Debates of 9 Jul 2019

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:17 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:17 a.m.
Mr Speaker 10:17 a.m.
Hon Members, correction of Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 5th July, 2019.
Mr Speaker 10:17 a.m.
Hon Members, correction of Official Report dated Tuesday, 11 th June, 2019. Any corrections?
Mr Speaker 10:17 a.m.
Hon Members, item numbered 3 -- Statement by the Hon Frank Annoh-Dompreh, Hon
STATEMENTS 10:17 a.m.
Mr Frank Annoh-Dompreh (NPP -- Nsawam/Adoagyiri) 10:27 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for your kindness and opportunity.
Mr Speaker, the drive to Africa's development remains bedded on its unity. African unity remains a vision that was and is being advocated for, by many politicians, scholars, organisations and individuals on the continent. Undoubtedly, the efforts of the first President of Ghana, Dr Kwame Nkrumah were geared to ensure the conception of a united continent, which is not only characterised by political unity but also economic unity, a joint military force, a common foreign policy and a continent where all artificial borders are non-existent.
Mr Speaker, contemporary Africa largely depends on the African Union (AU) to ensure a successful integration of the countries on the continent. An agendum of economic unity by member states, as featured by the African Continental Free Trade
Agreement (AfCFTA), which aims at ensuring the creation of a single continental market for goods and services with free movement of business persons and investments.
Mr Speaker, Ghana has again proved to be a beacon for a positive African revolution, following the acceptance of the nation's bid to host the secretariat of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). Not to put the cart before the horse, this is nonetheless an achievement worthy of note in the history of Ghana and Africa at large. It is pleasant to see progress in the objective to unify the African continent in all of its resources, with a sincere aim to improve the lives of the people of Africa, provide more opportunities and promote peace and harmony.
The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), which has been under discussion for quite some time now has continued to stir up interests and has increased in importance exponentially as more and more stakeholders are realising the value and potential it holds. Free movement of persons; promotion of goods and services; accessibility to a wider range of entrepreneurial support in the form of funding and logistics are all important ingredients for the development we wish to see here in Africa.

Mr Speaker, taking into account the understanding of the layman on this issue, the AfCFTA may be demonstrated by the analogy of trade occurring in large countries in terms of area. Nigeria, for example, with an estimated GDP of US$376.284 billion in 2017 and a population of over 200 million, may be seen as a large country compared to Ghana, and for that matter it is capable of generating trade activity in larger volumes. The larger the market- space, the greater the potential for increased demand of goods and services. This then affects supply in a positive manner for the growth of businesses. This is the kind of environment we need.

One key component of the AfCFTA will be to create that large market-space for business persons to operate in, for example, Wenchi in Ghana, to supply goods produced to consumers in Kigali-Rwanda, and vice versa free of tariff.

Retracing the objectives of the AfCFTA, Mr Speaker, the African Union report stated that the CFTA will create a single continental market for goods and services, with free movement of business persons and investments, and thus pave the way to accelerate the establishment of the Customs Union.

It will also expand intra-African trade through better harmonisation and coordination of trade liberalisation, across Africa in general. It will resolve the challenges of multiple and overlapping memberships and expedite regional and continental integration processes. Competi- tiveness will be enhanced at the industry and enterprise levels through exploiting opportunities for scale production, continental market access and better reallocation of resources.

Mr Speaker, as several individual and organisational studies probe into the longevity of the AfCFTA, we are continuously prompted to factor in all challenges and possibilities to ensure optimum operation. One of such is a report from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Develop- ment (UNCTAD), which recently discussed the ‘Rules of origin'— what it believes to be a key component of success for the Agreement signifying a simple and business- friendly trade arena.

Theoretically, ‘Rules of origin' would represent a passport for goods to circulate duty-free within a free trade area (FTA) as long as those goods qualify as originating within the FTA. It is therefore important to make trade within African countries more attractive, considering the reality that

many African countries may already be used to trading with their foreign counterparts over the years.

Mr Speaker, I will again highlight that, economic benefits such as employment creation, capital inflows, influx of goods and services, and a boost of the tourism industry would be directly generated along with the CFTA Secretariat based in our beloved country, Ghana and ripple to all participating States.

Mr Speaker, Ghana has managed to maintain ideal bilateral relations with other States within and outside Africa, and this certainly speaks volumes about the capability of the nation to adequately manage the AfCFTA Secretariat, on a positive record of negotiation capacity and amiable attitude towards member States in the African Union.

Mr Speaker, Africa's trade has grown rapidly in recent decades. From 1990 to 2017, the region's trade openness (imports and exports of goods and services) increased from about 53 per cent of GDP to 67 per cent after peaking around 2011 as commodity prices surged.

The UNCTAD also reported that intra-African trade is a mere 15 per cent of the total trade volumes generating from the African continent,

compared to areas abroad which are as high as 61 per cent in Asia, 67 per cent in Europe and 47 per cent in America, while the overall intra- African trade is miniscule. Studies by a Council on Foreign Relations shows that about 42 per cent of intra-African trade consists of industrial goods. I interpret this to be a good potential for the sustainability of the AfCFTA, even as it is expected to grow.

With the agreement underway, the gross domestic product of most African countries could increase by one per cent to three per cent, once all tariffs are eliminate. Also, according to UNCTAD estimates, though tariff may not be the only barrier for increased intra-African trade, Regional Economic Outlook on Sub- Saharan Africa believes that the agreed 90 per cent tariff cut would increase intra- African trade by about US$16 billion or about 16 per cent over recent average levels.

South Africa alone is the source of about 35 per cent of all intra-regional imports in Africa (and about 40 per cent of intra-regional manufacturing imports). Specifically, exports to Sub- Saharan Africa and South Africa generates a significant US$22.8 billion compared to Nigeria and Ghana generating US$5billion and US$2 billion respectively. Interestingly,

Ghana and Nigeria export shares are sourced from South Africa which attests to their 35 per cent intra- regional imports.

Following this narrative, the efforts of Ghana matched up adequately when focus is placed on trade volumes within the ECOWAS region only, just as South Africa exerts dominance in the southern bloc. With the Secretariat here in Ghana, I foresee an improvement in Ghana's contribution in the years to come.

Mr Speaker, the President of the Republic of Ghana, His Excellency Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo provided some reasons why he believes this country is an ideal place to site the headquarters. The President did well to mention that Ghana through the ages continued to play a pivotal role in the unity of Africa. This has shown Ghana's commitment for the success of the Agreement and its interest to sustain it cannot be overemphasised. I earlier expressed that Ghana should be the ideal choice, because she has a long history of peace and stability, and it has formed an undisputed argument for the case of Ghana.

As major players like South Africa strive to increase trade volumes within Africa, the Agreement is indeed poised to commence an economic
Mr Speaker 10:37 a.m.
Hon Member, thank you very much for this well- researched Statement. This is what makes Parliament useful to serious researchers.
Dr Augustine Tawiah (NDC -- Bia West) 10:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you.
Mr Speaker, Africa's story in terms of trade may be described us united we stand, divided we fall.
We have so many things that bring Africa together, especially beginning with the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) which is now the African
Union (AU). Heads of States meet and talk about the continent. Then we have something that also brings us together every other year; the Africa continental soccer tournament. For us, today is another story, but that also brings Africans together.
One thing that would help us significantly is in the area of trade. Interestingly, when we talk about trade, the issue is about each one for himself and God for us all. Essentially, goods do not easily travel within the continent. As a result of that we live in our own silos, and in view of that, we have challenges about the economies of scale and the improve- ment in our own development. We produce coca cola in Ghana, and when you go to La Cote d'Iviore, they have to set up a factory to do that. But when these are expanded, they help in really achieving the goals of all Africans together.
Indeed, we were together in so many ways, but now we have artificial borders. Across the Bia West District of the Western North Region of Ghana is the Abengourou District of La Cote d'Iviore. We speak a common ethnic language, however, we are separated by the artificial border. As a result of that, to move across a few miles to get what you need on the other side, you have to
adhere to custom duties and others that must be taken into account before we deal with each other.
This major effort that is starting now is a business friendly environment for all of us on this continent, so that we can improve services, connect with one another and have efficiency in the things we do, not only in our countries but the continent widely. So, this is a wonderful opportunity for Ghana, and we cannot underestimate the potential for the opportunity we have to host this in our country.
On this note, I would want to congratulate the leadership of the country for negotiating for us to host this in our own region.
Mr Speaker, while we will host this and we are excited about it, we are also aware of some of these initiatives in other lands. North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was between the United States, Canada and Mexico. Now it is in tatters; they are renegotiating. Other countries feel they are disadvantaged, therefore, different things are happening. The same is with the European Union; common free trade in all the European blocs and many things were done so that they could improve on farming and standardisation of goods and services. Now, we are aware of the British trying to pool all the major
Dr Augustine Tawiah (NDC -- Bia West) 10:37 a.m.


political challenges they encounter and the consequence for other nations.

In view of this, while we rejoice that Ghana will host this for Africa to benefit, we must also be mindful of the challenges that come with it and the issues that arise therefrom whether we would continue now or in the future.

Mr Speaker, we must tread cautiously, so that the opportunity we have could be maximised to the development of Africa as a whole, and especially Ghana where we are hosting it.

With these few words, I con- gratulate the country for this opportunity to host the Continental Free Trade and I thank the Hon Member who made the Statement for bringing this issue up. It is a very timely one.
Mr Speaker 10:37 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Dr Tawiah?
Yes, Hon Member?
Rev John Ntim Fordjour (NPP —- Assin South): Mr Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on the very important Statement ably made by the Hon Member for Nsawam-Adoagyiri
and Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Mr Speaker, the African Continen- tal Free Trade Agreement, as has been highlighted by the Hon Member who made the Statement, is a very important continental arrangement. I must again commend the Hon Member who made the Statement for re-emphasising the significance of the frontline role that Ghana played in ensuring that the arrangement is executed and implemented to the full realisation of the aims of the Agreement.
Mr Speaker, one surest way and strategy to repositioning the strength of Africa as a continent is through economic integration; an agenda of empowering individual States, removing borders that exist between countries and every other challenge that impedes the free flow of goods and services and trade arrangements between member countries.
Mr Speaker, in terms of integration of continents, one of the most effective ways is through trade. Trade is one of the means that unite countries more than any other commonalities that countries may share. It is important that the huge potential that the various African States have, and the power of synergy that lie therein are put together in a very effective manner to ensure that we increase our trade
potentials. It is so sad that UNCTAD reports that, intra-continental trade in Africa hovers around 15 per cent, which is one of the lowest compared to what persists in other continents. For instance, the intra-Asian trade among countries in Asia is 61 per cent; that of Europe is 67 per cent; that of America is 47 per cent, and we as Africa, with all the huge potentials that we have are still hovering around 15 per cent.
I believe that with the coming into force of the African Continental Free Trade Agreement, we are not only going to increase this participation, but compete fairly on the global stage. It is important to note from page 2, a remark that was stated in the Statement. Mr Speaker, I read:
“Free movement of persons, promotion of goods and services, accessibility to a wider range and entrepreneurial support in the form of funding and logistics are all important ingredients for the development we wish to see in Africa.”
Mr Speaker, under this arrange- ment, not only would we see free movement of goods and services, we would see free movement of invest- ments across member States on the
continent. We would also see free movement of businessmen and people of entrepreneurial potentials who would take advantage of this synergy under this arrangement to ensure that businesses grow and they are promoted.
It is also an interesting fact to point out that it is projected, that at the advent and implementation of this Agreement, member States of the AU would have their Gross Domestic Products (GDPs) increase from a minimum of one per cent to three per cent. That is a very significant potential we must all highlight.
Mr Speaker, the overwhelming interest of all the African States in accepting this arrangement is one that is remarkable. As of July, 2019, 54 out of the 55 AU States have all signed up to this arrangement. As a matter of fact, 27 of those States have already submitted and deposited their instruments of ratification, showing their readiness and preparedness in ensuring that this Continental Free Trade Agreement becomes a success.
Mr Speaker, I cannot end without commending President Akufo-Addo for the frontline role he played and the initiative he took in stating the position of Ghana from ancient days, the pivotal role that we have played in African unity and economic integration and in consistent with our
Mr Speaker 10:47 a.m.


foreign policy and our support for the continental unity of Africa, having led the entire initiative for Ghana to host the secretariat for this Agreement, that is very commendable.

Undoubtedly, the credentials of Ghana as a country that has very good bilateral relations with sister countries, both within Africa and even outside Africa, and the distinguished diplomatic laurels that we have won for ourselves -- The goodwill that exists for us on a global stage and the competence that we have built even in supporting businesses that have found their way in the country, coupled with the peace and unity, the cohesion and security and the peace that we enjoy in this country, is a leading signal and a leading assurance that indeed, we have the capacity and what it takes to host this secretariat effectively to ensure that the aims and objectives of this Agreement are realised.

Mr Speaker, I would want to end here by commending all the 54 countries of the AU States that have already signed up, particularly, the 27 that have already submitted their credentials and ratification and also to highlight that there are huge economic

potentials that exist between countries within the African continent.

Mr Speaker, there are commo- dities as basic as salt which are in high industrial demand in countries like Nigeria. I am glad to note the recent acceptance by Nigeria to this Agreement. However, if we are to interrogate where a country as Nigeria gets its salt to support its petrochemical industry, obviously, they do not trade with any African country to get this salt. But there is huge - over US$3 billion salt industrial potentials in Ghana which we can take advantage of to develop that industry to take advantage of the incentives that this Agreement brings.

There are many other commodities and areas that we can also focus on which can yield to the mutual benefits of the countries that are so interested in trading same.

Mr Speaker, I would want to thank the maker of the Statement and the President of the Republic of Ghana for this eminent leadership that has ensured that Ghana hosts this historic continental Agreement.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 10:47 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Members. I am advised
by the Hon Majority Leader that the Hon Minister for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration is in the process of coming to address the House more fully on this matter, for which matter we shall stand this particular item down and after her presentation, we shall make other contributions and conclude on that.
We have a Statement from Hon Dr Apaak on waste management. However, in view of the fact that the Leaders would want us to proceed with the Consideration Stage as soon as possible, we would stand that down till tomorrow.
Hon Dr Apaak, it is in serious consideration that we are standing it down.
Hon Members, in the circum- stances we would move to the commencement of Public Business and see what Papers we can present and then move on to the relevant Bill before us.
At the Commencement of Public Business, item numbered 4, Presen- tation of Papers.
PAPERS 10:47 a.m.
Mr Speaker 10:47 a.m.
Hon Members, item numbered 4(b) Hon Minister for Finance?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:47 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the document is ready and the Table Office has been served copies. The Minister for Finance is unfortunately, not available. The Hon Deputy Minister I got in touch with is
Mr Speaker 10:47 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader, you may.
By the Majority Leader and Minister for Parliamentary Affairs (Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu) (on behalf of the Minister for Finance)
-- 10:47 a.m.
Mr Speaker 10:47 a.m.
Item numbered 4 (c)?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:47 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in respect of (b)(ii) and (iii), could we add the leadership of the Committee on Works and Housing to the Finance Committee, so that if there are any matters they would be able to sanitise it before the Report comes to the plenary of Parliament.
Mr Speaker 10:57 a.m.
So apart from referring it to the Committee on Works and Housing? Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:57 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I could also lay the document on behalf of the Hon Minister for Sanitation and Water Resources in respect of item 4 (c).
By the Majority Leader and Minister for Parliamentary Affairs (Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu) (on behalf of the Minister for Sanita- tion and Water Resources) --
Contract Agreement between Ghana Water Company Limited (acting on behalf of the Ministry of Sanitation and water Resour- ces 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 United States dollars (US$272,287980.00) in respect of the project known as the Tamale Water Supply Scheme.
Mr Kwame Govers Agbodza 10:57 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is a contract agree- ment, so I think it should go to the Committee on Works and Housing.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:57 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I was going to make the same point, that this is a contract agreement, so it goes to the Committee on Water Resources, Works and Housing.
Mr Speaker 10:57 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader, are we in the position to take the item listed 5?
Referred to the Committee on Works and Housing.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:57 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would like us to go to the item listed 6.
Mr Speaker 10:57 a.m.
Item listed 6.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 10:57 a.m.
STAGE 10:57 a.m.
  • [Continuation of debate from 5/ 7/2019.]
    • Chairman of the Committee (Mr Ben Abdallah Banda) 10:57 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, on the last adjourned date we got to clause 6 of the Bill, which is now captured at page 4 of the Order Paper.
    Mr Speaker, we should have considered clause 6 as captured in the
    Alhaji Inusah A.B. Fuseini 10:57 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the amendment. We are now particularising the act of vigilantism as pertains to political parties, land guards and many others, and we are providing specifically in clause 6, which would come after the sectional head “Vigilantism” in the Bill, as a new clause, before the prohibition of activities of land guards.
    11. 07 a.m.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:57 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, just a little amendment to clause 6 (3) --
    Mr Speaker 10:57 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, respectfully, can we have that introductory matter adopted, and then we go into further detail? For now the Hon Chairman is talking about sandwiching between clauses 4 and 6, a 5, and for that matter, that would be adopted as a prelude to our moving further now with matters contained in clause 6(1).
    Hon Chairman, is that your position?
    Mr Banda 10:57 a.m.
    Rightly so, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker 10:57 a.m.
    Very well. I would put the Question on that if—
    Mr Chireh 10:57 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, as the Hon Chairman said at the beginning, we all know that when we are considering a Bill, we must consider all the clauses before we insert new clauses. But last Friday, we came to the understanding that we should adopt this one. Now it would be the responsibility of the draftpersons to locate it where it is appropriate. So that is why he said with your leave, we should move this Motion and
    adopt it and then, the draftpersons may be directed to put it at the appropriate place.
    So as we say, the arguments that other people have made is that, what we adopted last Friday for clause 3, seemed to be covering this but because of the title and everything that we did about this vigilantism, it is still important to specify this one. So that should be understood clearly before you put the Question.
    Mr Speaker 10:57 a.m.
    So, that having been clearly understood, we would put the Question and then we would proceed on clause 6 (1), (2) and (3) in detail, asking the draftperson for appropriate location.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:57 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the request from the Hon Chairman was that we situate this amendment that is being proposed, between the original clause 5 and clause 6.
    Now, the Hon Yieleh Chireh is raising a technical issue, that yes, we could agree on the form the character and the content here, and leave the draftpersons to locate it at the appropriate place. In that regard, we may not have to put the Question on the location of the new proposal. So we could agree on the content, and
    Mr Speaker 10:57 a.m.
    Very well. On the understanding that the draftsperson should appropriately place what we are now handling. We would ask further corrections with regard to clause 6 (1), (2) and (3); and then, we could put the Question on that as a whole.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Banda 10:57 a.m.
    Thank you Mr Speaker. In moving the Motion that the proposed amendment be adopted, there was this minor issue with regard to the penalty units, that I feel to bring to the fore. It appears to me that if we compare the maximum penalty units that would be slapped on the national officers when a political party is convicted, are too harsh if we compare same to the penalty units that would be slapped on a political party itself.
    So, in view of this, Mr Speaker, I would like to propose that under clause 6(3) in the proposed amendment, the penalty units of fifteen thousand, which finds expression in the last but two lines, be amended to read ten thousand penalty units.
    Mr Speaker, the corresponding custodian sentence would be done by the draftsperson.
    Thank you Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker 10:57 a.m.
    Thank you very much, Hon Chairman.
    Mr Agbodza 10:57 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, may I ask the Hon Chairman to explain why the specific four office holders of the party — in the main parties, the women and youth wings are semi- autonomous? Is the Hon Chairman saying that if, as we describe the offence, if it takes place and it is even proven that it is as a result of somebody in the women's wing or youth wing, would we punish the Chairman of the said political party since we have said that it could be directly or indirectly?
    In other words, the four people the Hon Chairman mentioned have absolutely no idea of what is going on. What would be the basis of the law punishing leaders of a political party for an obvious criminal activity of an
    individual who can be punished with the existing laws?
    Mr Banda 10:57 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, conviction of a political party is a matter of facts and a matter of law. And this determination would be done by the court.
    Mr Speaker, if the court so determines that a political party, which is an inanimate person has committed an offence, that political party can only be slapped with a fine. It cannot be imprisonment.
    And now, the Interpretation Act; I cannot remember the exact provision specifically — the Interpretation Act stipulates that where a body corporate is convicted of an offence, certain specific officers of that body corporate would be held liable.
    Mr Speaker, this finds expression in the Interpretation Act. And these national officers are ones who run the affairs of the political parties. Where the political party is not able to pay the fine, Mr Speaker, it is only prudent that these national officers pay the fines. And where the national officers are not able to pay the fines or fail or refuse to pay the fines, then the resultant effect of it is that they should go to prison. I think that has been the legal trajectory or the criminal
    jurisprudence that we have practised for all these while.
    So, these national officers are deemed liable because they are the national officers who ensure that the affairs of a political party are conducted in accordance with law. So, where a group of persons purport or try to commit an act of vigilantism, which is not sanctioned by the political party, it is that group of persons who would be held liable but not the political party.
    That is why in my preliminary comment, I did say that conviction is a matter of law and it is a matter of facts. If at the end of the day, a court determines that a political party is guilty of an offence, and that political party, as we are making a provision for it in the Bill, fails or is not able to pay the fines, then these national officers, of course, must be held liable to pay the fine.
    Thank you Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker 10:57 a.m.
    Hon Members, I trust that is clear.
    Mr Richard M. K. Quashigah 10:57 a.m.
    Thank you so much, Mr Speaker for the opportunity.
    The Hon Chairman has lucidly explained the essence and reasons for the new clause.
    Mr Richard M. K. Quashigah 11:17 a.m.


    Mr Speaker, taking a close look at clause 3, it appears that it captures the essence of the new clause being introduced in clause 6. If you look at clause 3(6), it says:

    “Despite subsections (2), (4) and (5) a person who is con- victed for contravening sub- sections (1), (2) or (5) is disqualified from holding any public, political or political party office until at least ten years.”

    The subsequent aspect of clause 3 also gives us the punitive measures that ought to be taken against such persons or people who belong to a political party. Therefore, I am wondering why we want to stress so much on clause 6, because clause 3 appears to have taken care of all that there is to be dealt with, even with political parties.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:17 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 3 is a general provision and clause 6 particularises on political party activities. If you read clauses 3 and 6, the language and tenor are different. The Hon Member should look at clause 3 carefully and he would see that some words in clause 6 do not find expression in clause 3.
    Having said that, as a House, by our Standing Orders, even though we are individuals here, we belong to political parties. Mr Speaker, you are charged with the responsibility of the observance of order in this House. One person is put in charge of all of us and ultimately, if there is indiscipline in this House, you are held liable. You are assisted by the Hon Majority and Minority Leaders.
    Mr Speaker, the Chairman was directing our minds to a provision in the Interpretation Act. Section 25 (2) of the Interpretation Act provides:
    “Where an offence under an enactment is committed by a body corporate and the body corporate is convicted, the Director, the General Manager, the Secretary and any other senior officer of that body corporate, shall be deemed to have also committed that offence.”
    It is that reasoning we are extending to this Bill. We are not exonerating the people who commit the offence but only insisting that further to that, these topmost officials of the party who are ultimately responsible for order and sanity in the party, would be held severally liable. That is its point.
    Mr Speaker, so, the leadership of a political party is supposed to have eagle eyes, to ensure peace, law and order prevail in the political parties. That is the intent of this clause.
    Mr Ahiafor 11:17 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to differ a bit from the Hon Majority Leader in the sense that, once it is clearly spelt out in the Interpretations Act, we need not necessarily put it in this legislation. This is because the Interpretations Act makes reference to senior officer, Directors, Secretary and senior officers and definitely, a political party would have senior officers in that regard.
    Now, that notwithstanding, what happens to the so-called political parties that do not have a Chairman, Secretary and Organiser? It means that the senior officers of those political parties would have to be held liable. [Interruption] Who is the Chairman of Akua Donkor's party? Akua Donkor.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:17 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, he is asking who is the Chairman of Akua Donkor's party? She is the Chairperson and the leader. She combines two positions and is the Chairperson and leader.
    We needed to particularise it in this regard because if we just limited it to
    senior officers or national officers, who are the national officers? Unfortunately, within the context of the constitutions of both the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and the New Patriotic Party (NPP), national officers are not properly described. The elected officers are not properly described as the national officers.
    We talk about Steering Committee which is not made up of only the elected officers. In the constitutions of the NDC and the NPP -- in the NPP, it is the elected officers in addition to the leader of the party in Parliament, the presidential candidate or the President. If he is elected, he is the de facto leader, plus the Chairman of the Council of Elders.
    The Majority Leader or Minority Leader as the case may be, sits in Parliament -- he is not an elected officer -- It is the reason we needed to particularise the Chairman, the Secretary, the National Organiser and the Treasurer because the Treasurer is ultimately responsible for keeping the purse of the political party.
    Mr Speaker, I believe we can leave it at that.
    Mr Quashigah 11:17 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, in relation to an issue that arose on the Floor, Hon Ahiafor asked who the Chairman of Akua Donkor's party is.
    Mr Speaker 11:27 a.m.
    Is it also that the political parties' laws among others, do not talk about leaders? In fact the expression “leader”, has become more of a term of art and that one is not provided for in the law. So, when we talk about principal officers of a political party, we look at the Chairman and Secretary among others. The general parlance “leader”, should be left to the dynamics and on the ground practices of the political parties. So, in the legal framework therefore, we are talking about what we already have and what a political party must have in order to exist as a political party.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 11:27 a.m.
    Exactly so Mr Speaker. To forestall confusion in the minds of people, because political parties do not have directors as provided in the Interpretations Act, we then sought to clearly identify these people who are responsible for the day to day administration of the party and hold them responsible. It is important to read clauses 6(1) and 6(3) together.
    It is only when the political party has been convicted of an offence and it fails to pay the penalty that clause 6(3) would kick in and that is when those officers who are responsible for the day to day activities of the party and who ought to pay the fine would be held severally liable.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 11:27 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are seeking to import the purposive meaning of the relevant section in the Interpretation Act to apply to mutatis mutandis in this matter. It is, however, wrong because we are assuming and wrongly so that the members of whatever vigilante group that may be linked to any political party are office holders of the party.
    If we are not making that wrongful assumption, then it is wrong for us to assume that where an officer or where a member of a vigilante group is deemed to have committed an offence which is ascribable to the political party, then the senior officers of the political party would be held criminally liable to that offence because we assume they are unknown. They are faceless people and so because whatever they did was perhaps done in the name or in favour of the political party, the punishment consequent upon the commission of that offence
    should be at the pain of the senior officers.
    Mr Speaker, with all due respect, this is a wrongful positon to take in this matter. We have to establish first of all, that whatever organ or vigilante group that these persons may belong to are actually in fact and in law a part of this political party. Otherwise, any busy body in town may commit an offence and when that commission of that offence is established, then a certain political party's name may be mentioned and when that is done, then necessarily, the senior serving officers of that political party, may have to pay for.
    Mr Speaker 11:27 a.m.
    Hon Member, you know very well that a political party may be mentioned but mere mentioning thereof, would not constitute criminal liability. The Hon Chairman of the Committee, had quite well explained this earlier. It has to be established that a person “a'', or “b'' has done something wrong which amounts to the criminal act and secondly, there is a nexus between that criminal person and the political party -- and these are matters of fact. If that factum cannot be established in a court of competent jurisdiction, then of course, the issue does not arise.
    Hon Member, I hope you get it clearly?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 11:27 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do align myself with your reasoning, except that in establishing the nexus, we are not providing standards to do so. So, where I refer to the mere mention of a political party's name, that simply becomes the adducible evidence.
    Mr Speaker 11:27 a.m.
    Hon Member, you know the standard is very clear already. That nexus and the establishment thereof, must be done beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal proceeding -- so, the court would determine that. They say you are connected but we do not find any actual evidence to establish your connection -- and that is the end of the matter.
    I would put the Question.
    rose
    Mr Speaker 11:27 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Member?
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 11:27 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the position of the Hon Chairman of the Committee and I would want to give an example.
    In the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the Montie 3 case, the issue was about the conduct of some officers who were on radio which conduct was considered contemptuous. It was realised that the
    Supreme Court did not only limit itself in punishing the offending individuals but lifted the veil and looked for the shareholders and the directors of the company and accordingly sub- poenaed them and took appropriate action.
    Mr Speaker, I am bringing this to remind my Hon Colleagues on the other Side of the aisle who are opposed to the provision which seeks to list certain individuals as principal officers --
    Mr Speaker 11:27 a.m.
    The Hon Members on the other Side of the aisle were contributing to the proper and fully understanding of that provision and did not oppose to it.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 11:27 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, their contribution in itself, disagreed with the approach taken by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    I would want to fortify them with this Supreme Court decision that they should abandon their disagreement and lean towards the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    Mr Speaker 11:27 a.m.
    They have already abandoned it and I was about to put the Question.
    11. 37 a.m.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 11:27 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if they have abandoned it, then I rest my case.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 11:27 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is a House of record. I just want to correct the narrative aspect of the facts as pertained in the matter of the Montie 3. It was not the conduct of the directors of the company but it was rather the position of the court, that the company provided the atmos- phere which allowed the contemnors to say things that were contumacious of the powers of the court and so, consequently, slapped them with the penal sanctions.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 11:27 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hansard would always capture what we say. I do not want it to reflect tomorrow, that I made a mistake in my submission and my Hon Colleague corrected me. What the Hon Member attributed to me was not what I said.
    Mr Speaker, the Supreme Court in issuing the subpoena, did not give reason for it. When the offending individuals were before the court, they further issued certain orders to the effect that the directors and shareholders of the company should also appear before the court.
    So, if my Hon Colleague wants to quote me, he should quote me right and if he would want to even make
    available the said ruling and the facts contained in thereof, Mr Speaker could grant leave for same to be tendered for further education on this matter but to say I misled this House by wrongly quoting the fact, with respect, I beg to disagree with him.
    Mr Speaker 11:27 a.m.
    Thank you very much.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    New Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Speaker 11:27 a.m.
    Hon Members, it is further directed that not only the New Clause be adopted but the drafts- person should place same at the appropriate place.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, do you have any amendment to item numbered 6 (ii)?
    Mr Banda 11:27 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have finished with this proposed amendment; therefore, we would move to the original clause 6 which is captured under item numbered (ii) on page 5 of the Order Paper and it stands in the name of the Hon Minority Leader.
    Mr Banda 11:27 a.m.
    No, Mr Speaker.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 11:27 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have the authority of the Hon Minority Leader to abandon his proposed amendment to clause 6.
    Mr Speaker 11:27 a.m.
    Well, Hon Members, we would take that as abandoned for now and then, if at the appropriate time, it could be raised in the appropriate manner, it would be considered.
    Amendment withdrawn by leave of the House.
    Mr Banda 11:27 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 6(2), line 3, delete “five” and insert “ten”. We are enhancing the sentencing regime; so, the subclause (2) would read:
    “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.”
    Mr Speaker 11:27 a.m.
    Hon Members, this is to strengthen the penalty units.
    Dr Pelpuo 11:27 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, why this very stiff sentence upon violation of
    this particular clause? Obviously, this is not such a matter that would land somebody in prison for ten years if convicted at a first instance. It is too harsh for someone who has been convicted for something that he or she has perhaps tangentially gotten entangled with. The minimum sentence of five years is fine but a minimum of ten years is just unbelievable.
    Alhaji Muntaka 11:27 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, my worry is that we have not even defined who a land guard is unless we are hoping that when we get there they would -- There is no definition of land guard in the interpretation column.
    Mr Speaker 11:27 a.m.
    Hon Minority Chief Whip, I think it is there. In the meantime, let us talk about this --
    Alhaji Muntaka 11:27 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, let us define who a land guard is and understand clearly who we want because they are showing me the proposed amendment. I would rather prefer that we stand this down and agree on the definition of a land guard because we have a situation --
    If we look at the proposed amendment in the item numbered xviii, the definition for land guard, with your permission, I quote:
    “”land guard” means a person who (a) is hired (b) receives payment, or (c) demands payment for the use of violence or threat of violence to protect or guard land or property belonging to another person.”
    Mr Speaker, so, if one engages a private security company to protect his or her land, and in the process of protecting your land, some violent activity ensued, by this definition such persons are defined as land guards. Is that what we really want to do?
    Mr Speaker, it is legitimate to hire private persons to protect one's property. Such private persons may not necessarily be with a well organised firm. Sometimes, we all pick “watchmen” to protect our property. I have seen a filling station that hired a private person and resourced him or her with a pump action gun. I do not know how they have licensed it.
    Would we now say that if for any reason some armed robbers or other attackers come and there is some violence, we would define such a person as a land guard? Let us be careful because in our zeal to solving a problem, let us not create another one; in our zeal to rope in all the bad nuts into a net, let us not bring innocent people who may be doing their
    legitimate business. There is nothing wrong with employing somebody privately to protect my land or be a watchman in my house. I may not be able to pay a police to protect my property all the time.
    Mr Speaker, Hon Members of this House, based on our own arrangement, hire private persons to protect us. It may not necessarily come from a well organised security firm; once we engage someone to sit at our gate, open and close it and protect and expel intruders at the gate, if there is violence around such place, would we call such person protecting the place a land guard?
    Mr Speaker, we should tread cautiously so that in solving a problem, we do not create another one.
    Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu 11:27 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, there are police officers, national security officers and privately registered security organisations. In addition to that, any individual may apply to hold firearms. If we engage a person to be a securityman on our property and we apply for that person to hold a firearm, that person is legitimately entitled to, but you would have put the police on notice that this person operating here is permitted to hold a firearm.
    Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu 11:47 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the person may fall foul of the law if he is not licensed to hold firearm and he is not from a registered company. He is just an ordinary person; whether he has been employed or he is operating on his own carrying firearms and threatening or being aggressive to other people.

    The system where people use violence as a means of settling land disputes is what has metamorphosed into ‘landguardism' and that is what we are legislating against. Otherwise, nobody can stop one from legitimately hiring somebody who is licensed to hold a firearm and I think that we should differentiate between the two.

    Mr Speaker, thank you.
    Mr Speaker 11:47 a.m.
    Hon Members, in fact, all these matters as the Hon First Deputy Speaker has alluded to, will be a matter of fact both by way of the intention of the person which is part of criminal liability and the nature of the act itself in all the circumstances. That is what we refer to as the use of reasonable force, for example. Which force is reasonable will depend on all the circumstances and the fact determined by the court of competent jurisdiction.
    So, we take it that these things are actually already established and they can be well-pronounced upon by our courts.
    Yes, Hon Chairman?
    Mr Banda 11:47 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, just to add a little to what the Hon First Deputy Speaker said, that in crafting this provision, we were not unmindful of the provision of article 13(2) of the 1992 Constitution.
    Mr Speaker, article 13(2) of the 1992 Constitution allows every person to defend himself for his property even if it may amount to the use of force or violence. However, the violence that article 13(2) of the 1992 Constitution talks about must be a violence or force which is justifiable in accordance with law.
    Mr Speaker 11:47 a.m.
    And commensurate with the facts of the case.
    Mr Banda 11:47 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, rightly so. So, this issue will be subject to the facts that may be proffered in court --
    Mr Speaker 11:47 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, would you please respond to Hon Pelpuo's query with regard to length of sentence? That is where we really are at this stage.
    Mr Banda 11:47 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we came to this determination because we thought that ‘landguardism' is a very serious phenomenon which has to be dealt with, with all the severity of punishment that it deserves. It is on the basis of this that we said that the five year incarceration term being proposed by the Bill, is rather on a very low side. So, we should enhance it to 10 years as the minimum and the maximum being 15 years. However, it appears to me that from --
    Mr Speaker 11:47 a.m.
    So, once a person is found guilty, even where there are mitigating factors, the judge is bound to give you a minimum of 10 years? Hon Chairman, do you want it that way?
    Mr Banda 11:47 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it appears to me that from concerns being raised and then having taken a cue from your good Self, I think that we will go back to the original five years and then we would reduce the maximum to 10 years.
    So, we will abandon the proposed amendment and then maintain five years and then amend the 15 years which finds expression in the Bill to 10 years so that the minimum will be five years and the maximum, 10 years.
    Mr Ahiafor 11:47 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity. I
    think that the 15 years maximum is alright. This is because I am trying to align it to the Criminal Offences (Amendment) Act of 2012 Act 29 , section 200 and with your permission I read:
    “Organised criminal group”
    200A. (1) (A): A person who participates in an activity of an organised criminal group commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a maximum penalty of death and to a minimum penalty of not less than five years imprisonment”.
    Mr Speaker, there is a thin difference between vigilantism and ‘landguardism' and so, if ‘organised criminal group' has a sanction of a minimum of five years and a maximum penalty of a death sentence, then ‘landguardism' and vigilantism should also have at least, a minimum of five and a maximum being the 15 years.
    Mr Speaker 11:47 a.m.
    Thank you very much. This is because some of the situations can be really aggravated. Hon First Deputy Speaker, I thought --
    Mr J. Osei-Owusu 11:47 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought that we should remove ‘minimum sentence' and maintain an upper level to allow the judge's discretion to look at the circumstances
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 11:47 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, this new law is seeking to communicate a position to demonstrate an abhorrence of violence and the use of intimidation and unlawful harm.
    So, in communicating, we must not deter -- we must communicate forcefully that -- there are obviously
    civilised ways of dealing with problems concerning land but if you take the law into your own hands, this is what would happen-- five years, I agree with the Hon Ahiafor when he said that ‘landguardism' is akin to organised criminal gang, except that in that earlier provision, the maximum penalty is death depending on the circumstances.
    Mr Speaker, so, the Judge is giving a wide latitude but the minimum is five years and so, the judge has no discretion to go below five years. I think that is the way to go.
    Mr Speaker 11:47 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, in summary?
    Mr Banda 11:47 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, Hon Ahiafor has given us what is contained in the Criminal Offences (Amend- ment) Act, 29 which even gives a harsher sentence with respect to the maximum penalty which is death. We are trying to play it soft by putting the maximum penalty at 15 years but not death sentence. We agreed that the minimum penalty which is 10 years that we are proposing is rather too high and so, we put the minimum penalty at five years but maintained the maximum at 15 years. Mr Speaker, I so move.
    Mr Chireh 11:57 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the argument about having only the upper limit -- we have experienced similar things and one day we have to change the penalty for rape and defilement because it was only the upper limit. So, the Judges decided to make it -- the women marched here and said that we should not give --
    It is also important for the Judges to be guided. We would not determine for them, but we should give them a range because if we do not give them a range then, looking at the circumstances, a Judge could sentence someone to a ridiculously low or high term of imprisonment. So, I would want to beg the Hon First Deputy Speaker that we would need to have a minimum and they would prefer we guide them always and not just leave it at a free range of upper or lower sentence.
    Mr Speaker 11:57 a.m.
    Therefore, it should be a minimum of five years and a maximum of 15 years.
    Mr Chireh 11:57 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, because if we do it similar to what we have in the Criminal Offences Amendment Act then we should support the minimum of five years and maximum of 15 years.
    Mr Speaker 11:57 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:57 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, my worry is on the issue that the Hon Member for Akatsi South has brought up. I was in the process of changing my mind and bringing the upper limit to 10 years. Mr Speaker, but with the issue that he related, my worry is with what we have done in clause 1(3), where we have provided that this Act shall be read together with related enactments, and in particular, the Criminal and Other Offences Act, except that where the offence under prosecution relates to vigilantism, the provisions of this Act shall apply.
    Mr Speaker, so where there is a conflict -- in this case, if we state 15 years then there is a clear conflict if the act of vigilantism results in death. And we are saying that where it so happens, the provisions of this Act shall apply. Mr Speaker, so if it would not be so affected then I would stand with the 15 years, but if indeed by this we are saying that where there is a conflict the provisions of this Act shall apply, in other words, that upper ceiling is 15 years, then I would want us to employ the language in the Criminal and Other Offences Act and migrate it here. However, if we are clear in our minds that it still does not
    Mr Banda 11:57 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that we should make this point clear -- the offence of landguardism is different from engaging in land- guardism and a death resulting from landguardism. Mr Speaker, the two are different and so where a person engages in landgaurdism and a death occurs, the person would be charged with two offences; languardism and the offence of murder, and the sentence would run concurrently.
    Mr Speaker 11:57 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, so, finally it is a minimum of five years and a maximum of 15 years.
    Mr Banda 11:57 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes. The minimum is five years and the maximum is 15 years.
    Mr Speaker 11:57 a.m.
    Hon Members, I would put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Speaker 11:57 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, further amendment. The Hon First Deputy Speaker would take the Chair.
    Mr Banda 11:57 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move that, clause 6, subclause (3),
    line 1, delete “Despite a provision in any enactment, a” and insert “A”.
    Mr Speaker, so, the sentence would read 11:57 a.m.
    “A person shall not act as a landgaurd.”
    Mr Speaker, the phrase “Despite a provision in any enactment, a . . .'' is irrevelant because there is no enactment that allows the practice of languardism.
    So, it is on the basis of this that we seek to delete that phrase.
    Mr Banda 11:57 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, on the basis of the concerns that were raised not long ago I would seek your leave to withdraw the proposed amend- ment advertised as clause 6 (v).
    Amendment withdrawn by leave of the House.
    Mr Banda 11:57 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would seek your leave to, once again, withdraw the proposed amendment advertised as clause 6 (vi) which also
    sought to enhance the sentencing regime from five years to 10 years.
    Amendment withdrawn by leave of the House.
    Mr Banda 11:57 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 6, subclause (7), delete and insert the following:
    “Despite a provision in any enactment, a person who acts as a land guard armed with an offensive weapon commits an offence.”
    Mr Speaker, this is just a redraft of subclause 7 of clause 6.
    Mr Speaker 12:07 p.m.
    I would put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 12:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 6, subclause (8), lines 1 and 2, delete “commits an offence and” and in line 3, delete “ten” and insert “fifteen”.
    Mr Speaker, subclause 8 would then read 12:07 p.m.
    “A person who contravenes subclause (7) is liable on summary conviction to a term of imprisonment of not less than fifteen years and not more than twenty-five years.”
    Mr Speaker, we are enhancing the sentencing regime to 15 years because this is an offence that is committed with the use of an offensive weapon.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader is proposing that we revert to 10 years as the minimum and maintain 25 years as the maximum, because earlier we had maintained five years as minimum and 10 years as maximum. It therefore makes sense that this one is maintained as 10 years as the minimum and 25 as maximum.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 6 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Speaker 12:07 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chair- man?
    Mr Banda 12:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we did not make any amendment. We just sought leave to withdraw the proposed amendment captured under item (viii).
    MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:07 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman, you may continue.
    Mr Banda 12:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, earlier, under the item numbered (viii), I said I was amending, but that was not an amendment. We are rather seeking your leave to withdraw the item numbered (viii), subclause (8) of clause 6. So, the original rendition holds.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:07 p.m.
    Are we on item numbered (ix) as in page 6 of the Order Paper?
    Mr Banda 12:07 p.m.
    Rightly so, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:07 p.m.
    What I see here is “Amendment proposed -- delete”; but it does not indicate what we are deleting.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, he brought us back by way of emphasis to item numbered (viii). If we are clear with that, we now go to the item numbered (ix).
    The Rt Hon Speaker mis- understood what the Hon Chairman said and put the Question on an amendment, but the Hon Chairman had withdrawn the amendment for the
    status quo to hold, and that was the explanation that the Hon Chairman sought to give you now.
    So, there was no amendment in that regard. Now, we go to item num- bered (ix).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:07 p.m.
    Very well.
    Clause 7 -- Other acts of vigilantism
    Mr Banda 12:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 7 — delete.
    Mr Speaker, we seek to delete the whole of clause 7 because it is already captured under item (iii), which is general in nature. That is the same thing that this proposed amendment seeks to do, dealing with other acts of vigilantism. We have already dealt with vigilantism in relation to political parties, and land guards as well as vigilantism in general.
    Mr Speaker, it is the same thing that is being dealt with here. So, I hereby seek your leave to delete the whole clause.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:07 p.m.
    But Hon Chairman, in item (x), you are also seeking to amend the same clause you have proposed to delete in (ix). I noticed that both the Hon Minority Leader and Hon Opare-
    Ansah have proposed amendments. If you delete and their amendments are overreached, however, you have also proposed an amendment in the item numbered (x). I would want us to be clear that when we delete that, all the amendments proposed in items (x), (xi) and (xii) would be overreached, including yours. Is that clear?
    Mr Banda 12:07 p.m.
    Rightly so, Mr Speaker.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:07 p.m.
    In that case, items (x), (xi) and (xii) are overreached. So, I would go to clause
    8.
    Clause 8 -- Power of Minister to prohibit activities of political vigilante groups.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:07 p.m.
    Item (xiii) , by the Hon Minority Leader.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have the permission of the Hon Minority Leader to move this amendment, but on a personal note, I do not agree with the amendment. So I would decline to move the amendment for it to lapse.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:07 p.m.
    Did he instruct you? If you do not agree, you should have told him that you would not move it. This is a clear conflict of interest. You are against what he would want you to do but at the same you are his agent.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:07 p.m.
    Very well. Yes, because I support the Hon Minister's executive authority to add to the list and he says no. That is my difficulty.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:07 p.m.
    Very well.Yes, Hon Member for Asante Akim Central?
    Mr Kwame Anyimadu-Antwi 12:07 p.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker, except to say that if the Hon Member does not have the mandate of the Hon Minority Leader to drop the amendment, I see some sense in the amendment that is proposed. I think the Hon Minority Leader was looking at it from the point of giving the Minister too much power to operate. We are making laws, and we should not give the Minister the mandate to wake up anytime to add to the list. To me, that is arbitrary power which must be checked.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:07 p.m.
    Hon Member, does that power belong to the Minister or you?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is why he brought the power here for us to regulate. This is
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:17 p.m.
    It is an Executive Instrument subject to validation by this House.
    Mr Hammond 12:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just read clause 8 as originally stipulated, and I beg to quote:
    “The Minister may, by executive instrument, expand the list of prohibited activities of a political party vigilante group as specified in section 10.”
    Mr Speaker, reading for myself, I do not see anything wrong with it. Along the line, it might become apparent that the group might be up to something else, which was not contemplated as we sit here today by sorting this Bill out. So “the Minister, by executive instrument” then says that retrospectively, this should have
    been done but, of course, it was not done at the time. Going forward, however, they think that this particular activity is worthy of being prescribed. So, he comes by on Executive Instrument to do that.
    I really on this occasion do not agree with my Hon Colleague that by giving the Hon Minister a blank cheque, as it is to do whatever, it is right. This actually goes to serve a specific purpose. I see the Hon Majority Leader not -- Well, Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader's view is not about the import of the Bill. He says that the means of getting resorted might not necessarily have to be an Executive Instrument, but if it is a Legislative Instrument (L.I) that is fine; -- whichever means, I am happy with it. At least, what is supposed to be achieved, I believe is right.
    Mr Speaker, as we go along -- they have all sorts of tricks. Today, we are trying to prohibit “A'', ‘‘B'', ‘‘C'', and ‘‘D”, but tomorrow; we would see that they would come up with something else. So if the Hon Minister has a means to do it without necessarily amending the entire Bill, I would think that those powers are apt and we should leave them as they are.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that we should allow
    the Hon Minister some discretion. Of course, when discretionary powers are given to an Hon Minister, we expect him to be candid in his application of the powers. However, because we cannot predict all Ministers, we believe that the resort should rather be by a Legislative Instrument and not an Executive Instrument, which would just be for the information of the country.
    Mr Speaker, otherwise, we may have a Minister who may act very whimsically and capriciously. - One day, he may wake up to say that he determines that “Kotoko Ladies” is a vigilante group, and he comes to add to the list. It cannot be taken. So, let the Hon Minister come by a Legislative Instrument and if the entire House or majority of us find it abhorrent, then we could state our case.
    I, for instance, see that a known group is not part of this list. Along the line, some people woke up and said that they have a group called ‘‘the Crocodiles''. It is not here. We may have to amend this list to include them. Mr Speaker, but to say that one person should come by an Executive Instrument by way of expanding the list or deleting some from this list, I think, that is not incorrect. Let it be by a Legislative Instrument.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the rendition by my Hon Leader would be better. This is because with a Legislative Instrument, at least, it would come before the House, for us to deliberate over it and see whether it is in accordance with the law. That is better than coming with an Executive Instrument; I support that.
    Mr Banda 12:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I need your guidance because I thought that before the Hon Minister could expand the list to include other groups, which are considered to be vigilante groups, the court would have to make a determination on them first.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:17 p.m.
    Where is that? And where has it been provided for in the Bill?
    Mr Banda 12:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought that was the understanding because the mere fact that a group has been characterised as a vigilante group does not mean that in law, that is a vigilante group. That remains an allegation. It is just like saying that somebody is alleged to have stolen a goat.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:17 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, we have proposed a list in this Bill -- Have we gone to court to determine that those are vigilante groups? If we do not, would the law be invalid because we have not gone
    Mr Chireh 12:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the person who wanted the deletion abandoned the amendment. Now, if anybody wants to reinstate it, he should do so properly. I do not agree that we should bring an Instrument here for Parliament to look at.
    During the discussion of this Bill, when it was opened to the public, we all know what was suggested. It was agreed that for them -- We even came by this list because the Centre for Democratic Development (CDD), the Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre, and all those security people have done a research to identify. So, we said that if the Hon Minister is advised by the security personnel that a group or a name some people use - he should just publish the Executive Instrument and add them to the list that should be banned.
    Now, as we know, the reasons for Executive Instrument and the reasons for legislative instruments are simple. If what is being done is of a legislative nature, it requires people to do some things; but in this one, we are asking somebody to add a name. We have passed laws here in which we always asked the Hon Minister to issue on Executive Instrument.
    When the Hon Minister for the Interior issues an Executive Instrument declaring a holiday, should he come and lay it before Parliament? What is legislative about it? So, that guides whether the thing should be legislative. If it requires somebody else in that Instrument to do something, in that case, it is of legislative nature. So we should be guided by it. This is just adding a name.
    It is like when we have an Executive Instrument directing an Hon Minister to do this; it is Parliament that has given that authority to the Hon Minister because it does not require any legislation. So, we should be guided. Those who argue that we need to have it here -- [Interruption]-- What would I know about the name of a vigilante group. We all know what vigilante groups are. The names can change today but the people may remain the same. So it is for security and national security reasons.
    All the agencies involved in this would advise the Hon Minister to put a name on the list. That is all. Why would he come to Parliament, and what is Parliament's input in that? Is it that I know that it is not a group? I do not have that information.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I followed what my learned counsel on the other Side said. It appears that the name of “vigilantism” may be very simple, but it may not always be as clear as we have it today. It may get to a situation where the Hon Minister responsible may not be that objective in ascertaining what group belongs where and so on, and that is why it is not safe to give an open blanket to a Minister to add on names. Before we are aware, they would say Anyimadu Group and what have you, depending on the perspective from which the Hon Minister looks at it.
    We have lived in this country, where somebody in authority actually justified violence because the person looked at it with a political eye. I therefore suggest that because we are looking at political parties being involved in vigilantism, it is safer that the Hon Minister comes by a
    Legislative Instrument, so that we all look at the list.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:27 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, what is the position? Do we want to give the Hon Minister the power without this House looking at it, to add or subtract from the list?
    Mr Andy Kwame Appiah-Kubi 12:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, following what the learned counsel has discussed earlier, I would like to -- [Interrup-tion.] - - He has not thrown away your ropes
    -- 12:27 p.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:27 p.m.
    You are not before a court; you are before Parliament. It is the Hon Member for Wa West.
    Mr A. K. Appiah-Kubi 12:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for the correction, but he has not thrown away his ropes.
    Mr Speaker, I am of the opinion that listing the groups limits the court's mandate to prosecute, otherwise, those who do not come under these groups — So I would suggest that we do not just list the group in the law, but bring the elements that we prohibit within the law, so that any group that undertakes any of such assignments would be brought to court for the necessary sanctions to be applied.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:27 p.m.
    Let us deal with the current amendment.
    The proposed amendment is either delete the whole clause or amend it as proposed by the Hon Chairman, so the current one we are debating is whether we should delete the entire clause or to give the Hon Minister the power by Executive Instrument.
    Mr O. B. Amoah 12:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to suggest that instead of “Executive Instrument”, it should be “Legislative Instrument”, in the sense that when it comes by Legislative Instrument it has to come to
    Parliament for 21 Sitting days, and if two-thirds of Hon Members do not disapprove, then it becomes law.
    If we make it “executive instrument”, it is only the Hon Minister who decides to make the list and then it becomes the law, and none of us would even be aware. The moment it is gazetted, that would be the list the Hon Minister has decided, and it is problematic. It is not even the President who does it. It is the Hon Minister who decides that this is the list he now has on vigilante groups.
    Let us all have a say in it, which would mean that it would come to Parliament as a Legislative Instrument, not an Executive Instrument.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:27 p.m.
    Hon Members, let us do it this way. From the discussions so far, we agree that the clause should be maintained with amendments. So, let me put the Question on the proposed amendment by the Hon Minority Leader and deal with it, then move on to the proposed amendments by the Hon Chairman.
    Question put and amendment negatived.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:27 p.m.
    Now item listed 6 (xiv)?
    Mr Banda 12:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, headnote, delete “political party”.
    It would then read; “Power of Minister to prohibit activities of a vigilante group”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 12:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8 line 1, delete “exe cutive instrument” and insert “Executive Instrument” and in lines 2 and 3, delete “political party vigilante group as specified in section 10” and insert “vigilante group as specified in the Schedule”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:37 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, I thought you would abandon the “executive instrument” and come to the “legislative instrument”, rather than deleting “executive” and substituting “legislative”?
    Mr Banda 12:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I seek your leave to delete “executive instrument” and insert “Legislative Instrument” because that appears to be the consensus. So “executive instrument” — except Hon Yieleh Chireh who does not agree.
    Mr Chireh 12:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what the Hon Chairman sought to do in this
    amendment was to change from small letters to capital letters. If anybody wants to amend to change “Executive Instrument” to “Legislative Instru- ment”, he should come properly. Otherwise, he should abandon this so that he can move his amendment; but if it is this one that we all agree on, it was the change of small letters to capital letters.
    We are making law, but the way he wants to smuggle this thing in, we all do not have the notice. [Interruption.] The issue is that the purpose of this Bill is to ban vigilante groups. Which is why we have laboured to include, at the tail end, the list of actual vigilante groups. [Interruption.] I have no problem if we say— but come properly because we are making a law, and we have to do the right things here.
    Now, in case the Hon Chairman wants to move his Motion, he should move it; if he does not want to move it, it is then a different thing. He could move the Motion and later on come properly; but the way he wants to come ——
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:37 p.m.
    Hon Member, he has moved it. He abandoned the original rendition and, instead, moved that “executive
    Alhaji Fuseini 12:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “executive instrument” is a term of art by the Constitution. When we say “Executive Instrument”, we mean the Instrument with which the Executive acts without recourse to the law, or the power to so act without the prior approval of this House.
    We have done so, and we want it to be known that this is the kind of authority we are giving under clause 8 because we would need time and we would need to save resources. Because we need time to deal with vigilantism, when a group is identified as having the threats of a vigilante group, the Hon Minister could act expeditiously.
    When the Hon Minister acts expeditiously, it reduces the cost of having to come to Parliament to lay the Regulation for 21 sitting days. That is why we say that the power must be with the Minister so to act. That Hon Minister would exercise the power
    consistent with article 58 of the Constitution, which is the Executive authority of State.
    So, Mr Speaker, if a vigilante group is so proscribed by the Hon Minister's Executive Instrument, but the group thinks that they do not fall under that title, that is when they challenge the exercise of the Hon Minister's authority in court.
    Mr Speaker, but we would not— this is a matter that we are trying to deal with; groups spring up every day. Some spring up because of financial reward, patronage or economic reasons.
    In fact, Mr Speaker, even within chieftaincy, these groups are to offer their services to chiefs. So, any time it comes to the attention of the Hon Minister that a group has the threats of a vigilante group, he issues an Executive Instrument and publishes same in the Gazette.
    Mr O. B. Amoah 12:37 p.m.
    The Hon Member has made his points, but I believe if, indeed, we want to strengthen the hands of any person who would deal with this matter, we should go by a Legislative Instrument.
    Indeed, if we look at the Inter- pretation Act, the definition for “Executive Instrument” is an
    instrument specified by an Act of Parliament as an Executive Instrument or a statutory instrument, which is of an administrative character or of an Executive character, but it is not an instrument, of a judicial character of a legislative character.
    If we want to legislate on this matter, it should not go by an Executive Instrument; it should come by a Legislative Instrument. Indeed, the Supreme Court has ruled in several cases, especially in the Asare vs the Attorney-General case that on Executive Instrument is only of administrative character. Here is a situation where we want to list some institutions as vigilante groups, and we do not want to come by a Legislative Instrument but by an Executive Instrument. Is that what we want to do?
    Do we not even want Parliament to be aware and Parliament would just know that a list has been published, instead of bringing the list here for Parliament to be aware for it to stay here for 21 Sitting days for us to agree whether the group should come and justify why it is on the list. That would be arbitrary. We would just wake up one day and as a Minister, I have published ‘Kofi Amoatey Fun Club is a vigilante group and that is the end of the matter. We
    have passed this stage. With all due respect, let us move forward if we are moving in this direction.
    Otherwise, if I become the Hon Minister for the Interior, I would just list “Fuseini Quashigah and Kofi Amoatey Fun Clubs” as vigilante groups. Henceforth, they should not meet anywhere. Is that what we want? If we list “Kofi Amoatey Fun Club” as a vigilante group, we should justify that here by a Legislative Instrument. That is all we are saying. Is this rocket science?
    Mr Speaker, please, let us move in this direction.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:37 p.m.
    Hon Amoatey, I have not heard your voice in a long while.
    Mr Magnus Kofi Amoatey 12:37 p.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker, the interpretation my Hon Colleague raised is at the crux of the matter. We are giving an administrative function to the Hon Minister that as and when necessary, or any time the exigence arises, he should publish the list by an Executive Instrument.
    Mr Speaker, I strongly believe that if we are talking about a Legislative Instrument, clause 9 could be
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:37 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Asante Akyem Central?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:37 p.m.
    With respect, Mr Speaker, thank you.
    The Judiciary has always guarded against ousting its powers. Unfor- tunately, when it comes to Parliament, we do not care. We are here deciding on whether we have to oust the powers that are given to us, as Parliament.
    We were in this country when an Hon Minister stated that “violence begets violence” to justify an act that somebody had done. We are here talking about vigilante groups, and we want to give the powers to an Hon Minister to one day get up and, submit a list that Kwame Anyimadu and Co are members of a vigilante group. Is that what we want? I think that the amendment made by the Hon Chairman is apt, and we must stay with him as a House.
    Mr Quashigah 12:37 p.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker for the opportunity.
    Having listened to Hon O. B. Amoah and Hon Anyimadu-Antwi, I am convinced that is the way to go.
    Mr Speaker, this is the Legislature, and we are crafting a law to give the Executive certain powers. Why?
    From all the narrations that have been presented, it is clear that the element of abuse is very high when it is an Executive Instrument. If it comes to this House, we would definitely debate it, as we are doing, the reason for which I think those who argue that it should be an Executive Instrument should drop that argument.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:47 p.m.
    Nobody can force anybody to drop any argument; all arguments are welcome.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, those who argue that the Hon Minister may come by Executive Instrument (E. I.) are correct in the sense that they think that we are in normal times and shall continue to be in normal times. If we have a Minister who is clear-conscienced, we would have a situation where given the discretionary power, he would act in an appropriate manner.
    He would be supported by the provisions of article 296, that the Minister vested with discretionary power shall exercise the power in a very fair and candid manner. On the other hand, we may have a very hot- headed Minister who, in the exercise of his or her discretion, could go overboard and throw the entire nation into panic and fear. That is what we want to avoid.
    Mr Speaker, we may have circumstances that would compel us to act in haste and, in that regard, the Hon Minister may come with an E. I. If we provide for a Legislative Instrument (L. I.) and the Minister believes that it may pose a problem, there are avenues open to him or her. He or she could come with amendments to the Bill, and this could be taken in a day. In that case, that amendment to the Bill could be taken under a certificate of urgency, and the House would deal with it within one day.
    It would have the same effect, and that is why I think that we do not need to enamour the Hon Minister with the resort to an E. I. There are other ways, when in extraordinary circumstances, the Hon Minister could act, as I said, by coming to amend the law under a certificate of urgency, which would be taken within one day. However, if we
    are thinking of a long term situation, let us allow the Hon Minister to come to this House by an L. I.
    Mr Speaker, we started this debate before I left to my office. I have come back and we are on the same matter. In that regard, may I invite you to apply Standing Order 96, which provides:
    “(1) After a question has been proposed and debated, a Member may claim to move “That the Question be now put,” and, unless it appears to Mr. Speaker that the motion is an abuse of the rules of the House or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the Question “That the Question be now put” shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate.”
    (2) If the question of closure is agreed to by a majority, the motion which was being discussed when the closure motion was moved shall be put forthwith without further discussion.”
    Mr Speaker, accordingly, I move that the Question be now put.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:47 p.m.
    Your Motion itself has to be debated and
    Mr Agbodza 12:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I listened to Hon O. B. Amoah, and I think that we should all apply our minds to this. We are looking at a situation where, like the Hon Majority Leader said, we could have an Hon Minister whose aim of applying this law would have nothing to do with vigilantism, but to create a situation where a section of the public would be criminalised and rendered unable to participate in the electoral process.
    Giving some people in this country the opportunity to define “vigilante group”, they could even list Parliament as one. Today, some people may see Parliament as a vigilante group because as far as they are concerned, what we do is the opposite of what they think we should do.
    Mr Speaker, what would happen if we woke up and there was a group of young people in Suame called the Suame Showboys Club who helped the Hon Majority Leader to protect ballot boxes legitimately; but all of a sudden, a Minister would wake up and make them all vigilantes? This means that they would not even be expected to appear near any polling station on an election day.
    That would be a recipe for disaster. Let us not make an law that an Hon Minister could use as a tool, capriciously, to undermine the peace we have in this country. There is nothing wrong if an Hon Minister comes to this House to tell us that a group he or she calls a vigilante group is ABC, for this House to query him or her. The Hon Minister should tell us why he or she thinks the group is a vigilante group.
    The Hon Majority Leader's position is quite clear. If for some reason, there is a group operating, which is extremely dangerous for the safety of this country and we need to make a law within a day to make that group a vigilante group, like the Hon Majority Leader said, we could do that. Even if it is a Sunday, we could be called back here to do that. So, I agree with those who say that the Minister must come here under L. I. and not under E. I.
    Mr Speaker, I side with Hon O. B. Amoah and others who believe that we should not go down the route of an E. I.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:47 p.m.
    If it were administrative power that we wanted, we may not need to have made this law. We have by law listed groups and proposed a tall list, so why should we leave it to the Hon Minister
    to add to or subtract? It is because we trust that we are fair, and that it should be done here. The Question is not to be answered by me, so I would put the Question.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before you put the Question, the nearest example to my Colleague, the Hon Member for Adaklu, is Adaklu. Why he should reference Suame in this matter, I cannot comprehend. [Laughter.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:47 p.m.
    Is Adaklu closer to this sector than Suame?
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 8 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 9 -- Regulations
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:47 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, you have an amendment proposed under item numbered 6(xvi).
    Mr Banda 12:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 9, line 1, after “instrument”, insert “within twelve months after the coming into force of this Act”.
    So, it would read:
    “The Minister may, by legislative instrument, within twelve months after the coming into force of this Act, make Regulations which are necessary to give effect to this Act.”
    Mr Speaker, we are giving a time period as we have always done within which Regulations must be brought to this House for passage in order to effectuate the parent Act.
    Mr Speaker, we all do know that where a time phrase is not given, there is a possibility of a Legislative Instrument not being brought to this House within the shortest possible time. So, it is on the basis of this that we propose that a time period be given so that the Hon Minister would be compelled under the circumstance to bring Regulations for passage.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:47 p.m.
    Item numbered xvii -- a proposed amendment which stands in the name of the Hon Minority Leader.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:57 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Tamale Central?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have the authority of the Hon Minority Leader to move his amendment on his behalf.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 9, line 1, after “Regulations” insert “to expand the list of disbanded political party vigilante groups”.
    Mr Speaker, this is even more acute, in view of the earlier amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:57 p.m.
    I understand why he wanted us the delete that one so that it could be present here.
    Very well, I think it has been overreached by the amendment we have made.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 9 as amended is ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:57 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am sorry to take us back but there is a minor matter that we all skipped that has to do with clause 6 (8) in the original Bill.
    Mr Speaker, in item numbered vii an page 5 on the Order Paper, which is clause 6(7), we deleted and inserted:
    “Despite a provision in any enactment, a person who acts as a land guard and armed with an offensive weapon commits an offence''
    Then in clause 6 (8), we argued in extenso and we allowed the status quo to hold, that is “ten'' years and “twenty five'' years but what we did not do was to have omitted the words “commit an offence''. [Interruption.] It was done in my absence? [Interruption.]
    Very well.
    Mr Speaker, it appears I am a few hours behind schedule.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:57 p.m.
    We did take that amendment, so would you withdraw your small proposed amendment?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:57 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:57 p.m.
    Very well.
    Clause 10 -- Interpretation
    Mr Banda 12:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, Interpretation of “land guard” delete and insert the following:
    “‘land guard' means a person who
    (a)is hired,
    (b) receives payment, or
    (c)demands payment for the use of violence or threat of violence to protect or guard land or property belonging to another person;”
    Mr Speaker, this is the proposed amendment but upon a second thought, I have a problem with it and my problem is based on the fact that we are trying to define “a land guard''. What it would therefore mean is that, before a person could be charac- terised as a “land guard'', these ingredients must apply; if the “person is not hired'', “does not receive payment'' or “demand payment'', it means that the person is not a “land guard'' which to me would be a very herculean task for prosecution to prove.
    If a person is a land guard, whether he or she receives money or not, to the extent that the person uses violence on the land suffices and that is all that prosecution must prove.
    Mr Speaker, although this amendment stands in the name of the Hon Chairman of the Committee, with your leave, I would want to make a “u-” turn and delete [Interruption].
    Mr Speaker, this is a personal concern I am raising and I would want you to guide us because a land guard does not necessarily have to be hired or he must not demand money.
    Mr Speaker, I would want us to delete “is hired'', “receives payment'' or “demands payment'' and maintain:
    “land guard'' means a person who uses violence or the threat of violence --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:57 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, in my view, I think the existing rendition is sufficient. Whether a person does it voluntarily, for him or herself or for money or not, the person has used violence and that is all that matters.
    The Hon Chairman of the Committee is abandoning his amendment but other Hon Members do not agree with him, so I would open it up for discussion.
    Mr Amoatey 12:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, except on a small issue on procedure. The Hon Chairman of the Committee, represents the views of the Committee and as a Committee, we decided to propose this amendment, but the Hon Chairman has stabbed us at the back. So, he must seek the leave of the Committee to abandon his proposed amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:57 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, your Committee members say that you are only their agent and so you cannot withdraw the amendment without their consent.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe we could twig what is here. I agree with Hon Amoatey that if a Chairman of a Committee is moving an amendment in his capacity as an Hon Chairman of a Committee, then in that case, he has no persona of his own.
    The Hon Chairman of the Committee must apply himself critically to what he has undertaken to do as an Hon Chairman of the Committee, otherwise, he should allow somebody else to move it and
    thereafter, move his own personal amendments.

    Mr Speaker, I beg to propose an amendment.

    “A person who whether or not

    (a) is hired

    (b) receives payment, or

    (c) demands payment

    uses violence or threat of violence to protect or guard land or property belonging to himself or to another person.”

    That is a better way of capturing it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:07 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, I think that introduction may not be necessary because whether you put it there or not, it means the same thing.
    A person who uses violence or a threat of violence to protect land for himself or somebody else is guilty. The original rendition is better and serves the purpose.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, his amendment is very good but the net effect is that we are back to the
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:07 p.m.
    Hon Members, I think the original rendition is all right.
    So the next amendment to clause 10; Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Banda 1:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I therefore seek your leave to withdraw the proposed amendment.
    Amendment withdrawn by leave of the House.
    Mr Banda 1:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, interpretation of “neighbourhood or community” delete.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 1:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, interpretation of “offensive weapon” delete and insert the following:
    ‘‘offensive weapon'' means an article made or adapted for use
    for causing injury to the person or intended by the person who has it for that use by that person;”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:07 p.m.
    Does the Criminal Offences Act not have an interpretation of a similar rendition?
    Mr Banda 1:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is but unfortunately, I did not bring the Act.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:07 p.m.
    Is that the same thing we are bringing here or another one?
    Mr Banda 1:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it appears that that is what has been lifted from the Act and incorporated here.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:07 p.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:07 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, for the avoidance of doubt, let me direct that the interpretation of “offensive weapon” as contained in this Bill be in sync with the interpretation as in the Criminal Offences Act, so, there is no conflict.
    Mr Banda 1:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, interpretation of “political party officer”, paragraph (a), after “elected” delete “and” and insert “or”.
    So, it would read:
    “An elected or appointed officer of a political party;”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:07 p.m.
    Very well, I hope that you have compared that with what is contained in the Political Parties Act.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:07 p.m.
    In this case too, I order that the interpretation contained here should be in sync with the interpretation of a political party officer as contained in the Political Parties Act.
    Mr Banda 1:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, interpretation of “political party vigilante groups” delete.
    Mr Speaker, because the original understanding was that there would not be any political party captured in the vigilante groups. So, we intended to make it general; but now that we have a specific provision for vigilantism in political party activities,
    I believe that this proposed deletion has been overrun by events.
    So, with your leave, we could withdraw this proposed amendment so that the definition or interpretation of “political party vigilante groups” would still remain because we have a specific provision on political party vigilantism and land guardism.
    Mr Chireh 1:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I really did not want to oppose the Hon Chairman of the Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee but he is changing everything we have done. If we look at clause 6 that we have just done, it does not talk about political party vigilantism; it talks about vigilantism in political parties. So, we cannot be defining something that is not supposed to be used.
    Because we wanted it to be general, in that text, it is not political party vigilante groups. So, it should be deleted. We cannot define political party vigilantism. In clause 6, it is vigilantism in political parties which is general vigilantism which is now in political parties. He should still maintain what we have agreed upon.
    Mr Banda 1:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, upon a second reading of it, the Hon Member is right. So, we would delete “political party vigilante groups”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 1:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, add the following new Interpretation:
    “‘public office' includes an office the emoluments attached to which are paid directly from the Consolidated Fund or directly out of moneys provided by Parliament and an office in public corporation established entirely out of public funds or moneys provided by Parlia- ment;”
    We are seeking to add the definition for “public office” which is captured ditto from what is contained in the Constitution.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:17 p.m.
    Item numbered xxiv?
    Mr Banda 1:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, add the following new Interpretation:
    “‘public election' includes general, presidential and district level elections and referenda conducted and supervised by the Electoral Commission, pursuant to article 45 of the Constitution;”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:17 p.m.
    Is it necessary to define this? What about political party elections? If there is an election within a political party, is that not a public election? Are political parties not defined as public bodies?
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:17 p.m.
    Let me listen to Hon Yaw Boamah, I have not heard --
    Mr Patrick Y. Boamah 1:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, to answer your question, yes. That is why the Electoral Commission (EC) supervises every constituency, regional and national elections.
    Mr Chireh 1:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we need to define it because as he is saying, it is subject to the article 45 of the Constitution. Now, the reason is that the political party elections are not public elections in that sense. When it is general and affects the whole country in one way or the other, or the constituency, and that is conducted officially by the EC but on the other hand, political party elections are supervised by the EC. They do not conduct it.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the definition here means public elections includes, -- the operative word is “includes” and not ‘means'. So, it means that other
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:17 p.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Banda 1:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, given the explanation by the Hon Majority
    Leader, I want to seek your leave to amend the third line by deleting “and” and inserting ‘or'. So that the EC may either conduct or supervise but not doing the two. In some instances, it could be either of the two or in other cases, it could be both.
    Mr S. Mahama 1:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you take away the “and”, it will change the whole meaning pursuant to article 45 that we have referred it to. This is because article 45 says; “conduct and supervise” and not ‘conduct or supervise'.
    So, in referencing article 45 of the Constitution, we cannot take away the word “and”, we must have the two going together. Otherwise, we do not have to reference article 45 at all.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that we do not even need that phrase at the end: “pursuant to article 45 of the Constitution”. We could end at; ‘conducted or supervised by the Electoral Commission' and we delete all the words; “pursuant to article 45 of the Constitution”. We do not need those words.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:17 p.m.
    So, what is the consensus on which I should put the Question?
    Mr Banda 1:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the consensus is that we delete “pursuant to”. First of all, we delete “and” and insert ‘or' in line 3. Then in lines 4 and 5, we delete “pursuant to article 45 of the Constitution”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:17 p.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 1:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, interpretation of “vigilante” delete and insert the following:
    “vigilante' means a person who for an economic or financial reward or for patronage, resorts to an act or threat of violence or intimidation to further the interest of that person or another person, a group, association, organisation, union, or body;”
    Mr Speaker, this same definition of “vigilante” was also debated at the Winnowing Committee and we agreed to take away the motive behind the person engaging in vigilantism. We redrafted it but it is not captured here.
    If you may give me a little time to have it redrafted so that we can immediately revert to it because this
    is not what we intended to capture. The motive is irrelevant here.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:17 p.m.
    So items numbered xxv, xxvi and xxvii clause 10 all deal with ‘vigilantism'.
    Mr Banda 1:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the definition is all right for item numbered xxvii clause 10. This is because it does not show motive and so, the definition for [Interruption.]
    Mr Speaker, yes, it does. So, we have to re-look at it and then have it recrafted.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:17 p.m.
    If you come to clause 10, item numbered xxviii, the interpretation of vigilantism simply means, the meaning assigned to it in section 1. So, I think all the others should align and therefore, we will probably suspend the remainder till you tidy it up.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, we agreed and said to ourselves that the intent should rather find expression in the memorandum but the definition should not. Otherwise, it will add to the burden of proving whether a person committed a crime or an offence because maybe, he wanted an economic financial reward or he did so for patronage. So, we said, that should find expression in the

    memorandum and not in the body of the Bill and indeed, in the interpre- tation.

    Mr Speaker, so, I appreciate you saying that we should do the alignment but if I may, because we all agreed, I think because of how it was finally captured that we had the problem with. We can give it to the drafters to do the proper thing and then I guess, we could go on. Of course, subject to the approval of the sure band of winnowers.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:17 p.m.
    Very well.
    So, shall we go to the proposed list for clause 10 item numbered xvii or we should wait till we finish all the others?
    Mr Banda 1:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 10 item numbered xv --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:27 p.m.
    Very well.
    So, we would go to the schedule advertised as xxviii.
    Mr Banda 1:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, the schedule, add the following to the list:
    “1. 66 Bench
    2. Al Jazeera
    3. Al Qaeda
    4. Aluta Boys
    5. Asamankese Forces
    6. Baafira
    7. Bukurisung
    8. Burma Camp
    9. Eastern Mambas
    10. Gbewaa Youth
    11. Lions
    12. NATO Forces
    13. Pentagon
    14. Rasta Boys
    15. Se Se Group
    16. Taliban Boys
    17. The Dragons
    18. The Rock
    19. Tohazie”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:27 p.m.
    That is why we are giving the power to the Hon Minister to add to the list.
    Hon Member for Wa West.
    Mr Chireh 1:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to disband vigilante groups. So, should we disband the air or names? What are we disbanding? In fact, 19 names have been listed in the Bill and it shows that a research was conducted and the names were found. Apart from this we have said that the Hon Minister should update it at any time.
    So these ones would be banned as soon as the law is passed, therefore, if there is a name change then the Hon Minister would add it to the list. Mr Speaker, the point we are making is that if there is no name then they cannot be banned. The names could change and we know that when they want to assemble they do not even call themselves with such names.
    Mr Speaker, but we need a list to at least validate why this law is being passed.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:27 p.m.
    Hon Member for Effutu.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Schedule refers to clause 2 (1) and it has become a drafting practice in this House that when we use the phrase “it includes” or “including the following”, we intend to not limit it to the list that has been provided. So, I
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:27 p.m.


    Mr Speaker, whenever the Hon Majority Leader turns to his right then there is danger. It means that there is heckling from the front bench or there is a diplomatic heckling.

    Mr Speaker, he has taken a cue and in any event I have added the further explanation of “including”, and so he should not have any fears at all because it is not limited.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:27 p.m.
    Hon Member for Adaklu?
    Mr Agbodza 1:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, after the passage of this Bill what would happen if I am seen wearing a second-hand t-shirt with “Hawks” or “Asamankase Forces” written on it? Mr Speaker, these are not groups that exist that we could write to them. People misconduct themselves and so if they are apprehended as groups that misconducted themselves then we could deal with them, but the temptation to list them as groups that we know -- yes, we saw some people wearing t-shirts with inscriptions of “Bamba Boys” or “Hawks” at a function but probably they burnt it or there is no basis of tracing them to an office or to any
    document, then what is the point of stating these names in law when we cannot even trace them to any address? So, what is the point?
    Mr Speaker, I think that we have criminalised the action and that is the most important issue. So, whichever name they take does not really matter. If Kojo Mensah is the one who was caught in a misconduct of vigilantism then he must be dealt with as Kojo Mensah, but not necessarily because he is with “The Rock” or “Bamba Boys”. Mr Speaker, we are glorifying these names but if I ask any person here to show the address of Bamba Boys or where they meet, the person would not find anything.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:27 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if my Hon Colleague has read clause 1 of the Bill before us he would not have even made the argument that he has made. What is intended to be done is to criminalise the activities and not the t-shirts or address. What are the parties doing? If the parties did own up to the fact that these criminal groups exist within their ranks then what have they been doing all these while? They accept that they are there and the process of dealing with them is what is problematic and that is what this Bill seeks to do.
    Some Hon Members 1:27 p.m.
    He has given up.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:37 p.m.
    Then anybody else who thinks like him. [Laughter.]
    Mr Speaker, the President indicated to the political parties that they should engage in voluntary disbandment. What was the disbandment for? It was for those groups that we all know exist and if they do not disband them then he would come up with this Bill that we are dealing with. So, we are at this critical juncture because the political parties are dithering and that is why the President brought this Bill which we are dealing with. So the list may not be exhaustive and perusing it, I have seen a group that is conspicuously missing from the list and they are called “The Crocodiles”. So we could include it in the Schedule because we can amend Schedules.
    Mr Speaker, I also agree that once we do the disbandment they could assume another name and that is the
    reason we are saying that in going after them the Hon Minister may come with Legislative Instruments.

    They could mutate into some other forms and we would still go after them, the Minister may come with Legislative Instrument. They could mutate into some other forms; we would still go after them to the extent that they are a vigilante group.

    Mr Speaker, sometimes, the law may be necessary to prevent the commission of a crime, and I believe that we could live with this and the content of this Bill. I think it is very necessary, and we can deal with this.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 1:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the other danger that we face is a difficult area that we are trying to legislate on which I identify. The danger is that, some of the existing groups that have not been captured here may feel they are not recognised as a vigilante group and therefore may continue with their activities. I agree that the law looks at the conducts and actions of the members of the group.
    The further danger is that persons may now be employing other euphemisms and nice sounding words as names to elude the effect of this law; Christ ambassadors, yet, by their conducts, they are but vigilantes. So
    Mr Dafeamekpor 1:37 p.m.


    and so ladies club, you would see them gun-toting, would see women in beautifully decorated T-shirts. So, I share in the sentiments of my Hon Brother, but we need to indicate by names the existing ones that we know for a fact that even though they are not legally registered and traceable to identifiable addresses, by their conducts, their presence are felt in society. The law is very clear; it is in the commission of a crime that one could be apprehended, or when one is plotting to commit a crime or in the process of doing so.

    It is when they engage in the activities that we would be able to determine. We have lion as a football club in Ghana, so we have to be careful. However, I humbly submit that we maintain the schedule and perhaps expand it for the purposes of the present amendment being carried.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:37 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Effutu?
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just a little clarification. My colleague, Hon Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, in his submission said he was associating himself with his brother's submission. Many of us spoke before him. I just wanted a clarification, just for the record. Which of his brothers?
    Mr Speaker, there is a very good reason we are to refer to Hon Member of Parliament (MP) for Effutu, Hon MP for Abuakwa South or North and mention the person's name. I am also his brother.
    Mr Speaker, he should clarify it for the Hansard.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:37 p.m.
    Very well. I would put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 1:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are left with two more amendments.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, new clause, add the following new clause 1:37 p.m.
    “Prohibition of a convicted person from contesting public elections or holding public or political party office.
    9. A person convicted of an offence under this Act is disqualified from
    (a) contesting elections for a public office, or
    (b) holding any public, political or political party office until at least ten years have elapsed
    from the date of the conviction or after the end of the sentence.
    Mr Speaker, I so move except to seek your leave to singularise the word “elections” to read “contesting an election” instead of “contesting elections or holding public or political party office”.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I need guidance on this amendment. The Constitution has made provision for what would qualify or disqualify a person from contesting public elections. I am not too sure whether this particular enactment is one of those that is envisaged by the Constitution to be sufficient enough to bar a person from contesting a public election.
    Mr Speaker, perhaps, we might have to have a second look, but your guidance is very much needed in an important matter like this. I would strongly urge the Hon Chairman to consider abandoning this path.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:37 p.m.
    Hon Member, what is your complaint; that Parliament cannot add to the list of offences for which one can be disqualified for holding public office? It has not come out clearly.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, may I make my point again? I have not said Parliament cannot. In view of my own misunderstanding, that is why I am seeking your guidance on the prohibition of a convicted person from contesting a public election.
    Mr Speaker, I am not submitting. I have no opinion. I have not read. I am seeking your guidance. If your guidance is to the effect that we have the power to do this and to add on to that which is in the Constitution or that which the constitution has provided for, I cannot challenge.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:37 p.m.
    Indeed, there are other previous enactments, I think some subsidiary legislations, which for instance bar commission of electoral offences.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:37 p.m.
    But Mr Speaker, when we passed the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, for instance, when our respected Hon Colleague's matter appeared before the Justice of the High Court, in considering the matter, he was even clear that the offences that the Special Prosecutor was charging him were not that which by law the Special Prosecutor could proceed on that path.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:37 p.m.
    I am also looking at you; address me.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the proximity. I have Hon Opare- Ansah and I have “Messi” himself. How do I express myself? I would abandon my submission. I must sit. [Laughter.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:37 p.m.
    A bad workman quarrels with his tools.
    Mr Agbodza 1:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I can understand the reason to proscribe the severest punishment for anybody involved in vigilantism, if we consider there are all sorts of electoral offences. What makes this one so special that once a person is convicted, then he is banned for ten years? What makes this special? Is there any reason other electoral offences do not carry the same gravity of punishment? What is the basis of this gravity of punishment for anybody?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:47 p.m.
    We do not want violent persons in our political offices.
    Mr Agbodza 1:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, violence may not necessarily be the severest. If a person manages to swap the ballot box in Adaklu during elections and swaps it with votes against me, he may not physically hurt me but he has hurt me seriously. So the severity of this should not be a bodily thing per se.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:47 p.m.
    If a person is apprehended for swapping ballot boxes, he would be banned, would he not? If you are convicted, you would suffer the consequence of being banned from contesting elections, would you not? So it is the same thing -- whether violence or other electoral offences.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was just looking at the language. I was thinking that maybe if we want to be conformists, we would rather use the word, “past”. That is the language of conception even though it is of the same import.
    “A person convicted of the offence under this Act is disqualified from (a) contesting elections for a
    public office, or
    (b) holding any public, political or political party office until at least ten years or more have passed from the date of the conviction or after the end of the sentence.”
    That is the language of the Constitution, if we want to be consistent.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:47 p.m.
    Shall we do the long title now?
    This is because there are a few matters outstanding, shall we do the long title now or defer till we have finished?
    Mr Banda 1:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before we move on to the long title -- when we got to the interpretation of vigilante, we said that we were going to revert to it having recrafted it. I do not know whether we have suspended it until further notice or we can deal with it --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:47 p.m.
    You are not ready. You have not crafted it. It is not before us.
    Mr Banda 1:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I can proffer an amendment now.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:47 p.m.
    There are three proposed amend- ments that have been deferred. So I would rather urge you to reconcile them and advise us on which ones you are not bringing back on the Order Paper. What I was asked was whether I should do the long title before we complete the amendments -- in that case, we would wait.
    That brings us to the end of Consideration Stage of Vigilantism and Related Offences Bill for today.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what we have done by way of the amendments that we have proffered, including definitions and interpretations would mean that the memorandum to this Bill would have to be changed. It is so because the original memorandum appears to justify acts of vigilantism and at the winnowing -- but going through with my Hon Colleagues at the Winnowing Committee, we realised that now the content is even affected in a very profound manner and that would mean that the memorandum would have to be reconciled with what we have done.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:47 p.m.


    Already, we have taken the matter up at the Second Reading and what it means is that the memorandum would have to reflect what we have agreed should be the root of the law on vigilantism in this House.

    So, Mr Speaker, it may become necessary once we are done with the Long Title. We are in the House -- acting in accord would suggest that we substitute the memorandum that we have gone through. In fact, the Winnowing Committee agreed on what should now be the memorandum as amended. But indeed, to the extent that there is no conflict betweI.A.B.en what we have done and what has been submitted to us in terms of policy, I would reason that the House in that case could affect the memorandum.

    We recollect that in dealing with the petroleum revenue management act, the House took the position to amend certain portions of the memorandum. The Executive did not withdraw but we acted in one accord and allowed for that to stand. I think we would have to do the same thing in this regard.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:47 p.m.
    This is not an application for me -- It is just an observation. We would consider it at the appropriate time.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:47 p.m.
    It would be considered at the appropriate time but just to serve notice that is what the Winnowing Committee arrived at and I think we are in one accord as to the way forward for us.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:47 p.m.
    Hon Members, it is three minutes before 2 o'clock. Hon Majority Leader, do you have anything else? Otherwise, we adjourn.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think we have exhausted the items for the day, except Motion numbered as item 5. I guess we could do that tomorrow or the day after in which case, I beg to move that we adjourn proceedings until tomorrow at 10 o'clock in the forenoon.
    Mr Amoatey 1:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.
    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    ADJOURNMENT 1:47 p.m.