Debates of 5 Jul 2019

MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:49 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:49 a.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:49 a.m.
Hon Members, Correction of Votes and Proceeding and the Official Report.
Page 1, 2 …14,
Mr Samuel Okudjeto Ablakwa 10:49 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am most grateful. On page 14, item numbered 1, please insert “and Regional Integration” in the second line. It should read: “the
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:49 a.m.
Sorry, it is not clear. Page 14, item 1 is “Opening”.
Mr Ablakwa 10:49 a.m.
Mr Speaker, yes. With your kind permission it should read:
“The Committee met on Thursday, 4th July, 2019 at 11:15 a.m. and held discussions with officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration…”
Mr Speaker that is the proper nomenclature for the Ministry.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:49 a.m.
Very well.
Page 15?
Hon Members, the Votes and Proceedings of Thursday, 4th July, 2019 is hereby adopted as the true record of proceedings.
Before we proceed to correct the Official Report, there is a Com- munication from the President.
ANNOUNCEMENTS 10:49 a.m.
  • [No correction was made to the Official Report of Friday, 7th June, 2019]
    • Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:49 a.m.
    Item numbered 3 -- Business Statement of the Seventh Week by the Hon Chairman of the Business Committee?
    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 10:59 a.m.
    Chairman of the Business Committee/Majority Leader (Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu) 10:59 a.m.
    Introduction
    Mr Speaker, the Committee met yesterday, Thursday, 4th July, 2019 and arranged Business of the House for the Seventh Week ending Friday, 12th July, 2019.
    Mr Hon Speaker, the Committee accordingly submits its Report as follows 10:59 a.m.
    Arrangement of business
    (a) Question(s)
    Mr Speaker, the Business Com- mittee has scheduled the following Ministers to respond to Questions asked of them during the week:
    No. of Question(s)
    i. Minister for Education -- 5
    ii. Minister for Finance -- 4
    iii. Minister for Roads and Highways -- 4
    Total Number of Questions -- 13
    Mr Speaker, three (3) Ministers are expected to attend upon the House to respond to thirteen (13) Questions during the week.
    The questions are of the following types:
    i. Urgent -- 1;
    ii. Oral --12.
    Statements
    Mr Speaker, pursuant to Order 70(2), Ministers of State may be permitted to make Statements of Government policy. Statements duly admitted by the Hon Speaker may be made in the House by Hon Members, in accordance with Order
    72.
    Bills, Papers and Reports
    Mr Speaker, Bills may be presented to the House for First Reading in accordance with Order 120. However, those of urgent nature may be taken through the various stages in one day in accordance with Order 119.
    Pursuant to Order 75, Papers for presentation to the House may be placed on the Order Paper for laying. Committee reports may also be presented to the House for con- sideration.
    Motions and Resolutions
    Mr Speaker, Motions may be debated and their consequential Resolutions, if any, taken during the week.
    Sitting of the House on Mondays
    Mr Speaker, in order to meet constitutional requirements relating to the coming into force of subsidiary legislations before the House, the Business Committee proposes that the House sits on Mondays, commencing on Monday, 15th July, 2019. By this information, the House seeks to serve prior notice to all Hon Members so as to aid in their planning for the weeks beginning this Monday, the 15th and on 22nd, and on Monday, 29th all of July 2019 respectively.
    Conclusion
    Mr Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 160(2) and subject to Standing Order 53, the Committee submits to this Honourable House the order in which the Business of the House shall be taken during the week under consideration.

    Statements --

    Presentation of Papers --

    (a) Annual Statement by the Audit Committee of the Ghana Prisons Service for the year 2018.

    (b) Annual Statement by the Audit Committee of the
    Mr Hon Speaker, the Committee accordingly submits its Report as follows 10:59 a.m.
    Ghana Police Service for the year 2018.
    (c) Annual Statement by the Audit Committee of the Ledzokuku Municipal Assembly for the year 2018.
    (d) Annual Report of the Public Interest and Accountability Committee (PIAC) on the Management and Use of Petroleum Revenues for the year 2018.
    (e) Request for waiver of Import Duties, Import VAT, GET- Fund Levy, Import NHIL, EXIM Levy, and other imposts amounting to the Ghana Cedi equivalent of fifteen thousand, seven hundred and thirty-seven euros (€15,737.00 [equi valent to GH¢ 92,579.00]) on equipment to be procured by RePATRN Limited under the implementation of the One District One Factory (1D1F) Programme.
    (f) Facility Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana (re- presented by the Ministry
    of Finance) and Deutsche Bank AG, London Branch (as Agent, Arranger, Struc- turing Bank and Original Covered Lenders), as well as the UK Export Finance (as Original Direct Lenders) for an amount of two hundred and thirty-three million, nine hundred and sixty-three thousand, nine hundred and eighty-two euros and eight cents (€233,963,982.08) [including the UK Export Finance support fee ] relating to financing the Design, Construction and Com- missioning of a Potable Water Infrastructural Project in Tamale, Northern Region, Ghana.
    (g) Commercial Facility Agree- ment between the Govern- ment of the Republic of Ghana (represented by the Ministry of Finance) and Deutsche Bank AG, London Branch (as Agent, Arranger, Structuring Bank and Original phase I and phase II Lenders), for an amount of forty-three million, seven thousand, eight hundred and eighty-five euros and ninety- seven cents (€43,007, 885.97) relating to financing
    the Design, Construction and Commissioning of a Potable Water Infrastructural Project in Tamale, Northern Region, Ghana.
    (h) Contract Agreement be- tween Ghana Water Company Limited (acting on behalf of the Ministry of Sanitation and Water Re- sources for the Government of the Republic of Ghana) and Biwater International Limited of England, for an amount of two hundred and seventy- two million, two hundred and eighty-seven thousand, nine hundred and eighty United States dollars (US$272, 287,980.00) in respect of the project known as the Tamale Water Supply Scheme.
    Motions --
    Adoption of the Report of the Committee on Works and Housing on the Supply Contract Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana (represented by the Ministry of Sanitation and Water Resources) and Aqua Africa Limited for an amount of thirty million euros
    (€30,000,000.00) relating to the Rural and Peri-Urban Nano-Filtration Water Projects in Ghana under the Rural Communities and Small Towns Water Supply Project.
    Consequential Resolution
    Consideration Stage of Bills —
    Vigilantism and Related Offences Bill, 2019. (Continuation)
    Committee Sittings.

    Questions —

    *588. Dr Zanetor Agyeman- Rawlings (Klottcy-Korle): To ask the Minister for Education when the Mantse Tackie Cluster of Schools Project will be completed.

    *589. Mr Ali Maiga Halidu (Dormaa West): To ask the Minister for Education when the following projects in the Dormaa West District will be completed: (i) the Community Day Senior High School at Adiemmra No. 4; (ii) 3-Unit Classroom Block at Nyame- ma/Brofoyeduru D/A Junior High School; (iii) 6-Unit
    Mr Hon Speaker, the Committee accordingly submits its Report as follows 10:59 a.m.
    Classroom Block at Kwakwenya D/A Primary School.
    *590. Mr Andrew Dari Chiwitey (Sawla/Tuna/ Kalba): To ask the Minister for Education what measures the Ministry is putting in place to construct new classroom blocks for the following communities after their classroom blocks were destroyed by rainstorm: (i) Digzie (ii) Basina-Yiri (iii) Yoli-Yiri.
    *591. Mr Benjamin Komla Kpodo (Ho Central): To ask the Minister for Education when the construction of classroom and administration blocks and other facilities for the Shia Senior High Technical School will commence.
    *592. Mr Yaw Frimpong Addo (Manso Adubia): To ask the Minister for Education what plans the Ministry has to complete the abandoned GETFund school blocks in the Manso Adubia Consti- tuency of the Amansie South District.
    Statements --
    Presentation of Papers --
    (a) Report of the Committee on Education on the University of Technology and Applied Sciences Bill, 2018.
    (b) Report of the Committee on Education on the University of Business and Integrated Development Studies Bill,
    2018.
    (c)Report of the Finance Committee on the Request for waiver of Import Duties, Import VAT, GETFund Levy, Import NHIL, EXIM Levy, and other imposts amounting to the Ghana cedi equivalent of seven hundred and ninety- nine thousand, nine hundred and eighty-eight United States dollars (US$799,988.00 [equivalent to GH¢4,122, 260.23]) on equipment to be procured by Soshada Limited under the implementation of the One District One Factory (1D1F) programme.
    (d)Report of the Finance Committee on the Request for waiver of Import Duties, Import VAT, GETFund Levy,
    Import NHIL, EXIM Levy, and other imposts amounting to the Ghana cedi equivalent of two hundred and twenty- two thousand, one hundred and fifty-one United States dollars (US$222,151.00 [equivalent to GH¢1,144,723.00]) on equipment to be procured by Yedent Agro Bulk Processing Company Limited under the implementation of the One District One Factory (1D1F) Programme.
    Motions —
    (a) Adoption of the Report of the Public Accounts Com- mittee on the Report of the Auditor-General on the Public Accounts of Ghana (Polytechnics) for the Period ended 31st December, 2015.
    (b) Adoption of the Report of the Committee on Environ- ment, Science and Techno- logy on the Amendments to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
    Consideration Stage of Bills --
    Vigilantism and Related Offences Bill, 2019. (Continuation)
    Committee sittings.

    Urgent Question --
    Mr Peter Nortsu-Kotoe (Akatsi North) 10:59 a.m.
    To ask the Minister for Finance why the Ministry has failed to release to the Ghana Education Trust Fund (GETFund) its appro- priated funds for August to November 2018 and January to May 2019 to enable the GETFund meet its obligations.
    Questions --
    *584. Mr Mohammed Abdul- Aziz (Mion): To ask the Minister for Finance how much Government has paid in judgement debts from January 2017 to date.
    *585. Mr Ernest Henry Norgbey (Ashaiman): To ask the Minister for Finance why the Public Procurement Authority is charging company registration fees without Parliamentary approval.
    *586. Mr Yaw Frimpong Addo (Manso Adubia): To

    MR KYEI-MENSAH-BONSU] MR KYEI-MENSAH-BONSU]

    ask the Minister for Finance what has been the overall impact of the reforms introduced by the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) at the ports of entry in the revenue mobilisation drive of the Ministry.

    Statements

    Motions --

    (a) Second Reading of Bills -

    University of Technology and Applied Sciences Bill, 2018.

    University of Business and Integrated Development Studies Bill, 2018.

    (b) Adoption of the Report of the Finance Committee on the Request for waiver of Import Duties, Import VAT, GET- Fund Levy, Import NHIL, EXIM Levy, and other imposts amounting to the Ghana cedi equivalent of seven hundred and ninety- nine thousand, nine hundred and eighty-eight United States dollars (US$799,988.00 [equivalent to GH¢4,122, 260.23]) on equipment to be

    procured by Soshada Limited under the implementation of the One District One Factory (IDIF) Programme.

    Consequential Resolution

    (b) Adoption of the Report of the Finance Committee on the Request for waiver of Import Duties, Import VAT, GET- Fund Levy, Import NHIL, EXIM Levy, and other imposts amounting to the Ghana cedi equivalent of two hundred and twenty-two thousand, one hundred and fifty-one United States dollars (US$222,151.00 [equivalent to GH¢1,144,723.00]) on equipment to be procured by Yedent Agro Bulk Pro- cessing Company Limited under the implementation of the One District One Factory (ID IF) Programme.

    Consequential Resolution

    Consideration Stage of Bills —

    Vigilantism and Related Offences Bill, 2019. (Continuation)

    Committee settings.

    Questions —

    Q. 614. Mrs Angela Oforiwa Alorwu-Tay (Afadzato South): To ask the Minister for Roads and Highways when construction works on the following roads in the Afadzato South District will commence: (i) Logba Alakpeti - Logba Tota (ii) Goviefe - Goviefe Todzi (iii) Nyagbo Agordome - Nyagbo Konda (iv) Nyagbo Sroe town roads.

    Q. 615. Mr Yaw Frimpong Addo (Manso Adubia): To ask the Minister for Roads and Highways what plans the Ministry has to develop the following roads in the Manso Adubia Constituency to withstand weather conditions of the constituency: (i) Mim Junction - Kumpese Junction (ii) Kumpese Junction - Datano (iii) Kumpese Junction - Dawusaso (iv) Mim - Odaho.

    Q. 616. Mr AIi Maiga Halidu (Dormaa West): To ask the Minister for Roads and

    Highways the status of the audit of cocoa roads.

    Q.617. Ms Felicia Adjei (Kintampo South): To ask the Minister for Roads and Highways the state of imple- mentation of the Kumasi Inner City Roads for which a sod was cut 2 months ago by the President.

    Statements

    Consideration Stage of Bills —

    Vigilantism and Related Offences Bill.

    Committee sittings.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:59 a.m.
    Hon Member for North Tongu?
    Mr Samuel O. Ablakwa 10:59 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am most grateful.
    I wish to thank the Hon Majority Leader and Hon Chairman of the Business Committee for the presentation.
    Mr Speaker, with your permission, there are two issues that I would want to raise and with the first one I would refer to Standing Order 66 (3) which states that:
    “There shall be a Questions Record Book to be kept by the Clerk which shall be open to
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:59 a.m.
    Hon Member for Suhum?
    Mr Frederick Opare-Ansah 10:59 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to make the point that my Hon Colleague just made and I was happy to hear him advise us on that, but he gets ahead of himself when he has not even heard what the Hon Majority Leader has in his briefing. Mr Speaker, he has already jumped on the drop that chamber.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that there are several issues that are quite important for Hon Members to discuss and the Joint Caucus is the appropriate forum where such matters are usually discussed.
    So I would urge the Hon Majority Leader to actually listen to what my Hon Colleague has said. If it is possible, to amend the business for next week to accommodate a Joint Caucus meeting which would enable the House to discuss this issue as well as other pertinent matters that are on the hot burner as far as Hon Members are concerned. I am sure that we have
    about three or four weeks before we go on recess and it is important that we deal with all these issues before we adjourn sine die.
    Mr Speaker, thank you.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:59 a.m.
    Hon Member for Builsa South?
    Dr Clement A. Apaak 10:59 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on the Business Statement.
    Mr Speaker, it is only fair and just that I re-emphasise the challenges that we have as Hon Members of Parliament with regard to Questions that we file to seek Answers from Hon Ministers. Mr Speaker, this issue was discussed last Friday when the Business Statement was presented, and I remember vividly that the Hon Member for North Tongu, Hon Samuel O. Ablakwa, had raised concerns about Questions that he had filed.
    He had sought to get the attention of Mr Speaker with regard to a statement that the President of the Republic made abroad where he had argued that the proper process and procedure would have been for Parliament to have acted on that matter before the President made that announcement.
    Dr Clement A. Apaak 11:09 a.m.


    Indeed, he was told to file a Question. We have filed so many Questions. As I speak now, I have filed in excess of 10 Questions, yet for the past two to three weeks, I have not seen any of them in the Business Statements. So what are our options, as Hon Members of Parliament, to bring to the fore the challenges facing our constituents?

    Mr Speaker, these are all important components of the work of an Hon Member of Parliament. This is even so as we are gravitating towards our parliamentary primaries. It is not fair to us that the issues we bring forth on behalf of our people are not being addressed.

    If indeed, there is a challenge in getting Ministers to respond to our Questions, Leadership must be open and candid with us and let us know. Baring this, the temptation for us to seek other avenues to raise these issues especially within the media would be heightened.

    At the same time, we have also been admonished that in as far as matters to do with Parliament are concerned, we should not be quick to run to the media.

    So, Mr Speaker, this is a legitimate challenge that I believe needs to be addressed. Indeed, if I may refer to our Standing Order 60 (3), which says:

    “A Minister shall not take more than three weeks to respond to a question from the House.”

    Essentially, by implication, this is being violated, and something needs to be done about it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:09 a.m.
    Hon Members, I think I need to speak to this issue of Questions. I do not know whether there is any week that Questions are not scheduled to be answered by Ministers. Today, five Questions are scheduled to be answered by an Hon Minister.
    The truth of the matter is that the Questions are arranged in the order of first come, first served. They are so many. Many of you have come to my office and seen them organised in that manner.
    Hon Ras Mubarak came and said he had a Question. I gave him the opportunity to go through it himself. It is just that the numbers are such
    that we have arranged them on first come, first served basis.
    If you bring 10 Questions and your Colleague brings 20, we cannot take 50 Questions a day. So they would be organised. Questions are scheduled by the Business Committee to be answered every week, and the Questions that have not been scheduled are because they are in the queue.
    If anybody would want to see it, they can come to my office and look through the queue of Questions and see where he is. You can then number it yourself and determine whether you are due for tomorrow or the next day.
    Yes, Hon Member, K. T. Hammond?
    Mr Kobina Tahir Hammond 11:09 a.m.
    Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
    It is really to add to the point made by our Hon Colleague who first spoke. I think the Hon Member right to my left also did reiterate the point.
    Mr Speaker, it is about this matter that the Hon Majority Leader and Leader of the House is impressed upon to bring to the House quickly for some discussions to take place. It is the question of building a new Chamber for Parliament. Firstly,
    some of us do not even know if it is a stated policy that a parliamentary Chamber is going to be built.
    Indeed, who is taking the initiative? The Chamber of Parliament is not for Members of Parliament. It is one of the significant symbols or building blocks of democracy. You would not have democracy without Parliament.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:09 a.m.
    Hon Members, let us continue. That confirms exactly the challenges -- [Laughed.]
    Hon K. T. Hammond, please, complete your statement.
    Mr Hammond 11:09 a.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Hammond 11:09 a.m.
    I am not so sure whether central Government has actually been involved in this because I recall that some time ago during the era of the previous Government, the then President indicated that this matter would evolve from the Presidency before we take it up.
    Mr Speaker, our Majority Leader should kindly come up with whatever details there are so that we can debate this matter. We would have a say; the nation would have its say, and I think we would move forward. That is really a matter that I think we should all be interested in.
    Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:09 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:09 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, I thought you would respond to these before I give another set to the Hon Minority Leader?
    Very well. Hon Minority Leader, you may speak to the matter then.
    Mr Iddrisu 11:19 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
    I was part of the Business Committee meeting. It was observed, particularly, for Tuesday, that no Questions were particularly sche- duled for Tuesday. I sought to find out because the exercise of oversight manifests in the use of parliamentary Questions to elucidate issues.
    Mr Speaker, my attention was drawn to the fact that your good Self, who has the power and mandate to admit Questions, that there were not Questions admitted to be in the offing. So I said the Table Office should relate it to the Majority Leader's office because a number of Hon Colleagues have complained that they have filed some Questions. If even they are not to be admitted, we should know why they are not being admitted.
    Mr Speaker, my second comment is to renew my call. I know the Rt. Hon Speaker ruled that I relate to the Hon Majority Leader as he deferred to Leadership, even though I did not find that good enough in my view.
    I have repeatedly asked that the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission be invited before Parliament to apprise us on her own preparations for the District Assemblies elections, the roadmap to
    the conduct of the referendum on matters of amendment to article 55 and other portions of the Constitution.
    Mr Speaker, we are all Hon Members of Parliament, stakeholders and interested parties. The ongoing registration exercise is not without difficulty and challenges.
    In many areas, there are online registration, and the offline registration is not even transmitted to the National Data Centre immediately, as required by law and as should be the case.

    There have been instances where constituencies have heard the political parties all complain about it.

    My Hon Colleague has been here before as Minority Leader. He was eventually even chairing the Special Budget Committee, and therefore, it is not out of place. The Electoral Commission is established as an independent organ of state under article 45, and they are accountable to the people of Ghana through their people's representatives.

    I do not see why it should take me three weeks labouring to make a request for a ruling on a matter which borders on the future of our country's democracy.

    We therefore demand that the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission be made to appear before Parliament at the Committee of the Whole or at any level, because even with budgetary approvals, he knows I serve on the Committee with him. We have a weak data system.

    Some of the things you hear of online is not because there is no network. There is network, but transmission becomes a problem. When you register me offline, you are required to remit that data on to an online system at the national headquarters.

    Mr Speaker, I therefore renew the application that the Chairperson be invited -- These are my concerns.
    Mr Rockson-Nelson E.K. Dafeamekpor 11:19 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I recall that three weeks ago, I spoke about two of my outstanding Questions in respect of the appointment of judges to three high courts in the Volta Region as well as the status of lawyers who were previously serving at the lower court bench who subsequently have been relieved of their posts and they intended to practise their vocation as lawyers but have not been successfully re-issued with their practising licences.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:19 a.m.
    After the Hon Majority Leader has spoken, I will respond to the matter you have brought up.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:19 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
    Hon Ablakwa spoke about the status of Questions and he related to Standing Order 66 (3). The Hon Member for Builsa South, Dr Apaak,
    also spoke about the same thing. But first, the Business Committee is not in charge of the status of the Questions booked, so I cannot respond to it. It is the Table Office, and I would entreat him to see the Clerk who has overall responsibility for it. He may be able to offer better information. The Business Committee has no responsibility for that, so I am not able to relate to that.
    You said that you accepted the apology that I rendered yesterday, and think that going forward, Members of Parliament must be briefed. If you listened to me, I gave the indication that when the decision was taken to do what was done, I was not privy to it. But it came from the Board, and as a member of the Board I thought that I should put out the information, which resulted in the consideration of the matter. That was what I did.
    It looks as though there is some contrivance to make it appear as if Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu is pushing the agenda for the construction of a new Chamber.
    Hon Colleagues, let us be charitable to each other. If what you just witnessed is anything to go by, it should tell you that your security is at risk even here. We saw what the gentleman was trying to do, moving
    menacingly forward. As to what he intended to do, I cannot tell. That is why I think that we should be more clear-eyed and objective about this.
    It cannot be that a matter that former President Mills, former President Kufuor and former President Mahama had spoken to, that we all applauded, all of a sudden, we should change track. I cannot understand. However, I am being told it is about the timing.
    Yes, as representatives of the people we should be concerned. That is why we should interrogate it. In fact, ultimately, if it is packaged, the agreement would come before Parliament.
    For me, it was most unfortunate that Hon Members of Parliament should hear about this project the first time from the Press, and the Hon Minority Leader would bear me out that I disagreed with what was happening. In fact, the two of us disagreed. I met him there, and when I consulted him on what was happening and whether he had agreed to this since it was not known to me, he said he also had no idea.
    I also confronted the other Member of the Board, Hon Hackman Owusu -Agyeman, and he also had
    no idea. The three of us agreed that it was most unfortunate, so we needed to interrogate the matter, and if in unison we applauded when former President Mahama said he was going to do it for us -- [Interruption] -- let us not be talking at cross purposes. It is the principle that we should find congruence.
    If the timing is not right, collectively, we should come to that determination. I think that when these matters crop up and we try to speak to it, an Hon Member from within our own should not go to a radio station and chastise Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu as if it is my project. It is not right. It is most inappropriate.

    Mr Speaker, we should be serious; stand together as a Parliament and come to some determination on this. It is not my Chamber and it cannot be my Chamber.

    Hon Abla asked for us to be properly briefed, which we could perhaps do on Tuesday. We could have a Joint Caucus Meeting and deal with it. I am yet to consult the Hon
    Mr Speaker, Hon Dr Apaak related to Standing Order 60 (3), which stipulates that 11:29 a.m.
    “A Minister shall not take more than three weeks to respond to a question from the House. An Hon Minister would only get to know of a Question filed, if the Question is transmitted to him.”
    There is a process of admissibility of a Question. I would refer the Hon Dr Apaak to Standing Order 66 (1), which provides, and with your permission I quote:
    “Mr Speaker shall be the sole judge of the admissibility of a Question.”
    Mr Speaker, Standing Order 66 (2) also provides, and with your permission I quote 11:29 a.m.
    “When a Question is admitted by Mr Speaker the Clerk shall at once communicate the text to the Minister or Member to whom the Question is addressed.”
    Mr Speaker, it is only after when the Speaker has admitted the Question that it is transmitted to the Hon Minister or the Member. After this, the three-week period that the Hon Member alludes to, would then start counting.
    So, when the Hon Member says that he asked a Question for about a month ago or more, and for about three weeks now, the Question has not been admitted, it is simplistic to refer to Standing Order 60 (3). We must conjoin it with Standing Order 66(1) and Standing Order 66(2), and that would give us a better meaning of the request.
    Mr Speaker, I however agree that Question time is part of the exercise of oversight by Hon Members of Parliament over the Executive. It should therefore be taken very seriously.
    Unfortunately, as Mr Speaker said, many Questions are filed. Standing Order 60(2) also provides that Question time shall not ordinarily exceed one hour. If we want to be
    scrutinous, then we cannot lump about 20 Questions in one day for Hon Ministers to respond to them.
    If that happens, an Hon Member may not be able to ask his supplementary questions; and that would not help us to exercise our oversight responsibilities.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Dr Apaak is of the view that the public would need to hear from Hon Members, especially as their primaries draw nearer, for their constituents to know that their biddings are being done. This is also important, but we should have a balance.
    This would enable many as Hon Members as possible to ask their Questions, and also allow for a more diligent and scrutinous exercise to happen on the Floor of this Chamber.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member said he would want Leadership to address this issue, but Leadership is helpless in this.
    I, as the Hon Majority Leader, could only draw his attention to the relevant provisions in our Standing Orders, but leadership cannot intervene. It is the business of the Speaker, assisted by the Clerk.
    Mr Speaker, the Question by the Hon Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor should also elicit the same response. The Hon Opare-Ansah joined ranks with the Hon Samuel Okudzeto on the need for the House to set some time and space aside to address the matter which relates to the construction of a new Chamber.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon K. T. Hammond also added his voice to the same issue, and as I indicated, perhaps, Tuesday would be a propitious time for us to have a joint caucus meeting.
    Fortunately, I was not at the Business Committee meeting, but I noticed that Tuesday may be free because there would be no Question time. We could therefore have a joint caucus meeting on that day, to deal with any outstanding matters.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader rose to make a legitimate request. He said that he made this request about three weeks ago, but there has been no response.
    At the Business Committee meeting three weeks, the Hon Minority Leader proposed that we invite the Electoral Commission (EC). I advised him that the Business Committee does not generate its own agenda. He knows the process to
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:29 a.m.
    I would want the Hon Member for South Dayi to know that we have a challenge with his Question. His Question seeks to elicit Answers from
    the Judiciary. The Minister for Justice and Attorney-General has declined to Answer that Question for the Judiciary because it is an independent Arm of Government.
    What we would have to consider, which I suggest to Leadership, is to either bring the Judicial Secretary to a joint caucus meeting, or a closed Sitting, so that he may Answer Questions directed to the Judiciary.
    Otherwise, we cannot bring the Chief Justice or the Judiciary Secretary to the Chamber to Answer questions that relate to them.
    So, we have issues that relate to them, but our processes as at now does not admit the Chief Justice or the Judicial Secretary into our Chamber. We would, therefore, have to find a way around it, and Leadership would work on that.
    Mr Iddrisu 11:29 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, I understand that on the matter of the construction of a new Chamber, people are of the view that the Hon Minority Leader is quiet.
    I have decided to maintain a golden silence to keep my honour. This is because I serve on the Parliamentary Board as the Hon Minority Leader and MP for Tamale South.
    Mr Speaker, matters discussed at the Board are not matters meant for radio commentary or radio dis- cussion, pursuant to the oath that I swore as a member of the Board.
    Mr Speaker, I am only one member of the six-member Board; the Rt Hon Speaker, Hon Hackman Owusu Agyemang, Hon Abena Osei- Asare, the Hon Majority Leader, and the Clerk to Parliament are the other Members.
    The principle of a new Chamber was discussed at the Board meeting but the matter was inconclusive. The matter of cost, as well as the matter of value for money was inconclusive, but we demanded to know the cost at the Board meeting.
    Mr Speaker, it was at conclave that the Rt. Hon Speaker, at our usual morning meetings, requested that the Hon Majority Leader and myself would be needed for a meeting for 15 minutes, on Friday.
    Indeed, my Hon Colleague even thought Thursday, but I suggested that since I wanted to be part of Friday prayers, they could shift the meeting
    from 12.30 p. m. to 12.00 p. m., so that I could be available at the meeting; which he obliged.
    He said that the concept of the new Parliamentary Chamber would be presented to the Board. I participated in it, and my views on it are in our minutes and the recording of the proceedings of the Parliamentary Board, to serve as records.
    I do not intend to betray that trust and that oath, and I thought that I should correct it. I was not as if Haruna was seated with Mr Speaker. The Rt. Hon Speaker made a request that he needed 15 minutes of the time of Leadership, for the Adjaye Group to present the new Chamber concept.
    It was discussed, but nothing on the matter of cost is conclusive. I am not impervious to public opinion or the input of the public, but regrettably, even Hon Members of Parliament themselves were not apprised. That is regrettable, but I am sure that it was a journey we were walking.
    Mr Speaker, I thought I should set the records straight.
    I thank you.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:29 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:29 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought if we had the joint caucus meeting on Tuesday, the details would come out. But I agree with the Hon Minority Leader that nothing has been concluded on the financials; the procurement processes and the Agreement covering it. That is why what happened was not the best, which is why I apologised for that just because I belong to the Board.
    It was not my decision but because I belong to the Board, just as when it happened way back some four years ago when I was the Minority Leader and the issue of the chairs came in.
    Dr Kunbuor had just become the Hon Majority Leader and I did not know the processes that we were walked through. So, if you remember, it was I, as the Minority Leader who stood up for Parliament. People should remember that.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you.
    -- [Hear! Hear!] --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:29 a.m.
    Hon Members, Leaders, from the discussion so far, for the comments so far, the principle of a Chamber in the future is not new. As an Hon
    Member of Parliament for ten years, I have heard all the Presidents that had spoken on the matter mentioned it in their State of the Nation Addresses. I have heard Speakers refer to it in their Closing Sessions.
    As far as I am concerned, the only other thing that had not been taken is to move the principle forward and design a concept. I do not know how come there was a public discussion as if a procurement has been done and any step has been taken. But -- [Interruption.] Hon Members, order!
    Whatever it is that generated this discussion, I think the comments of the two Leaders this morning should bring the matter to a close. No step has been taken towards actualising the designs.
    I think that it is important that whatever decisions that were taken by the Board, if they materialise into signing an Agreement, it would be brought to the House for discussion and approval. When any such thing is brought to the House, I know Hon Members would speak their minds freely.
    But I think it is very important to understand that we have one Parliament even though different Sides. I have been here long enough; I started from the left side and now I
    am on the right side. I recall exactly what Hon Doe Adjaho said in 2013. He said, I moved from right to left; I am back to the right. That is how our political and governance arrangement has been.
    But it appears to me that we, as Hon Members of Parliament, because we often place too much emphasis on partisan advantage, are helping the whole country to disrespect the institution. To disrespect Hon Members to the extent that somebody has published the list of Hon Members and their phone numbers and are asking people to call the Hon Members and to tell them.
    Hon Minority Leader would agree that that is a breach of the Data Protection Act. Is that right? It is an offence. But I am sure that if any one of us took action against that person, the discussion would become partisan.
    I encourage us, as we are advised this morning; let us find a common ground on what is national. That has been my refrain for a very long time and I encourage us to look beyond partisan advantage in the way we hold our discussions.
    I thank you. [Hear! Hear!] --
    The Business Statement for the week-ending Friday, 12th July, 2019 is hereby adopted.
    Question time; the Hon Minister for Roads and Highways is to answer Questions, as usual, on a Friday.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader, is your Hon Minister here?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:29 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister is at another location attending to some other very serious business. But he has asked his very able Hon Deputy Minister, one of our own to come and respond to the Questions on his behalf.
    Hon Owusu-Aduomi is here.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:29 a.m.
    Yes, available Leadership of the Minority, do you have any objection?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 11:29 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have no objection at all. In fact, I had the privilege of working with him when he was the Ranking Member of the Roads and Transport Committee. And I have no doubt in his capabilities as an Hon Deputy Minister. Indeed, I thought that he would be the Hon Minister.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:29 a.m.
    Hon Member, thank you.
    Some Hon Members 11:29 a.m.
    It is not too late.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:29 a.m.
    Hon Sampson Ahi, I do not see your name in the Questions here; why are you up? Let me hear you.
    Mr Ahi 11:29 a.m.
    Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
    Last week Tuesday, I was the available Leader when you gave me the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Minority. The Hon Majority Leader rose up and opposed when you called me to speak. Today, you have just used the expression “ available Leader”, referring to Hon Inusah. Hon Majority Leader is sitting down quietly without saying anything.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:29 a.m.
    That bias would be investigated by the Privileges Committee. [Laughter.]
    Question 609 in the name of Hon Member for Kwesimintsim, Mr Joseph Mensah?
    ORAL ANSWERS TO 11:29 a.m.
    QUESTIONS 11:29 a.m.
    MINISTRY OF ROADS AND 11:29 a.m.
    HIGHWAYS 11:29 a.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:49 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Member, do you have any follow up questions to the Answer?
    Mr Joseph Mensah 11:49 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, is the Hon Minister aware that in 2016, the stretch of road from Kwesimintsim Obiri Junction to Whindo, through Assakae was under construction by Asabea Engineering Company Limited until it was truncated upon reaching Assakae School Junction? What is the reason for the stoppage of the project?
    Mr Owusu-Aduomi 11:49 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not have any information on the construction works that were going on by Asabea Engineering Company Limited, so I would not be able to offer any reason for its truncation. I know
    what I was asked to answer is from Assakae to Whindo.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:49 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Member?
    Mr Joseph Mensah 11:49 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am done with that Question.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:49 a.m.
    Very well, Question numbered 610, Hon Member for Kwesimintsim?
    Construction of a Bridge on River Ayile
    Q. 610. Mr Joseph Mensah asked the Minister for Roads and Highways what plans the Ministry had to construct a bridge on River Ayile, linking Assakae to Adientam, as the two towns are usually cut off during rainy seasons.
    Mr Owusu-Aduomi 11:49 a.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    Background
    The Ayile River currently crosses the road between Assakae and Adientem communities through a collapsed culvert. The road therefore, becomes inaccessible during the rainy season. The collapsed culvert is
    Mr Joseph Mensah 11:49 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, are we getting the assurance that in the 2020 Budget, it would be captured that the construction of the bridge would begin?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:49 a.m.
    Hon Minister, the Hon Member wants you to clarify your position.
    Mr Owusu-Aduomi 11:49 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, exactly so. They are able to use the road only in the dry season, when they go through the river bed and it is
    important that we fix that bridge. That is exactly what the Ministry wants to do.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:49 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Member?
    Mr Joseph Mensah 11:49 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am done.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:49 a.m.
    Very well, thank you very much.
    Question numbered 611, in the name of Mr George Mireku Duker, Hon Member for Tarkwa-Nsuaem.
    Completion of the Awhetieso to Tarkwa Road
    Q. 611. Mr George Mireku Duker asked the Minister for Roads and Highways when the Awhetieso to Tarkwa road will be completed.
    Mr Owusu-Aduomi 11:49 a.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    Background
    The Ahwetieso-Tarkwa road forms part of the Inter-Regional road IR06, which starts from Agona Junction through Tarkwa and Bogoso to Ayamfuri. The Ahwetieso - Tarkwa road has a length of 13.5km and lies in the Tarkwa - Nsuaem Municipality of the Western Region.
    The road has bituminous surfacing which is in very poor condition and, therefore, undergoing rehabilitation.
    Current programme
    The rehabilitation works of the Ahwetieso - Tarkwa road started on 6th April, 2018 and was expected to be completed on 5th January, 2019. The projected physical progress of works at the end of May 2019 is 52 per cent. Work was suspended by the contractor as a result of delay of payment for work done.
    The suspension led to agitation by residents of the communities.
    The contractor resumed work on strengthening of the pavement previously laid. Currently, sections of the road have been primed with bitumen ready to receive asphaltic concrete. Indeed, asphaltic concrete has been laid on a trial section.
    Future programme
    The rehabilitation of the Ahwetieso - Tarkwa road project is expected to be completed by the end of the third quarter of 2019 depending on how frequent payment for work done by the contractor would be.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:49 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Member, do you have any follow up question?
    Mr Duker 11:49 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want to know whether the Hon Minister is aware that the contractor on site has indicated clearly that he has not been paid as of now? If that is correct, when is he going to be paid on that stretch?
    Mr Owusu-Aduomi 11:49 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would not be able to tell the Hon Member when the contractor would be paid, but I know the Government is preparing to give some moneys to the Ministry to pay all contractors whose certificates are outstanding.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:49 a.m.
    Question numbered 612 in the name of the Hon Member for Asuogyaman, Mr Thomas Nyarko Ampem.
    Construction of Asikuma-Boso Road and Apeguso-Mpakadan Road
    Q. 612. Mr Thomas Nyarko Ampem asked the Minister for Roads and Highways what plans the Ministry had to construct the following roads in the Asuogyaman District: (i) Asikuma - Boso (ii) Apeguso - Mpakadan.
    Mr Owusu-Aduomi 11:49 a.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    Mr Ampem 11:59 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, my first follow up question would be in respect of the Asikuma -Anum-Boso-Toh Kpalime road. The Hon Deputy Minister's response indicated that this is the only road available to these communities; the alternative would be to use the Volta Lake. I would want to find out from him how reliable is the source of funding that he indicated to help us meet the time lines?
    Mr Owusu-Aduomi 11:59 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, as I indicated in my response from the Ministry, the project would be funded from the Road Fund and it is a very reliable source of funding.
    Mr Ampem 11:59 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, my second supplementary question would be with respect to the Apeguso- Mpakadan feeder road. I am aware it was previously awarded to a contractor, one Aya Constructions and he did some work and currently, he even has heaps of chippings and other things by the road side.
    He asked for a review, but the Hon Deputy Minister's answer suggests that they are now thinking of awarding that contract in 2020. Is it the case that the initial contract has been abrogated?
    Mr Owusu-Aduomi 11:59 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, the original contract is no more on-going and we want to have a new contract for it in the 2020 Budget Statement.
    Mr Ampem 11:59 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the final paragraph of the Hon Deputy
    Minister's Answer, he said that 11:59 a.m.
    “However, its execution will depend on the size of the budget to be allocated to the roads sector''.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:59 a.m.
    Hon Deputy Minister, how concrete is your concrete assurance?
    Mr Owusu-Aduomi 11:59 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member is even lucky that we have said it would be covered in the 2020 Budget Statement. That is a good assurance and it is enough. However, as we are aware, every project could be awarded for contract depending on how much the roads sector gets.
    Yes, we want to have that project done in 2020 but if we would start the construction itself, it would depend on the size of the budget for the roads sector. It is assuring enough that in 2020, the project would be on the list of the Ministry of Roads and Highways.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:59 a.m.
    Hon Member, is your question on this matter?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 11:59 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:59 a.m.
    No, it is a constituency-specific question.
    Question numbered 613, standing in the name of the same Hon Member; Mr Thomas Nyarko Ampem.
    Why construction works on the Akosombo-Gyakiti Road
    had Stalled
    Q. 613.Mr. Thomas Nyarko Ampem asked the Minister for Roads and Highways why construction works on the Akosombo -- Gyakiti road had stalled and when the contractor would return to site.
    Mr Aduomi 11:59 a.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    Background
    Akosombo-Gyakiti (24.10km)
    The Akosombo-Gyakiti feeder road (24.10km) is an engineered road in poor surface condition. It is a gravel road located in the Asuogyaman District of the Eastern Region.
    Current programme
    A contract of upgrading to bituminous surfacing of Akosombo- Gyakiti Road was awarded on 11th August, 2016. The works commenced on 10th October, 2016 and was expected to be completed on 9th October, 2017 which has since elapsed.
    The project is financed by the Ghana Road Fund. The physical progress of the works is estimated at 27 per cent. The contractor has completed pavement works on a 5km section and is currently preparing to primerseal the road.
    Mr Ampem 11:59 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, my question sought to find out why the project had stalled but the response did not give me exactly why. However, the Hon Deputy Minister, indicated that the contractor is back on site which I am aware of. My question is that it was originally planned to be completed in October, 2017 as stated in his response.
    Mr Speaker, since that date has passed, I would want to know the new date that he anticipates that this project would be completed.
    Mr Owusu-Aduomi 11:59 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I cannot tell the Hon Member the new date for completion but the project
    has slowed down because of delay in paying the contractor for work done.
    I am aware that the contractor had work to the tune of over GH¢4 million and nothing has been paid to him yet. But luckily, he is back to site to continue with the works. It is left with him to apply for extension of contract period and that would be looked at by the Department of Feeder Roads with the approval of the Ministry.
    To date, the contractor would have to first apply, then we would know the expected completion date but we do not have any application yet from him.
    Mr Ampem 11:59 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, from Hon Deputy Minister's response, is he anticipating that a review of the contract would also lead to a review of the contractor's sum? He said that they expect the contractor to apply for a new completion date.
    Mr Owusu-Aduomi 12:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the extension of the contract period does not necessarily mean a review of the works. Of course, in the contract, there are contingency sums that take care of price fluctuations. It is only when the contingency sum for
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:09 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member, your last follow up question.
    Mr Ampem 12:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, finally, is the Ministry considering payment to the contractor? The Hon Minister indicated that he is aware that the contractor has worked to the tune of GH¢4 million but has not been paid anything. How soon would the Ministry make payment available to the contractor so that work could progress?
    Mr Owusu-Aduomi 12:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have already indicated that the Ministry hopes to get some reliefs from the Government to pay our contractors whose payments are in arrears. I believe that when we get
    these moneys, the contractor working on it would be paid. He should pray for us.
    I thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:09 p.m.
    That brings us to the end of Question time.
    Hon Majority Leader, can we do Statements today? It is past 12.00 p.m. already.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would plead with you that we discount off Statements today because it is Friday and already it is past 12.00 p.m. So, we could deal with the substantive matters of Government Business.
    Mr Speaker, the first one is the Presentation and First Reading of Bills; item numbered 7.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:09 p.m.
    Yes, available Minority Leader, the suggestion is that we defer Statements today.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am told that you had admitted a
    Statement by Dr Clement Apaak, but it is on a matter that is not time bound. It could be made on Tuesday. So, if the exigencies of the situation require that we do other business so that he could do it on that day, we are amenable.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:09 p.m.
    Very well, at the Commencement of Public Business, item numbered 6, Pre- sentation of Papers by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    PAPERS 12:09 p.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:09 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, are you ready to take item numbered 7?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Deputy Minister for Agriculture is here. The Hon Minister is at a certain location doing some other business.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:09 p.m.
    Very well, Hon Deputy Minister?
    BILLS - FIRST READING 12:09 p.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:09 p.m.
    Item numbered 8; Motion.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that one would be taken next week. So we would go to item numbered 9.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:09 p.m.
    Very well, item numbered 9; Vigilantism and Related Offences Bill, 2019 at the Consideration stage. [Pause.]
    Hon Majority Leader, are we to use the original Order Paper or the Order Paper Addendum?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the winnowing committee met yesterday and the day before
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:09 p.m.
    Very well.
    BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 12:09 p.m.
    STAGE 12:09 p.m.
    Mr Ben Abdallah Banda 12:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1, subclause (1), delete and insert the following:
    “(1) Subject to article 3 of the Constitution, this Act applies to an act or a threat of voilence or intimidation undertaken by a person or a group of persons to further the interest of that person or any other person connected, affiliated, assoicated with or related to
    (a) a political party,
    (b) a political party holder,
    (c) an official or member of a political party,
    (d) a senior government official,
    (e) a land owner or purchaser of landed property,
    (f) a real estate developer,
    (g) a public servant,
    (h) a public officer holder, or any other person who holds an office of a public nature,
    (i) mining activities, or
    (k) a person who engages in any act of vigilantism.”
    Mr Speaker, except that, with your permission and indulgence, I would like to proffer an amendment, in connection with the opening line of the proposed amendment, which is “Subject to article 3 of the Constitution…” I would rather wish that we delete “article 3 of” and maintain “Subject to the Constitution…”.
    It is only in article 3 of the Constitution that an act of vigilantism is constitutionally allowed or permitted. Under article 13, for instance, a person is permitted to defend his property even to the point of death.
    Mr Speaker, so the avoidance of doubt, I wish that we make it generic instead of specific, so that the new rendition would be “Subject to the Constitution”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:19 p.m.
    Well, Hon Member, is there any law that is not subject to the Constitution?
    Yes, Hon Ranking Member?
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 12:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is a very germane question. When we look at article 11 of the Constitution -- the hierarchy of laws — the Constitution is number one. So, all the laws and regulations must be subject to it.
    Of course, because we are dealing with political vigilantism and vigilantism in general, when we read article 3 carefully, there is legal or constitutional vigilantism, which we cannot amend.
    It states that anybody who attempts to destabilise this country through the overthrow of the Constitution must be resisted, and the Constitution calls upon all of us to exercise that constitutional duty. So that is legal constitutional vigilantism.
    We thought that we should subject whatever we do to article 3, recognising that if somebody mobilises people to resist the overthrow of the Constitution, that would actually be vigilantism; but in this case, it would be permissible by the Constitution.
    Mr Speaker, that is how we came by that. But I entirely agree; there is no law in this country that is not subject to the Constitution. Article 1(2) states that any law that is inconsistent with this Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, null and void.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:19 p.m.
    Hon Leaders, wait. Let me hear from your back bench first.
    Yes, Hon Chireh?
    Mr Joseph Y. Chireh 12:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman of the Committee has removed “article 3” because during the discussions, the issue of anybody using force to defend his property and all that is a form of vigilantism. That is not under article
    3.
    In fact, the earlier suggestion was to even delete “the Constitution” in this matter, and just say “This Act applies to…” and it will be all right.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:19 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Iddrisu 12:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, your question is apt, and it raises fundamental questions on vigilantism. Indeed, that compels us, as Parliament, to accept the reality of a dichotomy between functional and dysfunctional vigilantism.
    There is a category of vigilantism, like the reference to article 3, which is to preserve and protect the Constitution. For instance, on election day, if some persons want to rig the election and the vigilante group of either the New Patriotic Party or the National Democratic Congress, in their wish to see one emerge cleanly, comes out to protect the ballot box, that is positive vigilantism.
    Mr Speaker, so they should abandon the reference to article 3, but
    we must all research on what word to use, maybe “criminal vigilantism”, and then we define it. But “vigilantism” cannot stand alone throughout this Bill. For instance, there is cyber security vigilantism.
    It is a social movement composed by individuals or collective groups who respond via technical means to a perceived and repercussive criminal act against the security of the internet. That is “vigilantism” defined positively, like you said.
    However, like Hon Fuseini said, there is a second leg of vigilantism, which is what we want to proscribe because that is violent and threatens our democracy.
    So, on election day like I said, one defends, for instance, the “Suame McCain” or “Suame Mogabe”, and I withdraw that. It is because one believes in the values and philosophy of their party, that one would want to defend the Hon Member consciously, lawfully and purposefully. How could we criminalise that?
    Mr Speaker, as for the reference to article 3, you are right. We do not need to refer to it because other types of vigilantism may not necessarily even be in defence of the Constitution. It could be that one is about to commit
    a crime, but not to overthrow the Constitution. Therefore I think that all of us must research further to qualify vigilantism in this Bill. It cannot stand alone, but I do not think that reference should be to article 3.
    Mr Speaker, thank you.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:19 p.m.
    Mr President—[Laughter.] Mr Speaker -- [Pause.]
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I know why there is this deliberate slip of tongue. [Laughter.] He is in the mood of Senchi.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:19 p.m.
    The mood of Senchi?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes. At this time, he should not be addressing the Speaker. So he is in the mood and frame -- His body is only here, but his mind is over there. If he wants to join his mind, he can do the appropriate thing so that -- [Laughter.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:19 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, unfortunately, I was caught in between two worlds; I had a call and that was apparently in response to that call.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the reference to article 3 of the Constitution is to another subject matter altogether. It is the defence of the Constitution.
    Let me emphasise that the activity the Constitution imposes on citizens is citizenship activism and not vigilantism because vigilantism is a different kettle of fish.

    Mr Speaker, but if we look at the opening phrase of the clause, it provides a meaning to what is meant by “vigilantism” in this context or in this Act. It reads that:

    “This Act applies to an act or a threat of violence or intimidation undertaken by a person or group of persons to further the interest of that person or any other person connected, affiliated, associated with or related to …”

    Mr Speaker, so, indeed, this provides some interpretation to what we mean by “vigilantism” in this Act.

    Mr Speaker, I believe that we could proceed. I understand the issue that was raised by Hon Chireh that we may need to look at the memorandum. Mr Speaker, that is factual because the

    meaning ascribed to “vigilantism” in the memorandum does not sit well in the body of the Bill. So ultimately, we may have to take a second look at it. Mr Speaker, but let us proceed and the appropriate thing would be done at the appropriate time.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:29 p.m.
    In this circumstance, I think that we could delete “Subject to article 3 of the Constitution” and the definition would be perfect.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree that we do not need that. In fact, if we have to do it, the reference would not be article 3. It is the part of ownership of property that I could -- [Interruption.] --Mr Speaker, but we do not even need it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:29 p.m.
    I think we could delete “Subject to article 3 of the Constitution and just start with “This Act applies to …”
    Hon Chairman --
    Mr Banda 12:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the position of the law is clear on this. Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution make it abundantly clear that any law that is inconsistent with the Constitution is null and void. This is trite knowledge, and we could conveniently do away with “Subject to article 3 of the Constitution”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:29 p.m.
    So, the new rendition would begin with “This Act applies to an act or threat …”
    Is that right?
    Mr Banda 12:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, rightly so.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:29 p.m.
    Hon Member for Daboya.
    Mr Shaibu Mahama 12:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am most grateful.
    Mr Speaker, before we move into that, the proposed clause 1 (d) talks about a senior government official, and clause 1(g) is about a public servant. Mr Speaker, but clause 1(h) talks about a public office holder, or any other person who holds an office of a public nature. Therefore, if we delete clause1(d) and (g), we would still be covered by clause 1(h).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:29 p.m.
    Hon Members, his proposal is that we should delete clause 1(d) and clause (g) because clause 1(h) covers both.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think we had some discussions that clause 1(d) could be deleted, but there are some public office holders who are not necessarily public servants. So I believe that we should leave clause 1(g) but clause 1(d) could be deleted.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:29 p.m.
    Hon Leader, even if the person is not a public office holder, with the second part of clause 1(h), which reads “… or any other person who holds an office of a public nature,” it could cover a public servant.
    Mr Iddrisu 12:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support your position that “a public office holder” should be enough. I have been reading the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) and it has “public officer” as you have rightly referred to. Mr Speaker, except that just beneath that, there is clause 1(i), which is “mining activities”. Maybe, we have to delete it. [Interruption.]
    An Hon Member 12:29 p.m.
    It is galamsey.
    Mr Iddrisu 12:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, he should say so because when it says just “mining activities” -- there is lawful mining activity. I have a difficulty with just “mining activities” because when one reads it as “… an act or a threat of violence or intimidation undertaken by a person or a group of persons to further the interest of that person or any other person connected, affiliated, associated with or related to mining activities …” -
    - 12:29 p.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:29 p.m.
    If a person uses violence or threat of violence in any mining activity, then that person would be caught by this. This is the suggestion.
    Mr Kwame G. Agbodza 12:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just want the Hon Chairman to guide me. I could see that most of the items listed from clause 1(a) to (k) are about political parties and public office holders. So should I take it that when we say “a person”, it would include religious organisations, chiefs and private companies who own landed property and attempt to defend it in this manner?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:29 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mr Rockson-Nelson E. K. Dafeamekpor 12:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, re- garding the deletion, if we look at item 1(h), it reads “a public office holder, or any other person who holds an office of a public nature”.
    This is more of a definition, so I think that we could end it at “a public office holder” and then send the rest to the Interpretation Section to define a “public officer holder” to mean “a public officer holder, or any other person who holds an office of a public nature.”
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I know that some of our Hon Colleagues would undertake the sponsorship that was graciously offered to us by the Hon Majority Leader. [Laughter.]
    Mr Speaker, that is just a style because we could do the definition in the body of the Act or it could be done in the Interpretation Section.
    Mr Speaker, I think that when we discussed this, we agreed that “connected” and “related” would take the adverbial “to”. So, we cannot say “connected with” rather it should be “connected to” or “related to”.
    Also, we said “affiliated with” and “associated with”, but I have seen that the “connected” has taken the adverbial “with”. I do not think that was the amendment we proffered, so I would want the drafters to take note.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:29 p.m.
    I direct the draftspersons to deal appropriately with it.
    Hon Minority Leader, do you want to raise another issue?
    Mr Iddrisu 12:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my concerns have been addressed. I was referring to “public office” as defined in article 295 of the 1992 Constitution, but it appears that my fears have been

    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:29 p.m.
    Hon Members, the Hon Second Deputy Speaker would take the Chair.
    Item numbered (ii) standing in the name of Hon Opare-Ansah.
    Is he here?
    MR SECOND DEPUTY SPEAKER
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:39 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman, I heard my Hon Colleague say “item numbered (ii).”
    Mr Banda 12:39 p.m.
    It is rightly so, Mr Speaker.
    Item numbered (ii) stands in the name of Hon Opare-Ansah, but I believe
    that this proposed amendment is well taken care of under the amendment we just effected, especially in respect of clause 1 (a), (b) and (c).
    He sought to amend subclause (1) to the effect that any person seeking political office through an election conducted by the Electoral Commission -- but subclause 1(b) is to the effect of a political office holder. So, one cannot aspire to be a political office holder and get elected into a political office without going through an election.
    To that extent, I hold the view that his proposed amendment is redundant. In any case, he himself is not here, so this amendment is deemed abandoned.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:39 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe the rationale for what Hon Opare-Ansah seeks to do is that, when we read the preamble, it says:
    “This Act applies to an act or threat of violence or intimidation undertaken by a person or group of persons to further the interest of that person or any other person connected, affiliated, associated with or related to --
    (a) a political party,”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:39 p.m.
    But I thought that once the House has agreed to the first amendment, what he attempts to amend no longer exists, because it is not what has been agreed upon by the House now. So we do not need to even
    bother ourselves with moving the amendment because it does not apply at all. So, we would gloss over it and move on.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, but it no longer applies again in the amendments that we have taken because we provided an omnibus provision in clause 1(k). So, it does not apply.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree that clause 1(k) takes care of that, so we do not need that.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:39 p.m.
    It is not abandoned. It has been overrun by events. [Laughter.] So, we will move on to item number (iii).
    Mr Banda 12:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1, subclause (2), paragraph (a), delete and insert the following:
    “(a) a person, who lives within the same neighbourhood or community, and who acts alone or in concert with other persons, with the aim of preventing the commission of an offence within that neighbourhood or community; and”.
    Mr Speaker, this is an exception to what we are trying to criminalise, which is an offence of vigilantism. Therefore, if a person or group of persons within a community decide to protect the law or themselves within the confines of the law, this would not be considered as an act of vigilantism as it is being defined within the context of the Bill. This is the rationale behind this proposed amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:39 p.m.
    Hon Members, I think it is so clear. Unless any Hon Member wants to proffer an idea, I would put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Iddrisu 12:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1, subclause (2), line 3, delete “an offence” and insert “the commission of a crime”.
    Mr Speaker, I have with me the Criminal Offences Act, 1966 (Act 29). In chapter 3, it says “attempts to commit criminal offences”. So I am minded to abandon the commission of a crime, but to persuade you and the House that we qualify “offence” with “criminal”. That is what is in Act 29.
    So, I would abandon the first one, as advertised, but seek your leave and
    indulgence that before wherever we have “offence”, we should insert “criminal”.
    Hon Fuseini would have my authority to navigate on the rest of my clauses as I retire for Friday prayers. Where he needs to abandon it, he would use his judgment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:49 p.m.
    Hon Members, what has been proposed is to insert in clause 1, subclause (2), line (3), before the word “offence”, “criminal”, and he propose that anywhere the offence appears, it should be preceded with the word “criminal”, so it is read as “criminal offence”. That is the proposal.
    Mr Banda 12:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have no objection.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I really do not find the amendment proposed by the Hon Minority Leader fatal. However, the language of the Constitution is sim- pliciter the commission of crime. So either way, I believe it is right, but if we have to go by the Constitution, I would say “commission of crime”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:49 p.m.
    Well, is it your proposal for us to delete the word “offence” and substitute it with
    Mr Banda 12:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, one can commit an offence; one can commit a crime. “Crime” and “Offence” can be used interchangeably. So when it is an “offenc”, it means that you have disobeyed the law. That is a criminal offence, and when it is a “crime”, it means that the act is illegal.
    So, Mr Speaker, I do not see any difference.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in article 94, it is simpliciter, having been convicted of high crime. Then (ii), “convicted for any other offence…”, and (iii), “for an offence relating to…”.
    That is why I am saying that, for me, the language of the Constitution simpliciter is “offence”, and I think we could go for either one. Whether it is “crime” or “offence”, either is right.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:49 p.m.
    Well, I do not take the decision; you do. So which one do you prefer?
    Mr Agbodza 12:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have a definition here for a “crime”;
    “An action or omission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law”.
    A crime uses an “offence” in terms of definition. So I think it can be used interchangeably.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:49 p.m.
    So Hon Members, the proposal is to give this new rendition to subclause 2 (a).
    It says;
    “This Act does not apply to
    (a) persons who live within the same neighbourhood or community and who acts in concert with the aim of preventing a criminal offence from being committed within that neighbourhood or community”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, if you breach any statute, it is an offence, but if you go ahead to attach the word “crime”, it is what you lawyers refer to as mens rea. You must now go further upstairs, but the breach of the statute is an offence.
    I think that we can accept the proposal from the Hon Chairman of the Committee that a person commits an
    offence, in order not to get bogged down by the determination of what informed what he did.
    So “offence”, to me, would save the situation.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:49 p.m.
    It is clear that not all offences are criminal. Offence is from the word to “offend”, so a wrong is offending something -- [Interruption.]
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:49 p.m.
    Already, we have defined the parameters, and it refers to an act or threat or violence or intimidation. We are saying that if we engage in that, it amounts to an offence.
    So the parameters are already defined in subclause (1), and this is part of subclause (1) anyway. But once we have defined the parameters and we are saying that if a person engages in that act he has committed an offence, the parameters are already set and known.
    Mr Iddrisu 12:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that, persuasively, you should put the Question on “criminal offence”, because I referred to an Act, so for consistency, that is appropriate. Then you make a distinction between a criminal and a civil statute.
    Mr Speaker, therefore, “offence” should not stand alone.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, my Hon Colleague referred to an Act. I referred to the Constitution. Which one is superior?
    But, Mr Speaker, you may put the Question. We need to make progress.
    Mr Iddrisu 12:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is true. He quoted the Constitution in article 94 (c); on high crime, 94 (c) (ii), on other offence.
    That is why I am saying they should marry the two, “criminal offence”.
    Mr Iddrisu 12:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I understand that even though I also referred to the Constitution to borrow the word “crime”, it appears that it would defy the beauty and elegance of the legislation and its intent. I accordingly abandon the proposed amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:49 p.m.
    Well, Hon Members, the mover of the motion has abandoned it, so I would not put the Question again.
    Mr Banda 12:59 p.m.
    Item numbered (v) stands in the name of the Hon Frederick Opare-Ansah. His amendment has however been overtaken by events, with respect to item numbered (iii). This is because item numbered (iii) takes care of what the Hon Member seeks to do. He seeks to insert the phrase: “a community neighbourhood watchdog.”
    I believe that the item numbered (iii), which has just been dealt with speaks to his proposed amendment. I therefore move that the proposed amendment of the Hon Member be stepped down.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:59 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, you are right.
    Hon Members, the Hon Opare- Ansah's amendment has been overrun by earlier amendments. We would therefore move on, unless the Hon Majority Leader would want to say something.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the original Bill provides: “persons, who live within the same neighbourhood or community, and who act in concert with the aim …”
    We now have this new formulation which provides a person, who is living in a community, acting on his own, or in concert with others. The word “others” would then cover the formation of a community neighbourhood watchdog group. I believe that Hon Opare-Ansah, if he were to be with us, would even withdraw his amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:59 p.m.
    Thank you so much.
    Hon Members, it means that his amendment has been overrun and withdrawn. We would move on to item numbered (vi).
    Mr Banda 12:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1, subclause (3), line 1, delete “shall” and insert “may” and in line 2, at end, add the following:
    “except that where the offence under prosecution relates to vigilantism, the provisions of this Act shall apply.”
    Mr Speaker, clause 1, subclause (3), would therefore read 12:59 p.m.
    “This Act may be read together with relevant enactments and in particular, the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29).”
    Mr Speaker, the reason is simple. It is only when necessity demands that Act 29 be referred to, that it shall so be
    referred to. If we make it mandatory, it would mean that at all material times, whether it is necessary or not, Act 29 has to be referred to. That explains the use of the permissive “may”, instead of “shall”.
    Mr Speaker, again, we seek to also make a provision for supremacy or primacy, which is to the effect that any offence created under this Bill shall be dealt with within the confines of this Bill, unless the contrary is to the effect that Act 29 shall be referred to.
    Mr Speaker, we therefore seek to deal with two issues; one, the use of the word “may,” and two, making a provision for the primacy clause.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 1 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 2 -- Disbandment of political party vigilante groups
    Mr Banda 12:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2, Sectional note above clause 2, delete and insert “Vigilante Groups”.
    Mr Speaker, the sectional note would therefore read 12:59 p.m.
    “disbandment of
    vigilante groups,” instead of the phrase; “disbandment of political party vigilante groups.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:59 p.m.
    Hon Members, this is not the headnote, but the sectional note, which reads as it stands: “Disbandment of political party vigilante groups.” The proposal is therefore to delete the phrase: “political party” and leave the phrase: “vigilante groups” to stand.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 12:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2, delete and insert the following:
    “Disbandment of a vigilante group
    2. A vigilante group in existence before the coming into force of this Act including the groups set out in the Schedule, is disbanded.”
    Mr Speaker, this amendment is consequent upon the amendment that we have just effected. We would want to make this provision generic instead of specific. Therefore, the phrase: “vigilante group” would be crosscutting, but would not necessarily apply to only political parties.
    Mr Speaker, it would therefore read 12:59 p.m.
    “Disbandment of a vigilante group.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:59 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, you may have to take a second look at that proposed amendment because of the exception to the general rule, where we would want to permit the establishment of vigilante groups that are neighbourhood watchdogs.
    The intention is not to disband them, but if we just put it as “vigilante groups”, then it means that they are also included in this disbandment. That is the issue I would want us to take note of.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the headnote is in relation to clause 2. It does not refer to vigilante groups in general. Clause 2 talks about a schedule, and the power of the Minister to increase or add to the schedule. Therefore clause 2 is actually derived from the headnote; “Disbandment of vigilante groups”.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman, in his proposed amendment, seeks to disband “a vigilante group.” This is because he believes that legislation must be drafted in the singular, which I support. This is the reason he captures it as “Disbandment of a vigilante group.”
    Clause 2 is therefore to be captured as “…a vigilante group.”…

    Yes, it does not apply at all. Other vigilante groups that are permitted by this Act to be in existence, and Mr Speaker, I get your concern to arise out of the lawful activities of neighbourhood watchdog committee which, to all intents and purposes, is a vigilante group, but this particular provision is in relation to the schedule of vigilante groups that are being disbanded.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think your concern is taken care of in clause 2 (1); Application. This is a new law and we are saying that this whole Act does not apply to them. So, it excepts them; they are covered. Yes, they are covered by the blood of Jesus as far as this one is concerned.
    -- [Pause] --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:09 p.m.
    All right, Hon Members, let me put the Question.
    rose
    Mr Banda 1:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, except to say that once we have singularised the vigilante group, the auxiliary verb would have to change in the Bill so that it would no more be “are disbanded” but it would be —
    Mr Alexander K. Afenyo-Markin 1:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I only needed your guidance on the proposal. My limited understanding of disbandment is that when we want to disband, we are trying to suggest that, in law, it is permissible but we want to use another law to outlaw it or make it illegal. That is my limited understanding. [Interruption.]
    Mr Speaker, I need your protection.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:09 p.m.
    What is it? Where is the threat coming from?
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, when the Hon Majority Leader—
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:09 p.m.
    Is there a threat from the Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have not said so. I am saying that when he turns and he is giving me guidance, I feel intimidated even though he does not intend to intimidate; his is to guide me. But Mr Speaker, I am only expressing the—
    Mr Speaker, before the rotten teeth is pulled out, the mouth must chew with caution. So Mr Speaker, I want your guidance on this issue of disbandment. Mr Speaker, we learn at your feet; are we saying that the groups as we have
    defined in that schedule are all by law permitted to operate? So for instance, we say we are disbanding except neighbourhood watch committee. They do not want to be described as neighbourhood watchdog committees.
    Are we saying, therefore, that by law, their operations or their existence is defined? Is that what we are saying? Mr Speaker, I just need your guidance.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there are two issues; the Hon Member of Parliament says that when the Hon Majority Leader turns, he feels intimidated. I just do not want him to feel intimidated in the House when the Hon Majority Leader turns because when we are dealing with vigilantism threats of intimidation are being proscribed by the law. So, he should not be intimidated at all.
    Mr Speaker, secondly, we are proscribing the existence of those groups because of the acts of intimidation and violence being exhibited by those groups. We are doing so but carefully being aware that those groups, if they do not engage in those acts of intimidation and violence, have a right to exist because of the constitutional adjunct that allows for freedom of association.
    So, we are carefully saying that these groups that are in the schedule have been identified as existing but their existence bothers on acts that are being
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:09 p.m.
    Well, because of the choice of the word, “disband”, it means that they are in existence.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we all recognise that the vigilantes as we describe them now exist. Introduction of any Bill really sets out to cure some mischief that exists.
    And I would suggest to the Hon Member for Effutu to apply himself to article 106 of the 1992 Constitution and I believe that he would be properly informed by that; what is required of the Bill. It should identify a mischief—
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:09 p.m.
    Actually, his worry is not about that; his worry is about you being seen as part of what we are trying to disband. [Laughter.]
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I offer no comment on that but I think he should understand it in that context.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:09 p.m.
    I am sure that he heard what the Hon Ranking Member said that the Hon Majority Leader could only do good. He means no harm at all; no intimidation, nothing.
    So, I would put the Question.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:09 p.m.
    Hon Member, we have to make progress; what is it?
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in all humility, I sought your guidance.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:09 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not know whether or not it would please you to guide me accordingly.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:09 p.m.
    I guided you by saying that he means no harm; he could only be of help to you. So, you should not be intimidated.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that one was a preliminary matter. Mr Speaker, the premise upon which I rose
    was the issue of disbandment and I was seeking your guidance as to whether we are only presuming that these vigilantes exist, and on the basis of their existence, we are now, by an enactment, trying to tell them that they cannot operate. Mr Speaker, once we are using the phrase within that context of disbandment, my question is, is it not—
    Mr Speaker, I know there are superior views but per my limited understanding, using “disbandment” presupposes that they exist in law. We must debate and the debate must be in the Official Report. I am only asking whether the use of that word in the phrase does not suggest the existence of these groups in law.
    Mr Speaker, there is a difference between recognition of existence in law and a perceived existence. I am young and do not know much and there are seniors, that is why I say I need guidance.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:19 a.m.
    We do not need to belabour the point. We are dealing with facts and we know that they exist. So, the word to use is “disbandment”. If they were lawfully in existence, I think that the words we would use are “prohibit their existence”. As a matter of fact, we would disband them. I think that is what is being sought
    to be done and I think we are on the right path.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:19 a.m.
    If you really need my guidance, that is what I can say to guide you, but if the intention is rather for you to submit something else -- The way you are on your feet again, it looks like you were not looking for my guidance but making a different submission.
    You were not for the use of the word “disbandment” and would rather prefer that a different word is used but you have not said so. You said you wanted my guidance and I think that I have guided you well. Let me listen to Hon Ahiafor on the other Side.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:19 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the word “disband” means “disperse, demobilise, dissolve, scatter”. We cannot run away from the fact that, unlawfully or lawfully, vigilante groups exist in this country. So, if the law is saying that a particular vigilante group, whether perceived or not, is being disbanded, I do not have any problem with the use of the word “disbandment”.
    In any case, in the State of the Nation Address, the President came out clearly and recognised the fact that there is a vigilante group and he would bring a
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:19 a.m.
    Hon Members, we do not have to now debate the English Language but since you are Members of the Committee -- the Chairman and his Ranking Member -- I would allow. Let me listen to the Hon Ranking Member and then I would come to the Hon Chairman.
    Yes, Hon Member?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:19 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, my Hon good Friend knows that we have a de facto existence and a de jure existence. I deplore the backdoor
    challenge to the views of the President. He is seeking to challenge the views of the President through the backdoor.
    The President said that there is a de facto existence of vigilante groups and he is bringing legislation to disband them. If he is not comfortable with the views of the President, he should not say he should when the President is not there but say so when the President is present, so that we can make progress.
    Mr Banda 1:19 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the issue the Hon Member for Effutu raised to my understanding borders on legality. What he is raising is whether by disbanding these vigilante groups, we are presuming that they are lawfully recognised. That is the issue he is raising.
    However, Mr Speaker, you have already answered him. There is no gainsaying the fact that these groups exist and operate. As at now, there is no specific legal regime that seeks to deal with these groups. So, the disbandment we seek to effect by this Bill, lawfully, is in the right direction. We are not lawfully off-track but on the right track. You have already answered him, so I think that now he is satisfied.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:19 a.m.
    Hon Member, you are still insisting; what is it?
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:19 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, for the records, I do want any of my Hon Colleagues to ambush me through any submission. I sought your guidance and that of the House. I was clear in what I said and never made a submission.
    I said I needed your guidance and having been guided enough and having received sufficient guidance from my Hon Colleagues, I should be given the opportunity to even thank the House for guiding me.
    Shakespeare said there is no art to find the mind's construction in the face. When I got up, they were under the impression that I was going to make a further submission or challenge them.
    I was going to thank the House for guiding me. Why do they want to bring this argument that I am challenging the President? How is this possible?
    How can he say I want to challenge the President of the Republic through the backdoor? He must retract that submission because these are not my intentions and words.
    I have not said it and would not say that, so he should not misinterpret my intent and my submissions in this House. You have guided me and I am grateful and I have learnt something about the de facto and de jure from the Hon
    Member. That was why I said I have a limited understanding of what we are doing.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:19 a.m.
    Well, you know “disbandment” is from the word “band” and you know band is like a loop or belt and that belt is the criminal intent which has put a group together and banded them. So, what we have to do now is disband that group.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:19 a.m.
    I think the next proposed amendment is from Hon Frederick Opare-Ansah. He said we should redraft subclause (1). It has already been taken care of but let us hear the Hon Chairman on that.
    Mr Banda 1:19 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is what you have --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:19 a.m.
    It is not being moved and we just wanted
    -- 1:19 a.m.
    Mr Banda 1:19 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, his proposed amendment is taken care of under clause 2, except that he still maintains “political party” which we have sought to delete. Otherwise, the substance of his proposed amendment is not different from what we have done.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:19 a.m.
    Hon Members, the proposed amendment has lapsed, so we would move on to the next proposed amendment on clause 2, item numbered 9 (x). The Hon Minority Leader authorised the Hon Ranking Member to move his Motions on his behalf.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:29 p.m.
    The Hon Minority Leader authorised the Hon Ranking Member of the Committee to move his motions for and on his behalf.
    So Hon Ranking Member of the Committee.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader's amendment has been overtaken by events. We no longer have subclause (2) of clause 2. There is only one clause under clause
    2.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:29 p.m.
    Did you say that we no longer have subclause (2) under clause 2?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:29 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:29 p.m.
    That is true because we deleted the
    whole of clause 2 and inserted only one. So there are no longer subclauses under clause 2.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the provision now relates to the acts of vigilantism everywhere, not limited to political parties alone and that explains why we have to do away with subclauses (2), (3), (4) and (5).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:29 p.m.
    So, we take it that the item numbered (x), (xi), (xii) and (xiii) are all lapsed.
    Clause 2 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 3 -- Prohibition of political party vigilante group
    Mr Banda 1:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, delete and insert the following:
    “Prohibition of vigilante groups and activities
    3. (1) A person shall not directly or indirectly,
    (a) form, organise, operate, or
    (b) promote the formation, organisation, operation or activities of a vigilante group.
    (2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a term of imprisonment of not less than ten years and not more than fifteen years.
    (3) A person shall not
    (a) subscribe as a member of a vigilante group;
    (b) take part in the activity of a vigilante group; or
    (c) act as a member of a vigilante group.
    (4) A person who contravenes subsection (3) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a term of imprisonment of not less than ten years and not more than fifteen years.
    (5) Despite a provision in any enactment, a person who, takes part in an activity of a vigilante group armed with an offensive weapon commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a term of imprisonment of not less than fifteen years and not more than twenty-five years.
    (6) Despite subsections (2), (4) and (5) a person who is convicted for contravening subsections (1), (3) or (5) is disqualified from holding any public office until at least ten years have elapsed from the date of the end of the sentence.”
    Mr Speaker, we are seeking to delete “political party'' as it finds expression in the Bill and we also want to paragraph the clause in order to bring clarity and simplicity to bear on the provision.
    Mr Speaker, other than that, the substance has not been substantially affected.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want to make a minor correction.
    Clause 3 (1) (b) says:
    “promote the formation, orga- nisation, operation or activities of a vigilante group''.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:29 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, your proposed minor correction was to bring “a vigilante group'' up to the main --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is supposed to close both subclauses (1) (a) and (b) in the closing phrase, so that subclauses (1) (a) and (b) would read:
    “(a) form, organise, operate a vigilante group''
    (b) promote the formation, organisation, operation or activities of a vigilante group''.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:29 p.m.
    So, it would appear both in subclauses (1) (a) and (b).
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just so that we avoid that repetition.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:29 p.m.
    So, it would be:
    3. (1) A person shall not directly or indirectly,
    (a) form, organise, or operate a vigilante group''.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is the full complement of it but what is done by drafting is rather
    to leave a semi colon after the word “operate'' followed by “or promote the formation, organisation, operation or activities of'' then we bring “a vigilante group'' to be in alignment with clause 3(1), so that it would cover both subclauses 1 (a) and (b).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:29 p.m.
    What I have here is different from what you talked about. I do not have a semi colon --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I said there should have been a semi colon instead of the comma.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:29 p.m.
    Should the word “or'' be deleted?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:29 p.m.
    No, Mr Speaker, the “or'' should not be deleted.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:29 p.m.
    Let me go over it, so that we would be clear with the rendition before I put the Question.
    3.(1) A person shall not directly or indirectly,
    (a) form, organise, operate, or
    (b) operate the formation, organisation, operation or activities of a vigilante group''.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 1:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, what you read out is how it should sound but a vigilante group defines both paragraphs (a) and (b). So, it must shift to be in line with the opening sentence.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:39 p.m.
    In reading it, I could not shift it. -- [Laughter.] But my attention has been drawn to that, so, it would cover both (a) and (b).
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:39 p.m.
    Hon Members, it means that the other proposed amendments from the Hon Minority Leader and Hon Frederick Opare-Ansah have all lapsed because there has been a deletion of that earlier clause 3 which is what they are seeking to amend to a new one. Their amendments do not respond to the new rendition that we have agreed upon now.
    Is that the case? [Interruption.] All right, so we would take it that items numbered (xv), (xvi), (xvii), (xviii), (xix) and (xx) have all lapsed.
    So, I would put the Question on clause 3 --
    Sorry?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, by extension of reasoning of what we have done in clause 3 (1), I believe we could do a similar surgery on clause 3 (3) so that it would read, with your permission;
    “A person shall not
    (a) subscribe as;
    (b) take part in the activity of;
    (c) act as a member of a vigilante group.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:39 p.m.
    You do not want the repetition of “vigilante group”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:39 p.m.
    It becomes repetitive. So, we could have what I have proffered.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:39 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee, what do you say? He is proposing that we use one to capture the clause 3 (3) (a), (b) and (c). As we just did at clause 3 (1), we could do the same to clause
    3 (3).
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 1:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, because, “take part in the activity” is a phrase” we would have to start with it. So, the provision shall read, with your permission:
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:39 p.m.
    Hon Members, one subscribes to and does not “subscribe as”.
    Yes, one acts as but subscribes to. [Pause] - So, I will just read what I have and then we leave it to the draftsperson to clean it up better. The intention is to capture it in one sentence as clause 3 (3) which would read:
    “A person shall not take part in the activity or act or subscribe to the membership of a vigilante group.”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with your permission, I read:
    “A person shall not take part in the activity or act as a member or subscribe to the membership of a vigilante group.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:39 p.m.
    Hon Members, that is what is being proposed.
    Yes, Hon Member for Wa West.
    Mr Chireh 1:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, one cannot act as member; one can only subscribe to be a member because we have already said that one should not take part in any activity of a vigilante group. We are now saying, “act as a member”; once one is a member, why would one want to subscribe to the membership?
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 1:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this provision tries to deal with all the gamut of the different permutations that a person could take part in vigilantism. A person could take part in the activities of a vigilante group without being a member. So, this Act is seeking to arrest that person.
    A person could act as a member of a vigilante group without taking part in the activities of the group. This Bill seeks to arrest that person. A person could subscribe -- Now, he is not acting; he has even taken forms to be a member. This Act seeks to arrest that person. So, we are looking at a gamut of three. It is not the act alone; it is not the participation in the activity and it is not the subscription. One cannot do any of them.
    Mr Chireh 1:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what has been captured in the Order Paper says that,
    “(3) A person shall not
    (a) take part in the activity of a vigilante group
    (b) …”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:39 p.m.
    Hon Member, we have gone through that and the proposed amendment is what we are looking at now. I am sure you got that down.
    Mr Chireh 1:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, because of the way it is captured -- First, one must subscribe to be a member. That one is banned. To take part in the activity means one may not even be a member to take part. Now, act as a member of a vigilante group; we are saying that somebody would pretend to be a member but in that instance, he is not acting as a member -- [Interruption.]
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker may join a vigilante group for some economic or financial rewards or even for patronage; for purposes of being recognised by whoever. The person could purport to be a vigilante and even that, we are criminalising it.
    Mr Speaker, that is the purpose of what is created here.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:49 p.m.
    So, do I go over it again? I know what has been accepted is that;
    “A person shall not take part in the activity or act as a member or subscribe to a membership of a vigilante group”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 1:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, except that under clause 3(6) --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:49 p.m.
    Which no longer exists?
    Mr Banda 1:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, no, clause 3(6) on page 5.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:49 p.m.
    All right. Is that the proposed amendment?
    Mr Banda 1:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, rightly so.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:49 p.m.
    All right. Yes?
    Mr Banda 1:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yesterday, when we resorted to the Constitution, “public office” may not necessarily include an office within a political party. An office in a political party may not necessarily include -- [Interruption.] -- a public office may not necessarily include an office within a political party.
    So what we sought to do was to insert “political party office” in subsection 6. It will therefore read;
    “Despite subsections (2), (4) and (5) a person who is convicted for contravening subsections (1), (3) or (5) is disqualified from holding any public or political party office until at least ten years have elapsed from the date of the end of the sentence”.
    Mr Speaker, what we are trying to do is that when you are convicted, you cannot hold a public office or any office in a political party as it is defined in the Constitution.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:49 p.m.
    Hon Chairman if it is public or political party office, do we, have to put the party there?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the position of an Hon Minister or a District Chief Executive
    (DCE) is a political office, not necessarily a political party office. That is why we need to insert “political party office”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:49 p.m.
    That is why I want to cover all those offices. That is why I prefer political office so that they are not excluded but caught under the ambit of this section.
    This is because those are political officers and not party offices, but if you are caught under this provision, that should also be disqualified.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you are right in guiding us except to say that anybody who occupies a political office and is paid from the emoluments of the Consolidated Fund becomes a public officer.
    So, the DCE now occupies a political office but because his emoluments are drawn from the Consolidated Fund, that office becomes a public office. So, we have captured that.
    However, the intendment is to --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:49 p.m.
    Hon Member, it is not all political office holders whose remuneration comes from the Consolidated Fund.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes. They are from public resources.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:49 p.m.
    They come from individuals. You can have your special assistant whom you are paying as a political office holder. If you look at the recent Supreme Court judgement on the removal of Chief Executives, Metropolitan, Municipal and District Chief Executives and the rest, there is a provision talking about appointment by Hon Ministers.
    You can appoint somebody as your special assistant and you pay the person. If the money is not necessarily coming from the Consolidated Fund, will that person be covered? We are trying to rope everybody on board.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, your example of paying special assistants out of pocket will neither be a public office nor a political party office. I agree with you.
    However, the judgement of the Supreme Court in the matter of Thomas vs Attorney-General, in relation to section 14 of the Presidential Transition Act, was whether or not the person who can be removed as a result of the coming into office of a new President is appointed -- [Interruption.] -- I think that it is your mate; Professor Nii Ashie Kotey, who delivered the judgement. Whether or not such a person has been appointed under article 71 or is a public officer contemplated under article 190 and 191 of the Constitution.
    Mr Speaker, your guidance on persons who might be excluded but who might be playing vigilante roles to include, somebody paid out of the pocket of, for instance, an Hon Minister ought to be roped in and I think that that is very germane.
    Probably, we need to see how we would rope in that class of people who would not be paid out of public resources but who will be occupying some political offices. By reason of having been appointed special assistant, they could be very dangerous as well; mobilising and forming vigilante groups.
    Mr Speaker, thank you.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, going back to clause 1, that is the “Application”, I get the principle of what the Hon (Alhaji) Fuseini is proposing but I think that if we go back to clause 1, the language that we have used there is “a political office holder”. That then rope, in the personal or special assistants.
    So, for reasons of consistency, and of course, we have spoken there about a political party, we could, in clause 3(6), rather use the words; ‘…from holding any public political or political party office'. So, that it will rope in all these three public, political or political party office.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:49 p.m.
    So, would you repeat “political” or “political party”?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:49 p.m.
    Hon Quashigah.
    Mr Quashigah 1:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am just at a loss as to whether --
    Mr Chireh 1:49 p.m.
    So firstly, find your way into the Chamber. [ Laughter.]
    Mr Quashigah 1:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am being intimidated by the --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:49 p.m.
    Because of the way you premised your submission; they do not want you to be lost. You should not get lost.
    Mr Quashigah 1:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am not lost;. I am right here.
    I only want to say that when the Hon Leader mentioned public, political or political party office, I thought that if we mention “political”, then obviously it should take care of the political party office. That is what I think.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:49 p.m.
    Well, they just want to be double sure that this category is dealing with those
    holding offices in political parties. There are others that hold political offices, but not of political parties. So, there is nothing wrong with putting all together.
    Hon Members, what we have agreed on is that after “public”, we would insert “political or political party”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 3 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 4 -- Aiding and abetting activities of political party vigilante group
    Mr Banda 1:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I forgot something before you put the Question on clause 3 and it is the re-arrangement of subclause --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:49 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, are you calling on us to go back to clause 3?
    Mr Banda 1:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, once you have put the Question on clause 3, we could proceed. At the appropriate time, I would revert to it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:49 p.m.
    If your proposal has to do with re- arrangement, then that would be done by the draftpersons. They would deal with the re-arrangement. So, let us deal with clause 4.
    Hon Members, in view of the nature of Business before the House, I direct that Sitting be held beyond the normal prescribed hours.
    Mr Banda 1:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, delete and insert the following:
    “Aiding and abetting of activities of a vigilante
    4. (1) A person shall not, directly or indirectly, instigate, command, counsel, procure or solicit in any other manner, whether by a personal act, presence or otherwise, the activities of a vigilante group.
    (2)A person shall not whether by a personal act, presence or otherwise or in any other manner purposely aid, facilitate, encourage or promote vigilantism.
    (3) A person who knows or has reason to believe that another person is a member of a vigilante group or participates in the activity of a vigilante group, shall not aid, conceal or harbour that other person, with the purpose of enabling that
    person to avoid lawful arrest.
    (4) A person who contravenes subsections (1), (2) or (3) commits an offence and is liable on summary convic- tion to a term of imprison- ment of not less than ten years and not more than fifteen years.”
    Mr Speaker, this is in relation to aiding and abetting of activities of vigilantism. The substance as captured in the Bill is not different from what is in the Order Paper, except that we are trying to re-arrange what is contained in the Bill in order to make it reader- friendly to and bring clarity to the provision.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman is right except a minor correction. It should read “aiding and abetting of activities of vigilante groups.” Mr Speaker, activities of vigilante groups is what is referred to as vigilantism and so we could either say ‘‘aiding and abetting vigilantism” or “aiding and abetting activities of vigilante groups''.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:49 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, you may not need to say “groups” because an individual is --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “aiding and abetting of activities of a vigilante group”. The singular would connote plural.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:49 p.m.
    Why do you want the term “group”?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am saying that the activities of a vigilante group or groups is what is referred to as vigilantism. So, I am saying that it should either read “aiding and abetting vigilantism” or “aiding and abetting activities of vigilante group.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:49 p.m.
    I agree with you that the way it has been captured as “activities of vigilantism” is not correct and I agree that it could be “aiding and abetting of vigilantism”. It is the “group” that I am worried about because an individual could be caught by this provision.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, so it could be “activities of a vigilante”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:49 p.m.
    Yes. It should be “aiding and abetting of activities of a vigilante”. So that it could be an individual or a group.
    Mr Banda 1:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the singular connotes the plural.
    So, once the singular has been maintained, I think that you are right.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:49 p.m.
    So, it would now read “aiding and abetting of activities of a vigilante.”
    Mr Banda 1:49 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would seek your permission to effect a minor correction in the last line of subclause (2). After “promote”, delete “of”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 4 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:09 p.m.
    The rest of the proposed amendments from the Hon Minority Leader stand lapsed because we have changed the whole arrangement.
    So, we would move on to clause 5.
    Clause 5 -- Funding of political party vigilante groups
    Mr Banda 2:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, headnote, delete “political party”.
    The new rendition would read “funding of a vigilante group” so that it applies across board.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:09 p.m.
    The next proposed amendment is in the name of the Hon Minority Leader, and what we have done has taken care of it since it is restricting it to activities. But it is not only in activities that vigilantes engage in. They may not even act. So that one lapses.
    Item numbered (xxvii) is still in the name of the Hon Minority Leader.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, subclause (1), line 2, delete “moneys” and insert “resources” and in line 3, delete “activity” and insert “activities”.
    Mr Speaker, these new words are more elegant, in tune with modern trends and more encompassing.
    Mr Speaker, upon reflection, the Hon Chairman has reminded us of the rule in drafting, that the singular includes the plural. So I think the second leg in line 3 could go, but I agree to delete “monies” and insert “resources”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:09 p.m.
    Because of the earlier amendment that has been agreed on concerning the headnote, we also have to do a further rendition there. It should be “activity of
    a vigilante…”. We would not need to have “political party vigilante group”. It captures the general sense that we have agreed upon earlier. So the proposed amendment to clause 5(1) would now be:
    “A person shall not directly or indirectly provide or make available resources or any other property to fund or facilitate the organisation, operation or activity of a vigilante”.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I tried to marry the amendment proposed by Hon Opare-Ansah and Hon Haruna Iddrisu. Maybe, if we left it as “make available monies or any other resources” other than “property”, it would be better.
    Mr Speaker, in this regard, I think the amendment by Hon Opare-Ansah would even be better so that we maintain “monies” and the “properties” be changed to “resources” to read:
    “… make available monies or any other resource …”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:09 p.m.
    Hon Members, a further rendition from what has been proposed by our Colleague who is not present, Hon Frederick Opare-Ansah.
    Mr Ahiafor 2:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I seem to be in favour of the earlier rendition that talks about “resources”. This is because, if we are talking about resources, definitely, money is a component of it, but to proffer further amendment that we delete “any other property” because once “resources” is mentioned, it is very elaborate and includes money, equipment and even making one's house available is resources being made available for the vigilante group. So, if we use “resources”, it would be neater and more brief.
    So, the new rendition should be:
    “A person shall not directly or indirectly provide or make available resources to fund or facilitate the organisation, operation or activity of a vigilante group.”
    Mr S. Mahama 2:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to depart a bit from my
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:09 p.m.
    What is the rule; that an Hon Member cannot address his Colleague as good Friend?
    Mr S. Mahama 2:09 p.m.
    Indeed, he is a good ‘‘senior'', Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:09 p.m.
    Your whisper was very loud, so it caught the ears of the Speaker.
    Mr S. Mahama 2:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you for the intervention. I am going back to the Hon Majority Leader's rendition.
    I think funding generally deals with money. That is the first thing we shouuld all know, and so it is not fatal to mention money, then also mention other resources, so I think we should go back to the old rendition; “a person shall not, directly or indirectly provide or make available money or any other resource to fund or facilitate the organisation, operation or activity of a vigilante group”.
    Mr Quashigah 2:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, unless we want to use many words, I believe in brevity and clarity. I believe that if we say resources, it caters for everything. Even in a lot of our documents in this House, especially at the Finance Committee, they make reference to resources and in effect, they are talking about money, so why would we in this context necessarily want to emphasise money before making reference to other resources? Money is a resource, and we cannot run away from that fact.
    So I think we should go by Hon Ahiafor's earlier rendition.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:19 p.m.
    The difficulty there is the use of the word “fund”. Once you use “to fund”, then we are singling out a resource, and the resource that funds is money. So I do not think there is anything wrong with using money or any other resource.
    So I would put the Question on the amendment;
    “A person shall not directly or indirectly provide or make available money or any other resource to fund or facilitate the organisation, operation or activity of a vigilante”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:19 p.m.
    So this has taken care of both what the Hon Minority Leader proposed and that of Hon Frederick Opare-Ansah, and also the last one proposed by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    Mr Banda 2:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, subclause (2), line 3, delete “five” and insert “ten”.
    Under this proposed amendment, we only seek to enhance the punishment from five to ten years. The minimum should be 10, and the maximum should be 15, because funding a vigilante group has to be dealt with a very serious iron hand.
    If somebody has money and his objective is to fund a vigilante group, that ought to be taken very seriously. That explains why this punishment is being increased from five years to ten years.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:19 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, what do you also say to the reference of summary conviction? I thought these days the new Criminal Offences Act had something about that?
    Mr Banda 2:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, summary conviction as opposed to trial by indictment, so two types of trial. We have the summary trial and trial on indictment, so this one is speaking to summary trial and summary conviction.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:19 p.m.
    There is something on that, “liable on conviction”, but “liable on summary conviction” is what I am referring to.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are just taking it from the Criminal Procedure and Other Offences Act, and we were looking at summary conviction in contrast to trial on indictment. We were saying that by the nature of these offences, we want expeditious trials, so in putting summary before conviction, the law intends to give an indication of the nature of the trial. It should be summary trial and not trial on indictment.
    That is the sense of the Winnowing Committee and the Committee on Legal, Constitutional and Parliamentary Affairs when we discussed this Bill, that trials of this nature should not go on forever.
    Indeed, from the District Court to the High Court must have jurisdiction depending on the gravity of the offence, but immediately you put it on indictment, it becomes the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court.
    So we thought that we should leave it on summary conviction.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:19 p.m.
    My reading of the recent state of the law seems to have changed this use of summary convictions. It talks about a conviction. There is a summary trial, and
    that is why I am drawing your attention to it, but if you insist that it is right, we would go on.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the drafting, we are not resorting to the process of trial, which then perhaps would refer to summary trial. So that stage is omitted, but the summary conviction then tells us that it should have gone through summary trial.
    I think that is the intent, otherwise, in all the laws that we have enacted recently, that is what we have said. In that case, we should address the process of trial, but we do not do that, and that is why I am saying that this then would address the intent, that it must be by summary trial.
    Mr Chireh 2:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think we should remove the word “summary” before “conviction”.
    If we put it “as conviction”it would then mean that a person could be tried summarily or on indictment. The description of the conviction does not mean that that is what should have been used. We just want the person to be convicted; so, it is summary conviction.
    Mr Speaker, you are right on this matter; we should remove the word “summary” and leave the word “conviction” as it is.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:29 p.m.
    The Interpretation Act, 2009, section 25(15) says: “where in an enactment an offence is provided and a provision is not made on whether the offence has travelled summarily or is on indictment, the offence shall be triable summarily.”
    If we would want the offence to be an indictable one, then we should state that, but with the rest, we cannot state them. This is not the first time that we have come across the phrase “summary convictions”. I do not know whether we would want to go on the rule of consistency or start by changing it.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it means that if we have been doing so, then we might have been doing so out of the abundance of caution. If we provide that on conviction, a person would be sentenced to a particular number of years without providing the mode, then the law would presume that the trial would be summarily.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:29 p.m.
    Hon Members, the proposed amend- ment is to the effect as follows; clause 5
    (2):
    “A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a term of imprisonment of not less than ten years and not more than fifteen years.”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, beginning from clause 2, we have consistently used the phrase: “summary conviction.” I would therefore plead that we maintain it. When we finish, perhaps, we could have just one provision which would relate to the process of trial; which would also enable us to come back to delete every one of them from the other clauses.
    Mr Speaker, we just have one provision, which is that in this Act, offences are triable summarily. You just read to us that where the procedure is not stipulated, summary trial is resorted to.
    For us to maintain our consistency in the Act, I propose that, here, we should maintain: “summary conviction,” but we could later have one provision which would enable us to come back to delete: “summary convictions” in all of the other clauses.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:29 p.m.
    It would definitely not cause any harm any way if we go by the same rule; consistency.
    Mr Ahiafor 2:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have: “summary trial”, but what does “summary conviction” mean? We have the term “summary trial” and “trial by indictment”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:29 p.m.
    That is exactly what I stated early on.
    Mr Ahiafor 2:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what does “summary conviction” mean? It is only after the summary trial or trial by indictment that the conviction follows. The Interpretation Act is clear on it, that where the mode is not stipulated, it would be considered as a summary trial.
    The rendition that is being proposed is in the right direction. The fact that we made mistakes in the past does not mean that we should continue to make that same mistake. We must get to a point where that mistake is corrected, and that point is now. We do not have the term “summary conviction”, but “summary trial”.
    Therefore, the rendition that we should delete “summary” is in the right direction. One may be sentenced on conviction to a particular number of years. We need to do the right thing at this point. Clearly, we do not have “summary conviction”, but “summary trial”.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 2:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would only want my Hon Colleague to clarify his argument about us making
    mistakes. I would just want him to clarify what he meant by saying we have made mistakes in the past, and point to specific -- [Interruption.] All right, very well.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:29 p.m.
    Hon Members, in clause 5(2), there is a proposed amendment to delete the word “five” in line three of the subclause, and insert “ten”. Therefore, instead of “five years,” we seek to make it “ten years.”
    There is also another proposal to delete the word “summary”, that we do not have the phrase; “summary conviction”, but the phrase: “liable on conviction.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:29 p.m.
    Hon Members, there is also another proposed amendment in the name of the Hon Minority Leader. I do not know whether his attorney would be prepared to move it or it is abandoned.
    I would want his attorney to know that the Hon Minority Leader's proposed amendment would definitely distort certain things. Hon Fuseini, would you abandon it?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:29 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would abandon it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:29 p.m.
    Hon Members, I would therefore put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 5 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:39 a.m.
    Hon Members, clause 6.
    Hon Members, before the Hon Chairman moves clause 6, there is another proposed amendment from the Hon Minority Leader that calls for the deletion of the whole of clause 6.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:39 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just conferred with the Hon Chairman of the Committee that if we agree to this new construction; deleting the “summary” from the “conviction”, then we have done so beginning from clause 2. Therefore, consequentially, we should go back to delete the one that still remains as it is. For the avoidance of doubt, I propose that we have just one provision to determine --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:39 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, I direct that wherever that terminology appears;
    ‘summary conviction', the ‘summary' should be deleted and ‘on conviction' inserted.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:39 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, for the avoidance, would we create, perhaps, under miscellaneous provisions, just one provision to determine the route for the trials that in this Act, offences shall be subject to summary trial or shall be tried summarily.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:39 a.m.
    The Interpretation has taken care of that one.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:39 a.m.
    That was why I said, for the avoidance of doubt. That is why I said so.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:39 a.m.
    Well, when there is no doubt, there would be no avoidance.
    Yes, clause 6? I saw that the Hon Minority Leader has proposed an amendment to delete the whole of clause 6 and I wanted to know from his attorney whether he has the mandate to move that proposed amendment.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:39 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do have his mandate to move that amendment to delete the whole of clause 6. And the clause 6 is “the prohibition of vigilantism in political party activities”. His reason is that when we look at —
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:39 a.m.
    Yes, land guards. That is what has been advertised as item numbered (xxxiii) - - [Interruption.]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:39 a.m.
    No, this earlier one is talking about adding a new clause. That is the first one standing in the name of the Hon Chairman. And the second proposed amendment standing in the name of the Hon Minority Leader is to delete the whole of clause 6. So I propose that we should look at that one first before going to add to the new clause.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:39 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the proposal from the Winnowing Committee, adopted by the Hon Chairman of the Committee, is to have this new clause 6 inserted before we come to the prohibition of the activities of land guards. And this one comes before the original clause 6. So, if you may listen to the Hon Chairman first, then we could make progress.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:39 a.m.
    It is the issue of procedure; we have finished with clause 5, so the next clause I mentioned is clause 6 and the headnote to the clause has been read. So it means that what you have proposed now comes under clause 6. And it says: “add the following new clause.”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:39 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, this one should precede the prohibition of activities of land guards. The section headnote is vigilantism. After that, we come to this new one; “prohibition of vigilantism in political party activities.” And then, when we are finished, we then come to the original clause 6. And that is why I am saying that this one should be taken first.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:39 a.m.
    The procedure as we know, that if we are adding new clauses to a Bill, we have to finish with the existing clauses in the Bill and we then, add new ones.
    As to the arrangement, it would be done by the draftsperson or Mr Speaker could direct on that. Maybe, we have to finish clauses 6, 7 and 8 to the end, then we take the new one that we want to add. I am talking about procedure.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:39 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, you are right. Except that, we wanted to -- When we dealt with clause 4, it deals with aiding and abetting of activities of political party vigilante groups. We made it generic. So flowing from that, we now want to particularise on political party vigilantism and then we come to land guards.
    That is why I am saying that, yes, you are right procedurally to say that we should finish with clauses 6, 7, 8, 9 and possibly, 10, before we come back.
    But then, in the context, the sense would be lost and the flow would also be lost. That is why I am pleading that let us take the advertised amendment first and then proceed further.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:39 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Wa West?
    Mr Chireh 2:39 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is procedure we are following. We are amending a Bill and where we have reached now is clause 6. When clause 6 was read, there is an amendment proposed by the Hon Minority Leader, so let us take that one.
    The issue is that the Hon Minority Leader has a representative, so let us call him whether he would move the amendment or not. When we finish and we think that because of the sequencing of the clauses, which Mr Speaker has already indicated that is the job of the draftspersons, he would direct accordingly.
    But if we are amending, it is the original Bill that we are amending and not the Order Paper proposal. Of course, we know that there is a problem with the whole Bill being reviewed but at the same time, we must follow our procedure of amending the Bill as presented.
    As soon as we finish with a clause in the Bill, because of the order that we want it to follow, we could then move the new one. But until we do that, we would be jumping the gun. I think that Mr Speaker's direction should be clear in this matter. We should take clause 6 first.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:49 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the problem we have is the advert on item numbered (xxxii). It is a wrong advert. The advert should be “delete and insert a new clause”. Then we would be properly --[Interruption.] Yes, because it is clause 6 that talks about prohibition of activities of land guards. That is clause 6 so that is what we want to delete and insert a new clause 6.
    But the advert says we add to this clause 6. What the advert says is clause 6, as in the Bill, laid before this House is prohibition of the activities of land guards.
    This amendment captured on page 8, item numbered (xxxii) invites us to add to this provision. That is what is causing the problem. So, if the amendment were to delete that clause, the Hon Minority Leader's amendment would even have been otiose.
    This is because that clause would no longer be there or it would have actually coincided with the Hon Chairman's
    Mr Banda 2:49 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it appears that the numbering of the proposed amendment captured in the Order Paper as item numbered 9 (xxxiii), clause 6, is what is causing the confusion. We do not seek to delete clause 6 here; what we seek to do is to insert this new clause immediately after the group sectional heading, which is “vigilantism”.
    So immediately after “vigilantism”, what we seek to do with this new proposed amendment is to insert same immediately after “vigilantism”, before we come to deal with clause 6 as it is captured in the Bill, which relates to the prohibition of the activities of land guards.
    Mr Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is not to delete clause 6 in the Bill which deals with prohibition of the activities of land guards, but to insert this before clause 6 in the Bill. That is the intendment of what we seek for.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:49 a.m.
    I perfectly understand that, but procedurally, because it is a new clause
    you are bringing, you should not even have numbered it. It is because you numbered it, and your intention for it to come before the clause on land guards
    -- 2:49 a.m.
    Mr Banda 2:49 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is exactly what we intend to do.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:49 a.m.
    Hon Members, this is to propose the following amendment; insert after the headnote “vigilantism”, a new clause. The headnote of the new clause is “Prohibition of vigilantism in political party activities”. We would take that first.
    Hon Chairman, you can now take it before we move to clause 6 in the Bill.
    Mr Banda 2:49 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that, add the following new clause:
    “Prohibition of vigilantism in political party activities
    6. (1) A political party shall not directly or indirectly form, organise, operate, engage or promote the formation, organisation, operation or activities of a vigilante group whether belonging to that person or any other person.
    (2) A political party that contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on summary convic- tion to a fine of not less than ten thousand penalty units and not more than twenty five thousand penalty units and in default of the payment of the fine, the National Chairman, the National General Secretary, the National Organiser and the National Treasurer of that political party are jointly and severally liable to pay the fine or to a term of
    imprisonment of not less than five years and not more than ten years.”
    Mr Speaker, the purpose of this whole exercise is situated within the understanding that if a political party is fined but it fails to pay the fine, then these national officers known to run the affairs of that political party would then be severally and jointly held liable to pay the fine. We all know that if a fine is imposed and one fails to pay it, then one could only be incarcerated.
    We do not want a situation where the fine is imposed and the person does not pay it and because there is no express provision that deals with incarceration, the temptation would be that the person would be allowed to go scot-free.
    So, if the political party does not pay the fine as imposed upon by the court, then these national officers would be compelled to pay. If they fail to pay, the only option left for them is to go to prison.
    Mr Speaker, this is the understanding that we reached yesterday but it has not been captured in the proposed amendment in the Order Paper.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:49 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, what we did yesterday was not even properly captured as far as clause 6(1) is concerned.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:59 p.m.
    You said clause 6(1) too is not properly captured.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the sense is captured; but what we intended to do is not appropriately captured, and I would want the Head of the Table Office to listen to me.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:59 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, could we allow the Committee to go and do a proper rendition as we would mutilate the whole thing?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we finished with that. It is the capturing that is not properly done. In clause 6 (1), we said:
    6. (1) ‘‘A political party shall not directly or indirectly,
    (a) form, organise, operate or engage,
    (b) facilitate or promote the formation, organisation, operation or activities of a vigilante group whether belonging to that party or any other person''.
    That was what we did, but I think it was not properly captured. It is about the same; but breaking it down into what
    we suggested was not properly captured.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:59 p.m.
    Could we get a proper rendition of it as it involves a lot?
    What the Hon Chairman of the Committee did to what stands as clause
    (6) (2) --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we would get to subclause (2) and (3) when I finish with this one.
    Mr Speaker, what we said was that in clause 6(1) (a) it was 2:59 p.m.
    ‘(1) “A political party shall not directly or indirectly,
    (a) form, organise, operate or engage or
    (b) facilitate or promote the formation, organisation, operation or activities of a vigilante group whether belonging to that party or any other person''.
    Mr Speaker, for clause 6(2), I believe it could stand as it is and then in subclause (3), we could begin this way:
    “Where the political party that is convicted fails to pay the penalty imposed in subsection (20), the National Chairman, the General
    Secretary, the National Organiser and the National Treasurer of that political party are severally liable to …''
    Mr Speaker, that was what we did.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:59 p.m.
    That is why I said that it is so extensive that we need it to be captured properly to enable Hon Members to follow, and for me to put the Question specifically on what you have proposed. I have been trying to write it down, but it is so messy on my sheet.
    Mr Chireh 2:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what both the Hon Majority Leader and the Hon Chairman of the Committee said are different because there were different versions at the winnowing. When they saw the advertised amendment, they should have prepared and agreed to put it in a language and sent to you, so that when they move the motion, you would read exactly what they meant.
    Mr Speaker, we ourselves are lost in what they are doing; but if they had agreed and prepared, as an antidote to what they had seen in the Order Paper to be the correct one, then Mr Speaker would have found it easy and we would all have followed them. Now, what the Hon Chairman of the Committee has said is different from what the Hon Majority Leader also said.
    Mr Speaker, for us to make progress, we should stand it down and let them move it properly.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:59 p.m.
    That was exactly what I proposed to do because the Hon Chairman of the Committee himself initially said it was only with regard to clause 6 (3) and that he wanted it deleted; but he wanted some part to be part of subclause (2), and what he read are captured down.
    Now, the Hon Majority Leader drew our attention to clause 6 (1) and after that, he moved on to the subclauses and proposed something different.
    Mr Ahiafor 2:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before a decision is taken to step it down, I have some reservations that I would want to bring to the knowledge on the Floor, so that when they are considering it, they would be taken on board.
    Mr Speaker, with your permission, I beg to quote clause 3 of the Bill, which says 2:59 p.m.
    “3. (1) A person shall not directly or indirectly,
    (a) form, organise, operate, or
    (b) promote the formation, organisation, operation or activities of a vigilante group''.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:59 p.m.
    Hon Member, the law, as you have just stated, deals with corporate bodies and as you read, directors and the rest. Now political parties are corporate bodies; but definitely, we know the positions that we could equate to that of a director; in the other body corporate is the National Chairman, General Secretary and the rest.
    We also have directors in political party offices. They may be those that the law would apply to, but not the office holders of National Chairmen and General Secretaries because they are not termed directors in the political party offices.
    Hon Members, so there is the need for some small rendition, but I agree with you that the principle is very clear. It is a matter of law, but they would have to
    rewrite it and give us a better rendition; then we can capture it properly.

    Sorry?
    Mr Ahiafor 2:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with all due respect, the law also mentions senior officers of the body corporate. So, if the National Chairman and the General Secretary are the senior officers of a political party, they would also be covered by the law.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:59 p.m.
    Hon Member, you know the sense of the reference there to senior officers in that law. [Laughter.]
    Well, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the constitution of the party, they are not so described as senior officers. That is why it is important to particularise them.
    With the other matter that he raised with reference to clause 3, yes, we have generalised it; but when we come to clause 6, we are saying that despite the provisions in clause 3, for a political
    party, this shall apply because that is a generic expression.
    Mr Speaker, we would see that even though land guarding is also captured, we could find space there. We have mentioned land guards in a particular way; when we get there, we would deal with that.
    Mr Speaker, I believe we could take clause 6, but I noticed from the contours on the face of the Hon Ranking Member of the Committee that indeed something is happening beneath his physical constitution.
    If we have to adjourn, I would not mind; but if it is possible to finish with this new clause 6 -- [Interruption.] If it is not possible, we could adjourn and confer further on that, and complete it on Tuesday.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 2:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we were making good progress until we hit a snag. That snag was precisely because the Hon Majority Leader has set up an informal Winnowing Committee and your Clerk-at-the- Table has been the Clerk to the Committee. [Laughter.]
    Somehow, yesterday, when we treated clause 6, he was not available. Even though I have been told that he had recourse to the working document
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:59 p.m.
    Hon Members, I get the sense of the House that we take an adjournment for the Committee to go and have a second look at the proposed new clause in particular to get us the correct rendition for us to capture it properly in the Bill; and from there we could continue with the rest.
    I propose to adjourn so that this would be done for the House to take same on Tuesday.
    This brings us to the end of the Consideration Stage of the Vigilantism and Related Offences Bill, 2019, for today.
    ADJOURNMENT 2:59 p.m.