the beginning. So the President would have a choice of people to be made secretaries appropriately because that would
    have been dealt with by the time of appointment of other officers under clause 17.
    Mr Speaker, specifically, article 195(2) has taken care of it although it was not specifically stated in the clause 17(2). Maybe, we would need to make it specific by stating article
    195 (2).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:49 p.m.
    I am waiting for you to reach a consensus so that I can put the Question, but I think it should stand as it is.
    Mr Agbodza 2:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you are right. If the amendment was to change that rendition from “a person” to “any persons”, as a matter of fact the value is the same because it both makes reference to clause 17, so it would not change anything. But as Hon Fuseini said, your question has rather opened the window for us to scrutinise whether clause 17 itself is adequate to address the mischief that everybody is talking about that the Director-General would end up appointing anybody.
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 2:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just would want to re-amend my proposed amendment by inserting “who is not below the rank of a director” after section 17, before “as secretary”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would then read 2:49 p.m.
    “16. (1) The Director-General shall, acting in consultation with the Board, designate a person appointed under section 17, who is not below the rank of a director as secretary to the Board.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:49 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Minister, do you want to raise an issue?
    Mr K. O. Asiamah 2:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the rendition should be, if the Hon Chairman would accept it “not below the rank of a principal manager” and not a director.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:49 p.m.
    Very well. Would we define what “principal manager” is?
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 2:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are talking about Secretary to the Board who would attend Board meetings and record the proceedings of the Board. It is therefore important we take a director, one of the heads of the directorates of the Authority to attend Board meetings in order to support confidentiality and other things that happen at Board meetings.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:49 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Ahiafor?
    Mr Ahiafor 2:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, going by the amendment proposed by the Hon Chairman of the Committee that the person should not be below the rank of a director, it would, therefore, mean that you could have an employee appointed under article 195 who has all the requisite qualifications of the Constitution to act as a Secretary to the Board but because that person is not a director, or has not reached the position of a director, he cannot be designated to act as a Secretary to the Board.
    We need to have that in mind in making the proposal to tag the position of a person designated to a rank of a director.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:49 p.m.
    Why not a manager but a principal manager; yes Hon Minister?
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 2:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have now understood the position of the Hon Minister. We are talking about rank, and if we have one of the heads of the directorates who is not up to the rank of a director, maybe, a principal manager, then he must be the Secretary to the Board. Instead of saying “not below the rank of a director” I would propose “not below the rank of a principal manager”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:59 p.m.
    Very well. The decision is for the House to take. I would put the Question.
    Yes, Hon Member for Adaklu?
    Mr Agbodza 2:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, is the Hon Chairman suggesting that we would have a directorate and yet would not have somebody who is heading a directorate who is not at the a level of a director? Is he suggesting that we could have a principal officer who is not at the level of a director heading a directorate? Could we actually have that?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:59 p.m.
    Which directorate are we talking about?
    Mr Agbodza 2:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is because we are saying the person should be, at least, the rank of a director, and we are using the law we are making now in creating directorates as a standard, but the Hon Chairman is not able to tell us when he talks about a principal -- in the Civil Service, what level is that person supposed to be?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:59 p.m.
    Hon Member, look at it carefully. It is not intended that an outsider would be appointed, but rather the staff already
    employed, one would be nominated to be the Secretary to the Board, but the person to be nominated should not be below, as proposed by the Hon Minister, Principal Manager. I do not know what that means.
    It means that it is from Principal Manager upwards, so a Director can also be, but a Principal Manager may also be a Secretary. It is the Principal Manager that I am not comfortable with. I do not know what that position actually is.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is a clause that has featured in a lot of the recent laws that we have enacted, and we have used “not” below the rank of a director, so if now we seek to introduce a Principal or Senior Manager, it makes it convoluted. I think that where it is determined within the set up that an officer is heading a directorate but is not a Director, they have the power to promote the person accordingly, but I think that we should stick to the use of “not below the rank of a director”, for the sake of consistency in our drafting of clauses in our recent legislations.
    So I propose that we stick to the Hon Chairman's proposed amendment before this one, so that we can make progress on the matter.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:59 p.m.
    Hon Members, it is 3 o'clock, and I intend to bring proceedings to a close. Let us resolve this matter so that I can adjourn.
    So what is the position?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, first of all, I would entreat that we deal with clauses 16 and 17, so that we bring consideration under that section to a closure, because clause 18 begins another section.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:59 p.m.
    It depends on how fast we move.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not know of this alien description of Principal Manager. I do not know of any law that we have fashioned -- if the Hon Minister
    wants to eject himself, I would assume my seat and then we listen to him, and thereafter, I may come with some counter arguments.
    Let us not introduce new nomenclature into our Bills. What he is saying is so alien to the Bills that we have been crafting, so clause 16 provides; “The Director-General shall, acting in consultation with the Board, designate a person appointed under section 17 as Secretary to the Board”.
    Mr Speaker, clause 17 is on appointment of other staff. What it means is that they are not directors already in the system. The person would belong to other staff, and if you want to qualify the appointment, then that person should qualify to be a director under clause 16. If they want that description, we could do it that way, otherwise Principal Manager and so on is alien .
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:59 p.m.
    Can we substitute that with “Deputy Director” and make progress?
    Mr K .O. Asiamah 2:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do concede to the Hon Majority Leader that, maybe, the Principal Manager may be alien to this House, but my position on this matter is that if we said that the person should be a director, the position is so high that if any other person who has the
    qualification is not the Director, he cannot be appointed -- if qualified to be a director, agreed, but in the initial amendment that Hon Members were proposing, they were saying that the person should be a director.
    My position is that we should not use the position as a Director to be the criteria with which a person should be appointed to be a Secretary to the Board. Once the person has the minimum qualification and holds a certain position, my own thinking is that he must then qualify to be the Secretary to the Board, but not necessarily being a Director of that institution or the person's position should be designated as a director of the agency, or a director must be appointed.
    We must first of all look at the qualification and also look at the number of years that the person has served. If those qualify him, then he can be appointed, but the fact that he must be a Director, I think would be too much for us to ask.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:59 p.m.
    Hon Colleagues, we have to agree on what we want. Is it Deputy Director, Assistant Director, or which one?
    Mr Francis K. A. Codjoe 2:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was looking at the clause 17 that the Hon Majority Leader referred to, and he talks about article 195. It says;
    “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the power to appoint persons to hold or act in an office in the public services…”
    Mr Speaker, I am sorry. I think I read article 194, so I got confused.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:59 p.m.
    Hon Leader, Assistant Director, Deputy Director, or we should just leave it? Which one?
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 2:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am of the view that being the Secretary to the Board, the person must not be below the rank of a director.
    We have said that the Board can create new directorates, so they can have a Director of Legal, and that Director can be the Secretary to the Board.
    So I think the amendment is good and Hon Members should support it.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the intent is to have a person of seeming qualification.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:59 p.m.
    Hon Members, I believe that we appear to be missing something. The proposal is not that we should appoint a director. If we read clause 16(1), it says:
    “the Director-General shall, acting in consultation with the Board, designate a person appointed under section 17…”
    So we would then have to designate from the staff that already exists.
    Hon Members, from that staff, we propose that the person should not be below the rank of a director, but the Minister, in consultation with the Executive Secretary, believes that the rank is rather too high. So, in the Civil Service, if I understand, the entry point for graduates is Assistant Director, IIA, and IIB; before one becomes an Assistant Director. By the time one becomes an Assistant Director, one may have had a minimum of five to six years' experience. So an Assistant Director should be sufficient, but it should not be below the rank of an Assistant Director.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, defer to your DVLA antecedent, but --
    Mr Speaker, I believe that in that regard, we could come down and nudge to a deputy director. So, it should be captured as:
    “…who qualifies to be a deputy director”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:59 p.m.
    Very well, we could accept a deputy director.
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 2:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it would be captured as “not below the rank of a deputy director”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:59 p.m.
    Hon Members, we have agreed on the phrase: “not below the rank of a deputy director”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:59 p.m.
    Hon Members, we would move on to the item numbered (xiv).
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 2:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 16, subclause (2), line 1, delete “for and” insert “for,”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 16 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 17 -- Appointment of other staff
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:59 p.m.
    Hon Leader, the winnowing Committee are still not ad idem on why article 195 should be removed. I am still waiting for clause 17 to be moved.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, are we moving clause 17 or clause 16?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:59 p.m.
    We are done with clause 16 and are now on clause 17.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:59 p.m.
    So we are now on clause 17.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, we are listening to you.
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 2:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 17, subclause (2), lines 1 and 2, delete “in accordance with article 195(2) of the Constitution”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:59 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, there is no phrase as “article 195(2) in clause 17”. What is there is “article 195”.
    In clause 17(1), it says: “the President shall, in accordance with

    article 195 of the Constitution, appoint other public officers…” There is no inclusion of subclause (2).

    All right, the proposed amendment is rather in subclause (2).
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 2:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we seek to delete it because it is part of subclause (1).
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:59 p.m.
    Hon Members, we would move on to the item numbered (xvi).
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 2:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 17, subclause (4), lines 2 and 3, delete “its functions” and insert “the functions of the Authority”.
    Mr Speaker, in drafting, we do not use the possessive. So it should be captured as “the functions of the Authority”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 17 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:59 p.m.
    Hon Members, that would bring us to the
    end of the Consideration Stage for today.
    Mr Agbodza 2:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I know that you have already put the Question, but I wanted to know whether we should not delete clause 17(2) entirely, instead of just amending it. Mr Speaker, clause 17(2) should have been entirely deleted, but instead, an amendment was made to it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:59 p.m.
    Hon Members, that brings us to the end of Consideration Stage.
    Hon Members, I intend to adjourn the House, unless the Hon Leader of the House has any announcement.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:19 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have gone beyond 3.00 p.m. and we do not need any Motion to adjourn the House. I would, however, want to plead with the small winnowing Committee that on Thursday in the morning, we could possibly meet to continue with the winnowing. I would charge Committee members to be present. We shall have a breakfast meeting. [Laughter.] So on Thursday, at 7.00 am, we would meet on the ninth floor of the Job 600 Building .

    Indeed, on the 7th floor on that same day, we would also have the Business Committee meeting.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:19 a.m.
    Very well, the House is accordingly
    ADJOURNMENT 3:19 a.m.