Debates of 7 Jun 2019

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:30 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Hon Members, correction of Votes and Proceedings of Thursday, 6th June, 2019.
Pages 1…14 --
rose
Mr Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Mr Nortsu-Kotoe 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you. I would like to take you back to page 7. Hon Benjamin Komla Kpodo was here yesterday; I saw him. He has been marked absent. Could the Table Office make that correction?
rose
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, on page 12 of the Votes and Proceedings, the item numbered 7, clause 18, the proposal was:
“one per cent of moneys received by certified Driving Schools as fees paid by trainee drivers and collected by the Ghana National Association of Driving Schools and paid through the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority on an annual basis.”
Mr Speaker, that was how it was finally constructed. As it is now, it is made to appear as if the collection by the Ghana National Association
of Driving Schools is done through the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA), but that is not the case. So on line 4 of what is in the Votes and Proceedings, between “schools” and “through”, we should insert “and paid”.
rose
Mr Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Yes, Hon Yieleh Chireh?
Mr Chireh 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, even though the Hon Majority Leader is effecting changes on what was discussed yesterday, once a decision was deferred, it means we would have to reargue the whole clause.
Therefore, I would urge that whatever changes that have been made, it is when we come back to the same clause that changes can be effected. In fact, he disagreed seriously with this position. So it is not even changing what is in the Votes and Proceedings; the decision was deferred because of that. It was a major opposition; there were people who called for numbers before we could vote. I believe that whatever the case is, once the decision was deferred, he should not correct it now.
Mr Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am not in any way saying that we came to a conclusion on that but it is the matter which occasioned the referral that I am referring to, that this is how it ought to appear in the Votes and Proceedings. That is the point I am making. I am not saying that we concluded. We did not. But this is how it should appear. The Question would be put hopefully today and we would come to some determination.
Mr Speaker 10:40 a.m.
So in effect, no change at this stage.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the correct rendition of this is what I read, that it should read: “one per cent of moneys received by the certified Driving Schools as fees paid by trainee drivers and collected by the Ghana National Association of Driving Schools and paid to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority on an annual basis.” This is how it should read but the Question was not put.
Mr Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader, if the Question was not put, then how can that reflect as part of the decision?

Speaker, no decision has been made on this, but I am just saying that that is how it should have read. Indeed, I proffered the correction and it is not captured in the Votes and Proceedings. That is the point I am making.
Mr Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Very well. It shall so appear as corrected until that issue is further and conclusively decided on.
Thank you.
Any other correction?
rose
Mr Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Hon Ablakwa?
Mr Ablakwa 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I hope that I can now come to the Official Report?
Mr Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Please, feel free.
Mr Ablakwa 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, just two quick corrections.
The first one would be contained in the fourth paragraph of column 4990. Let us delete “… follow” and replace with “take” so that it would read: “… take this matter up” instead of “… follow this matter up”.
Mr Speaker, column 4993, the fourth paragraph again, “… the International Treaties and Conventions as contained on the Agenda for the Meeting”, not “.... in our Order Papers” as has been presented here. So let us replace “Order Papers” with “Agenda for the meeting.”
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 10:40 a.m.
So it should be “Mr Speaker, we also raised issues concerning International Treaties and Conventions that have been listed on the Agenda”.
Hon Ablakwa?
Mr Ablakwa 10:40 a.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker, I had raised this matter earlier and I was referring to the Treaties as listed on the Agenda of this Meeting. So when the Hon Deputy Majority Leader was responding, it had been captured here as “Treaties in the Order Paper”. I had referred to the Agenda. It has been correctly captured under my name when I raised the matter. So that is what it should be.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Thank you for the correction.
Any other corrections, Hon Members?
In the absence of any other correction, the Official Report of Friday, 5th April, 2019 is hereby admitted as true record of proceedings.
Hon Members, item numbered 3, Business Statement for the Third Week. Yes, Chairman of the Committee?
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 10:40 a.m.
Chairman of the Committee/ Majority Leader (Mr Osei Kyei- Mensah-Bonsu) 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Committee met yesterday, Thursday,
6th June, 2019 and arranged the Business of the House for the Third Week ending Friday, 14th June,
2019.
Mr Speaker, the Committee accordingly submits its Report as follows 10:40 a.m.
Arrangement of Business
Question(s)
Mr Speaker, the Business Committee has scheduled the following Ministers to respond to Questions asked of them during the Week:
No. Of Question(s)
i. Attorney-General and Minister for Justice -- 2
ii. Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation -- 1
iii. Minister for the Interior -- 1
iv. Minister for Tourism. Culture and Creative Arts -- 1
v. Minister for Health -- 2
vi. Minister for Roads and Highways -- 5
Total Number of Questions -- 12
Mr Speaker, six (6) Ministers are expected to attend upon the House
to respond to twelve (12) Questions during the week. The Questions are

of the following types:

i. Urgent - 1;

ii. Oral - 11

Statements

Mr Speaker, pursuant to Order 70(2), Ministers of State may be permitted to make Statements of Government policy. Statements duly admitted by Mr Speaker may be made in the House by Hon Members in accordance with Order 72.

Bills, Papers and Reports

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

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

Motions and Resolutions

Mr Speaker, Motions may be debated and their consequential

Resolutions, if any, taken during the week.

Conclusion

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

Urgent Questions --
Mr Rockson-Nelson Etse Kwame Dafeamekpor (South Dayi) 10:40 a.m.
To ask the Attorney- General and Minister for Justice why the General Legal Council has not issued and/or renewed licences of lawyers who were formerly Circuit Court Judges and Magistrates.
Questions --
*483. Mr Rockson-Nelson Etse Kwame Dafeamekpor (South Dayi): To ask the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice the steps the Chief Justice has taken to appoint Judges to the High Courts in Hohoe and Ho.
Statements --
Presentation of Papers --
(a)Report of the Finance Committee on the Annual Public Debt Management Report for the 2018 Financial Year.
(b)Report of the Public Accounts Committee on the Report of the Auditor- General on the Public Accounts of Ghana (Pre- University Educational Institutions) for the Financial Year ended 31st December
2015.
(c)Report of the Public Accounts Committee on the Report of the Auditor- General on the Public Accounts of Ghana (Pre-University Educational Institutions) for the Financial Year ended 31st December
2016.
(d)Report of the Public Accounts Committee on the Report of the Auditor- General on the Public Accounts of Ghana (Poly- technics) for the Period ended 31sl December, 2015.
Motions --
(a) Adoption of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee on the Report of the Auditor- General on the Accounts of District Assemblies for the Financial Year ended 31st December, 2015.
(b) Adoption of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee on the Report of the Auditor- General on the Accounts of District Assemblies for the Financial Year ended 31st December, 2016.
Consideration Stage of Bills --
Vigilantism and Related Offences Bill, 2019.
Committee sittings.

Questions --

*574. Mr Mohammed Abdul- Aziz (Mion): To ask the Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation reason(s) for the dismissal of Mr Wisdom Kwaku Deku as the System Administration Superv isor of the National Identification Authority (NIA) on 24th November, 2017.
Mr Rockson-Nelson Etse Kwame Dafeamekpor (South Dayi) 10:40 a.m.


*575. Mr Albert Akuka Alalzuuga (Garu): To ask the Minister for the Interior what measures the Ministry is putting in place to reduce armed robbery in the country.

Statements

Presentation of Papers --

(a)Report of the Finance Committee on the Credit Facility Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana (repre- sented by the Ministry of Finance) and Deutsche Bank AG (as Agent and Original Lender) and Deutsche Bank AG. London Branch (as Arranger and Structuring Bank) for an amount of fifty- five million euros (€55, 000,000.00) relating to the rehabilitation and auxiliary infrastructure of Kumasi Inner Ring Road and adjacent streets (100km) - Phase 1.

(b) Report of the Committee on Roads and Transport on the Design-Build Contract Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana (represented by the

Ministry of Roads and Highways) and Messrs Contracta Construction UK Limited for an amount of fifty-five million euros (€55, 000,000,00) for the implementation of the Rehabilitation and Auxiliary Infrastructure of Kumasi Inner Ring Road and Adjacent Streets Project (100km) - Phase 1.

Consideration Stage of Bills --

Vigilantism and Related Offences Bill, 2019.

(Continuation of debate)

Committee sittings.

Questions --

*576. Dr Zanetor Agyeman- Rawlings (Klottey-Korle): To ask the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Creative Arts what plans the Ministry has in place for the communities in Osu, particularly South Anorhor.

*577. Mr Robert Kwasi Amoah (Achiase): To ask the Minister for Health when the Achiase Health Centre
Mr Rockson-Nelson Etse Kwame Dafeamekpor (South Dayi) 10:40 a.m.
will be renovated and possibly be upgraded to the status of a polyclinic.
*578. Mr Mohammed Abdul- Aziz (Mion): To ask the Minister for Health when the Ministry will establish a psychiatric hospital in the Northern Region to cater for mentally-iII persons in that part of the country.
Statements
Motions --
(a) Adoption of the Report of the Finance Committee on the Annual Public Debt Manage- ment Report for the 2018 Financial Year.
(b) Adoption of the Report of the Public Accounts Com- mittee on the Report of the Auditor-General on the Public Accounts of Ghana (Pre-University Educational Institutions) for the Financial Year ended 31st December,
2015.
Committee sittings.

Questions --

*599. Mr Kwame Govers Agbo- dza (Adaklu): To ask the Minister for Roads and Highways the regional breakdown of road projects awarded and their costs since 8th January, 2017 to date.

*600. Alhaji Masawud Mo- hammed (Pru West): To ask the Minister for Roads and Highways when the roads from Abease Junction to Krobo, Kamampa, Che- rembo linking Zabarma would be rehabilitated.

*601. Alhaji Masawud Mo- hammed (Pru West): To ask the Minister for Roads and Highways when construction works on Prang - Abease - Kintampo road will be completed.

*602.Alhaji Masawud Mo- hammed (Pru West): To ask the Minister for Roads and Highways what measures the Ministry is putting in place to reduce the number of unauthorised speed ramps on our roads.
Mr Ablakwa 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I commend the Chairman of the Business Committee for the presentation.
Mr Speaker, the matter of joint caucus is still pending and an indication was given last week that the earlier one which could not come off might take place this week. We were looking possibly at the time, but yesterday, it did not happen and it is not clear if probably the Hon Majority Leader intends for it to happen today. But I thought that the Hon Majority Leader would have given an indication. As I said last week, there are quite a number of very urgent issues that we need to discuss at the joint caucus meeting and I hope that the Hon Majority Leader would offer some direction in that regard.
Mr Speaker, the second and final issue is also an urgent matter and an appeal to your good self and the Hon Majority Leader if we could have the Hon Minister for the Interior scheduled to appear before us because of the incidence of kidnapping -- the kidnapping of the Takoradi girls has not been resolved.
Now, we are hearing the news of two Canadian volunteers which is all over in the international news such
as the Cable News Network (CNN), the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), the Guardian News, Independent News and all of those other international outlets. The Canadian Embassy has put out some travel advisory which is also creating some anxiety.
So I would want to appeal, if the Hon Minister for the Interior could be scheduled to appear before this House next week, so that the general spate of kidnappings going on and the general insecurity could be discussed and he could give some assurance to the people of this country that things are under control.
Mr Speaker, this is a passionate and humble appeal to schedule the Hon Minister for the Interior sometime next week, if it pleases you.
Mr James K. Avedzi 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, last week, after the Business Statement was presented, the issue of invitation of the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission to appear before the House. The Hon Majority Leader told the House that he needed to do some consultation before he could invite the Chairperson to appear before the House. There was also another request for the Governor of the Bank of Ghana to also come and respond to issues on the closing down of microfinance companies.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, we spoke about having a joint caucus meeting but unfortunately, it had to do with the days when both the Hon Minority Leader and I were to be available in the House. When we thought that we would have it on Thursday, unfortunately, as you do know, he gave an indication that he was outside. Then, I also had to attend upon Cabinet, even after we engaged ourselves in some winnowing exercise; so, yesterday was not a good day.
Mr Speaker, as usual, Fridays are not very good days. So I thought that we could have it next week. Unfortunately, next week, I would also not be available. I would have to be on a programme for and on behalf of Parliament which may begin Sunday up to the following Monday, for which reason, I urged the House and the rest of Leadership to be in charge to have the joint caucus meeting. Unfortunately, the Hon Minority Leader insists that I should be part of it, otherwise, it may not be a good meeting.
Mr Speaker, in that regard, if my presence is required, then it may mean that we cannot have it because I would not be available the whole of next week. I know there are many critical matters that we have to engage in.
The matter relating to the kidnap of some Canadian volunteers, the Hon Member is urging that we programme the Hon Minister for the Interior to brief us either in joint caucus or perhaps, even in Plenary because it is a matter that concerns the entire country. That decision would have to be taken by the House. I keep insisting that the Business Committee does not generate its own agenda. If the indication is given by the House to have that, then the Business Committee could do that. I believe, and I am sure, that it is a matter that should concern all of us.
Yes, there has been a kidnap of some young ladies who have not been traced yet, but I would not call that a general spate of kidnapping. I am not too sure that anybody would refer to it as “a general spate of kidnapping”.
Mr Speaker, we are saying that there is also general insecurity in the country. We should be careful with our choice of words. It is as if Ghana is burning; Ghana is not. Ghana is not burning. It is not on fire but --
[Interruption] -- Nobody has said so in plain language but it flows from the constructs of the spokesperson on Foreign Affairs whom I believe should know better and give the indication that, yes, there are spots that happen and that really must be investigated. We need the Hon Minister for the Interior to speak to it; I agree.
But as I said, it does not in any manner amount to general spate of kidnapping and insecurity in the country.
Mr Speaker, if the House obliges the Business Committee, I believe it would be appropriate to invite the Minister, but that determination would have to come from the House. I believe now that the Speaker has heard us, he may want to have us programme for that.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Deputy Minority Leader related to inviting the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission and the Governor of Bank of Ghana. It is a discussion that ensued at the meeting of the Business Committee but it is of the same order. If, indeed, that must be done, and I believe there is sense in that and it is for the House to give that indication.
I would want to believe that the Hon Deputy Minority Leader knows
Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Thank you very much; I trust that the Hon Leaders would sort out these issues as soon as possible and advise.
Mr Ablakwa 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, please, the Hon Chairman of the Business Committee has referred the matter to the House for your direction.
I would want to appeal to you to give them the direction they are asking for because he is saying that it is not in their courts and he would want you to give guidance. So if you could probably give us a date.
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
We will have a discussion at the Leaders' meeting.
Mr Ablakwa 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you.
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
The Business Statement is accordingly admitted as presented.
[Pause] --
STATEMENTS 11 a.m.
Mr George N. K. Andah (NPP- -Awutu Senya West) 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Persons with Disability Act, 2006 (Act 715) is aimed at ending the discrimination faced by people with disabilities.
Mr Speaker, the Act is considered as one of the key achievements towards Ghana's human rights discourse. The Act seeks to remove barriers and provide persons with disability the opportunity to be full citizens and not just spectators in today's society.
The Act, Mr Speaker, covers key areas such as, accessibility, employment opportunities and creation of public awareness and removing the stigma against Persons with Disabilities (PWDs.)
Section 6 of the Act dictates that by the year 2016, “the owner or occupier of a place to which the public has access shall provide appropriate facilities that make the place accessible to and available for use by a Person with Disability.”
Admittedly, many strides have been made to provide government assistance to PWDs in terms of benefits and other assistance and for this feat,l I must commend the efforts of His Excellency President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo and his cabinet for increasing the District Assemblies Common Fund.
The Distroct Assemblies Common Fund allocation for PWDs form two per cent to three per cent ensuring that 50 per cent of people who manage the country's toll booths are PWDs and then empowering women entrepreneurs living with disability with a GH¢2 million fund. I also want to commend the Ghana Highway Authority and other stakeholders for the good work done in ensuring that the Adenta - Madina footbridges are disability friendly. We must, however, continue to empower the general public to be keenly aware of the barriers experienced by PWDs -- disabilities of all forms, both physical and psychological -- and take the necessary measures to help integrate PWDs into our society.
Mr Speaker, most institutions in Ghana have not met the l0-year timeline stipulated by the Act. These lapses in the implementation of the Disability Act, 2006 (Act 715) are evident in some of our own Government facilities. There are inadequate provisions such as
designated parking spaces and settling down points, access for emergency evacuation, moderate vertical access in terms of ramps and lifts, poor seating arrangements for PWDs.
Mr Speaker, access by PWDs to the Chamber of Parliament, Supreme Court Complex, Independence Square and the current location of the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection as well as some other public buildings leave much to be desired.
Mr Speaker, as a result of the unfortunate accident I suffered seven months ago which has left me temporarily partially disabled, I have become more sensitive to the plight of persons with disabilities, and I am able to provide first hand challenges of the access limitations experienced by PWDs. As an example, my access to the Chamber as an Hon Member of Parliament has been very challenging. There have been many occasions where the lift has been out of service, forcing me to painfully walk up the stairs in order to access the Chamber. The lift started working just yesterday after not working for over two (2) months. This limitation of access to public places is even more acute when people use wheelchairs.
Mr Speaker, I believe the quality of a society is dependent, among other things, on the ability to assimilate into the general society those who are in vulnerable positions. It is the basic human right of PWDs, not a privilege, to be provided the same rights as able-bodied persons.
Mr Speaker, I am certain that each of us has family members or friends who may be physically challenged, therefore I implore each one of us to personally take ownership of setting examples of advocacy on behalf of PWDs.
Recently, I noticed on social media an artiste making mockery of another physically challenged artiste. Sub- sequently, to those images coming up, both artistes seem to have made peace. 1 want to congratulate those who facilitated the achievement of this this peace and I hope that there will be a positive end to this feud. I implore their supporters to follow same and make peace. I believe that respect and unity for all classes of persons should be accorded.
Many of the challenges PWDs face are particularly with the built environment. Buildings are springing up daily with little consideration for PWDs, and road constructions are mostly without disability access, not even for sidewalks or bus terminals.
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon Member, thank you very much for this well- made Statement.
Dr Clement A. Apaak (NDC -- Builsa South) 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
I wish to highly commend the Hon Member who made the Statement. For it is said in almost all the Holy Books of our various religions that it
behoves all of us to make sure that we always do our best to support and enhance our brothers and sisters whom, for no reason of their own, not by their choice, will be classified today as “disabled”.
Mr Speaker, I just got back from Fumbisi in my constituency yesterday, and while I was there, I engaged members of the disability community. I must emphatically say that the challenges enumerated by the Hon Member who made the Statement, Hon George Andah, are in consonance. I believe that from the north to the coast of this country --

Indeed, they raised concerns about challenges that had to do with accessibility to various public buildings. It also emphasises the fact that disbursement of the resources that the State has made available to them to enhance their livelihoods do not come on time. So, inasmuch as we speak about an increment of what is allocated to our disabled brothers and sisters, it is also important that we call on the relevant State agencies and institutions to ensure that those disbursements get to them in good time.

Mr Speaker, we have a collective responsibility to advocate and champion what is right, fair and just. I

believe we must take it upon ourselves that when a public building is being designed, it must be mandatory that the building should be disability friendly. Mr Speaker, this would be part of the concerted effort to address this challenge.

Mr Speaker, the law has been in place for a number of years, yet several public buildings have been put up without the requisite designs to ensure that our disabled brothers and sisters could access them in a way that is befitting and respectful.

Mr Speaker, on this note, I commend the Hon Member for raising this important issue that we all should pay heed to and do our best to address.

Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity.
Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Hon Member, thank you very much.
Hon Dr Okoe Boye.
Dr Bernard O. Boye (NPP -- Ledzokuku) 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am most grateful for the opportunity. I would also like to commend the Hon Member for making the Statement.
Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Hon Member, thank you very much.
Hon Minority Leader?
Minority Leader (Mr Haruna Iddrisu) 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to the Statement made by Hon George N. Andah on Com- pliance to the Persons with Disability Act, 2006 (Act 715). Mr Speaker, while commending him, I think that we should accept some responsibility that we have not done enough.
Mr Speaker, even though compliance is not a function of Parliament, we have passed the law. So we should take note and probably, invite many institutions to respond to this august House and provide a roadmap on the extent to which they have complied with the Act on the persons living with disability.
Mr Speaker, I think that we should demand this because when the Persons with Disability Act was passed, some moratorium was provided for a number of years, but we have long passed those years.
Mr Speaker, persons with disabilities have challenges with access to education, good health as well as the enjoyment of public goods and services. We have even heard that procurement would be tailored in favour of persons with disability. Mr Speaker, we would need to see a report on the extent to which this is being implemented.
Mr Speaker, on the paragraph of commendation, I would want to know what has happened to the District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF). It has been capped, and a lot of resources have not been released. Mr Speaker, so while commending the President, we should also urge him to free the resources that are meant for persons with disabilities. The lower the releases, the more it affects persons with disabilities; the more it is capped, the more it affects persons with disabilities. What is the two or three per cent for?
Mr Speaker, I would want to tell the Hon Member that his Statement should have been more detailed with statistics, so that we would know, even as a country and based on the President's directive to increase the District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF) from two to three per cent, how much is expected to be allocated to persons with disabilities. Mr
Speaker, as you said, I think that Hon Members of Parliament should be authoritative sources so that people could quote us on what they are entitled.
Mr Speaker, you do your own humble interventions with disabilities, we have seen what you have introduced in this House, and you have signalled to do more. Many of our institutions such as hospitals have elevators that do not work properly. Sometimes, even Hon Members who are not disabled struggle to use our elevators. So access to elevators should be guaranteed for persons living with disability.
Mr Speaker, I had the privilege to be an Hon Minister for Employment and Labour Relations, and I worked with persons with disabilities. Even within the Government, to what extent do we relate with the National Council for Persons with Disabilities? They are supposed to have representation in some offices, but that has not been done. They have a council, yet, they are not consulted.
Mr Speaker, I commend the Hon Member who made the Statement and I commend your own initiative in Parliament to get sign language experts. By this, you have even provided employment for persons with disabilities. I have maintained that
Minority Leader (Mr Haruna Iddrisu) 11:20 a.m.
I would not go with the old economic theory because the best measure for living standards is employment and not those Gross Domestic Product's (GDP) growth and macroeconomics. Mr Speaker, when growth is not accompanied with employment, then it cannot lead to improvement in the quality of life; but when people are employed, then their lives would be improved.
Mr Speaker, I drive past toll booths, and I am interested in knowing how many persons with disabilities have been employed. So next time, the Statement should provide more details. Nonetheless, I would commend the Hon Member who made the Statement.
Mr Speaker is doing his part here, so we should check the Supreme Court Complex, the Independence Square as well as the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection because they are not disability friendly. Even at the Ministry of Employment and Labour Relations where I was a former Hon Minister, they struggled before they could come to my office; yet, that is the Ministry that they would make their complaints to. Mr Speaker, on my Side of this House, Hon Norgbey is one of the Hon Members who has dedicated himself to matters relating to persons
with disabilities. I have encouraged him that as an Hon Member of Parliament, that could be his specialisation.
I intend to support and train him to grasp the issue as to how he could continue to help.

Maybe, on this Side, we should have another champion on persons with disability to work with him so that when matters of that nature come, we can defer to them.

Mr Speaker, once again, I commend the Hon Member who made the Statement, but ask that more be done for them; particularly, access to education and quality healthcare.

Thank you.

Deputy Majority Leader (Ms Sarah A. Safo): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

I rise to comment on the Statement ably made by Hon George Andah and to commend him for such an important Statement on the Floor.

Mr Speaker, persons with disability form part of our population, as a country holistically. So in extenso, they have a role to play in the economic
Mr Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Deputy Majority Leader.
This would end Statements time.
At the commencement of Public Business. We cannot take item numbered 5 now. We would move on to the item numbered 6.
Item numbered 6 (1) -- clause 15.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 11:20 a.m.
STAGE 11:20 a.m.
Chairman of the Committee (Mr Samuel Ayeh-Paye) 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, subclause (4), paragraph (c), lines 1 and 2, delete “period that the inspector (4) considers necessary”
and insert “seize and detain for the period that the Inspector considers necessary an equipment or device by means or in relation to which it is believed that a road safety standard, a provision of this Act or any enactment has been contravened.”
Mr Speaker this is an amendment to the advertised amendment in the Order Paper.
Mr Speaker, I would like to rather suggest that I drop the proposed amendment and allow what is in the original Bill to stay.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think there was a slight amendment to subclause (4)(c), that after “safety standards”, we insert “procedure, rule or regulation”, so that it would read:
“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 a road safety standard, procedure, rule or regulation, a provision of this Act or any other enactment has been contravened”.
Mr Speaker, this one would flow from subclause 4 (a). It may not relate only to road safety standard(s), but
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.


as well to procedure, rule or regulation.
Mr Ayeh-Paye 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, this clause deals with seizure of equipment or items by the road safety inspector. We are talking about safety issues which involve life and death.
If one drives on the road today, one sees motor bicycles and other vehicles, including land cruisers, that flash lights that seem to blind other road users.
These are the devices and equipment that we think the safety inspectors should ensure that they would not be on our roads. If we give a timeline for when the safety inspector can detain these equipment and devices, the offenders could come back after the week or 48 hours that we are prescribing to come for the items and fix it back, so I am of the view that as it is in the Bill, we give the discretion to a qualified safety inspector who would be employed by the National Road Safety Authority to decide, as he has to go to court or the offending motorist would also go to court to challenge the seizure of the equipment by the road safety inspector. Hon Members should understand and allow this to stand.
-- 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Hon Yieleh Chireh, do you support -- [Interruption.]
Mr Chireh 11:30 a.m.
No, Mr Speaker, I did not quite get it, and that was what I wanted to raise. I did not get what he moved.
Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader, if you basically accept the amendment, could you clarify the area that you want to be adjusted?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, subclause 4(a) provides that the examination is in respect of procedure, standard, rule or regulation. So I just said that for subclause 4 (c), we may need to insert “procedure, rule or regulation”.
So I said that in that case, it would read:
“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 a road safety standard, procedure, rule or regulation or a provision of this Act or any other enactment has been contravened”.
We should insert after “road safety standard”, “procedure, rule, regu lation or a provision of this Act, or any other enactment has been contravened”.
That was what I said. The Hon Chairman apparently did not listen to what I said.
Mr Ayeh-Paye 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I did not hear the Hon Majority Leader's amendment to the clause, so I do agree with him and I support the amendment.
Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
So that in marrying your original amendment and what the Hon Majority Leader is adding thereto, what should be the end result upon which Hon Members should vote?
Mr Chireh 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader's amendment, if we look at it, he wants us to refer to subclause 4(a); but because it is a subclause, there is nothing wrong if we add that amendment; but we are supposed to read the whole thing as a complete clause.
What he wants to do is to clarify that it is easier on the detention of these equipment to ensure that these procedures are followed within a period.
So it repeats what is in subclause 4 (a), but the essence is the same in terms of what he has done. If we were to take it, strictly speaking, that a clause must be read as a whole, it means the paragraph (a) would affect paragraph (c), and there would not have been the need; but for him to add it, it also clarifies what we are detaining or seizing. So it clarifies it a little better.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, as the Hon Member for Wa West said, subclause 4(a) relates to the examination, and now if they do not conform, then we would seize and detain. So it should reflect what has been captured in subclause 4(a), where the examination is not on only road safety standard but also on procedure, rule or regulation.
11. 40 a. m.
We would include it and in that case, it would read:
“Reseize and detain for the period that the inspector considers necessary an equipment or device by means of or in relation to
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.


which it is believed that a road safety standard, procedure, rule or regulation or a provision of this Act or any other enactment has been contravened”.

Mr Speaker, that is what we expect.

Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Clause 16? [Pause.]
The proposed amendment to clause 15 is abandoned. Is that the situation? Is it further amended or abandoned?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the amendment in the name of the Hon Chairman of the Committee has been withdrawn. So we would insert the old one. That is what I have further amended to be subclause 4 (c) as in the original.
Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Has there been a further amendment, as proposed by the Hon Majority Leader, that is carried?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
Yes, that one has been carried.
Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
The original amendment, having been abandoned, the new amendment in the name of the Hon Majority Leader is now being put to the vote.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18 -- Funds of the Authority
Mr Ayeh-Paye 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would like to seek your indulgence to further amend the advertised amendment numbered as item number 6(ii), clause 18, subclause (1), paragraph (e), delete.
Mr Speaker, yesterday, we had a long debate on this paragraph and in —
Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Hon Chairman, what do we want now?
Mr Ayeh-Paye 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we want to delete the whole paragraph.
Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
And substitute what?
Mr Ayeh-Paye 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we are taking it out of the Bill.
Mr Chireh 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, if we look at the advertised amendment, it talks about the Ghana National Association of Driving Schools. Now, it was not originally in the Bill but it was introduced. Is he saying that we should leave it out? It was on the prompting of the Hon Minister for Roads and Highways that we added this to the Bill. That is what the Hon Majority Leader referred to this morning, that the rendition he wanted to be captured in yesterday's Votes and Proceedings was not what was captured.
Now, he says that we should delete it. He should rather say he is abandoning his amendment, which means that he has taken the rendition as it is in the Bill. I know we have also amended some parts of it, so he has to come clear. If he says that he would not include driving schools, that is fine. It means that is a policy decision, but if he would include driving schools, then the formulation would be something different. This is where the Hon Majority Leader would have to bring forward his idea.
Mr Ayeh-Paye 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not know the type of Bill the Hon Yieleh Chireh is holding. I amended clause 18, subclause 1(e) and I said I am dropping that amendment and move on to the original Bill and delete clause 3 completely from the Bill. So
if we go to the Bill, we would see clause 18(1)(e) and it reads:
“one percent of moneys accruing to certified driving schools in respect of fees paid by trainee drivers;”
That is what is in the original Bill. And I have proposed an amendment to delete that paragraph from the Bill. That was what I said.
Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Hon Members, perhaps, I should put the Question in two parts to make life easier. First and foremost, Hon Chairman, what do you want to delete?
Mr Ayeh-Paye 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, firstly, I want to withdraw the first amendment.

Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Now, Hon Chair- man, what do you intend to propose?
Mr Ayeh-Paye 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 18, -- subclause (1), paragraph (e), delete
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, now that the Hon Chairman has taken this position, it means he owes us an explanation because we were part of the meeting that he graciously invited us to attend in Koforidua, where the rationale for this was firmly established.
Yesterday, we argued on this particular one. I followed the rationale that was given in Koforidua, that the Ghana National Association of Driving Schools had elected to support the National Road Safety Authority to carry out its mandate. They were willing and able to contribute one per cent of fees charged by the Association on Trainee Drivers and pay same to the National Road Safety Authority.
Now, the Hon Chairman says we should abandon that source of revenue. He needs to explain why.
Mr Ayeh-Paye 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the sponsors of the Bill, which is the Ministry of Transport and the National Road Safety Commission, after listening to the debate in the Chamber yesterday — we had a consultation with them and agreed that they prefer having a written agreement with the
Association to legislating that support from the Association in the Bill.
So we do not want it to be a law but rather, an agreement between the National Road Safety Authority and the Ghana National Association of Driving Schools.

What we are doing is that we are deleting it from the Bill, so that they would have an agreement between the two organisations, and payments would continue to come to support the association.
Mr Chireh 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with him because, yesterday, the debate was very heated and if he deletes it upon consultations done, we should vote for it.
Mr Agbodza 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have no problem with the last minute withdrawal by the Hon Chairman, even with winnowing going beyond 8 p.m. yesterday. However, if that is the principle, that they are looking for a written undertaking from the Associations on a different level, would he consider doing the same thing with paragraph (d) which is also taking money from the National Insurers Association? Do they have an agreement to address that one, because they are similar? Would he
consider withdrawing that one as well?
Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Shall we cure this one first?
Mr Ayeh-Paye 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, there is no controversy on paragraph (d) as raised by Hon Agbodza. We had lengthy discussions and then the National Road Safety Commission (NRSC) and the Ministry of Transport engaged the Ghana National Association of Driving Schools and came to this conclusion. There has been no issue between the Insurers Association, NRSC and the Ministry of Transport. So I do not understand the Hon Ranking Member.
Where there is an issue and the Ministry thinks it can have that agreement with the Association to get the same sponsorship for the day-to- day activities of the Authority -- That is what we have done, so I do not think there is any controversy there that we would have to revisit.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Ayeh-Paye 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 18(1)(f), after “loans”, insert “and grants”. It would then read:
“(f) loans and grants granted to the Authority with the approval of the Minister responsible for Finance”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, now that the Hon Chairman has introduced “grants”, I guess the better construction would be, “loans and grants obtained for the Authority”.
Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.
I agree with the Hon Majority Leader because “grants granted” is -- That is why I mentioned it, hoping that the Hon Chairman would do the necessary thing. That is a further amendment; very well. Not “granted”, but “advanced”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader, are we in the position to take the matter regarding the Hon Learned Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, so that she can finish her business and proceed to other works if she so desires?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe we can break and do that.
BILLS -- SECOND READING 11:50 a.m.
Chairman of the Committee (Mr Ben A. Banda) noon
Mr Speaker I beg to support the Motion and in so doing, I present your Committee's Report.
Introduction
On 11th April, 2019, the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Ms Gloria Akuffo, laid in Parliament the Vigilantism and Related Offences Bill, 2019, under certificate of urgency in accordance with article 106(13) of the 1992 Constitution.
Consequently, the Hon Speaker referred the Bill to the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamen- tary Affairs for consideration and report pursuant to Orders 179 of the Standing Orders of Parliament. Mr Speaker further directed the Committee to determine the urgency or otherwise of the Bill in accordance with article 106(13) of the 1992 Constitution and Order 119 of the Standing Orders of Parliament.
In its earlier Report, which was submitted to the House in April 2019, the Committee communicated its
unanimous determination to the House that the Bill was of urgent nature but recommended that broader consultation with stakeholders be undertaken before the passage of the Bill. The House therefore granted the Committee's request to be given sufficient time to undertake the said consultation with Stakeholders.
Deliberations
The Committee caused notices to be published in both print and electronic media to seek memoranda from the general public. The Committee also wrote to key stakeholders including the political parties, security agencies, security experts, religious bodies and Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) to request same.
The Committee proceeded to hold a conference to discuss the views and perspectives of stakeholders.
The Committee met with officials of the Office of the Attorney-General and Ministry of Justice and Mrs Angela Dwamena, a private legal practitioner with expertise in governance, to assist in the consideration exercise. The Committee is profoundly grateful to all those who attended upon the Committee and assisted in the deliberations.
Reference Documents
The Committee referred to the following documents during its deliberations:
The 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana;
The Standing Orders of Parliament;
The Political Parties Act, 2000 (Act 574);
The Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29);
Report of the Committee on the Urgency or otherwise of the Vigilantism and Related Offences Bill, 2019; and
Written Memoranda received from Stakeholders.
Background Information
Though the concept of vigilantism connotes the act of enforcement of law by persons without authority, there have been increasing cases of groups of persons who engage in violent acts under the cloak of vigilantism.
These violent acts of vigilantism usually occur during the conduct of public elections, and in the protection of private property.
Chairman of the Committee (Mr Ben A. Banda) noon


Definition of vigilantism and related terminologies

The Committee noted that the definitions of key terminologies in the Bill do not reflect the nature of the problem we seek to deal with. The Bill defines vigilantism as “the act of enforcing law and order without authority...” While the Committee concurs that this definition reflects the dictionary meaning of the terminology, it does not reflect the understanding of the term in Ghana.

The term “vigilantism” has become associated with violence and blatant breach of our laws, and has nothing to do with law enforcement whatsoever. To this end, the Committee has proposed the necessary amendments based on article 3(2) of the 1992 Constitution for the consideration of the House.

On the basis of the above, the Committee urges the Hon. Attorney- General and Minister for Justice to review the Memorandum accompanying the Bill.

Expansion of the scope and purpose of the Bill

The main purpose of the Bill, as already stated, is to disband political party vigilante groups and proscribe acts of vigilantism in the country.

However, the Committee found this purpose of the Bill to be limited in scope, considering the diverse nature and complexities that the phenomenon of vigilantism has garnered over the years. In the view of the Committee, this calls for a broader scope of application of a special-purposed law to cover areas such as chieftaincy, religion and illegal mining (galamsey). An amendment to this effect has been proposed to expand the scope of application for the consideration of the House.

Disbandment of Political Party Vigilante Groups

The Committee again noted that the Bill seeks to disband all political party vigilante groups in the country. The Bill identifies seven (7) political vigilante groups to be disbanded in its Schedule and they are the Hawks, Invincible Force, Delta Force, Azorka Boys, Kandahar Boys and Bolga Bulldogs.

However, the Committee identified additional nineteen (19) political party vigilante groups in the country based on a research conducted by the Centre for Democratic Development (CDD) and the Kofi Annan Peacekeeping Training Centre (KAIPC). The Committee proposes that the additional list be added to the list in the Schedule and be equally disbanded. Accordingly, the
Chairman of the Committee (Mr Ben A. Banda) noon


deterrent penalties will not only support the work of law enforcement agencies but will also send a strong signal to perpetrators about the aggressive policy of the State to combat the menace.

On the basis of the above and subject to the adoption of its proposed amendments, the Com- mittee recommends to the House to adopt its Report and to pass the Vigilantism and Related Offences Bill, 2019, in accordance with article 106 of the 1992 constitutionand the Standing Orders of the House.

Respectfully submitted.

Proposed Amendments to the Vigilantism and Related

Offences Bill, 2019

Clause1 -- Amendment proposed -- Subclause (1), delete paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and insert the following:

“(a) any unlawful activity of any person or group of persons perpetuated to further the interest of

(i) a political party;

(ii)a political party officer;

(iii) a political party member; or

(iv) a person associated, related, connected or affiliated to a political party;

(b) any unlawful activity of any person or group of persons perpetuated to further an interest in land or property belonging to another person; and

(c) a person who engages in other acts of vigilantism for the purposes of advancing an interest in matters including

(i) chieftaincy;

(ii)religion; and

(iii) illegal mining.”

Clause 1 — Amendment proposed -- Subclause (2), delete.

Clause 1 — Amendment proposed -- Subclause (3), line 1, delete “shall” and insert “may”.

Clause 1 — Amendment proposed -- Sectional heading, delete and insert” Vigilante Groups”.

Clause 2 — Amendment proposed -- headnote, after “of” delete “political party”.

Clause 2 — Amendment proposed- Subclause (1), line 1, after “All” delete “political party”.

Clause 2 — Amendment proposed -- Subclause (2) to (5) delete.

Clause 3 — Amedment proposed -- headnote, delete “political party”.

Clause3 — Amendment proposed -- Subclause (1), after “indirectly” insert “resource” and in line 2, delete “political party”.

Clause 3 — Amendment proposed -- Subclause (3), paragraph (a) to (c) delete “political party”.

Clause 3 -- Amendment proposed -- Subclause (5), line 2, after “a” delete “political party”.

Clause 3 — Amendment proposed -- Headnote, delete “political party”.

Clause 4 -- Amendment proposed -- Subclause(1), paragraph (b), after “purposely” add “whether by a personal act or presence or otherwise”.

Clause 4 -- Amendment proposed -- Subclause (1), paragraph (b), delete end phrase.

Clause 4 — Amendment proposed -- Subclause (1), paragraph (b), subparagraph (iii) delete “or” and insert same after subparagraph (iv).

Clause 4 — Amendment Proposed -- Subclause (1), paragraph(c), end phrase, delete “political party” and insert “a”.

Clause 4 — Amendment proposed -- Subclause (3), line 1, after “who” delete “knowingly or having” and insert” knows or has” and in line 2, delete “political party”.

Clause 5 — Amendment proposed -- Headnote, delete “political party”.

Clause 5 — Amendment proposed -- Subclause (1), lines 2 and 3, delete “political party'.

Clause 6 — Amendment proposed- Sectional heading, insert “Land Related” before the word “Vigilantism”.

Clause 6 — Amendment proposed -- Subclauses (3) and (4), delete.

Clause 6 — Amendment proposed -- Subclause (7), delete and insert the following:
Chairman of the Committee (Mr Ben A. Banda) noon


“(7) Despite a provision in any enactment, a person armed with an offensive weapon and acts as a land guard commits an offence.”

Clause 6 — Amendment proposed -- Subclause (8), lines 1 and 2, delete “contravenes subsection (7) commits an offence and is” and insert “commits an offence under subsection (7)”.

Clause 7 — Amendment proposed -- Insert a new sectional heading as follows:

“Other Acts of Vigilantism”

Clause 7 — Amendment proposed -- Headnote, before “Other” insert “Prohibition of”.

Clause 7 — Amendment proposed-- Subclause (7) delete. “Subject to” and insert “Except in accordance with Clause (4) of Article 3 of”.

Clause 7 — Amendment proposed - - Subclause (1), paragraph (a), line 1, before “organization” insert “formation or” and in line 2, after “group” insert “for the purpose of undertaking an activity proscribed by this Act or any other enactment”.

Clause 8 — Amendment proposed -- Headnote delete “political party”.

Clause 8 — Amendment proposed -- in the clause, lines 1 and 2, after “of” delete”a political party vigilante group as specified in section 10" and insert “vigilante groups”.

Clause10 — Amendment proposed -- Interpretation of “land guard” delete and insert the following:

“land guard' means a person who

(a) is hired,

(b) receives payment, or

(c) demands payment

Clause 10 — for the use of violence or threat of violence to protect or guard land or property belonging to another person;”

Clause 10 — Amendment proposed -- Interpretation of “neighbourhood or community” delete.

Clause 10 — Amendment proposed -- Interpretation of “offensive weapon” delete and adopt

Section 206 (3)(b) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) to read as follows:

“offensive weapon' means an article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person or intended by the person who has it for that use by that person;”.

Clause 10 — Amendment proposed -- Interpretation of “political Party officer” subparagraph (a), after “elected” delete “and” and insert” “or”.

Clause 10 -- Amendment proposed -- Interpretation of “political party vigilante groups” delete.

Clause 10 -- Amendment proposed -- Interpretation of “vigilante” delete and insert the following:

“Vigilante' means a person who participates in any organized activity which, through unlawful means, suppresses or seeks to suppress the lawful activity or interest of any other person or any class of persons”.

Clause 10 — Amendment proposed -- interpretation of
Mr Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Chairman.
Hon Members, according to Standing Order 127, a full debate will
now commence on the principles of the Bill in the light of the Report of the Committee.
Alhaji Inusah A. B. Fuseini (NDC -- Tamale Central) 12:10 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to the Bill and to associate myself with the sentiments raised by the Hon Chairman in presenting the Report of the Committee.
Mr Speaker, this Bill was presented to us as one of an urgent nature. We would all agree that we need to confront vigilantism. Vigilantism has the potential to undermine the constitutional rights of the citizens of this country to exercise their franchise. By outlawing and banning vigilantism for prescribing the activities of vigilante groups, we seek to enhance citizens' participation in our democracy. It is on the basis of this understanding that when you referred the Bill to the Committee for determination whether it was of an urgent nature, the Committee came to a two-pronged solution to this issue.
Mr Speaker, thankfully, even though the Committee admitted and accepted that the Bill is of an urgent nature, the Committee also appreciated the need to input the views of stakeholders into the Bill.
Mr Speaker, we must extend our sincere gratitude to the Hon Attorney- General and Minister for Justice and her department for making herself available when we convened the stakeholders meetings. We must also thank all the stakeholders who presented memoranda and made sure that we appreciated and understood exactly the phenomenon we are dealing with.
Mr Speaker, what confronts us is vigilantism, but its definition as contained in the Bill did not bring out the menace that we seek to deal with. All the stakeholders came to that same conclusion. So, Mr Speaker, what is the menace?
In Ghana, the vigilantism that we seek to deal with at paragraph 7.2 of the Report is activities of persons associated with violence and blatant breach of our laws. It has nothing to do with the ordinary definition of vigilantism, which is trying to enforce law and order without authority; it is just violence.
Mr Speaker, what is quite apparent to all of us is that, vigilantes, within the concept of Ghana, are people who have elected to trade violence for economic gain; they trade violence to political parties, property owners and chiefs for economic gains.
Indeed, Mr Speaker, I shudder to say that these same people who appear on our political landscape as vigilantes are the same or near the same people who we find protecting people's property. They are the same people whom provide assistance to chiefs in the form of vigilantism. They have now found a lucrative way of creating violence. We must deal with it.
Mr Speaker, again, in the scope, we would realise that even in the small-scale mining sectors, people now covet lands, and they have people to stand guard while they do illegal small-scale mining. Those people who stand guard are vigilantes, because they are prepared to use violence to ward-off persons who would challenge the rights of those people engaged in illegal mining to continue to desecrate our environ- ment. As a Committee, we have tried to bring some clarity to the concept that we are trying to deal with.
As a Committee, we also came to a conclusion, but I do not find that in our Report. Though “landguardism” is not a word, we know what it means, and we thought that that should find expression in the Memorandum presented to us. We appreciated our limitation in amending the Memo- randum, because we have no such
Mr Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Thank you very much.
Yes, Hon Alexander Afenyo- Markin?
Mr Alexander K. Afenyo- Markin (NPP -- Effutu) 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to add my voice to this debate.
Mr Speaker, permit me to thank your Committee for the hard work in
coming out with this Report, and looking at their conclusion, it reads:
“The phenomenon of political party vigilantism has been increasing in number and complexity in recent times which therefore threatens the country's nascent democracy and rule of law.”
Mr Speaker, the learned Attorney- General in her earlier submission also echoed in eloquence, the need for us to address this matter, which disturbs our democracy. On page two of her written submission she said:
“The Bill therefore creates offences specific to political party vigilante groups, the phenomenon of land guards and other acts of vigilantism.”
So, Mr Speaker, clearly, we are told what this Bill is all about. I have heard opponents of this Bill argue about the relevance of this Bill. They have questioned whether, in view of the Criminal Offences Act, we have to create a new legislation to address the concerns we have.
Mr Speaker, to those who disagree with the creation of this enactment, my response to them is that, yes, we have the Criminal Offences Act in place,
but we created the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) Act, the Anti-Money Laundering Act, which brought into being the Financial Intelligence Centre, and recently, we created the Office of Special Prosecutor. Of course, we have the Attorney-General, but we created this office.
It is important to point to the extent that, the aim of such enactment is to address a specific emerging concern; it is important for all of us to give our support.
Mr Speaker, let me, in arguing in support of the matter on the Floor, give some few examples. In 2012, in the Effutu Constituency, during the campaign, we had a group of characters who would only pounce on someone when they saw him campaigning. They would come and disrupt the whole process. We do not know who sent them
Mr Speaker, one week to the election, strange characters emerged in Effutu and it took the grace of God -- I would not have been here. I was pushed into a gutter. I was assaulted, and when we got to the police station, all that the Police Commander said was that “Eye campaign politics nti monko resolve” to wit: It is cam- paign time and this is politics, so we should go and resolve it”. How do we go and resolve a matter like this?
Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon Member, I would be very glad if you would concentrate on the underlying principles. This is because we have all heard in this country, from Agbogbloshie to other places. The Hon learned Attorney-General has given us the broad framework of this in her speech.
Let us now tackle, as per our rules itself, the basic principles underpinning -- and that is why I would refer to Standing Order 127, and then we would talk at the higher level of the principle rather than not being careful that it would lead to a debate of accusations and counter-accusations. We know that and we are moving forward. So please, proceed and conclude.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have taken a cue -- [Interruption]
-- 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon Member, you would address me.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I shall address you by bringing to your attention --
Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon Member, address me.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, all I am trying to say is that --
Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
I am looking at you. We have eye contact. [Laughter]
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the disturbances in the Chamber --
Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon Member, proceed.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:20 p.m.
Very well, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, I take note of the exception although at this stage, debate is normally allowed. I know that generally at this stage, we can manoeuvre, but that is all right.
Mr Speaker, in complying with your orders, it is my submission that our democracy is young. It is not old enough. We owe it a duty to make it attractive. It should not be said that politics is a dirty game, and that if one is a gentleman or a lady, he or should not have to engage in it.
Mr Speaker that is not democracy. It should be said that we have sufficient laws to give protection to those who are engaged in democratic politicking. It should be said and if it is being said, it should be said of Ghana.
Therefore, the President's commit- ment to ensuring that we get a law to
address this concern is very commendable. He gave an option that did not materialise in due time. He said, “I shall proceed and act proactively” and rightly so the learned Attorney-General has championed that and we are here.
So Mr Speaker, we need it. We have been told that these provisions are aimed at deterring all those who would want to take comfort in engaging in illegalities and criminal conducts in the name of political vigilantism. This is because people would definitely take advantage to settle scores and use party politics for cover.
By this Bill, what we are telling all those people is that they cannot come under the protection of their political parties, where they engage in an offensive act by the provisions of this law and say that they are of party A and they go and make noise at the police station or they say that if the police invites them, they would not go. This law says that they cannot say that they would not go. They must go because this is what the law says. It is very specific. By their actions, they would have to, and that is what we need. If one is going about elections, campaigning, they are sure that we must go about doing so on issues --
Mr Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Hon Member, conclude.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:30 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, I need to land. Then I can conclude.
Mr Speaker, you would be assured that if one campaigns on issues without intimidating somebody, the people would hear him and give him the opportunity to serve.
In conclusion, it should not be a matter of partisan, parochial interests that because somebody intended to rely on political vigilantes, and was not smart enough and certain things have taken place, that person or group of persons would turn around to criticise. That should not be the case, but rather, all of us in this Chamber must support this Bill, and ensure that we pass it to consolidate the gains we have made so far, that the people of Effutu would continue to have confidence in our democracy.
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for this kind opportunity.
rose
Mr Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member? [Pause]
Mr Speaker 12:30 p.m.
I was looking at my extreme left but your Hon Colleague has virtually conceded to you, so, proceed.
Mr James Agalga (NDC-Builsa North) 12:30 p.m.
I thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
Mr Speaker, I would speak on three points. The first point flows directly from the position of the Hon Ranking Member, that it is important that the concept of vigilantism is redefined in tandem with what is contained in article 2(3) of the 1992 Constitution.
Mr Speaker, in addition to that, I wish to make reference to article 106 of the 1992 Constitution to buttress the point made by the Hon Ranking Member, that there is need for us to revise the memorandum but since our rules do not allow us to make amendments, I would humbly urge the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice to consider the revision of same.
Mr Speaker, article 106 of the 1992 Constitution envisages that the explanatory memorandum should contain at least some explanations as
to the nature of the existing laws and their defects if any.
Mr Speaker, in this debate, my Hon Colleague on the other Side of the House, the Hon Afenyo-Markin has clearly alluded to the fact that there may be some existing legislations, except that those legislations do not deal sufficiently with the issue of vigilantism in its current conceptualisation. That being the case, it is still very important that the memorandum to the Bill clearly captures the defects in our existing legislations.
Mr Speaker, in the Report of the Committee, specifically paragraph 7.1, an attempt has been made to explain what defects are inherent in the existing legislation.
In paragraph 7.1 of the Report, the Committee notes that the existing legal regime that seeks to proscribe vigilantism and its related offences is not punitive enough, but this position is captured only in the Report and not in the explanatory memorandum itself as it is envisaged under article 106 of the 1992 Constitution. In this circumstance, it is important that the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice considers the revision of the memorandum.
Having said that, I wish to draw the attention of this House to the fact
that there are certain positions, particularly in chapter 3 of the Criminal and other Offences Act 1960 (Act 30) which could be invoked to deal with the issue of vigilantism.
Mr Speaker, it is not entirely correct to say that the legal regime as it is now is not punitive enough. I would refer to section 200 (a) of the Criminal and Other Offences Act 1960 (Act 30) as amended. Under that provision --
Mr Speaker 12:30 p.m.
That regime is not punitive enough.
Mr James Agalga 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is the general view -- [Interruption] that is contained in the Report under paragraph 7.1. The Committee even captured it and that was the explanation rendered by the Hon Member. I seek to refer this Honourable House to a provision under chapter 23 which is even more punitive. That is section 200 (a) as amended of the Criminal and Other Offences Act. With your permission, that provision reads as follows:
“A person who participates in an activity of an organised criminal group commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a maximum penalty of death and a minimum penalty of improson-
ment for a period of not less than five years.”
So we need to take note of these provisions and explain in detail what the defects in the current or existing laws are as contained in the Criminal and Other Offences Act. So that we could be guided for interpretation purposes because the memorandum would form part of the records for future guidance.
Mr Speaker, my next argument has to do with the introductory part of the Report. Mention is made of the Report of Emile Short Commission and its recommendations. We cannot run away from the fact that the events of 31st January, 2019 at the Ayawaso West Wuogon bye-election was what triggered the introduction of the Vigilantism and Related Offences Bill, 2019 before this august House.
Mr Speaker, having said that, we were all happy when H.E. the President announced in the Message on the State of the Nation that we would all be guided by the recommendations of that Commission to enable us chart a path with a view to ending vigilantism once and for all in our body politic. That being the case, it is my humble view that, yes, H. E. the President has up to six months under the Constitution, that constitutional provision cannot be lost
Mr Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Hon Member, we are not saddled; Parliament is not saddled in any way. It is before us and we are proceeding.
So proceed but without --
Mr James Agalga 12:30 p.m.
Very well, Mr Speaker. I humbly withdraw the word, “saddled” and say, the introduction --
Mr Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Very well, go on.
Mr Agalga 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is my humble prayer that we are afforded the opportunity to know the recommendations in the Report of the Emile Short Commission so that we could be informed as a legislative arm of government in deliberating upon the Bill that is currently before us. That way, we would not as the legislative arm of Government take decisions which would turn out in the long run to contradict the recommendations of
the Emile Short Commission, even though we are not bound as a House to accept the recommendations and even as the President himself is not bound by same. That is the beauty of democracy, but at least, we should have the privilege of knowing what is contained in that Report.
Mr Speaker, the last point I wish to make as part of my contribution is the fact that the Bill is very good and would help us deal with the canker of political vigilantism but one important issue that the Bill fails to take account of is the fact that vigilantes sometimes go through some metamorphoses and infiltrate our security agencies.
When that happens, they are very difficult to detect. It is important that we detect and punish such characters. That is the only way we can deal holistically with the issue of political vigilantism.
Mr Speaker, it is important that at least, the Bill should incorporate provisions that would deal with the issue of the infiltration of our security services with known vigilantes.
Mr Speaker, with these few words, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Thank you very much.
One more from each Side of the House and then the Leaders.
Minister for the Interior (Mr Ambrose Dery) 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you.
I am in support of this Report and I would want to start by alluding to the point that the Hon Member for Tamale Central constituency, Alhaji Fuseini made. The point has to do with the fact that when we were confronted with the question whether the matter was of an urgent nature, I was impressed by the considerable consensus across both Sides of the House to ensure that this matter be so considered as an urgent matter and therefore, not subject to the usual procedural limitations of having to wait for two weeks --
Mr Speaker, I think that was a positive sign, that this Honourable House is prepared to support the position of His Excellency the President to make sure that vigilantism or lawlessness was, in general, nipped in the bud. And that it is so done as to ensure that moving forward, we will not have a recurrence of it. That is where paragraph number 7.1 in the Report comes in. It says that the existing laws had provided for offences normally committed by vigilantes but that the punishment was not punitive enough.
Mr Speaker, what is more is that the Court Act, encourages amicable settlement of misdemeanours. Therefore, whatever clause that the Hon Ranking Member talked about is lawful and legal, for people to sit down and try to resolve those matters. That provision was going to be the gate to the President's commitment to making sure that acts of vigilantism were actually nipped in the bud.
Indeed, we experienced in practice that when matters are reported to the Police and statements are taken, we get to court and there are no witnesses and it is quite legitimate and lawful for these matters to be resolved.
Mr Speaker, so His Excellency the President wanted to eliminate that obstacle to actually deal decisively with these offences. Therefore, even though there is a provision in the Criminal Code for higher punishments, it does not specifically apply to assault, which is a misdemeanour and which we could discuss. We want to completely eliminate the mere apprehension of harm to others. Our democratic dispensation is going to be challenged by acts of intolerance which make us feel unsafe; even by merely coming out with either weapons, clenched fists or by threats, making it impossible for people to democratically express their views and live normallly.
Minister for the Interior (Mr Ambrose Dery) 12:50 p.m.
Above all, in consonance with the President's commitment that he must make all Ghanaians and residents in Ghana feel safe, this Bill becomes very important. It closes that door to people wanting to settle and mandatorily requires that we deal with it .
Mr Speaker, it is also to ensure that acts of vigilantism or taking the law into one's own hand and doing acts that are against the law, will not be subject to the idiosyncrasies of any leader at any time but what the statutes provide, that those acts should be dealt with.
So I totally agree with the paragraph 7.1 of the Report and whether it appears in the memorandum or not, at this Second Reading, we are dealing with the principles and I have alluded to the laws as they stand; the Court Act and the Criminal Code, and we are already having problems. I believe it is important that we deal with it decisively.
Mr Speaker, we are taking our constitutionalism for granted. We have gone since the 1992 to 1993 to this stage and yet, we have activities that are not in sync with the multi-party democracy that we practice. Therefore, this law is going to assist
us, and I am happy that both Sides of the House are supporting it to make sure that we truly establish and even push the frontiers of free speech and fundamental human rights in the context of our political activities.
Mr Speaker, what we are dealing with is the principle and the principle to check vigilantism or lawlessness does not depend on any particular event. Immediately, the President took office, he made sure that acts of lawlessness such as illegal mining were taken and we had ‘Operation Vanguard' to deal with it. We did not have to wait for any events. We also had ‘Operation Calm Life' to deal with armed robbery and landguardism. I think the death of one illustrious son, Major Mahama, was also a warning to us and therefore, whatever events took place, does not hold us to ransom.
The President's position has been clear, that he is going to deal with lawlessness and everything that will make us feel unsafe in Ghana. Therefore, this Bill is well before us and should not be arrested by any events so that we go to particular occurrences in the past or now.
Mr Speaker, I believe that the principles are going to be adequate to serve us, regardless of whatever
outcomes there are of any other investigations. The important thing is that the law exists to ensure that people enjoy their fundamental human rights; and these acts or people who take the law into their own hands and do not submit themselves to the law, security agencies and indeed, law abiding citizens under article 41 of the 1992 Constitution to handle, that will not be. So it is properly before us.
I also want to comment on the allegation that vigilantes are migrating into the security services. I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that we are dealing with security officers who have committed offences under the Criminal Code and they are being tried some for robbery, extortion among others. Therefore, merely allegedly getting into a security agency does not grant anybody any immunity to the person being arrested, charged and tried for any acts of illegality.

So all in all, I think that this Bill is a promise delivered by a President committed to his words and it is a promise that was delivered to make sure that Ghana is safe and all citizens and residents of Ghana remain safe.

Mr Speaker, it is more so because of the special circumstances that we have in respect of our neighbouring

countries, that we are an oasis of peace and this Bill would consolidate this peace and security and make sure that we move beyond lip service but real positive action to nib in the bud the activities of vigilantes.

Mr Speaker, therefore, I support that this Bill be passed and all of us would go beyond passing this Bill and actually act accordingly to make sure that our people are educated to make Ghana a sound, peaceful and safe country and to deliver on the President's commitment to make Ghana safe.

Mr Speaker, thank you.
Mr Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Hon Minister, thank you very much.
Hon Minority Leader.
Minority Leader (Mr Haruna Iddrisu) 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thought that because of the nature of the Bill, we could accommodate one of the young Hon Members who spoke for my Side of the House. Hon Fuseini and Hon Agalga, are more experienced Hon Members. Mr Speaker, but I could see that for want of time, probably because it is a Friday --
Mr Speaker, first of all, I would thank you for the opportunity and in
Mr Speaker, she also added that 12:50 p.m.
“As long as the Constitution remains the “winner-takes-all,” we must all find a way of fighting vigilantism where we find ourselves … educationally, socially, institutionally, struc- turally and policy-wise … and whether in our villages, towns and hamlets.”
Mr Speaker, I would want to associate myself with her comments, urge our Hon Colleagues, and to assure the President that in my view, there are three eminent threats to Ghana's nascent democratic practice. When I had the opportunity to address the Youth Congress of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) in the Central Region, I had
cause to draw attention to these three threats.
First, is the monetisation of our democracy, because today democracy is to the highest bidder, whether it is an election at the local level, that is to be DCE or high level to be Member of Parliament, it is all now about money. Mr Speaker, this is an imminent threat to multi-party democracy and we should ask about the source of the moneys. We all complain everyday about corruption and this money could be good money.
The second threat to our democracy is vigilantism and so therefore, we support this Bill. Mr Speaker, get our argument, the same President I heard the Hon Minister for the Interior praise, is clothed with authority and all these offences have been defined in the Criminal Offences Act.
Therefore, if the President wants to act, he could act and so we should not hide behind the lack of political will and political courage to punish our own as if we are demonstrating a different commitment. Mr Speaker, all these offences, including when a person raises his or her hand and it amounts to a threat are defined in the Criminal Code and its amendments.
Mr Speaker, I am particularly happy that you drew the attention of our Hon Colleague, if he wanted examples then we are replete with
them because myself and Hon Dan Botwe -- ‘the general' as he was called, I “viglanteed” him in Asankragwa sometime to ensure free and fair elections and he knows this.
Mr Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, we would not introduce examples now. We have passed that stage.
Mr Iddrisu 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we could give several examples from both Sides but I am saying that political violence is not renege to any political party and the two main political parties must accept that there has been excesses from both Sides.
Mr Speaker, we support the principle and I am particularly encouraged; but a Bill with 38 amendments? It will only be neater that the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice withdraws it, cleans up the 38 amendments to it and brings it again for us to pass it expeditiously.
Mr Speaker, this is my view and so when we asked for the withdrawal of the Bill, it is not to oppose the policy principle. Because we cannot have a Bill which has eight or nine clauses yet we have 38 amendments and I understand that the Committee discussed the merit of this Bill at their level.
Mr Speaker, reference is made to the Bill in its memorandum and paragraph 3 reads 12:50 p.m.
“The phenomena of political related violence threatens Ghana's democracy and the rule of law.”
Paragraph 4 also reads:
“Consequently, there has been widespread revulsion and condemnation expressed by the public in the aftermath of the Ayawaso West Wougon by- election of 31st January, 2019. This led to the President of the Republic to appoint a Commissioner of Inquiry.”
Mr Speaker, I beg to end here and refer you to article 278 of the 1992 Constitution which I would quote for the purposes of elucidating my point. Article 278 (1) provides:
“Subject to article 5 of the Constitution, the President shall, by constitutional instrument, appoint a commissioner of inquiry into any matter of public interest where --”
Mr Speaker, this matter is of public interest because the President wants to secure the safety of Ghanaian citizens, the stability of the country and

the peace of the country. Mr Speaker, the President has our support, but article 278 (4) of the Constitution provides that:

“Subject to clause (3) of this article, where a commission of inquiry appointed under clause (1) of this article consists of more than …”

Mr Speaker, this is not where my interest is, but in article 278 (2) where the Commission of Inquiry presents its report and so I would lead you to article 280, having read article 278.

Article 280 (3) reads:

“The President shall, subject to clause (4) of this article cause to be published the report of a commission of inquiry together with the White Paper on it within six months after the date of the submission of the report by the commission.”

We demand from President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, that in the interest of good governance and transparency to publish the Commission of Inquiry report on Ayawso West Wougon, consistent with the provisions of article 280 of the Constitution. Mr Speaker, this must be done because they cannot

tell us that that informed the memo- randum of the Bill yet the public is not
-- 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, have six months elapsed?
Mr Iddrisu 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, within six months could also mean a week or a month.
Mr Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, you are out of order.
There is latitude to operate within the parameter. A person must act within six months and that have not lapsed so how do you query him?
Please proceed.
Mr Iddrisu 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I did not use the word “lapse”; I also demand that the report should be published within six months. I am within six months just as the President is also within six months.
Mr Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Please until six months are gone no one could make any such reference.
Mr Iddrisu 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, but someone could make a demand and I am making a demand that he publishes the report.
Mr Speaker 1 p.m.
Your demand is out of order.
Mr Iddrisu 1 p.m.
I am not out of order.
Mr Speaker 1 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, this is unparliamentary.
We must operate within the parameters of laws. Let us be legalistic and clear in these matters.
Mr Iddrisu 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have taken note. I would be guided. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker, reference was made to article 106 of the 1992 Constitution, and respectively, again, I would refer you to it. I do so referencing the Explanatory Memorandum ably signed by the learned Attorney-General and Minister for Justice.
Article 106 (2) provides, and I beg to quote:
“(2) No bill, other than such a bill! As is reffered to in paragraph (a) of article 108 of this Constitution shall be introduced in Parliament unless --
(a) It is accompanied by an explanatory memorandum
…”
Mr Speaker 1 p.m.
Hon Member, say I heard the Hon Minister for the Interior say because you are addressing me. I would not allow that approach because it brings unnecessary opprobrium in the hall of Parliament.
Mr Iddrisu 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, you are in charge.
Mr Speaker 1 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, you would address me.
Mr Iddrisu 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, Rt Hon Prof. Mike Ocquaye -- [Laughter.]
Mr Speaker 1 p.m.
Hon Member, we do not mention the names of Speakers in Parliament by parliamentary courtesy and approaches [Laughter.]
Mr Iddrisu 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am concluding on the point my elder Brother, the Hon Minister for the Interior made. He admitted that within the security agencies, there are men
and women who have flouted the law and are being dealt with, but the point the Hon Agalga raised was about when political parties in their inability to find employment for their vigilantes absorb them into the security agencies.
rose
Mr Speaker 1 p.m.
Yes, Hon Minister for the Interior?
Mr A. Dery 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to assure the Hon Minority Leader that that is not the mode of recruitment into the security services under H. E. the President, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo. It is not the mode.
Mr Speaker 1 p.m.
Point of correction taken. Please, Hon Minority Leader, go on.
Mr Iddrisu 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, he said some people were being tried. Those were his words. However, on vigilantism we all lived in this country when --I know vigilantes in Tamale who find their way into the police or military. I should worry.
So Mr Speaker, my conclusion is that, let the Ghana Armed Forces and the Ghana Police Service be professional. They should let recruitment into those instutions be
professional and open, and let it be meritorious. Let it not be limited to political vigilantes of the ruling elites or ruling political party.
I thank you.
Mr Speaker 1 p.m.
Majority Leadership?
Majority Leader (Mr Osei K y e i - M e n s a h - B o n s u ) 1 p.m.
M r Speaker, let me also thank you for the opportunity given me to support the Report from the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parlia- mentary Affairs on the referral to them relating to the Vigilantism and Related Offences Bill, 2019.
Mr Speaker, let me begin by also quoting article 280 of the 1992 Constitution, the same article the Hon Minority Leader quoted. The Hon Minority Leader quoted to us clause (3) of article 280 on account of which he demanded the publication of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry.
Mr Speaker, with your permission, let me quote for his elucidation, clause 4 of same article 280 which provides:
“Where the report of a commission of inquiry is not to be published, the President shall issue a statement to that effect giving reasons why the report is not to be published.”
Majority Leader (Mr Osei K y e i - M e n s a h - B o n s u ) 1:10 p.m.


So Mr Speaker, the publication of a report does not have any automaticity in that. The Hon Minority Leader should know that. Nobody should say that to the extent that a report has not been published, it is a breach of the Constitution, it is not.

Mr Speaker, issues have been raised about the fact that some of these offences exist in the Criminal and other Offences Act, and sections 200 has been cited. Section 200 (a) provides and I beg to quote:

“A person who participates in the activities of organised criminal group …”

When has the political parties conceded that these vigilante groups are organised criminal groups? When have they conceded? We have always been in a state of denial. And so we are not even able to apply that law because the political parties never concede that they are organised criminal groups. That is the issue, which this Bill seeks to deal with.

Mr Speaker, indeed, what we are doing is in sync with article 19 (11) of the 1992 Constitution. Political vigilantism is now being criminalised, and the penalty for it is being prescribed. That is the essence of what we are doing. So there is a world

of difference between what he is saying and what exists in the law. That is why it is important for us to apply critical thinking to this.

I agree that indeed we may have to enhance the provisions in this Bill. I agree with that entirely. Let it not be said that because the Committee itself has proposed to us about 38 amendments to a Bill that contains 10 sections, necessarily the Bill may have to be withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, in the Petroleum Revenue Management Act, 2011 (Act 815), I proposed 158 amendments. How many clauses are contained in that Act? Did it have to be withdrawn?

Let us be consistent. We want to have what is best for us as a country. I know that a political party is a group of people involved in certain activities. Indeed, under the 1992 Constitution, a political party is a national organisation of people united by a common principal political aim. A political party is not any group that is charged to cause confusion.

If they do that to brutalise and maim people, they are going outside they remit. Article 55 (3) of the Constitution provides further amplification of what a political party should be doing. It provides:

“Subject to the provisions of this article, a political party is free to participate in shaping of the political will of the people, to disseminate information on political ideas, social and economic programmes of a national character, and sponsor candidates for elections to any public office other than to District Assemblies or lower local government units”.

Mr Speaker, participation in the shaping of political will of people involves education, convincing and persuading people. It is about brain power and not about brawl or physicality.
rose
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:10 p.m.
Tena ase, to wit, sit down.
Mr Iddrisu 1:10 p.m.
None

I listen to you when you speak. Listen to me when I speak.
Mr Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, address me.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, dissemination of information on political ideas, social, economic, educational, cultural and international ideas are objectives that are set out in Chapter 6 of the Constitution. This is what political parties are required to weave their manifestos around, and those who constitute vigilante groups do not even appreciate that electioneering campaigns are just a contest of ideas, because they are not capable of appreciating that.
They resort to brawl and physicality. Convincing and persuading people about your own economic, social, educational, political and cultural ideas is about brain power, not about brawl. So why do they constitute that group within the political party?
Mr Speaker, as I said, and I charge the political parties, who among these political parties has come out openly to admit that these are organised criminal groups? We are always shielding them, and they do not cause order in the party. They cause disorder even within the same parties. They are intimidating and beating people even within the same political parties.
That is the phenomenon that we have to deal with, and looking at the Report of the Committee, with your permission, paragraph 4.1 says:
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:10 p.m.


“…although the concept of vigilantism connotes the act of enforcement of law by persons without the authority, there have been increasing cases of group of persons who engage in violent acts under the cloak of vigilantism”.

Paragraph 4.3 says:

“among the recent acts of political party vigilantism is the violence which characterised the Ayawaso West Wuogon Consti- tuency by-election held on 31st January, 2019, and which sad event was roundly condemned by all citizens”.

That indeed provided the watershed which His Excellency afforded himself to cause the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice to initiate this Bill, and that is what is before us.

Mr Speaker, the Coalition of Civil Society Organisations has sent a memorandum to this House through the Committee, and they relate to various issues. The Coalition represents 28 national civil society organisations and groups, including religious bodies, professional associations, think tanks, women, youth and workers' groups. They are all saying that this indeed is a very useful step that this country has taken.

However, they indicate to us that first of all, they make preliminary statements on the memorandum, which some people have spoken to. I agree entirely with them, going by the recently passed Interpretations Act, 2009 (Act 792) because if there is a conflict relating to any interpretation in any clause in any enactment that Parliament passes, the debate is also resorted to in giving interpretation.

So the memorandum should be informative, and I agree if we have to perhaps, expand it. This is because the memorandum itself is the policy outline, and as a Parliament, we may have to look at how to reconcile policy with programme.

It explains why when we came to fashioning the Petroleum Revenue Management Act, 2011 (Act 815) Hon Moses Asaga caused an amendment to be made which ran contrary to the memorandum and the House accepted that. So who is saying we cannot expand it? I disagree to the extent that the principle is further enriched.

Mr Speaker, so if it does not offend the Constitution, I agree that we may even have to look at the Memorandum. Having said that, the Coalition has offered clause by clause critique of all the provisions, and I

believe that they would further enrich what we do, including those of us who have not even read the Bill. Now is the time, and happily, this is a weekend.

Let us all digest the contents of the Bill, and if we have to add to improve it, regardless of the amendments that may be proffered, if the winnowing committee comes to a determination that perhaps there are too many amendments, we would determine how to structure the winnowing.

If it becomes too much of a handful for us and the Hon Minister has to withdraw and come back, so be it.

So Mr Speaker, nothing untoward is being done. What the Hon Minister did by introducing this Bill under a certificate of urgency was to introduce this Bill to us so that Parliament would be seized of the Bill before we went on recess. Nobody compelled us to take the Bill within one day, which is what the Committee themselves determined, that the issues involved are so fundamental that they needed much more time to engage stakeholders, and what they have done has been most productive.

Let us further digest it, and when we come to the clause by clause Consideration, do what is right and

appropriate to enhance our demo- cratic governance.

Mr Speaker, I thank you very much for the space granted.
Mr Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Majority Leader.
Hon learned Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, would you like to make concluding remarks?
Ms G. Akuffo 1:20 a.m.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
First of all, on behalf of my office, I would like to convey our gratitude to the Rt Hon Speaker for finding space on the list of Business of the House when the Bill was first presented to be laid on 11th April, 2019, in spite of the House's very tall list of activities, and the fact that the House was almost rising. We are very grateful.

Mr Speaker, again, I wish to convey our gratitude to your Committee and in particular to the Hon Chairman and the Hon Ranking Member for the stern leadership they exhibited in presiding over the meeting, considering whether the Bill is fit to be considered under the certificate of urgency. I thank God that the request found favour with the Committee, that there was the need
Ms G. Akuffo 1:20 a.m.


to treat the Bill under the certificate of urgency.

I must also commend the Committee for its position, which I consider commendable, that there is the need for broad consultation to enable the Bill to be dealt with in a consensus that would enable the whole country to have a say in it. We have since attended the stakeholders meeting and I must observe that the stakeholders treated the Bill with the seriousness that it deserves. We, therefore, also thank the stakeholders for their input.

Mr Speaker, I have listened carefully to the contributions of Hon Members from both Sides of the House. I see no fundamental difference in the positions taken towards considering the Bill. I have listened to proposals that have been made. In my view, it would only go to making the Bill richer when it comes to the clause by clause Consideration. And I must thank Hon Members for their input.

I wish to make an undertaking on behalf of my office, that we standby to assist the House in considering the Bill so that Ghana would be a safer place for all of us.

I thank you for your attention.
Mr Speaker 1:20 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon learned Attorney-General and Minister for Justice.
Question put and Motion agreed to.
The Vigilantism and Related Offences Bill, 2019 was accordingly read a Second time.
Mr Speaker 1:20 a.m.
Hon Members, we are back to Consideration Stage.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 1:20 a.m.
STAGE 1:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker 1:20 a.m.
Clause 30?
Clause 30, Offences and penalties
Mr Ayeh-Paye 1:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 30 -- subclause (1), redraft as follows:
“A person who fails to comply with a notice issued by the Authority under subsection (1) of section 25, commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not less than five hundred penalty units
Mr Ayeh-Paye 1:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 30, “subclause (2), line 3, after “than” delete all the words up the end of the subclause and insert the following:
“two hundred and fifty penalty units and not more than five hundred penalty units or to a term of imprisonment of not less than one year and not more than three years or to both the fine and the term of imprisonment”.
Mr Speaker 1:20 a.m.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker would take the Chair.
11. 26 p. m. --
MR SECOND DEPUTY SPEAKER
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 a.m.
Hon Chairman, what is it that you so moved? -- [Laughter.]
Mr Ayeh-Paye 1:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 30, “subclause
(2), line 3, after “than” delete all the words up the end of the subclause and insert the following:
“two hundred and fifty penalty units and not more than five hundred penalty units or to a term of imprisonment of not less than one year and not more than three years or to both the fine and the term of imprisonment”.
Question put and amendment agreed to
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 a.m.
Hon Chairman, item numbered (v).
Mr Ayeh-Paye 1:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 30, subclause (3), paragraph (b), line 2, before “crashes” insert “traffic”
So that it reads “road traffic crashes”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 a.m.
Hon Chairman, we move to —
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu — rose —
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 a.m.
Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, just a little observation. We dealt with items numbered (iii) and (iv) as well. I noticed that for (iii), we said “to a term of imprisonment not less than eighteen months and not more than six years or to both”. Now, when we come to (iv), the concluding phrase is “to a term of imprisonment of not less than one year and not more than three years or to both the fine and the term of imprisonment”.
Mr Speaker, I believe we need to be consistent; if we have to end at ‘to both', let us end (iv) at ‘to both'. Or if we have to have the full complement as in (iv), the same would have to affect (iii).
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader, my copy of the Bill seems to have a different numbering from yours. Clause 30 is on page 16 of the Bill. Were you referring to the Order Paper?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:20 a.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker, page 3.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 a.m.
The item numbered 6 (iv)? We have finished the items numbered 6 (iv) and (v); we are now at (vi).
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, what I am saying is that when you look at the item numbered 6 (iii), the concluding phrase says --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 a.m.
It says, “eighteen months and not more than six years or to both”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:20 a.m.
When we come to Item numbered 6 (iv), it says, “a term of imprisonment of not less than one year and not more than three years or to both the fine and the term of imprisonment”. We should be consistent.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 a.m.
Hon Chairman, have you got the import of the proposal made by the Hon Majority Leader? It is unfortunate that we put the Question on those amendments earlier. I think the first one was done by the Hon Speaker. The Hon Majority Leader is saying that the amendment moved as the item numbered 6 (iv) should be consistent with the earlier (iii). What do you say to that?
Mr Ayeh-Paye 1:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Majority Leader's proposal and support the further amendment.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 a.m.
I would relax the rules and go back to
put the Question on item numbered 6 (iv) on page 3 of the Order Paper.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 a.m.
The draftspersons should take note of that and reconcile the decision as taken.
We would now go to item numbered 6 (vi). Hon Chairman?
Mr Ayeh-Paye 1:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 30, subclause (3), paragraph (c), line 1, delete “carry out” and insert “comply with”.
This is just a clear understanding of the import of the paragraph.
Mr Ahiafor 1:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the amendment is in the proper direction because you comply with notices and directives.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Ayeh-Paye 1:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 30, subclause (3), paragraphs (d) and (e), delete.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 a.m.
Hon Chairman, why are you calling on us to delete paragraphs (d) and (e)?
rose
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 a.m.
Are you a member of the Committee?
Mr Ahiafor 1:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am a member of the winnowing committee.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 a.m.
So it is the winnowing committee that took the decision and not the Committee itself?
Mr Ahiafor 1:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I happened to be a friend to the Committee at the time they were working the clause by clause of this particular Bill.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 a.m.
So has the Chairman hired you as his counsel? The question was directed at the Chairman and then you decided to answer it for and on his behalf.
Mr Ahiafor 1:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, when the Hon Chairman was not rising, I decided to act as an amicus curiae.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 a.m.
The Hon Chairman would not refuse the directive of the Speaker because the question was directed at him.
Mr Ahiafor 1:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, he signalled me --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:40 a.m.
[Laughter] All right, you can go on.
Mr Ahiafor 1:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, let me start with subclause 3 (e). It says:
“answer a question relevant to a matter which is the subject of an investigation by the Authority”.
We all know the constitutional imperative that you have the right to remain silent when you are being investigated. Therefore, for us to make a law and impose a liability on the person who is being investigated to answer would be contrary to the provisions of the Constitution that allow a person being investigated to remain silent. Based on that, the Committee is of the view that this particular provision based on the constitutional imperative should be deleted.
Then subclause 3 (d) says:
“prepare and submit to the Authority any return or information required under this Act”.
This is superfluous because there are provisions in the Bill that deal specifically with provisions related to giving out information and it is even an offence when they request for the
information and you do not give it. So, we realised that subclause 3 (d) would be superfluous. In view of that, the Committee took the decision to delete subclause 3 (d) and (e).
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:40 a.m.
Hon Member, thank you very much.
We only need to go back to subclause 3(b) and after “road”, insert “or”, since you are now deleting (d) and (e), so that the sentence could be complete.
Mr Ayeh-Paye 1:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, looking at the position of (d) and (e) -- The “or” comes before the (e), so now that we are deleting (e), I beg to move, paragraph (b) after “road”, insert “or”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:40 a.m.
I direct that the draftspersons should make the necessary amendment.
Mr Ayeh-Paye 1:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 30, subclause (3), closing phrase after paragraph (e), line 2, before “hundred”, delete “one” and insert “five.
The new rendition would be:
“…. not less than five hundred and fifty penalty units''.
Mr Speaker, we want to do this because it would give a stiffer punishment to the offenders. The Bill proposed one hundred penalty units, but for the safety issue which concerns life and death, it is important that the punishment to offenders be a bit stiffer for them to do the right thing.
Mr Avedzi 1:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree that we make the punishment much punitive so that people would not offend the law, but if we convert five hundred and fifty penalty units into Ghana cedis, it is GH¢6,600. With the nature of even some of the vehicles on the road, their value itself would not cost up to GH¢6,000. So if they would be in position to honour and pay if they are fined we could reduce the figure to three hundred or three hundred and fifty penalty units which would be punitive enough because that GH¢6,600 would be too much for them to pay.
Mr Ayeh-Paye 1:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Deputy Minority Leader referred to drivers who would pay a penalty - the National Road Safety Authority would regulate road safety players in the industry, so we are talking about dealing with institutions like the DVLA, the transport providers like
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:40 a.m.
Hon Deputy Minority Leader, it is clear. It would not deal with the individuals but the institutions.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Ayeh-Paye 1:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 30, subclause (5), line 1, delete “public or private” and insert “person, institution or” and in line 4, delete “twenty-five” and insert “two hundred and fifty”.
Mr Speaker, we are talking about public and private, but the fact is that a “person and institution” embodies both private and public. So it is clearer to use, “person, institution or organisation''. We would also want to increase the penalty units to give stiffer punishments.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:40 a.m.
The purpose is to enhance the minimum and not the maximum and also to reduce the discretion that is given to the courts.
Mr Avedzi 1:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, my concern is not about the rates or the units. The clause 3 says:
“A person who fails to
(a) Comply…''
When I explained about the drivers, the Hon Chairman of the Committee indicated that the “person'' used referred to the institutions. Now, in this clause, he has proposed we insert “a person, institution or organisation''. Does the ‘'person'' in clause 3 not refer to the “institution and organisation''?
Mr Ayeh-Paye 1:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the “institution'' is a legal person and an organisation, so it does not change anything. When I say a “person'', I am referring to the - we added the organisation” or “institution” for emphasis.
Mr Ahiafor 1:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, ideally, when a “person” is used in inter- pretation, it refers or includes corporate bodies, institutions and organisations but for internal inconsistencies in this particular Bill, we have used “person'', “institution'' and “organisation'' all along. So the use of them in clause 30(5), is to be in consonance with the previous amendment that has been done.
The “person'' in clause 30 (3) will as well mean a corporate body, institution and organisation, but in this particular clause, it creates an offence. So if we want it to be consistent then we would have to say, “a person, institution or organisation''.
In clause 30 (4), in applying the sanction, they make a distinction between natural persons and artificial persons such as institutions and organisations. So, in clause 30 (3), the use of “persons'' would be ideal so that the distinction that would be made when it comes to sentencing of person made up of corporate and natural person would be very clear. So, “a person'' used in this particular clause is perfectly in order and “a person, institution or organisation”, used in subclause 5, would also fit into the law.
Ms Safo 1:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the phrase “a person, institution or organisation'' as rightly said by Hon Ahiafor, is what has been used in the Bill, and I believe it is for the purposes of emphasis which would lay out
“a person'' in general legal terms to include, institutional or corporate.
Mr Speaker, in the same Bill, I believe that for purposes of
consistency, we should stick to one. If we are really working with a person, where in the interpretation section, “a person” includes, “institution” and “an organisation”, then we stick with it; or if we want to go the way of emphasising and giving detail to what “person” means, then we can go by “person, institution or organisation”.
Mr Speaker, so if the latter is what is used consistently in the Bill, then I will propose that the issue that was raised by the Hon Deputy Minority Leader on clause 30, subclause (1) and subclause (5) should be consistent with the proposed amendment of the Hon Chairman in clause 30 subclause (7), where he gives the detail of mentioning “person, institution or organisation,” so that there would be consistency in the same Bill.
Mr Ahiafor — rose——
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:40 a.m.
Do you want to come back?
Mr Ahiafor 1:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, if we carry out the amendment in that way, then what happens to clause 30 subclause (4)? And if I may read:
“(4) Where the person under subsection (3) is a body corporate and the person defaults in the payment of the
fine, the principal officer of the body corporate is liable to a term of imprisonment of not less than twelve months and not more than four years and is in addition, liable for the payment of compensation for any damage resulting from the breach unless the principal officer proves to the satisfaction of the court that
(a) the principal officer exercised due diligence to secure compliance with the provisions of the Act; and
(b) the offence was committed without the knowledge, consent or connivance of the principal officer.”

Mr Speaker, to use “the person” throughout would mean that consequentially, we would have to go back and then do the amendments.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:40 a.m.
Well, I do not know the earlier decisions you took because from what you are all saying, “the person” there means an individual, an institution or
Mr Chireh 1:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it was the Hon Majority Leader who asked us to do what we have done, and we agreed with him. So I would rather suggest to the Hon Deputy Minority Leader that we would add “institution” and “organisation” in the earlier one he referred to, so that we would be consistent. It is because with regard to what we did, if we look at clause 25 subclause (2)(b) which I beg to read:
“revoke or cancel the licence, certificate or permit that empowers the person, institution or organisation to carry out the undertaking”.
Mr Speaker, based on that when we came to clause 28, we initially deleted all the Ministry, Departments, Agency, et cetera; but it is this particular one that the Hon Majority Leader said no to. And that because of clause 25, we should also say, “a person, institution or organisation.” From then on, if we came across a thing like that, we added those things.
Mr Speaker, so I will suggest that with what he is objecting to, we would rather go and add “institution” or “organisation” there, to be consistent. That is my proposal.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:40 a.m.
So I direct that the draftspersons should include “institution or organisation”, wherever a word refers to “person”, unless otherwise stated.
So we will go back to item numbered 6 (xi) on page 4 of the Order Paper.
Mr Ayeh-Paye 1:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 30, subclause (7), line 1, delete “public” or “private” and insert “person, institution or” and in line 3, delete “ten” and insert “fifty”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:40 a.m.
Hon Members, the first part of the proposed amendment is conse- quential. It is the second part that we are enhancing; moving from ten to fifty.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:40 a.m.
Hon Members, I have been informed that there are further administrative works to be done to clause 30. So I will not put the Question on the whole
of clause 30. We will leave that and move to clause 31.
Ms Safo 1:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, respect- fully, I am happy you would not put the Question on the entire clause 30. This is just for the Table Office and the drafterpersons to take note that in clause 30 subclause (3), paragraph (e), the latter part of it, the last line, “or to both” is being deleted.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:40 a.m.
We have deleted it.
Ms Safo 1:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, then I make an application for us to take a Motion on the Order Paper Addendum.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:40 a.m.
Hon Deputy Majority Leader, do you want to urge on the House to suspend further Consideration and move to a different business?
Ms Safo 1:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, to suspend briefly for us to take a Motion on the Order Paper Addendum on the Report of the Committee to appoint the Auditor- General. It is a very brief Report; and thereafter, we could come back to the Consideration Stage.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker Hon Deputy Majority Leader, I do
not have what you are referring to— the Order Paper Addendum or the Report you are referring to.
Mr Chireh 1:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have a problem with the way the Hon Deputy Majority Leader wants to vary the business. Today is Friday; are we going to continue after that? We should finish with clause 31, and we would have an end to it, then we would — She should advise the presiding officer properly. Is the Hon Speaker supposed to bring a close to the Consideration of the Bill today? If so, we would understand. If she is, however, saying we should suspend the Consideration Stage, it would then mean that after we have taken the Resolution, we would continue. Which one is she saying?
Ms Safo 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my proposal was for us to suspend briefly and take the Report of the Ad hoc Committee for Parliament to appoint an auditor to audit the Auditor- General.
We would come back and complete the Consideration Stage or even continue if there is still time.
Mr Speaker, I concede that today is Friday, so if by the time we are done with both Reports --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
Hon Members, in view of the Business before the House, I direct that Sitting should continue beyond the stipulated time. Even though we have gone beyond 2:00 p.m. now, I realise we did not give the directive.

Hon Members, I am informed that the Order Paper of yesterday captured the item as an addendum. Now, it is not before the House. I do not have a copy, so I do not know which item it is to mention.
Ms Safo 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, from the information that the Clerks-at-the- Table have given -- The Hon Majority and Minority Leaders and I, saw the Order Paper Addendum this morning, and it was the item
numbered 1. The Order Paper of yesterday actually advertised it to be taken. I believe that it was an oversight on the part of the Clerks-at-the-Table not to have placed it on today's Order Paper. So, an addendum was made this morning to be taken today.
Mr Chireh 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, you know that in this House, we do not take decisions on any matter unless it is on the Order Paper. They have not brought any addendum, so it means that we should really go back to what we were doing. When the Order Paper Addendum is ready, then, we would go to it because it is one of the rules that we do not joke with.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
Hon Members, I have just been handed the Order Paper Addendum; Friday, 7th June, 2019. The item referred to is numbered 1, which is a procedural Motion; item numbered 2 is the substantive one.
Hon Members do not have copies yet, so we cannot proceed until you are given copies. We could have gone on with the Consideration Stage --
Ms Safo 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, Hon Yieleh Chireh said when you see it, the House has seen it. So we would go by his dictates. I quoted Hon Yieleh Chireh a few minutes ago - [Laughter.]
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
Well, has he now become your authority? I hope tomorrow you would continue to quote him as your authority.
Yes, Hon Member?
Mr Chireh 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I saw that you were given a paper and I said that so long as you are presiding and you say you have received it, we should all take it that there is an Order Paper Addendum, but the two Hon Deputy Leaders have a problem. Instead of giving us copies of this supposed Order Paper Addendum, they refused flatly to give them out. Meanwhile, this Motion is in their name, and that is where the problem is because they have conflict of interest situation. [Laughter.]
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
Well, I actually do not see a conflict of interest situation in this matter. They are not serving their interests but that of the people.
I would call on the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Public Accounts
to move the procedural Motion, which is item numbered 1. [Interruption.] Who is the Hon Chairman of the Committee?
Ms Safo 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am the Chairperson of the Committee.
MOTIONS 2 p.m.
Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee (Ms Sarah A. Safo) 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 80(1) which requires that no Motion shall be debated until at least forty-eight hours have elapsed between the date on which notice of the Motion is given and the date on which the Motion is moved, the Motion for the adoption of the Report of the Ad hoc Committee on the appointment of an Auditor to audit the accounts of the Office of the Auditor- General may be moved today.
Mr James K. Avedzi 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.
Question put and Motion agreed to.
Resolved Accordingly
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
Now, we would move to item numbered 2 on the Order Paper Addendum, which also stands in the name of the Hon Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee.
Appointment of an Auditor to Audit the Accounts of
the Office of the Auditor- General
Ms Safo 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that this Honourable House adopts the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Appointment of an Auditor to Audit the Accounts of the Office of the Auditor- General.
Mr Speaker, in doing so, I beg to present your Committee's Report.
Introduction
The Ad Hoc Committee on the Appointment of an Auditor to Audit the Accounts of the Office of the Auditor General was constituted by the House on 6th October, 2017 pursuant to Article 103 (1) of the 1992 Constitution and Order 191 of the Standing Orders of the House.
The Committee comprises the underlisted:
(i) Hon Sarah Adwoa Safo - Deputy Majority Leader and Chairperson of the Committee
(ii) Hon James Klutse Avedzi - Member
(iii) Hon. Kofi Okyere Agyekum -- Member
Pursuant to Order 198(1) of the Standing Orders of the House, Mr Louis Yiadom Boakye was appointed as Clerk to the Committee.
Background
The importance of appointing an independent auditor to audit the accounts of the Office of the Auditor- General was first provided for under article 135(15) of the 1969 Constitution. This provision was reproduced in article 151 (15) of the Third Republican Constitution (1979) and in article 187(15) of the current 1992 Fourth Republican Constitution.
On 11th December, 2003, the Fourth Republican Parliament for the first time approved the appointment of an auditor to audit the accounts of the Office of the Auditor-General as mandated under article 187(15) of the 1992 Constitution. The auditors who were appointed upon the said approval, Messrs Opoku, Andoh and
Company, were mandated to audit the accounts relating to the period 1st January,1993 to 31st December, 2002. The auditors were, however, directed under the authority of the Speaker to continue the audit of the accounts up to 2011.
In the exercise of the powers conferred on Parliament by article 187(15) of the Constitution, another Ad Hoc Committee was constituted by the 6th Parliament on 12th July, 2013 in accordance with Order 191 to recommend to the House the appointment of an auditor to audit the accounts of the Office of the Auditor General.
Following the report of that Committee, Messrs. Egala, Atitso and Associates were appointed and given the mandate to audit the accounts of the Office of the Auditor General till 31st December, 2015. Presently, the tenure of Egala, Atitso and Associates has come to an end.
Following the dissolution of the 6th Parliament and the inauguration of the 7th Parliament, the present Committee was constituted by the House on the 6th day of October, 2017 to recommend to the House an auditor for appointment to audit the accounts of the Office of the Auditor- General pursuant to article 187(15) of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana.
The Ad Hoc Committee pro- ceeded by openly advertising in the media for qualified and interested auditors to competitively apply for the job.
Upon the advertisements, the Committee received applications and expression of interest from the following auditors:
a. Egala and Associates (Char- tered Accountants & Business Advisors).
b. Kwesie and Partners (Char- tered Accountants).
c. HLB-DG Anaman Chartered Accountants and Registered Auditors.
d. Asamoah Bonsu & Co (Chartered Accountants).
e. K & A Accounting Services .
The Committee conducted preliminary review of the applications received and found out that all applicants were technically qualified to undertake the job.
Reference Materials
In conducting its deliberations, the Committee referred to and/or was guided by the following:
Mr James K. Avedzi (NDC- Ketu North) 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion for the House to adopt the Report the Committee to audit the Office of the Auditor- General.
Mr Speaker, in doing so, I will make a few submissions. In accordance with article 187 (15) of our Constitution, Parliament is mandated to appoint an auditor to audit the Office of the Auditor- General. The first auditor who audited the Office of the Auditor-General from
Mr James K. Avedzi (NDC- Ketu North) 2:20 p.m.
the years 1993 to 2002 was Messrs Opoku Andoh and Company, and that was for about 10 years.
This auditor was, however, directed under the authority of the Rt Hon Speaker to continue the audits of the accounts up to the year 2011. So this auditor, audited the accounts of the Office of the Auditor-General for almost 18 or 19 years.
Mr Speaker, the second auditor who was appointed by Parliament on 12th July, 2013 is Messrs Egala, Atitso and Associates; they audited the accounts from the year 2013 up to 2015.
You can see that the precedent that has been set is that the minimum duration for the Auditor is five years, which was done by Messrs Egala Atitso and Associates; while the first auditor, Messrs Opoku Andoh and Company, did almost 18 or 19 years.
Mr Speaker, the Ad Hoc Com- mittee met for about five (5) or six (6) times and all the auditors who applied -- with the exception of Messrs Egala Atitso and Associates, the immediate past auditors also applied, but were technically eliminated. So the three that we considered, we looked at their technical proposals and we realised
that they all qualify to audit the Office of the Auditor-General. The main determinant here now, were the financial proposal. When we looked at the proposals which are captured on pages 6, 7 and 8 of the Report, we realised that Kwesie and Partners quoted about GH¢75,000 as annual audit fee. The HLB-DG Anaman Chartered Accountant and Registered Auditors quoted GH¢190,500, and Asamoah Bonsu and Co, (Chartered Accoun-tants) quoted
GH¢323,902.50.
So we engaged them by negotiating with them to find out which of them would reduce the fee. On page 9 of the Report, we see that Kwesie and Partners were able to accept a flat audit fee per year at GH¢50,000; DG Anaman came to a minimum of GH¢105,000; and Asamoah Bonsu and Co, (Chartered Accountants) came to a minimum of
GH¢182,235.15.
Mr Speaker, so obviously, the one who qualified is the one with the lower financial proposal, which is GH¢50,000 based on the fact that technically, they have all qualified to do the work. So that is the reason we selected Kwesie and Partners.
We recommended two years even though the accounts of the Office of the Auditor-General is in arrears of
the years 2016, 2017 and, in fact, 2018 should also be part of it.

So looking at the trend, it would have been ideal to give this auditor a maximum of four years, but we decided to give him two years after the submission of the report. The House could also look at it again if the period could be extended to another two years so that he could also do a minimum of four years.

Mr Speaker, so based on this proposal that we have brought to the House, the recommendation is that the House approves the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee, so that Kwesie and Partners who are chartered accoun- tants are appointed to audit the accounts of the Office of the Auditor -General for 2016 and 2017.

Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity.

Question proposed.
Mr Joseph Yieleh Chireh (NDC -- Wa West) 2:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
First of all, I think that this Report has been long overdue, so it is good that it has been brought today. Mr
Speaker, but the conclusion they have made is that we should give two years to the company. I want to know from the Hon Chairman of this Ad Hoc Committee the mandate that was given to the Committee. Was it to just appoint an auditor or to appoint an auditor for a year or two? If they are varying it, then is it within the powers of Parliament to vary the period? If that is clear, then I think that we should all support this Report.
Western Regional Minister (Mr Kwabena Okyere Darko- Mensah): Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to add my voice to the Report from the Ad Hoc Committee, which was ably chaired by the Hon Deputy Majority Leader, Ms Sarah Adwoa Safo.
Mr Speaker, if you take the review of the financial proposals, we would realise that the figures are very clear; GH¢ 50,000, GH¢ 105,000 and GH¢ 182,000. Clearly, and under a normal procurement, we would naturally choose the one with the lowest evaluated bid. In fact, taking cognisance of the fact that when it comes to the technical side, virtually all of them are capable of doing the work, this would become the differentiator.
Therefore, I would like to support the proposal of the Committee to
Mr Speaker, it is clear that article 187 (15) of the Constitution says that 2:20 p.m.
“The accounts of the office of the Auditor-General shall be audited and reported upon by an auditor appointed by Parliament.”
Clearly, the Constitution did not give any time limits; therefore, the Committee is right in suggesting a period for us, but based on the fact that the former auditor — who was more or less disqualified because the Committee felt that he had just done some work - I believe that we should extend the years to three years because of the momentum in doing 2016 and 2017, and then we could appoint a new one. Mr Speaker, otherwise we would have to come
back, advertise and delay in the reporting, while the auditing of the Office of the Auditor-General would also be delayed for Parliament to consider.
Mr Speaker, so I believe that the Committee has done a good job. For Kwesie and Partners, acceptance to do this job from GH¢75,000 to GH¢ 50,000 and for Mother Ghana, it shows a good sign that we could all emulate that investing in Ghana is not a waste of time or resources.
Mr Speaker, with these few words, I beg to support the Motion ably moved by the Hon Chairperson.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
Hon Chairperson, you would need to clarify some few issues so that we could take a decision.
Ms Safo 2:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
I beg to read article 187(15) of the Constitution, which states that:
“The accounts of the office of the Auditor-General shall be audited and reported upon by an auditor appointed by Parliament.”
Mr Speaker, this is the mandate that has been given to this House to
appoint an auditor to audit the Auditor-General. From the provisions that I have read, there are no explicit timelines that have been given for the period within which the auditor should audit. Mr Speaker, it is explicit. If the intendment of the framers of the Constitution was to give timeframes, then it would have been there.
Again, I am happy that Hon Darko-Mensah made an observation on the Report, that indeed, when we look at the technical competence, then all of them, including the just- ended auditor are all qualified to audit the Office of the Auditor-General.
Mr Speaker, the financial was one of the focal points of this Committee, given the budget that we are supposed to operate the audit exercise with. We had to be careful and make sure that we chose a price that was competitive and reasonable to undertake the work.
In the challenge we found ourselves, and price being the determinant of which auditor to choose, we also had to strike a balance in choosing the lowest bidder, but we would not compromise on the quality of work. So Kwesie and Partners gave the lowest price quotation, and we had to be satisfied that if the GH¢50,000 is given, then we have to give them time to ascertain if indeed he would be able to operate
to the quality that we expect from them.
Mr Speaker, if we did not have that challenge -- the Hon Members of the Committee would attest that our biggest challenge was the price range, and this informed the decision. If, indeed, the recommended auditor works within two years and, as a body, we are convinced that although they are cutting the price they are giving us quality, then nothing stops us from extending the period rather than giving him the entire period knowing that we have compromised ourselves on the price.
Mr Speaker, this is the reason behind it, and there is precedence to this. I have consulted with the Hon Majority Leader and he told me that there was precedence where two years was given, and upon satisfaction, it was extended. We should put in the contract that would be signed so that if after the two years we are satisfied, then we could go ahead and extend the period.
Mr Speaker, but stricto sensu, if we go by the provisions of the Constitution, as enshrined in article 187(15), then this House has been given no time lines within which to engage. So if the period ends and we are satisfied, then we would extend.
Ms Safo 2:30 p.m.


Mr Speaker, if the period ends, we would extend the contract. If the price becomes an issue, then we could go back as a House that we cannot compromise on quality. So the Auditor-General's Office is a very important tool in fighting corruption in this country. Its reports form the basis of the work of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). We cannot downplay them. We need to be satisfied as a Parliament, given that mandate by the people of Ghana, to ensure that we do what we have to do.

Mr Speaker, to answer the Hon Yieleh Chireh, that was the reason behind giving a limited time as against the immediate past auditor who had a longer period. Other than that, we could have just continued with EGALA and Associates, but the Committee thought that they have done a good work for Parliament, but for purposes of competitiveness, we have to allow other people to also compete and tender. That is what we are doing.

Mr Speaker, on that note, I urge Hon Members of the House to adopt the Report.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member for Adaklu?
Mr Kwame Govers Agbodza 2:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion, but just to make few comments.

I said I am responding to the comments made by the Hon Deputy Majority Leader.

Mr Speaker, secondly, the issue about the time given to the one who has been recommended to be awarded this contract is two years and four years; it could have been four years. Chances are that if they perform creditably after the two years, and we are to sign a new contract with them, if I were them, I would give a different quotation because it is a risk market. You did not believe in me initially and now that you believe in my services, I would charge you more.

I hoped that since the Committee did a good job with the evaluation, it should be the other way round; giving a contract for four years and say that

if after two years or so, we realise that your performance is below what we expect, then we do not continue. To make it two years, and say, after two years, I do not think it is a good client — service provider relationship. We should rather give the person that we are ready to engage him for four years, however, we would evaluate him after two years, and if we are not satisfied, we would not continue.

In fact, even in employment, if one is given a probation, it is known for example that a person would get a contract for five years or a year, but half way through, he would be evaluated, and when satisfied, we can allow the contract to run.

So I would urge Leadership rather to reconsider having the contract the other way round when drafting; give them the four years, and put in a clause which says that midway somewhere, there would be an evaluation based upon which the full term would be allowed to run or terminated as such.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
Since there are no further con- tributions, I just want the Hon Chairperson to respond to the request from one of the Hon Members, I think Hon Okyere
Darko-Mensah asked why it is not for three years. Why is it two years? You have not responded to that.
Ms Safo 2:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I earlier tried to explain to Hon Colleagues. My belief is that we have taken into consideration all the concerns.
Mr Speaker, just to take it from where Hon Kwame Agbodza left off. The price or the cost of engagement and extending it for a period of four years, I believe that the recommenda- tion of the Committee, from our point of view, and from the standpoint of the auditor we are recommending, is the best.
Mr Speaker, the reason why I say this is that we are giving the auditor what we have recommended; that opportunity, when he works with the limited resources, and we are satisfied we can come back with a justification for a price adjustment if possible. To tie him down with four years or three years means for the three or four years continuously, he has to work with GH¢50,000.00
Mr Speaker, we have to be sensitive also to what work they have to do and what they put in. Hon Members of the Committee would actually attest to the back and forth, and you could see the challenge they have at hand with what Parliament indeed was to give them to do this
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Mr Agbodza 2:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have a fundamental question for the Hon Leader. We keep using Ad Hoc Committees in this House for certain kinds of procurements. Is the Hon Deputy Majority Leader aware that by Schedule 1(b), section 20 of the Public Procurement Act, we should have an Entity Tender Committee which should do these reviews instead of the Ad Hoc Committee? [Interruption.]
Yes, you are selecting a service provider whom you would pay through public funds. You should be using the Entity Tender Committee to do that unless you have any other legislation that you can use. I put it to you that we should be using the Entity Tender Committee. If we do not have one, we should put up one as quickly as possible. Mr Speaker that is my fundamental challenge to this process.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
Well, Hon Member, I do not know how an Entity Tender Committee of the Parliamentary Service would present a report to the House.
The Service would have an Entity Tender Committee that would work on such issues, but they would work through a committee of the House
because it is the committee of the House that would present a report to the House.
So maybe, your question should have been whether they got the technical support of the Entity Tender Committee of the Parliamentary Service. This is because Parliament itself as it stands, its Hon Members would not have an Entity Tender Committee. It would be the Parliamentary Service that would have that one, and whether the Committee sought their support in doing what they did is a legitimate question.
Mr Darko-Mensah 2:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Deputy Leader tried to justify the two years, but I believe that based on their own recommendation, paragraph 8.0., sub-paragraph 3, it says;
“ Also, transportation, boarding and lodging for field work are to be provided by the Office of the Auditor-General in line with usual practice”.
So there would not be any issue about additional expenses attached to this project going forward, because that is not part of the GH¢50,000 that was charged.
Secondly, if you also take paragraph 6.2.1, under the assumptions, they also told us:
Assumptions underlying the financial proposal:
The financial proposal submitted by Kwesie and Partners were without any express conditions or “assump- tions''.
So it means that they are con- formable working with this figure.
Limited resources is entirely based on individual organisations or persons, because if you take the three different companies that bid for this job, one of them charged GH¢190,000. That was the limited resource he could use.
Another charged GH¢323,000. That was their limited resource, so the fact that this one has decided to use GH¢50,000 does not mean that they would do a shoddy job, because they have been able to deliver all the clientele they have performed with, and therefore I do not see why we should now use their bid figure as a basis to deny them an additional one year.
I am looking at it, that when we even start advertising the third year, it is Government would -- and they even said it is contribution to national development, so they have taken a
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
Hon Member, if we have to increase the years, then we are changing the terms of the negotiations, and they have to go back and also decide to do something about the GH¢50,000, because the negotiation was on the basis that they could stay with the GH¢50,000 for two years.
I mean negotiations. It is not stated here, but definitely, the team that we set up, the Ad Hoc Committee, looked at the budget provision of Parliament itself.

Please, the other terms are there. We have done this thing before. It is now being done according to the right procedures by Parliament itself, not the Parliamentary Service Board, and if we start changing the terms here, then we may have to empower them to go back to re-negotiate. We cannot adopt the Report.
Mr Chireh 2:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the issue of my Hon Colleague asking for three years is because we also have three years of unaudited accounts, so the minimum we can give the auditors is three years.
The Committee did not say that they came to the two years based on negotiations with the auditor. It is their own consideration, and that is why I would want the Hon Chairperson, together with the other two members to agree for us to increase the contract to a minimum of three years, for the auditor to be able to --
The other problem I have with this whole idea of extending is, would the extension be by another letter or would it come again to Parliament? If you look at how long it took Parliament to bring this Report for the auditor to be appointed, basically, we should not delay.
We should give the auditors three years for at least, the unaudited
accounts to be cleared, and if that is cleared, then it is fine. I did not get the sense from the Committee that they negotiated the GH¢50,000 for the two years, no. They negotiated and agreed with the GH¢50,000, but they decided that they would put two years as probation. I do not think that we should do that, particularly, when they agreed to lower the amount, and Parliament cannot get more money to add, so why should we now delay? GH¢50,000 per year? No, let us give them three years.
I move that we amend the Report and make it three years.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
Well, I have a difficulty here, because if we have to change the terms, we have to go back to re-negotiate. We cannot adopt. The other party accepted the terms based on the proposals from our Ad Hoc Committee. Are you sure they would accept 50,000 for three years?
Mr Avedzi 2:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we did not tell the companies that bid that we are giving them a two year contract, so we could have ended up by telling them to come and do only one year account audit, or two, three, four or five years.
So increasing it from two years to three years would not need us to go back and negotiate with them again. We would only write to them that we are giving them a three year period to audit the account based on the negotiation we had in terms of the fees. If they accept it, they would write back to say they have accepted what we are giving to them, and they would go to work and do the audit.
So I just want to bring to the attention of the House that increasing it from two to three would not need us to go back for re-negotiation.
Ms Safo 2:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in the same way, I believe there would be no need to go back to re-negotiate the time frame, it is the same justification in article 187(15), which does not give timelines.
So the Committee, at the time of engagement, were convinced that two years would be an ideal period for the auditor that we were recommending to carry out that work, and further down the line, we have the power and we can extend.
Mr Speaker, I do not want to repeat myself, let us go to page 11 of the Report in paragraph 8.0, which the Hon Member quoted. He quoted that the Auditor-General's Office would bear some of the cost of
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:50 a.m.
Actually, that is my difficulty too. As a consultant, I negotiate a fee with you based on the understanding that I would get a contract for one year. Then you, without further consultation, except giving me the opportunity to accept or not, increased it to two years and further to three years, still holding my fees at the same level. That would definitely not be fair to those consultants, because I believe strongly, and you all know the cost of doing business and consultancy in Ghana keeps escalating.
I would have preferred that if they are given the opportunity, especially
when they said it is to the service of the nation they want to serve their nation and are therefore prepared to accept that figure -- The initial figure they proposed was GH¢75,000 and you negotiated it down to
GH¢50,000.
They accepted on the basis that it is service to the nation, and that is GH¢50,000 for a year. Now, you are trying to increase it to GH¢50,000 each year for three good years. Then, you would have to go back to renegotiate. I can see that you want to debate it further.
Mr Chireh 2:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Committee members have not said that. The auditor agreed to GH¢50,000 per year, then they sat at the Committee and decided to try him for two years. In contract administration and consultancy, the person needs to mobilise. Each occasion that they embark on and continue -- if the person is told from the beginning that they have three years, they could mobilise and do the work.
My question was not answered and that is, are we just going to write a letter after two years to tell them we are adding more or would another Report be brought to the House for us to now extend the contract? That is why I do not want us to complicate the matter by saying that after two
years, another year. We would haggle as to which committee and when it meets, instead of taking the Resolution --
It has taken us more than two months, and we have not taken this Resolution. That causes a delay for the Auditor-General to go back. Now, if he demobilised his staff, he has to reassemble them and that is why I think that so long as the time frame was not negotiated, but only the price per annum, we should give him three years to clear the unaudited three year accounts.
If they say that they negotiated even the two years with the contractor, I would have no case here again, but I am still worried that we would delay in acquainting auditors with auditing the accounts of the Auditor-General. That is where I believe that if the extension is by a letter, and it has to come back here, let us make it three years.
Mr Ntow 2:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, on the issue of an auditor auditing the Auditor-General, the watchman also being watched, we need to have somebody, as the Committee Report rightly indicated, who is competent enough to do the job to the satisfaction of Parliament, and for that matter, the whole country.
The fee as you rightly said might go up every year, so, if a firm had agreed that they would take GH¢50,000 annually for the period of three years, I think we should give that a very serious consideration.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:50 a.m.
Hon Member, there is no agreement with the firm that they would take GH¢50,000 for each year for three years; they negotiated just the fee on the basis that it was an annual audit, and then the Committee proposed two years. Others are saying we should make it three years and that is the issue. The firm did not accept that it should be GH¢50,000 for each year for three continuous years. There is no such agreement.
Mr Ntow 2:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it means that it is open for renegotiations to take place.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:50 a.m.
The fear is that Parliament can decide to give a term of three years, and after we have written to them, they could say they cannot accept to hold the fee of GH¢50,000 for each year for three years. This is because definitely, there would be cost escalations, and the fee would not be commensurate with the work put in. That could happen, and that would mean that they have to come back, and we would start all over.
Mr Kwaku Ofori Asiamah 2:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, since we have all agreed in this House that it is a good offer, let the responsibility be on them to say that it is two years they are looking for but not three years. Per the narration of Hon Chireh, demobilising, going home and coming back with the staff would come at an additional cost.
So if we put the responsibility on them, let them come back, and say that they cannot take the two or three years. We are trying our luck. That is my position on the matter.
Mr Agbodza 2:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, there is a cure to that in every contract of that nature. The service provider would have billed the cost based on certain parameters. So for instance, they would say there are three partners, two senior accountants among others, and they would have billed their hourly rate to get to
GH¢50,000.
So normally, what you would do is negotiate with them, and if they work beyond what you have contracted them to do, they would apply those rates in agreement with the client, who in this case is Parliament. So it should not be a problem. I am sure that part of the documentation presented to Parliament should have hourly rates per the nature of expertise they want to use.
So I agree with the Hon Minister for Transport, that we can say that the House, taking note of the Report, is offering them a three year contract, and based on performance, which does not have to come to this Floor - If they perform, I am sure that this contract would be administered by
somebody from this institution, so that outfit could make an assessment, and either extend or terminate by the time it is two years. I do not think that there is a problem with that at all.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
What we have to do is to adopt the Report or let the Committee amend it to capture what we have said, so that we can adopt it.
Ms Safo 3 p.m.
Mr Speaker, again, I would want to reiterate the point that I have already made. Mr Speaker, you made a good observation which was the initial quotation that was made by the recommended auditor, Kwesie and Partners.
On page 6 of the Report, initially, they quoted GH¢75,000 to be able to do the work. Upon interaction with them at the Committee level, they beat it down to GH¢50,000 which realistically, they would lose GH¢25,000 on the quotation. They would not change or reduce the number of staff or the number of partners that would work on the report of the Auditor-General. Nothing in their technical proposals have changed, but their quotation with regards to the financials have changed.
Mr Speaker, it is only fair on our part to reason up and say that having cut GH¢25,000 off their initial quotation to extend it for that period- GH¢25,000 on each year for an auditing firm would cost them. That is why we have proposed that we do a two year period for the recommended auditor.
Mr Speaker, I salute you for making that critical observation of the price variation for them to be able to accept this job - they would lose GH¢25,000, and yet they have not reduced anything in their technical proposal. Let us be fair to them, and give them a period for them to come back and if we are satisfied with the work that they have done, then we could move on and do it, having in mind the fact that they get all the support that they are supposed to get from the Auditor - General.
I have a challenge with the support that comes from the Auditor- General's Office. They are being audited and are supposed to provide transportation and food. We are compromising them. Ordinarily, they are supposed to work within the budget that they have been given, and not presume that the Auditor- General's Office would provide transportation and food. Then what would be the essence of auditing? -- One cannot be a judge in his or her

own court -- he provides food and transportation. Why are we convincing ourselves that there would be objectivity in the work that they would do?

Mr Speaker, let us be fair to the auditors that we have recommended and give them a two year period.
rose
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
Hon Member for Takoradi, I would want to put the Question.
Mr Darko-Mensah 3 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I wanted to proffer one suggestion.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
What is that suggestion?

Hon Members, it would not have done any harm. I do not know how long he would take, but you do not gag Hon Members when they are on their feet to contribute. You have to allow the person to give the suggestion or opinion. The Hon Member's contribution could have helped the House, that was why I gave him the
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, I am tempted to adjourn the House, unless there is any other urgent matter to be considered.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3 p.m.
Mr Speaker, when we met yesterday in the winnowing Committee, I thought we would be able to finish with the National Road Safety Authority Bill, 2019. But unfortunately, it does appear, given where we are now, it would be extremely difficult for us to do that. I hope that on Tuesday we would be able to complete the Bill first thing in the morning.
The time is about seven minutes after 3 o'clock and today being Friday, I believe we could take an adjournment.
ADJOURNMENT 3 p.m.