Debates of 4 Feb 2020

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:44 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:44 a.m.
Mr Speaker 10:44 a.m.
Hon Members, Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 31st January, 2020 for correction.
[No correction was made to the Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 31st January, 2020].
Mr Speaker 10:44 a.m.
Hon Members, Official Report dated Wednesday, 27th November, 2019 for correction please.
[No correction was made to the Official Report of Wednesday, 27th November, 2019].
Mr Speaker 10:44 a.m.
Hon Members, Official Report dated Thursday, 28th January, 2020 for correction please.
  • [No correction was made to the Official Report of Thursday, 28th January, 2020].
    • Mr Speaker 10:44 a.m.
    Hon Members, item numbered 3, Statements.
    The Hon Minister for Works and Housing would render a Statement on the occasion of the 55th Anniversary of the death of -- he may as well be called Hon Dr because he was a Member of this honourable House -- Hon Dr J. B. Danquah, whose seat he happens to proudly occupy.
    10.54
    STATEMENTS 10:44 a.m.
    Minister for Works and Housing (Mr Samuel Atta Akyea) (MP) 10:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, today marks the 55th anniversary of the demise of Dr Joseph Kwame Kyeretwie Boakye Danquah in condemned cell number 4, at the Nsawam Medium Security Prisons.
    Mr Speaker, the pith of this Statement will be the power and example of his political sacrifice. With this in mind, I will let history speak rather than sentiments and vile propaganda.
    Mr Speaker, while JB, as he was affectionately called was languishing in a condemned cell on the basis of President Nkrumah's pernicious Preventive Detention Act passed by the Parliament in 1958, he appealed to the conscience of President Nkrumah in a prison letter dated 9th May 1964, for his immediate release.
    Mr Speaker, because of economy of time, I would want to quote the relevant excerpts which takes us right into the soul of J.B.
    “Dear Dr Nkrumah,
    I am tired of being in prison on preventive detention with no opportunity to make an original or any contribution to the progress and development of the country, and I therefore respectfully write to beg, and appeal to you to make an order for my release and return home. I am anxious to resume my contribution to the progress and development of Ghana in the field of Ghanaian literature (Twi and English), and in Ghana Research (History and Culture), and I am anxious also to establish my wife and children in a home, to develop the education of my children (ten of them) and to restore my parental home at Kibi (Yiadom House) to a respectable dignity, worthy of my late father's own
    contribution to the progress of our country.
    You will recall that when in 1948 we were arrested by the British Government and sent to the North for detention they treated us as gentlemen, not as galley slaves, and provided each of us with a furnished bungalow (two or three rooms) with a garden, together with opportunity for reading and writing. In fact, I took with me my typewriter and papers for the purpose, and Ako Adjei also did the same, and there was ample opportunity for correspondence.
    Here at Nsawam, for the four months of my detention up to date (8th January to 9th May 1964), I have not been allowed access to my books and papers, except the Bible, and although I was told in January that my application to write to my wife, Mrs Elizabeth Danquah, could be considered if I addressed a letter to the Minister of the Interior, through the Director of Prisons, I have not, for over three months, since I wrote the letters as di rected on the 31st January 1964 received any reply. Not even a common acknowledgment from the Hon Minister as to whether I should be allowed to write to my wife or not. As I had no opportunity to make any financial provision for my wife and children at home at the time of my arrest, this delay in the
    Mr Speaker 11:04 a.m.
    Hon Minister, thank you very much.
    Mr Kobina Tahir Hammond (NPP -- Adansi Asokwa) 11:04 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much. Mr Speaker, on 21st September, 2019 there was the issue of the birthday of the first President of Ghana, Dr Kwame Nkrumah, and I was told that it was a holiday. Mr Speaker, but I said that it could not be a holiday because there had been a change in Parliament with respect to the holiday calendar of Ghana. I recall that it used to be a holiday called Founder's Day, but now the first President's birthday is now celebrated among his followers, but it is not a holiday. Mr Speaker, I was getting confused --
    Mr Speaker 11:04 a.m.
    Hon Member, you are moving into murky waters because the holiday is in memory of the first President of the Republic of Ghana. It is just like how men such as Dr Martin Luther King Jr have been honoured in similar circumstances. This is an indisputable truism; the first President of the Republic of Ghana, a man who was the Prime Minister as we gained independence. So, it is contextualised and it must be understood as such.
    Hon Member, please continue.
    Mr Hammond 11:04 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, indeed, I was making the point but in the end I realised that I had forgotten about all that we had done here, and
    Mr Speaker 11:04 a.m.
    Hon Member, the Statement is not about who deserves or not to be commemorated with Ghanaian holidays. So, I would want you to move away from the murky
    waters of political controversy. The essence of a commemorative Statement is an eulogy for a deserving person. I would rather wish that we stick within those parameters.
    Mr Hammond 11:04 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am grateful.
    Mr Speaker, that is exactly what I am saying but it is just that on the flip side of --
    Mr Speaker 11:04 a.m.
    That is fully supported by the rules of this House and so I would not allow you to move into the controversial areas. So please conclude.
    Mr Hammond 11:04 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have even finished with that part and so I would conclude.
    rose
    Mr Speaker 11:14 a.m.
    I have ruled on the matter, and I have asked the Hon Member to conclude. Let us end it there.

    My rulings are not subject to commentary [Laughter]. Let us get that straight. [Hear! Hear!]

    Hon Member, please conclude.
    Mr Hammond 11:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, by way of conclusion, I have done the other part of it. It is concluded. It is just to put on record that the life of Dr J. B. Danquah is worthy of celebration. I invite the House and the whole country to consider whether there could be a special comme- moration in respect of this particular man for all he has done to put Ghana on the world map. We are not just Ghana, but significantly, the name itself.
    Mr Speaker 11:14 a.m.
    We have heard about the name. Thank you very much.
    Mr Richard K. Quashigah (NDC -- Keta) 11:14 a.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to the Statement in memory of the Late Dr J. B. Danquah who played a very significant role in the formation of our nation which is today called Ghana. There is no doubt that Dr J. B. Danquah played a significant role in the first President of Ghana becoming part of the struggle for the independence of this country, and we need to commend him for that.
    It is also most unfortunate that he did not live his full years to contribute to the development of the new
    founded nation at the time, Ghana. Also, it is most unfortunate that he lost his life in incarceration.
    Mr Speaker, there are so many unfortunate things that have happened in our struggle and journey as a nation. I believe strongly that all those who led the struggle for Ghana to be founded, of which Dr J. B. Danquah was a pillar, would have today wished that we are not where we are but we have advanced and progressed beyond what Ghana is today.
    I ask myself, indeed, after leaders like the late Dr J. B. Danquah laid the foundation of this nation to be established, what have we as a people done over the period? What kind of errors have we committed that has dragged this nation backward instead of forward? It is time we ask ourselves today, what would be the feeling of the likes of Dr J. B. Danquah even in their graves? Are they excited and happy about the way we run things in this country? Are they even excited about us who are Members of Parliament today since many of them were Members of Parliament? Are we sincere to the true course that they birthed which has given birth to this nation that we so cherish? Has corruption and waywardness become the order of the day for which they would be turning in their graves today?
    These are the significant questions we need to ask ourselves. These are the issues we need to confront ourselves with, whether we are indeed living the way the pioneers of this nation would have expected. Would they mourn and groan in their graves because of our waywardness, selfishness, greed and inward-looking attitudes that today, we are not probably fit to be described as citizens as the word connotes?
    Mr Speaker, today, if we would be sincere and truthful to ourselves, we live very much like the description of an idiot who would just want to amass things for himself without necessarily considering the underprivileged and minority.
    When those of us who are privileged look into ourselves, could we say that the Late Dr J. B. Danquah would be happy with us today even as Hon Members of Parliament, Hon Ministers of State, Presidents, former Hon Ministers of State and former Presidents? Would Dr Ako Adjei, Dr J. B. Danquah, Dr Obetsebi Lamptey and Dr Kwame Nkrumah be excited with us, and are we really committed to the course of Ghana?
    Mr Speaker, on occasions like this, when we read Statements in memory of such great men, we should consider it as time to mirror our own lives and see whether they depict what they
    would have expected us to do or the kind of lives they would have lived if they were leaders of our nation today.
    Mr Speaker, next year, we would also commemorate the death of Dr J. B. Danquah. In doing that, it should be a time for us to reflect and do an introspection so that tomorrow, when we are also no more the young men and women of this country who would be in the helm of affairs would also give commemorative speeches in our honour as we do today.
    With these few words Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to contribute.
    Mr Speaker 11:14 a.m.
    Thank you very much, Hon Member. In fact this is a contribution worthy of emulation. I would like Hon Members to apply our minds in an applied manner on such occasions, go beyond the rhetoric and talk about significance and meaning of what the particular life is and how these could be lessons for nation building. This should be the essence of such contributions. I am proud of you. [Hear! Hear!]
    Hon Members, if you would want to contribute, let us advert our minds to these higher principles.
    Mrs Catherine A. Afeku (NPP -- Evalue Ajomoro Gwira) 11:14 a.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker, obnoxious laws have passed through this Chamber 11:24 a.m.
    Preventive Detention Act (PDA), Criminal Libel Law and a host of others. Thank God that we have a Legislature that has removed all of these laws and today, we have repeals and laws that allow you and I to speak freely without being arrested, intimidated or chained to a room that is (6) by nine (9) ft at Nsawam. Thank God for the life of J. B. Danquah, whose sacrifice we enjoy today.
    What is the lesson for those of us following in the footsteps in this same Chamber where he once upon a time stood and spoke? We have learnt that sacrifice, patriotism, lack of greed in our effort to help our nation building is worth emulating; the can-do spirit -- not being afraid to speak like it is for mother Ghana. What is it that we are teaching the youth that would come after us? Truth as sacred honour and duty that he lived throughout his life right to the point of his last breath; that he was still thinking of Ghana and the works he had to do to promote the progress of Ghana even on his dying bed.
    Mr Speaker, how many of us can proudly say that we are following the footsteps of our gallant forefathers? We are divided in partisanship and
    pettiness and we are not emulating and not making it worthwhile to die for mother Ghana. Dr J. B. Danquah, 55 years ago, laid down his life because he believed in the freedom of Ghana. What are we doing today? As we celebrate his life and works, let us in this Chamber and beyond the voices that we hear today, be part of that forward march; that it is worth sacrificing for Ghana.
    Mr Speaker, listening to the letter that he wrote gets one emotional to reflect that once in an elected position, what are the cardinal truths to be pursued? What would we do for our people? Are we willing to put our lives down for the truth and defence of the nation?
    Mr Speaker, let us remember the sacrifices of the big six. Let us remember the life of J. B. Danquah together; not from one political party but together as a people. Let us celebrate his life as a Ghanaian, a member of this society that we are benefitting from what he did; what we can also do to put our minds to it. He left this world 55 years ago, but I can assure you that from the works and the little that we read from our history books, he was and still is a proud Ghanaian because he did what his heart told him to do.
    Mr Speaker, never again should we allow in this Chamber or the next one that would be built before and after we are gone, to have laws enacted to curtail the freedom and liberty of our people.
    Winding up, I would rephrase what John F. Kennedy, another patriot from the land of the free, (USA) said. This should resonate with the young people as we celebrate our man who was a doyen of politics: ask not what your country, Ghana, can do for you but what you, as a citizen, a patriot of this nation can do for mother Ghana. I think beyond that, we would have a better society, a better Ghana that we can leave and bequeath to the children who would come after us.
    Damirifa due, J. B., damirifa.
    Mr Kwame Governs Agbodza (NDC -- Adaklu) 11:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for this Statement ably made by our Hon Colleague as a commemorative Statement for a great Ghanaian and founding father of our country. I want to commend my Hon Colleague for the succinct way he presented the Statement, just by capturing one of the letters Dr J. B. Danquah wrote to Dr Nkrumah.
    Mr Kwame Governs Agbodza (NDC -- Adaklu) 11:34 a.m.


    Mr Speaker, this letter was relevant at the time. He might have been writing this letter expressing his own conditions but this letter can do for everybody in prison today unjustly or many other people who are not in prison but feel the same way that the state is letting them down.

    Mr Speaker, I would start by the conditions he described in prison. When we read this letter, we can ask ourselves: are we at a point where conditions in our prisons for people who are just accused and have not yet been convicted -- Can we say for sure that we have addressed what Dr J. B. Danquah talked about and today we do not have people in the same conditions?

    Mr Speaker, we cannot say that we have addressed these issues. So this letter is relevant today as well and it is upon we policy makers and the government, to be able to take this letter and see what we can do to make life better.

    Mr Speaker, he also talked about freedom and as my Hon Colleague said, sometimes Colleagues can start to pursue something with a common vision but lack of trust and suspicion makes good friends fall apart.

    Mr Speaker, ironically, Dr Nkrumah himself, at the tail end of his life, felt he was not treated well because he was not allowed into the country after the coup and he died abroad.

    Mr Speaker, it is very important for us as lawmakers to consider some of the things. Today, we call PDA obnoxious law. That law was passed by Hon Colleagues who were in Parliament at the time. At that time, it was the view of Hon Members of Parliament that it was the right thing to do. Why am I saying this? Ever so often, things are put in front of us for political reasons or the other; we rush through and pass things without necessarily thinking of the consequences of the decisions we take in this House. The experience of Dr J. B. Danquah and PDA should tell us, as lawmakers, to be careful what we approve in this House. We might think we are doing it for the moment but at the end of it, somebody may unjustly be a victim. Mr Speaker, I think it is very important.

    Mr Speaker, Dr J. B. Danquah felt he was just expressing his views and for that reason, he died just expressing his views. Thank God that in this country I have the right to speak. My Hon Colleagues may disagree with me but I thank God that they would

    agree that they disagree with me, which is good.

    Mr Speaker, we can measure this letter again on what is happening today. If Ahmed Suale was basically expressing his views, building a country, he may not be a freedom fighter seeking independence for our country but he was doing an investigation just as a journalist. He died out of that and till today, there is no justice for him. No justice for Dr J. B. Danquah; no justice for Ahmed Suale. What is the difference? There is no difference. It is injustice.

    Mr Speaker, I think we should be able to protect our citizens irrespective of whether they are Members of Parliament, freedom fighters or ordinary citizens. The law has not got a face. It must apply justly to everybody.

    Mr Speaker, this letter was relevant at the time and is still relevant today.

    Mr Speaker, on freedom of speech, Dr J. B. Danquah was incarcerated and suddenly died in prison for his views. That, nobody else should suffer.

    Mr Speaker, it is very important for us as politicians that other people's

    views may not make sense to us but those are their views. Left to me alone, the situation of Montie FM and Radio Gold should have been addressed differently. This is because even if they breached the law, they have the tendency to express a view of a section of the society. So if it is about they not paying their fees or other things, steps could have been taken to regularise that, so that we do not shut a certain section of the public whose views are channelled through those radio stations.

    Mr Speaker, my Hon Colleague talked about the possibility of the state honouring Dr J. B. Danquah by having a state funeral for him. I do not disagree.

    In the same vein, I would encourage Government to reconsider the situation not to allow Montie FM and Radio Gold to transmit. Whatever the crimes may be, we should see if we could regularise it and amend the situation, so that that section of the society whose voices are channelled through them can also have a voice.

    Mr Speaker, I would recommend the letter by Dr J. B. Danquah for every policy maker, that for everything that one does, one should consider
    Mr Patrick Y Boamah (NPP -- Okaikwei Central) 11:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, that sad day still lingers on the mind of every Ghanaian who truly believes -- [Interruption] --
    Mr Speaker 11:34 a.m.
    Hon Members, Order!
    Hon Members, let us please listen.
    Mr Boamah 11:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, that sad day still lingers on the mind of every Ghanaian who truly believes in the constitutional evolution of this country.
    sions in the 1969 Constitution
    Mr Speaker 11:34 a.m.
    Hon Members, the background noise is unfortunate.
    Hon Member, please, be seated. Perhaps, that would make some Hon Members realise that there is a vacuum in the House. [Pause] --
    I think that Hon Members have now taken notice that something is happening here.
    Hon Member, you may please speak.
    Mr Boamah 11:34 a.m.
    Very well, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker, this commemorative Statement draws serious issues, which I believe have been cured by succeeding constitutional provisions. From the 1969, 1979 and the 1992 Constitutions, there have been elaborate provisions on fundamental human rights, and fast forward, if we look at Chapter 5 of our 1992 Constitution, there are elaborate provisions that have taken care of some of the ills of the PDA Act that was used to prosecute political opponents.
    Mr Speaker, just recently, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to rule on the 48 Hour Rule provision in the Constitution. With your permission, I would like to quote article 14(2) (b), which says:
    “A person who is restricted, arrested or detained shall be informed immediately; in a language that he understands, of the reasons for his arrest, restriction or detention and of his right to a lawyer of his choice.
    (b) “upon reasonable suspicion of his having committed or being about to commit a criminal offense under the laws of Ghana, and who is not released shall be brought before a court within forty- eight hours after the arrest, restriction or detention.”
    Mr Speaker, these are provisions that I believe were not available to the doyen of Ghana politics at the time, which he could have easily availed himself, if those provisions were couched in any legislation or laws of the then Gold Coast.
    Mr Speaker, these are some clues that constitutional evolution and the law has brought to bear for us to enjoy today. Most of us do not even know that Dr J. B. Danquah was a lawyer. Some of us do not know that he was even the president of the Ghana Bar Association. Some of us also do not even know that he was the first person to establish the Times of West Africa.
    Therefore right from the outset, it tells us that the man was a man with different wings. He was a lawyer. He was somebody who believed in legal writing; he wrote a lot. He was also somebody who believed in journalism to the extent that today, this same Constitution has made provisions for the establishment of the National Media Commission (NMC), whose constitutional duties ought not to be interfered with.
    Now, we have the social media interfering in a lot of activities of individuals, so I believe that going forward, regulations would have to be put in place to ensure that social media is properly regulated under the laws of this country.
    Mr Speaker, those of us who had the opportunity to attend the University of Ghana, Legon, to read law and the social sciences also had the opportunity to read of his contributions to the establishment of the University of Ghana. He was instrumental in the setting up of the Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences, which I believe Mr Speaker is a member of.
    We all know the kind of lectures that they organise to educate the public on the various aspects; from medicine, agriculture, politics et cetera, and the great men of this country have taken

    the opportunity to speak at those public fora to address pertinent national issues.

    Mr Speaker, it is a sad day in the history of Ghana, that the brother of Sir Ofori Atta I, the son of actor, Paul Danquah had to die in such a mysterious way. Never in the history of this country must we allow this thing to happen to any citizen of ours. May his soul rest in perfect peace.

    Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker 11:34 a.m.
    Hon Members, we would move on to Leaders.
    Minority Leader (Mr Haruna Iddrisu) 11:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the Statement made by the Hon Member of Parliament for Abuakwa South and the Hon Minister for Works and Housing, on the 55th Anniversary of the death of Dr Joseph K. K. Boakye Danquah, and to express regret as he did, that they had to end his life and pay the ultimate price in the service of his country and in the founding of his country.
    Mr Speaker, I am guided, but on some of the earlier contributions, like that of the Hon K. T. Hammond I wish to say that, history cannot be re-
    written, and history cannot change the fact that the first legislative elections in 1951 was won by the Convention People's Party (CPP) and was won by the late President Nkrumah. Therefore when we use the word “founder” and “founding fathers” in a generic broad sense, they are not the same. We cannot re-write the history that Dr Nkrumah was not the first President and founder of Ghana.
    Mr Speaker, even if we go into American jurisprudence, there is an article written by Richard Morris in 1973, where he talks about America and its founding fathers. He talks about John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Tay, Thomas Jefferson, up to George Washington, but he does not take away who the first President and founder of the United States of America is.
    Therefore if President Nkrumah did not belong to one's political tradition, it does not change the course of history. He won a contested election and won the mandate of the people of Ghana, following the elections.
    As we know, beyond 1951, Dr J. B. Danquah lost 1954 - 1956 and therefore --
    Mr Speaker 11:34 a.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, I would be very grateful if all of us would put ourselves within a certain context. Otherwise, we would deviate, so to speak. We are not here to discuss founding fathers.
    Hon Members, just for the records, I would like us to note that no great achievement can make a person necessarily a founding father. Maybe we are yet to see a president who would come and do something that has not been seen in this world. No achievement would make that man or woman a founding father. So we should rather put it in the context of those who founded the nation, and that is what we mean by founding fathers.
    America has got a tall list of founding fathers, not less than 30. So please, I wish that we would rather limit ourselves to the relevant aspects, and the beautiful contributions made, as to the lessons that we are to learn from a particular distinguished Ghanaian life.
    Hon Minority Leader, you may please proceed.
    Mr Iddrisu 11:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I shall.
    Mr Speaker 11:44 a.m.
    Hon Members, the Hon Minority Leader is on his feet. Hon Members are allowed to go outside the Chamber for a moment and discuss any relevant matter and come back. Please, this background sound is getting out of hand.
    Hon Member, please continue.
    Mr Iddrisu 11:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would conclude. I just came across a book published in honour of Nelson Mandela and it reads, “The Nelson Mandela Prison Letters”. I normally would share some of the books I read with Hon Atta Akyea and I intend to share it with him. When you read it, particularly the quote, what is the state of Ghanaian prisons today?
    Dr J. B. Danquah's memory must remind us that the state of our country's prisons is nothing to write home about. The essence of punishment is reformation. Are we reforming people with the nature of
    our prisons? Even prison officers, how are they treated? Those beautiful quotes as to Dr J. B. Danquah wanting to come out and spend life with his family and make other contributions, must significantly wake us up to make major reforms on the state of our prisons.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon Member once again for bringing this matter to the fore. Undoubtedly, Dr J. B. Danquah contributed to the founding of modern Ghana as the first Secretary of the United Gold Coast Convention (UGCC), except that he disagreed with the radical approach to nationalism. May his soul rest in perfect peace. Thank you.
    Mr Speaker 11:44 a.m.
    Thank you very much Hon Minority Leader. Hon Majority Leader?
    Majority Leader (Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu) 11:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, let me begin by commending Hon Samuel Atta Akyea, the Member of Parliament for Abuakwa South Constituency for bringing this commemorative Statement to the House today in respect of the rather unheralded demise of Dr Joseph Kwame Kyeretwie Boakye Danquah at the Nsawam Prisons in 1965.
    Mr Speaker, I commend him particularly because increasingly, every year he submits a Statement to tickle the conscience of this country and if for nothing, we should be grateful to him for pricking the conscience of this nation, that we should not slide back.
    Hon Agbodza spoke about the rather pernicious Preventive Detention Act that the then President Nkrumah applied to terrorise political opponents. That Act was passed by Parliament and today it should really sound rather unconscionable that Parliament at the time, did kowtow to the appeals of President Nkrumah not because the proposal came from the Presidency.
    Mr Speaker, when Parliament is being pruned of its authority, it starts gradually -- About eight years ago, something calamitous almost happened in this House. At the time when we were crafting the new Interpretations Act, the then Attorney-General came to this House and insisted that legislative power which the Constitution provides should be in the hands of Parliament and should from then on be considered as a shared responsibility between Parliament and the President.
    Majority Leader (Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu) 11:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, that was unconscion- able. It was introduced in this House and the then Majority side was hilarious that it should be introduced. What it meant was that the President could sit in the comfort of his bedroom, formulate any law, append his signature to it and then it would become law in this country. That was the implication. We had an Attorney- General come to this House and make that proposal in this 4th Republic and the Majority side then was hilarious in their applause of this devilish intention.

    Mr Speaker, I must be bold on this. This House debated this for two continuous days and the majority was a sizeable one but the country was saved by the intervention of just one person. That was Hon Alban Bagbin who had been a former Hon Majority Leader. He had exited to the Ministry and when he returned, he chided his Majority side that, that was wrong and that was what saved this House.

    Otherwise, today, in this Republic, we would have allowed the President to sit in the comfort of his bedroom, formulate laws and append his signature to them and this nation would have had to adhere to a law formulated by the President in his

    bedroom and assented to by the same person. What kind of attitude do we, as Hon Members of Parliament have? Should anything from the Executive be applauded?

    Mr Speaker, the role of Parliament in creating dictators is something that the letter Dr J. B. Danquah wrote to Dr Kwame Nkrumah should agitate our conscience.

    Ghana had just been born at the time and Dr J.B. Danquah; one of the Big Six who had helped in no small measure, in giving birth to Ghana, soon thereafter was incarcerated and he begged to be released to contribute his quota to the building of the “infant Republic”. That cry went unheeded.

    Mr Speaker, in the letter, Dr J.B. Danquah related to what he and Dr Kwame Nkrumah suffered when they were arrested by the British colonialists and he drew attention to the fact that when they were arrested, they were accommodated in three bedroom houses. They were given the opportunity to write letters, to read newspapers and so on, but here, after independence, his own black colleague arrested him, put him in jail and he was denied space to write a letter to his wife. That is the height of man's inhumanity to man. That was the lot of the post-independence leaders, not only in Ghana but across the length and breadth of Africa.

    Dr J. B. Danquah went to prison, died in a condemned cells and arising out of all these, the Constitutions that we have had thereafter now guarantee rights and freedoms informed by what happened in the First Republic, Ghana has grown wiser. That is why Parliament should assist in expanding the frontiers of human rights and that is why reclining backwards, I said that the disaster that was to be introduced in this House by the then Hon Minister for Justice and Attorney-General was averted by the intervention of just one person.

    Mr Speaker, the rest of us in the Minority had spoken against this and yet our Hon Colleagues in the Majority then would not listen. I say that this nation should count ourselves lucky when Hon Bagbin came to this House after listening to the debate, he said; no, dear friends and brothers in the Majority, on this occasion, I think we are wrong. That is what saved the day for this country.

    So today, the right to life is guaranteed by the 1992 Constitution in article 13(1). Today, the personal liberties of individuals are guaranteed under article 14(1) of our Constitution and a person arrested, restricted or detained shall be charged. If he is not, he shall be released within 48 hours

    according to article 14(2). All these are informed by what happened in the First Republic just because one person wanted to dominate the Republic and the entire nation, including the representatives of the people in Parliament who submitted wholly to the dictates of one person. This country should say never again.

    Mr Speaker, that is not to say that former President Nkrumah did not do anything for this country. He did tremendously well in the development agenda of this country but his human records are appalling. As a nation, we should rise up in unison to that.

    Today, if a person is arrested, restricted or detained and not tried, the Constitution charges us in article 14(4) that that person should be released which I beg to quote:

    “Where a person arrested, restricted or detained under paragraph (a) or (b) of clause (3) of this article is not tried within a reasonable time, then, without prejudice to any further proceedings that may be brought against him, he shall be released, either unconditionally or upon reasonable conditions, including in particular, conditions reason- ably necessary to ensure that he appears at a later date for trial or for proceedings preliminary to trial”.
    Majority Leader (Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu) 12:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this provision is informed by what happened in the First Republic. So when people rise in unqualified adoration of the President of the time, we should question their sincerity. Dr Kwame Nkrumah did extremely well for this country. As I said, in his development agenda, education and so on -- but we must admit to the fact that his human rights record was terrible.
    There are so many things that one could allude to but as a nation, I believe we have learnt useful lessons and let us not recline into those dark ages again; we should say “never again” to what conditions that pertained at that time. That is why I said what really happened with an Hon Minister for Justice and Attorney- General sponsoring a piece of Legislation to indicate to this House that the power to legislate should be a shared responsibility between Parliament and the President, which was not only unconscionable, it was a recipe for disaster in this country.
    Mr Speaker, once again, let me thank the Hon Member who made the Statement and hope that all of us will learn useful lessons. The Ugandans have an adage; “whatever we do in Parliament, whatever we do as administrators of this country, we should be informed by a credo, for
    God and country. For God and country, let us take inspiration from that and do what is right”.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much.

    Novel Coronavirus Outbreak and Updates on Ghana's

    Preparedness
    Minister for Health (Mr Kwaku Agyeman-Manu) (MP) 12:04 p.m.
    The Ministry of Health of the People's Republic of China reported to the WHO, an outbreak of a Novel Corona Virus Infection in December 2019. The new coronavirus designated 2019-nCo-V was first identified in Wuhan city, the capital of China's Hubei Province.
    The virus has shown evidence of human-to-human transmission, with the number of cases sharply increasing to thousands with several deaths.
    As of 4th February 2020, over 20,000 cases (20,604) have been reported from China and 26 other countries and the death toll stands at 427. There is no confirmed case in Ghana yet.
    On 30th January 2020, the World Health Organisation declared the
    outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern.
    The incubation period (i.e. time from exposure to onset of symptoms) ranges from 2 to 14 days, and there is evidence that, the infection may be contagious during and prior to the onset of the symptoms and possibly also several days after recovery.
    Symptoms include fever, coughing, difficulty in breathing and can also be fatal. The spread is usually through droplets, coughing and sneezing, close personal unprotected risk by touching or contact with infected person or animal. Currently, there is no cure, but treatment is mainly symptomatic. Furthermore, there is no vaccine and prevention is mainly by adherence to cough and sneezing etiquette and improved personal hygiene such as regular hand-washing with soap and water.
    The World Health Organisation has recommended to member states to prepare and prevent further international exportation of the outbreak, by strengthening systems for containment including active surveillance, early detection, isolation, case and contact management.
    This has triggered the following preparedness and response actions in Ghana:
    1. In the area of Coordination, Public Health Emergency Management structures at all levels (National, Regional and Districts) have been activated and placed on high alert.
    a. The National Technical Coordination Committee, which is multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary with experts from the Ministry of Health, Ghana Health Service, the World Health Organisation, Veterinary Services Department of the MOFA, Noguchi Memorial Institute of Medical Research (NMIMR), Immigration Service, Security Agencies, the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention among others have had three times.
    b. The Ministry of Health and Ghana Health Service have sent Alerts to all regions and districts, to activate the respective Public Health Emergency Management Committees
    .
    Minister for Health (Mr Kwaku Agyeman-Manu) (MP) 12:14 p.m.
    6. For Social Mobilisation and Risk Communication,
    a. We have developed a national social mobilisation and risk communication emergency response plan.
    b. Key messages and alerts have been developed for use by the general public. These are aimed at providing public education on the outbreak and necessary preventive measures.
    c. Jingles have been deve- loped to sensitise travellers on arrival at the various entry points.
    d. A weekly press release has been scheduled and we have already done three takes.
    e. Media engagements have started and are ongoing.
    f. We are using multiple channels such as WhatsApp, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram for information dissemination.
    g. We continue to conduct monitoring and provide
    responses through health promotion surveillance and intelligence.
    7. I wish to use the opportunity to provide advice to the general public that: due to the nature of this outbreak, it is imperative that the general public continues to observe the following preventive measures:
    a. Regular washing of hands with soap and water;
    b. Use of alcohol to rub hands where available;
    c. Keep a distance of at least one meter from a person showing signs of fever, cough and difficulty in breathing.
    d. When there is contact with a sick person or with potentially infected surfaces or objects, it is advised that you refrain from touching your eyes, nose or mouth with unwashed hands; and
    e. People should seek treat- ment immediately at the nearest health facility if infection is suspected or if symptoms occur or upon advice by a health worker.
    The Ministry of Health continues to work with the Development Partners to monitor the situation and further strengthen systems to prevent the introduction of the outbreak in Ghana, and detect early to contain it if it should occur.
    In conclusion, I wish to indicate that, the Government of Ghana is doing everything possible to prevent and protect against the outbreak and spread of the infection in Ghana.
    I wish to express my utmost gratitude to all development partners for their continuous support.
    The Government of Ghana has allocated an amount of the cedi equivalent of GH¢2.5 million cedis as start up towards the implementation of the initial response for our national preparedness plan.
    The Ministry of Health has initiated a process to procure 10,000 pieces of personal protective equipment for the use of all front-line workers.
    Arrangements are being made to procure insurance cover for all front- line worker.
    We are in this together and therefore call on the private sector and
    development partners to give their support to our national effort in this period of preparedness.

    Thank you, Mr Speaker for the opportunity.
    Mr Speaker 12:14 p.m.
    Thank you very much, Hon Minister, for the Statement. The Hon Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration would make a short contribution with regard to certain international implications, then the Leaders would make appropriate comments.
    This is basically informative. The leaders would make comments or contributions.
    In the process, the Hon First Deputy Speaker would take the Chair.
    Hon Minister, you may proceed.
    Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration (Alhaji Habibu T. Mohammad):
    Mr Speaker, on the 21st of January, 2020, the Ministry received communication from Ghana's Embassy in the People's Republic of China reporting and confirming an outbreak of the Novel Coronavirus in Wuhan.
  • [MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER IN THE CHAIR.]
    • Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:14 p.m.
    Very well. I would listen to the Leaders.
    Minority Leader (Mr Haruna Iddrisu) 12:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity and in particular recognise that the Hon Minister for Health has appeared before this House because your Goodself and this House requested that the Ghanaian public be apprised of urgent steps being taken by the Ministry of Health to prepare our country for the novel coronavirus.
    Mr Speaker, my first comment is that, in my view, even what has just happened is not neat enough. Next time, I would have wished that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration availed every information they have to support the Hon Minister for Health for policy coherence and consistency. As the Hon Deputy Minister who is my good Brother, Hon Habibu Mohammad, just spoke and mentioned structures Ghanaians could confuse his struc-
    Minority Leader (Mr Haruna Iddrisu) 12:24 p.m.
    tures with that of the Hon Minister for Health but they are talking about the same things.
    Mr Speaker, next matter, the Hon Majority Leader should do what is appropriate. Matters related to coronavirus is for the Minister responsible for Health. It is not for the Ministry responsible for foreign policy. The Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration is to gather information as it exists on the ground and feed the Minister for Health.
    I listened to the Hon Minister for Health religiously. The use of the word “collaboration” was even missing on his lips. What he said was “structures”. Again the Hon Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration mentioned US$4,200 equivalent to 100,000 Yen. How does that get the Embassy in China adequately prepared?
    In my opinion, I would urge you to direct that US$4,200 is woefully inadequate and that Government must make available to the Embassy in China, depending on the size of Government's purse, at least a minimum of a US$100,000 emergency fund to support the Ghanaian authorities in China. However, I would say US$4,200 is inadequate.
    Secondly, I observe that as a country, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration must take it up and convey on behalf of the Government of Ghana that it took too long for the World Health Organisation (WHO) to declare this matter a public health emergency.
    That should not happen in the world when they said they were still conducting tests upon tests.

    Once it is a novel disease and persons are dying, they must act proactively in order to save lives; there are up to 6000 cases reported and 152 lives lost -- [Interruption] -- I know; but I am talking about the number at the time --

    Mr Speaker, again, the Hon Minister for Health mentioned GH¢2.5 million. I hope that is not one of those warrants locked up at the Controller and Accountant General's Department (CAGD). We need real money for this purpose. This is not money that when we turn around, we would be told it is still being processed at the CAGD. Government and the Ministry of Finance must honour same that, at least, for the purposes of emergency, the GH¢2.5 million is available to the Ministry.

    Mr Speaker, he also mentioned additional purchase of equipment worth GH¢10,000. Which are those equipment and how are they distributing them?

    Mr Speaker, in particular, immigration should focus on those persons arriving from China. If we note what happened in La Cote d'Ivoire and the first phase of it had to do with persons coming from that part of the world into that country -- So we would need to strengthen the border surveillance.

    Mr Speaker, their coordinating structures, in my view, appear commendable so far. When I heard him say the Ministry of Health, the Ghana Health Service, the Ministry of Agriculture, and in particular, the Noguchi Medical Research Institute of the University of Ghana -- So, we are generally satisfied with the briefs of the Minister for Health supported by the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration, and we pray that no citizen of our country becomes a victim of it.

    Mr Speaker, probably what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration could do, which probably they have already done, is to convey to the Chinese government to express sympathy and empathise with those who are affected in that

    part of the world. I am sure the President has already done that.

    On this note, Mr Speaker, I would want to thank the Hon Minister for Health and the Hon Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration and I pray that those sitting by you do not make you a victim of what you are seeking to cure.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Majority Leader (Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu) 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, let me thank the Hon Minister for Health for this timeous intervention. I think the Statement that he has released is very informative and he advises that as a country and as citizens, we should take our personal hygiene very seriously. In such instances, that advice could only be described as a very timeous one, but what he did not add was that we should also avoid spitting in public.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    Thank you.
    Would the Hon Minister want to respond? [Interruption] -- Very well.
    Mr Agyeman-Manu 12:24 p.m.
    I thank you, Mr Speaker.
    I would take the opportunity to thank you and my Hon Colleagues for granting me audience to brief the House and the nation on what we are preparing to do to protect our country from importing the disease into our system.
    Mr Speaker, I have taken notes of the comments of the leadership of the House and those things that we do not seem to have worked on and we would quickly try and address them.
    What I would want to say eventually is the fact that our President, H.E. Nana Addo-Dankwa Akufo-Addo has already sent a message of sympathy to the Chinese government. In fact, when I met the Ambassador yesterday, he gave me a copy of what has already been sent to the Government of the People's Republic of China. We have actually commended them for the efforts they are making to contain the disease over there.
    Mr Speaker, my engagements with the Chinese Ambassador also indicated that the Chinese government itself has introduced protocols through which when it becomes necessary for us to evacuate we must go through before they actually allow us to take our people away and we are complying with those protocols religiously.
    Ghana's Ambassador to China is in close contact with the students who are in Wuhan and they are working towards their protection. They have given us full assurance that Ghanaians
    in China would be adequately protected and we would want to rely on their assurance.
    Mr Speaker, once again, yesterday, I was with the technical coordinating committee in their last meeting before I came here. We have identified Aflao and Elubo as very high risk entry points such that we are upgrading our surveillance systems in those areas to the satisfaction of our emergency preparedness group. I believe we are up to the task and we would do all we can to protect the country.
    I thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Very well, we thank the Minister for Health and the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration for coming to brief the House on the efforts of the Government to protect Ghanaians particularly in China.
    Hon Majority Leader, there was one Statement which was deferred. Do we have the space to take that one?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would plead that we deal with Public Business, so that if there
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Members, at the Commence- ment of Public Business, item numbered 4 -- Motion.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the two Motions, listed as items numbered 4 and 5, would be taken subsequently, and not now. Indeed, for the Customs (Amend- ment) Bill, I believe it may be necessary, given what surgery has been done on the Bill, to perhaps re- gazette it and submit it. So I think it would have to go through the14 days gazette period before it comes back to us.
    Mr Speaker, you had expressed interest in the Motion listed as item numbered 6. However, because you are in the Chair, you would not be able to contribute. Therefore we may deal with the Motion listed as item numbered 7.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Members, we would take item numbered 7 -- Motion.
    MOTIONS 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Ato Panford (NPP -- Shama) 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that this honourable House adopts the Report of the Committee on Trade, Industry and Tourism on the challenges of Imported Sub-Standard Electrical Cables, Gadgets and Accessories (pursuant to a Statement Delivered by the Hon Member for Shama, Mr Ato Panford).
    Mr Speaker, in so doing, I beg to present your Committee's Report.
    1.0 Introduction
    Following the Statement delivered by Hon Ato Panford MP for Shama on Tuesday, 19th April, 2019 on the challenges of Imported Sub-Standard Electrical Cables, Gadgets and Accessories, Mr Speaker referred the Statement to the Committee on Trade, Industry and Tourism for consideration and report.
    In considering the referral, the Committee together with the Legal Department of the Parliamentary
    Service of Ghana met with the Hon Minister for Trade and Industry and his technical team, the Director- General, Board Members and Senior Management of the Ghana Standards Authority (GSA). The Committee is grateful for their assistance.
    2.0 Terms of Reference
    The Committee was tasked to undertake the following:
    i. To engage with the Ghana Standards Authority to identify their challenges;
    ii. To make recommendations to Improve the operations of Ghana Standards Authority; and
    iii. To make recommendations for the review of the laws and regulations governing the workings and operations of the Ghana Standards Authority.
    3.0 Background
    In November 2017, in response to the identification and detention of two (2) containers of cables at the Tema Port, the Ghana Standards Authority (GSA) carried out a nationwide
    sampling of electrical cables on the Ghanaian market. GSA purchased 56 different types of cables (35 separate brands) for testing. Surprisingly, only 12.5 per cent out of the 56 samples passed the test in relation to the critical parameters of the conductor resistance. Two (2) of the seven (7) brands which passed the test were locally-made cables. Subsequent tests indicated that all the three brands of the locally manufactured cables passed all the crucial parameter tests.
    In August 2018, the GSA undertook a wider exercise at selected markets in Accra and Kumasi. Products sampled included;
    i. Electrical cables;
    ii. Electrical accessories;
    iii. Electrical gadgets;
    iv. Electrical appliances (Switches, Sockets, LED Lights cetera);
    v. Footwear, bags, dresses, vehicle spare part accessories (brake pads, bushing, lower arms); and
    vi. Household appliances and accessories (flasks, blenders et cetera.).
    Mr Yusif Sulemana (NDC -- Bole/Bamboi) 12:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion and in doing so, make a few comments on the Report.
    Mr Speaker, this Report came to us as a referral and we were given specific terms of reference. We were, first to engage with the Ghana Standards Authority (GSA) to identify their challenges and secondly, to make recommendations to improve the operations of the GSA, and finally, to make recommendations for the review of laws and regulations governing the working and operations of the GSA.
    Mr Speaker, your Committee, in my opinion, did a very good job. We were able to unravel some of the challenges. Notable among them is inadequate funding to support the operations of GSA. It would interest us to note that in 2003 up to August
    Mr Yusif Sulemana (NDC -- Bole/Bamboi) 12:54 p.m.
    2015, the Authority received 15 per cent of the one per cent destination inspection levy on all imported goods.
    These moneys resulted in GSA receiving an amount of US$700,000 on a monthly basis. The same cannot be said of the organisation as we speak today.
    In 2016, the 15 per cent was reduced to three per cent. As if that was not enough, it was further reduced to 1.5 per cent with the Earmarked Funds Capping and Realignment Act, 2017 (Act 947).
    Mr Speaker, the result is that this organisation now receives an amount of GH¢500,000 per month. Clearly, from US$700,000 a month to GH¢500,000 is a huge gap. As a result, GSA is unable to carry out some of its very important responsibilities. For instance, they are unable to conduct frequent and effective market surveillance, test products prior to export, do effective work when it comes to procuring electrical equipment and they are unable to even increase their staff strength to be able to expand their surveillance activities. Again, they are even unable to purchase laboratory equipment.
    Mr Speaker, the Committee strongly recommends that the 15 per
    cent of the one per cent of the Destination Inspection Levy be restored. Not only that, it should also not be capped. If we do not do that, the organisation would not be able to carry out its responsibilities.
    Another very important challenge that we realised was the lack of legal mandate to impose fines and also destroy substandard goods. This organisation cannot impose fines and we know that when they impose fines, it would serve as deterrent to some who are in the business of importing substandard goods.
    Again, even when they are able to arrest people and confiscate these substandard goods, they have to wait on some organisations to support them to be able to destroy them. We think that this is not good enough.
    As the Hon Vice Chairman said, we made a trip to GSA's warehouse and it was filled to capacity. It was so demoralising that they were unable to confiscate more because if they did so, they would not have had a place to store it. We recommend that they should be given some powers to be able to take fines and destroy substandard goods.
    Mr Speaker, another very important issue that has to do with the third term of reference, which is the review of existing laws and
    regulations. We were told at the Committee level that GSA and the Ministry of Trade and Industry had already started the process of getting a Bill to be looked at in this Parliament. We were told that the Bill is at the Cabinet level. We ask that they immediately work on this and bring it to Parliament so that it would be given consideration.
    I cannot also end without elucidating on the point that the Hon Vice Chairman made with respect to the need for GSA to be independent. We suggest that it should be weaned off because when we asked them to justify why they think they should be weaned off, they procured a consultant who brought us a very good work which justified the need for GSA to be independent in terms of standing alone and not having its funds capped or taken away. This is because the findings are clear.
    In 2003, Government subvention to GSA was about 70 per cent. As we speak today, it has reduced to 20 per cent. On the other hand, internally generated funds (IGF) which used to be 30 per cent in 2003 was about 80 per cent in 2017. So we think that with this, if the institution is weaned off and not capped and is allowed to make its IGF available to itself, it would be able to deliver on its mandate.

    Mr Speaker, with these few words, I call on the House to adopt this Report as it will inure to the benefit of not only the GSA but Ghana as a whole.

    Mr Speaker, thank you.
    Minority Leader (Mr Haruna Iddrisu) 12:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Motion on the Report of the Committee on Trade, Industry and Tourism on the the challenges of imported substandard electrical cables, gadgets and accessories and to commend, in particular, the Committee and its Hon Vice Chairman for being forceful at the fore front.
    However, we are Parliament and article 93 vests the legislative authority of Ghana in us. This must be driven by policy and then we could support it at the level of reforms by way of legislation.
    Mr Speaker, this is to also assure the Hon Chairman of the Committee that we are all in support that these dangerous cables, gadgets and accessories could be one of the many sources of the unacceptable incidents of fire outbreaks in many parts of the country.
    Mr Speaker, with your permission, I beg to quote page 2 of the Report which says 12:54 p.m.
    “The total number of footwears, bags, among other sample was 139 whiles the number of electrical products was 204, and 151 vehicle parts and accessories, then over 90 per cent of the products failed the labelling requirements”.
    Mr Speaker, 90 per cent of what? Are they saying, 90 of footwears, bags or vehicular spare parts? Next time, the Committee must give us every detail because if it has to do with spare parts then we know what to do. If we have spare parts which are not up to standard, it means the vehicle would break down on the road and repairs would suffer and so we should be able to know that the statistics are properly captured.
    Mr Speaker, with these words, I support the adoption of the Committee's Report.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
    Majority Leader or Majority Leadership?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was just looking behind to see if any of my Hon Colleagues was standing.
    Mr Speaker, I have just two points; the Committee has recommended some amendments to the relevant legislation. I must commend the Committee for doing a very diligent job with this referral. The article 103 (3) of the Constitution provides and with your permission I quote:
    “Committees of Parliament shall be charged with such functions, including the investigation and inquiry into the activities and administration of ministries and departments as Parliament may determine; and such investigation and inquiries may extend to proposals for legislation.”
    Mr Speaker, so it is good that they have indicated that we need to amend some laws, but I think that I find that recommendation rather inadequate. They should suggest to us which provisions in the current enactment inhibit the importation of up-to- scratch electrical cables, gadgets and accessories. We want to know the inhibiting factors and the laws that must be amended to suit what purpose.
    So even though I agree with the general recommendation, I believe that the Committee has not done what is expected of them. They should have indicated to us the provisions that needed to be amended in a way to suit the purpose, so that we could take it to the relevant Ministry and also inform the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice to look in those directions. As it is now, we are not too sure of the aspects of the law that must be amended or reconciled.
    Mr Speaker, this is my only difficulty, otherwise I believe that the referral has been well tackled, and I would urge the Committee, they should really focus on what ought to be done and come up with proposals for legislation and amendments to whichever legislation that is being enforced.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am looking for the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Defence and Interior as well as the Hon Chairman for the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parlia- mentary Affairs. I wanted us to begin with the Consideration Stage of the Narcotics Control Commission Bill,
    2019.
    Mr Speaker, because of the winnowing that was done we have decided to begin afresh with the consideration of the Bill. So we would set aside what has been done earlier and begin from Clause 1 because there were some inconsistencies that we recognised. Unfortunately, the two Hon Chairmen are not here and so I do not know whether we could begin in earnest?
    I say so because I led the winnowing and Hon Shaibu Mahama who was also with us has just entered the Chamber -- Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman for the Committee on Defence and Interior has just entered the Chamber so we could begin with the Consideration Stage of the Bill. In fact, when we started we got to Clause 10, but let us begin afresh.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Haruna Iddrisu 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I understand that there was winnowing on the Narcotics Control Commission Bill, 2019. Probably we could start and continue later, because as I understood from the Hon Majority Leader, we were to reconcile this with some concerns raised by the Food and Drugs Authority. So I assumed that has been done or that is being done so that we do not create a conflict within the laws. However, we could start with the Consideration Stage.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Members, the Narcotics Control Commission Bill, 2019 at the Consideration Stage.
    BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 1:04 p.m.
    STAGE 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as I said we could begin in earnest from Clause 1.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    So, what should happen to the earlier proceedings?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, we could set
    those aside and begin afresh because a few issues came up that would affect Clause 1. So we have to go back and start from Clause 1.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    In that case, can you move a Motion?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, do you mean a Motion of Rescission?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    Do I just order that we ignore all that? There must be a request or action for me to --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move that in view of recent discussions, we should set aside the consideration that we did in respect of Clauses 1 and 2 of the Narcotics Control Commission Bill, 2019, and begin a new Consideration Stage from Clause 1.
    Mr Benard Ahiafor 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.
    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    Clause 1 -- Establishment of the Narcotics Control Commission.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, Clause 1(2), line 3, between
    “other” and “transaction” insert “related”.
    So the new rendition would read:
    “For the performance of its functions …”
    Mr Speaker, we would also change the possessive pronoun “its” and use the style that we have adopted in recent times. So it would read:
    “For the performance of the functions of the Commission, the Commission may acquire and hold property, dispose of property and enter into a contract or any other related transaction”.

    Mr Speaker, we have the standard of capturing that. The only other thing we want to add is “related”. We have decided to do away with the possessive pronoun.

    Also, as regards the use of “immovable” I think we have a standard way of capturing it. We would do so, then in the last line, between “other” and “transaction”, we insert “related” so that it would read “any other related transactions”.
    Mr Bernard Ahiafor 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, unfortunately, the Hon
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
    There is an amendment before me. Let us finish dealing with that.
    I would put the Question on the proposed amendment to clause 1(2).
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we could now take the amendment at clause 1(1). The new rendition would read:
    “There is established by this Act the Narcotic Control Commi- ssion as a body corporate with perpetual succession.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1(3), the usual amendment, movable and immovable property, is consequential to the amendment proposed by the Hon Majority Leader.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
    What was the proposed amendment meant to insert, ‘movable'?
    Mr Ahiafor 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment is to delete “immovable” and use “property” since it is only immovable property that could be acquired under article 125.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, again, I think we have standardised that construction. Clause 1(3) would then read:
    “Where there is a hindrance to the acquisition of property”.
    So we delete “immovable property” and “the”. So it would read:
    “Where there is a hindrance to acquisition of property, the property may be acquired by the Commission under the State Lands Act, 1962 (Act 125), and the cost shall be borne by the Commission.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 1 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 2 -- Objects of the Commission
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
    Item numbered 14(i), amendment proposed by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before we get there, clause 2(a), there is a minor amendment. It did not find expression on the Order Paper. The object of the Bill should read in clause 2(a) as:
    “The objects of the Commission are to:
    (a) ensure public health and safety”.
    Between “public” and “safety”, we should insert “health and”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Seth Kwame Acheampong 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2, paragraph (a), subparagraph (i), line 1, delete “controlling” and insert “controlling, preventing”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr S.K. Acheampong 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 2, paragraph (b), line 1, before “develop”, insert “collaborate with the relevant bodies to”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would now read 1:14 p.m.
    “(b) Collaborate with the relevant bodies to develop measures for the treatment and rehabilitation of persons suffering from substance use disorders.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
    The amendment is to insert a new phrase before “developed”. Is that right?
    Mr S.K. Acheampong 1:14 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
    Could you read the phrase you would want to insert so that it stands out?
    Mr S.K. Acheampong 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is “collaborate with the relevant bodies to”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
    Item numbered 14(iii) -- Clause 2, amendment proposed by the Hon Chairman.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, there is a paragraph 2(c) which we amended but unfortunately did not find expression on the Order Paper.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:24 p.m.
    Now item numbered 14(iii) on the Order Paper.
    Mr S.K. Acheampong 1:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, from what the Hon Majority Leader just read out to us, we would want to have a subclause 2(d) and it is a new subcluase.
    It reads:
    “Generally, facilitate the confiscation of the proceeds from narcotics-related offences.”
    Mr Ahiafor 1:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am of the view that the proposed clause should come under the functions of the Commission rather than the object of the Commission. This is because we are saying that ‘generally facilitate the confiscation of the proceeds from narcotics-related offences'.
    This clearly should be a function rather than the object of the Commission.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:24 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman, it is proposed that your proposed amendment be relocated to clause 3 rather than under clause 2.
    Mr S. K. Acheampong 1:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, obviously, there is a thin line between objects and functions of organisations, so if Hon Members believe that we should relocate this new construction under the functions of the Commission -- but if we read the body of this new construction; if we say starting from the preamble, it says “the objectives of the Commission are to…” -- I would want to delete “generally” and leave “facilitate the confiscation of the proceeds from narcotics-related offences.” Would that not look good for us?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 1:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with this new clause, the rendition and the function it is supposed to play
    dovetailed in very well under the functions stated under clause 3(b). If we read the subclause (b) (i), “to eliminate the import and export by land, sea or air, of illicit narcotic drugs and precursors for illicit purposes.”
    Mr Speaker, so those day to day functions, if this one is placed there, fits in perfectly as a day to day function, under subclause 3(b). In my opinion I think that it would dovetail in there.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the object of a body that is created really is like the mission of the agency or the body. If the mission does not bear any matter, it would be difficult to then situate it in the functions. So this one really is for the Commission to provide for the environment that would allow for the confiscation of the proceeds. One way of saying it is perhaps to say that they should establish the structures for the confiscation. That would not be a function. The function would be, as he said, a day to day activity.
    So Mr Speaker, I am not really fixated on that but if Hon Members think that it should rather find expression in clause 3, I am not fixated but I think the mission should have the confiscation that is expressed as part of the mission statement of the body.
    Dr Kwaku Afriyie 1:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with those who say that it should come under “object”. Object is a terminal event. It is an actor but for function, it is an operational thing. So I believe that it belongs to the object classification.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the object set out clearly in clause 2(a) (i). It states:
    “by controlling and eliminating traffic in prohibited narcotic drugs”.
    So, as part of the functions of the Narcotics Control Board, in achieving the object of the prevention, the elimination, and the control, they would confiscate any proceed realised from those who are involved in the illicit drugs. So it should be a function in achieving the object rather than making it the object of the Commission. It should be a function in achieving the object of the Commission. This cannot be an object of the Commission.
    The object of the Commission would definitely not be confiscation or taking measures to confiscate. They have an object of preventing the things, controlling and eliminating. So it takes a function to confiscate in achieving that particular object but cannot be an object in itself.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as the last contributor has said, the controlling and eliminating traffic of inhibited and prohibited narcotic drugs relates to the narcotic plants as well. This other one deals with a different offence -- that is the proceeds from the crime, we are saying, should also be confiscated. So it has to do with how we establish structures that would lead to that. So the product is taken care of in clause 2(1) but the proceeds is not taken care of anywhere, which is why we are saying we should do this.
    Mr Speaker, the emphasis on the word, “control” -- come to think of it -- is even a difficulty. But really if we want to tackle that, then we would go to the heart of the Bill. This Bill is really not about controlling narcotic drugs. How do we control it?
    Mr Speaker, the confusion arises from the translation from the French Language, so we are saying that we want to control illicit drugs. We are not. We are really combatting it. We want to prevent and eliminate it. So even that word is a misnomer but for the time being, let us leave it and perhaps come back later to it. But really, it is not about controlling the use of it.
    Mr Speaker, I think now that we are clear with this, you can put the Question --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:34 a.m.
    May I suggest that we adopt that and leave the draftpersons to appropriately place --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is so.
    Mr Shaibu Mahama 1:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, save to add that we take away the word “generally”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:34 a.m.
    So you propose that we delete the word “generally” from the proposed new text?
    Very well.
    Therefore, the new text would read: “…facilitate the confiscation of the proceeds from narcotics related offences.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:34 a.m.
    The draftpersons are directed to examine and appropriately locate this adopted new phrase.
    Clause 2 as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 3 -- Functions of the Commission
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, before we get there, we have a small amendment on the preamble. The preamble as in the proposed Bill reads: “To achieve its objects, the Commission shall”. We would want to delete “its” before the word “objects”, and replace it with “the”. Therefore the phrase shall be captured as “to achieve the objects the Commission shall…” After this, we may proceed with the new proposed amendment. We would want that to be effected for us.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:34 a.m.
    So the amendment is in clause (3), line
    (1), which says: “delete “its” and insert “the”. Is that correct?
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:34 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:34 a.m.
    Very well, I would put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:34 a.m.
    Hon Members, we would now move on to the item (iv), by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    Mr K.S. Acheampong 1:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, Clause 3 - paragraph (a), delete and redraft as follows:
    “co-ordinate activities related to the arrest and investigation of offences connected with the illicit production, processing and trafficking in narcotic drugs and precursors”.
    Mr Speaker, in the new rendition, we would delete “provide leader- ship…” --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:34 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, so you would want us to delete paragraph (a) and insert a new clause 3 (a). Is that right?
    Mr S.K. Acheampong 1:34 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:34 a.m.
    Hon Members, we would now move on to item (v), which is in the name of the Hon Minority Leader.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think what we have done now, by this new rendition, renders the proposal by the Hon Minority Leader rather otiose.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:34 a.m.
    The Hon Minority Leader is not in the House. Has he instructed anyone to move it on his behalf?
    Mr Shaibu Mahama 1:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have not been given any specific instruction, but I suspect that before this early amendment we did, his amendment was premised on the old one. So, the current amendment that we just did should take care of his amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:34 a.m.
    Hon Members, the proposed amendment contained in clause 3 (v) is struck out.
    Hon Members, we would now move on to item numbered (vi).
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, at the winnowing, we struggled with a particular construct; a new amendment that we wanted to propose. At the end of the day, we dropped it, but I just want to test your brains. The clause 3 (a) that we just dealt with, has to do with coordinate activities related to the arrest, investigation of offences connected with illicit production, processing and trafficking in narcotic drugs and precursors. The original amendment provided for the prosecution of offences.
    In the body of this Act, the Commission may be given the authority to not only prosecute these offences but to also investigate. For this reason, we wanted to insert a new paragraph; because of what we did in clause 3 (a), so that like we did for the Special Prosecutor, the Attorney-General may authorise the Commission to prosecute the offences provided for under clause (3) (a) (1). I do not know what you think about this.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:34 a.m.
    Hon Members, do you want to constitute this Commission also to a prosecuting body? That is the proposal by the Hon Majority Leader. I would want to find out the definition of a “Minister” in the Bill. The Minister is not defined, and he is not provided for in the body of the Bill. Was there an amendment somewhere that I do not know of?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the “Minister” is defined to be “the Minister for the Interior”. He is supposed to be the Minister in charge.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:34 a.m.
    So “Minister” means the “Minister for the Interior”. All right. So do we seek to say that the Attorney-General may empower the agency to prosecute?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is indeed the intent of clause 3 (a), with respect to this new construct, and the fact that in the body of the Bill there is a charge on the Commission to do that. But then of course, it juxtaposes same with article
    88.
    The authority in charge of prosecution is the Attorney-General. So I thought that just as we did for the Special Prosecutor, we could have a phrase which would capture the intent, otherwise it would be difficult to say that they should do that without any expressed clause, which would deal with that. That is why I said I wanted to test your brain with that, and to seek your guidance.
    Mr Banda 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that this issue came up, and the intent, as discernable from the memorandum, is to empower the Commission to prosecute. Per the
    language of article 88, as the Hon Majority Leader rightly pointed out, it is the Attorney-General. If the Attorney-General intends to empower somebody to prosecute, then same must be expressly stated in the statute.
    So if the consensus is that the Commission must be empowered to prosecute then we must so state it expressly in this Bill, that the Commission may be empowered to carry on with prosecution pursuant to arrests made on persons who may be suspected of having committed offences under this Act. So I support the Hon Majority Leader that we must expressly state it because when you read the original of the provision, it is clear that the intent is to empower the Commission to prosecute.
    It however appears that in the course of crafting and publicising same in the Order Paper, this proposed amendment has been inadvertently omitted. So I would want to support the Hon Majority Leader that we incorporate this provision in the proposed amendment so that the Commission would be empowered to prosecute.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    My worry is the prosecution invested in the Attorney-General by the Constitution. Can we as Parliament, take anything without reference to the
    Mr Dafeamekpor 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you recall, this debate ensued when we were considering the Office of the Special Prosecutor's Bill; so there is a sister provision there that we could simply borrow. In any case, the Narcotics Control Board as it is now which we are trying to turn into a Commission is prosecuting its cases.
    I have done a few cases with them and I know that it is on the authority of the Attorney-General, but we have tried as a House to couch provisions that suggest that they do so on the authority of the Attorney-General. I recall the provision in the Office of the Special Prosecutor's Bill, so let us just borrow from there and make progress.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, article 88 (4) of the 1992 Constitution makes that provision possible. It says:
    “All offences prosecuted in the name of the Republic of Ghana
    shall be at the suit of the Attorney-General or any other person authorised by him in accordance with any law.”
    This is the law that we are making and we could make provision for it. Upon a second thought, maybe, we would have to reengineer that sentence to say that even though the value would be the same, “the Commission may prosecute offences provided for under clause 3 (a)(i) under the authority of the Attorney- General. If it is the previous one that is preferred, I am saying that as we did for the Office of the Special Prosecutor, we made this provision for that but it must be provided for by an enabling law.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I listened to the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs. I think that if we say that “the Commission may be empowered to prosecute”, it is only the Attorney-General who can empower them. So, that would capture the intent of what we want to do.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    The Commission may with the authority of the Attorney-General? Yes?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, for the sake of consistency, may I
    submit that we ask the draftsperson to look at the provision that we couched for the Office of the Special Prosecutor's Bill? It is a very recent law that we could lift it from and so satisfy the requirement. That is how come the office of the Special Prosecutor is functioning the way it is.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    I have a problem with using the Office of the Special Prosecutor as a benchmark because that was set up specifically to identify certain cases for that agency to prosecute. This has a different object.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, exactly so and that was my petition too because Article 88 (4) of the Constitution puts it beyond doubt, that you must prosecute in the name of the Attorney-General or he gives you a fiat to prosecute. So Article 88 (4) is clear and we said we did not need to put “on the authority of the Attorney-General” there again because criminal cases are to be prosecuted at the instance of the Attorney-General but we were persuaded by the Hon Majority Leader.
    I think that the reasoning was that the Attorney-General can give you a fiat only if there is an enabling law that gives you the power to prosecute and
    then in accordance with the enabling law, he gives you the fiat. So we should put it there to strengthen the hand of the Attorney-General to give the fiat. That was why we came to that conclusion.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am actually not in favour of what the argument canvasses because I looked at the rendition carefully, save that I am not in favour of:
    “regulate and coordinate activities related to the arrest, investigation of offences connected with the illicit production, processing and trafficking narcotic drugs and precursors.”
    Mr Speaker, if you go to the original rendition, the last line after the conjunctive word is; “on the authority of the Attorney-General, prosecute offences under this Act.” So that is the only thing that we need to bring to make the rendition complete.
    In making this particular amendment, we need to advert our minds to the original rendition and once we do that, then all we need to do is after the conjunctive word, bring everything and it makes the law very simple and clear.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    I think that we are agreed.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the reason we cannot do what Hon Ahiafor is requesting is that if we bring it at the end of the amendment that we have proposed, it would mean that even the coordination of the activities related to the arrest must be done on the authority of the Attorney-General which is not what we are seeking for.
    So it is the reason we are breaking the clause into two parts, otherwise, it would suggest that even the coordination should be done at the instance of the Attorney-General and that is not what has been proposed. I think that the better way is what you proposed Mr Speaker.
    Mr Banda 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the rendition of Hon Ahiafor by the addition -- [Interruption]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    I think that should be by adding at the end, “and on the authority of the Attorney-General, prosecute offences…”.
    Mr Banda 1:44 p.m.
    So there would be no ambiguity at all, it is clear.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
    If we added that phrase at the end of what had already been agreed on, we would achieve our intent. Is that right?
    So the new rendition would be,
    “co-ordinate activities related to the arrest and investigation of offences connected with the illicit production, processing and traffic in narcotic drugs and precursors and on the authority of the Attorney-General, prosecute offences under this Act;”
    It would be complete.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the value is the same except that there should be a comma after “and”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
    It could even be a semi-colon to demonstrate that it is totally a new phrase. [Laughter]
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, if there should be a semi-colon, it should precede “and”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
    The semi-colon should precede with with “and” to demonstrate that this clause 3 (a) is different from the phrase preceding it.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am rising to pray the Hon Majority Leader that we have been told that commas, semi-colons and
    any punctuation marks should be left to the draftspersons.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
    Very well, we would rather amend the redrafted clause 3 (a) to include, “and on the authority of the Attorney- General, prosecute offences under this Act;”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
    We would go to item numbered (vi) then. I intended to finish clause 3 but they are many and it is 2.00 p.m. already.
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, paragraph (b) subparagraph (i), line 1, delete “and” and insert “or” and further delete “sea” and insert “water bodies”.
    Mr Speaker, it would now read;
    “take measures
    (i) to eliminate the import or export by land, water bodies or air of illicit narcotic drugs and precursors for illicit purposes;”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
    There are two items numbered (vi); it should be (vii).
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, paragraph (b) subparagraph (ii), line 1, delete “with the assistance of” and insert “in collaboration with”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read;
    “take measures
    (ii)to secure, in collaboration with the relevant competent authority where necessary, the coastal landing sites of fishermen against the import and export of narcotic drugs;”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, you are still on your feet. If you are done, kindly resume your seat.
    Dr Anthony Akoto-Osei 1:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, could the Hon Chairman of the Committee tell me the difference between, “with the assistance of” and “in collaboration with” to make that deletion and insertion?
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is consistent with the amendment we have done in the earlier clauses.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
    Very well; I will put the Question.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before you put the Question, the Hon Chairman proposed that we delete “and” and insert “or”. Looking at the rendition carefully, we do not intend to read “import” and “export” disjunctively; it should be conjunctive. Eliminate import or --
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have gone past that. The Hon Member is on the wrong one. He is not listening to the Hon Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
    So let me put the Question -- [Interruption] --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think what we did in the clause 3 (b), apart from the deletion of “with the assistance of” and insertion of “in collaboration with”, we proposed to delete “where necessary” so that it would read;
    (ii) to secure, in collaboration with the relevant competent authority, the coastal landing sites of fishermen against the import and export of narcotic drugs;”.
    It adds no value to that subclause.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
    Very well, I will put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
    Hon Members, having regard to the state of Business of the House, I direct that the House sits outside the regular Sitting hours.
    Now, Hon Member for Akatsi South, do you still want to move your Motion of the “or” and “and”?
    Mr Ahiafor 1:54 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, I intend to do it before you put the Question on the entire clause 3.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
    I am offering you the opportunity to move it now.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:54 p.m.
    Very well, Mr Speaker, with your leave, I am not comfortable with the deletion of “and” and insertion of “or” because if we look at the entire rendition, it is
    dealing with both “import and export” and not “import or export”. So we should read it conjunctively and not disjunctively. The “Or” is disjunctive but “and” is conjunctive. So we should not delete the conjunctive word, “and” and substitute it with the disjunctive word, “or”. It is both activities that they are supposed to eliminate.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe the Hon Fuseini and Hon Shaibu who are the graduates of the modern school of drafting would indicate to our Hon Colleague that “or” is conjunctive as well except that either of them can stand alone.
    Mr Speaker, but he was in that school -- [Laughter] -- Mr Speaker, could we proceed?

    Hon Members, I think in this instance, “or” is the appropriate word and so, let us proceed. Item numbered (vii)? In fact, there is an error in the numbering and so there were two (vi)s, I corrected or changed the second (vi) to (vii) and so what is (vii)

    on page 8 of the Order Paper will now be (viii).
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, paragraph (b) subparagraph (iv) line 2, after “drugs” insert “and plants”.
    Mr Speaker, so that reads 2:04 p.m.
    “Take measures for the early destruction or disposal of narcotic drugs and plants that had been seized or confiscated”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, paragraph (c), line 2 after “and”, insert “plants”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, line 2, there is another amendment. We said that we should insert “elimination” after “control”. So that it will read:
    “collect, collate and disseminate information for the use by stakeholders in the control and elimination of narcotics drugs and plants and illicit use of precursors”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    So what will be the final rendition?
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, paragraph (e), line 2, delete “agencies” and insert “bodies” and in line 3, delete “drugs” and insert “drugs, plants”.
    The final rendition is:
    “take measures to strengthen co-operation between law enforcement agencies, welfare institutions and bodies connec- ted with the eradication of or reduction in illicit dealing in narcotic drugs, plants and precursors”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, paragraph (f), line 1, before “narcotic” insert “and harm caused by the use of” and in lines 2 and 3, delete “drug
    addicts” and insert “persons with substance use disorders”.
    Mr Speaker, the final rendition will be 2:04 p.m.
    “adopt measures to reduce the demand and harm caused by the use of narcotic drugs through education, treatment and the rehabilitation of persons with substance use disorders”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    Hon Members, are we clear? Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, paragraph (g), line 1, delete “public agencies” and insert “bodies” and in line 2, delete “root”.
    Mr Speaker, the final rendition will be 2:04 p.m.
    “advise the relevant bodies and policy initiatives to eliminate and prevent the causes of drug trafficking, the abuse of narcotic drugs and the use and diversion of precursors for illicit purposes”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think wherever we have narcotic drugs, consequentially, we
    should insert; “and plants” so that it will read: “the abuse of narcotic drugs and plants and the use and diversion of precursors for illicit purposes”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, paragraph (h), delete “drug addiction” and insert “substance use disorders”.
    Mr Speaker, so, the final rendition of paragraph (h) will read 2:04 p.m.
    “ensure that substance use disorder is treated as a public health issue”.
    Dr A. A. Osei 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in item (xi), the Hon Chairman replaced “drug addiction” with “substance use disorders”. So, by assumption, drug addiction is equivalent to “substance use disorders” and not “disorder” because there is more than one disorder. So we cannot leave it at “disorder”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, paragraph (f) reads: “and the rehabilitation of persons with substance use disorders”. So, that is different from paragraph (h).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    Yes, I think so.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    Item numbered xiii?
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, paragraph (k), line 2, delete “trade” and insert “abuse of and dealings” and after “drugs” insert “and plants”.
    Mr Speaker, it seems we have some typographical errors on the Order Paper; you may endorse us that we correct it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:14 a.m.
    Tell me what amendment you are proposing.
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I propose that we delete “trades” in line 2, and insert “dealings”. And would add “plants” after ‘‘drugs''. The final rendition would read:
    “Conduct baseline studies and services in the country on the abuse of and dealings in narcotic drugs and plants.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:14 a.m.
    Item (xiv)?
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, - - paragraph (l), line 2, before “import” insert “export” and in line 4, delete “importation” and insert “import and export”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 2:14 a.m.
    “Foster close collaboration, vigilance controls and monitor the practice and procedure for the export, import and re-export of precursors and other allied substances with the appropriate bodies in order to prevent abuse of the import and export by diversion.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Bandah 2:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is something that has escaped us though that provision has been determined. If you grant me leave, I would want the House to re-visit it.
    Mr Speaker, item numbered (vii), clause 3 2:14 a.m.
    if we read clause 3 (b) (iv), it gives the Commission the power to destroy seized items, but at the winnowing level, we agreed that we
    needed to insert ‘on the orders of the Court'. If we do not bring in that caveat, they would assume that they have the power upon seizure, to destroy without the orders of the Court.
    And I do not think that is appropriate. The Court would have to give them the power to destroy otherwise, they would just be seizing and be going on destruction spree. And I do not think that is in tandem with our legal jurisprudence.
    Mr Speaker, I would therefore like to propose that we prefix (iv) with the phrase “on the orders of the Court to destroy, dispose narcotic drugs that have been confiscated”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:14 a.m.
    Hon Members, that is for the consideration of the House. We just considered the Report of the Ghana Standards Authority and the biggest challenge they face is, items that have been found to be substandard and seized, and because they have not obtained a Court order to destroy them, they are clogged in their warehouses; they do not have space to contain any more.
    In the absence of a Court order, the danger that the case may travel another ten years may also become a challenge so it is for the consideration of the House.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is in total accordance with the rule of law if this House gives the institution the power to seize and destroy; we would be acting in accordance with the law. This is because in the Minerals and Mining Law (Amendment) Act, we gave the Minister the power to seize and confiscate. [Interruption]--
    Mr Speaker, your observation is very timely 2:14 a.m.
    if for instance, the drug -- and in this country, we have seized drugs which have turned into something else.
    Secondly, if the narcotic plants have been cultivated and they are seen, would we have to go to Court for an order to destroy the farm? No! we would be stretching the rule of law too far.
    Mr Ahiafor 2:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe strongly that the amendment being proposed by the Hon Chairman of the Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs is in order; this would be in line with the audi alteram partem rule. This is because if we give the opportunity that the Commission should seize and destroy, there would not be any opportunity for the other party to be heard. It is only when it is going to be by an order of the Court that the Court would have the opportunity to listen to the other party. That is why all along, we want the
    destruction to be based on the Court order.
    Dr A. A. Osei 2:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, even though I agree with my good Friend, the phrase he used is not known in this House; he has to explain. The common sense part is all right but when he goes to this ‘audi alteram partem', he confuses the House.
    Mr Ahiafor 2:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it simply means that we must give the other party a hearing. What it means is that if we give the absolute power to seize and destroy, we would not give the other party the opportunity to be heard before the destruction.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:14 a.m.
    Hon Members forget that this is not a courtroom. In the courtroom, we are encouraged to use the Latin words and all members are expected to understand that so forgive them.
    Mr Kpodo 2:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are talking about narcotic drugs; very harmful, prohibited, then, it is seized, now it is carried to Court to get permission from the Court to destroy it. That was how some narcotic drugs changed into konkonte powder.
    Mr Speaker, so once it is confirmed it is narcotic drug and it is
    Mr Shaibu Mahama 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is for the same reason that it must go to Court for that confirmation.
    We do not want the situation where somebody sits somewhere and say he has got some substance confirmed to be narcotic. The court needs to know that it is the real confirmed substance and to give the other party -- [Interruption].
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
    Anyway, let me also say that narcotic drugs may be imported with permission. For those who manufacture analgesic. If you seize it from me, I must be given the permission to show that I actually have the authority to import it. That is the only challenge I have with seizing and destroying it. You may destroy somebody's properly obtained substance.
    Yes, Dr Kwabena Nuamah, what do you want to say?
    Dr Kwabena Nuamah 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I wanted to say that somebody could even seize your maize flour and destroy it with premise that it is narcotic substance just because he does not like you if we give this power to the Commission. So the court must always be given the authority to prescribe its destruction so that we do not allow people to abuse it.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the court should come in, really, it is to establish whether or not the substance is narcotic. In this provision, we are talking about when the fact has already been established. It does not say that it is for the end destruction or disposal suspected narcotic drugs. So that fact has already been established that it is a narcotic substance which must be destroyed.
    Mr Speaker, if they are saying that we need to establish that the substance is narcotic, that is a different matter, but when we talk about destruction in this language, it means that it is known that it is a narcotic substance of plant which must be destroyed and early enough.
    Mr Banda 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are talking about two words here. [Interruption.]
    Mr Speaker, seizure could take place before the matter gets to court. Who establishes that what has been seized is a drug. Is it the Commission? We all know that even where a person is arrested of having committed an offence in connection with a drug, when the substance is taken to court, the court makes an order that the substance ought to be taken to the forensic laboratory to be established whether that substance is a drug or not before the court even starts with the trial of the matter. So the establishment of whether the substance is a drug or not is always done on the orders of the court. If we are saying that even upon seizure of a substance suspected to be a narcotic, the Commission should be given the mandate to destroy without resort to the court --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, if you could look at it again, it is for the early destruction or disposal of narcotic drugs that have been seized or confiscated. At what point do we seize or confiscate?
    Mr Banda 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we can seize upon arrest. That is seizure. To the best of my knowledge, confiscation is when the court makes
    an order that the substance has to be confiscated. However, seizure comes even before trial.
    So in my view, it would be dangerous. If we were to leave it as it is that the Commission should have the power to destroy without resort to the court. This is because that is the implication that even upon seizure of a narcotic substance, the Commission has the power to destroy it.
    Mr Speaker, I do not think we would be doing this nation any good if we were to give the Commission the power to destroy without resort to the court to establish the veracity or otherwise of what the Commission says.
    Mr Chireh 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was the Chairman of the Confiscated Assets Committee at the era of the Provincial National Defence Council (PNDC). We had the terms we were using. Seizure and confiscation were interchangeable. This is because if it is a law, the law could say your assets are seized.
    The issue is whether we would want the substance be disposed of. The answer is yes, it should be as early as possible. We do not go to court
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
    Who gives the order?
    Mr Chireh 2:24 p.m.
    In the case where something has been impounded, in the process, you also cite those who --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
    So you are talking about a court giving the order. That is what the proposed amendment is about, that if we leave the courts as it is, it might be opened to the interpretation that a court order is not needed to destroy a narcotic substance. Therefore we should put subject to the order of the court there. To the best of my knowledge, that is the proposed amendment.
    Mr Alexander K. Afenyo- Markin 2:24 p.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
    Let Hon Chireh conclude.
    Mr Chireh 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Par- liamentary Affairs raised this issue at the winowing committee, and we defeated him. [Laughter] He is bringing it back here. This is all I wanted to add.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
    Now, we are at Plenary.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity. Earlier, you posed the question to the Hon Chairman of the Committee whether seizure and confiscation are one and the same.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
    The issue was, at what point do we seize or confiscate?
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 2:34 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Later, theHon Member for Wa West tried to make a point that they are used interchangeably. May I refer to the law in fortifying the point I would want to make? Sections 23 and 24 of the Economic and Organised Crime Office Act, 2010 (Act 804) make provisions on seizure and section 50 to 53 also makes provisions speci-fically on confiscations.

    So I just want to make the point that by our own enactment, we have distinguished between the meanings of “seizure” and “confiscation”.

    Mr Speaker, the point again is whether or not upon seizure, we need a court order to destroy. I would want to know; the law on narcotics, is it not the case that it is when one is in possession without authorisation from the Ministry of Health that it becomes an offence?

    Again, is it not the law that it is upon export and the import without authorisation that it becomes an offence? So if we construe seizure to

    mean destruction; denying the one in possession of its permanent use or possession, or for whatever purpose without going through the court, then in an event where the allegation is that the person does not have the authorisation from the Hon Minister, and he challenges that he has it, at the court, one would still be fortified by the seizure law to destroy. So the provisions are not absolute. They interlock and they interplay. So we would have to look at what point.

    The Hon Majority Leader is looking in my direction, and when he does that, it means that he may want to challenge me or intimidate me.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:34 p.m.
    Hon Member, you should address me.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 2:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not know whether this has to do with --[ Interruption] -- I do not want to talk about its relevance in enhancing politics, but --[ Interruption] --Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader can intimidate a person. He has a way he does it from the front. He and the Hon Yieleh Chireh.
    Mr Speaker, all the point I want to make therefore is that if the Hon Chairman seeks to propose -- [Interruption] -- I need to make the
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:34 p.m.
    If we read the clause, it appears to me that the intention is that at the end of the process, it should be quickly disposed of. However, from the Hon Chairman's proposed amendment, he appears to bring the suggestion that, that clause may also be opened to another interpretation, and so, if we add “with a court order” then we seal it. For me, that is all there is about this; the danger that the clause may be opened to another interpretation lends itself to another interpretation, which is what he tries to avoid. Therefore we should make progress
    by whether this would change the situation or not.
    Yes, Hon Ranking Member, what is the position?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is just a policy issue. It is not about interpretation. We can constitute a body and give it judicial powers, and they would be fully within the law if they do this. That was why I said it is a policy issue.
    Mr Speaker, I followed the argument of my learned Friend, the Hon Afenyo-Markin, and I was being encouraged until he somehow departed.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe we are just splitting hairs.
    Mr Speaker, the provision is that the Commission shall take measures for the early destruction or disposal of narcotic drugs and plants that have been seized or confiscated. What is the meaning of this? That is why I say that we are merely splitting hairs.
    As I said, it is crystal clear that measures are being taken in the destruction of narcotic drugs and plants. I indicated earlier that they are not suspected at this stage to be narcotic drugs. It has been established that they are narcotic drugs and plants. I therefore think that we are splitting hairs about nothing, so we may go on.
    Dr. A. A. Osei 2:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think you gave your guidance when you gave an example of people who may legally import drugs. I therefore think that we should take note, but his point is well taken. For the avoidance of doubt, we should not leave people to have interpretations of their own. The court must be there, so that there would be no reason for anybody --
    My good friend, Hon Kpodo talked about certain laws, but they do not apply in Ghana.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:34 p.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Members, at this stage, my view is that it would not make any difference whether we add “with the order of the court” or not. We should take it from the functions. In clause 3 (b), it says “take measures for the early destruction or disposal of narcotic drugs that have been seized or confiscated.”
    In my view, if we take it from there, it would be at the end of the process, after it has been ascertained that it is a narcotic drug, and the person who holds it is without authority. I therefore do not think that we need to make any further amendment.
    Hon Kpodo, I would not further open the discussion on this matter. I would want to put the Question. When I finish the vote, I would hear you on it.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 3 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:44 p.m.
    Hon Members, it is almost 3 o'clock and I intend to bring proceedings to a close, so let us bring the --
    -- 2:44 p.m.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:44 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe we would want to conclude on clause 3 which is what you have done.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:44 p.m.
    I have done that.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:44 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, but there is just a minor one which is supposed to be consequential for clause 3 (m) which is not advertised. It reads:
    “enlist and foster public support to educate people on prohibited activities related to narcotic drugs and plants…”
    That is the minor --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:44 p.m.
    I would give the direction that wherever there is “narcotic drugs” --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:44 p.m.
    So with that understanding, we have finished with clause 3 now and you could bring the gavel down on clause 3 although you have not put the Question on the entire clause.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:44 p.m.
    I direct that in respect of clause 3, wherever appropriate, the drafts- persons should add “and plants” wherever there is “narcotic drugs”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 3 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:44 p.m.
    That brings us to the end of Consideration Stage of the Narcotics Control Commission Bill, 2019 for today.
    ADJOURNMENT 2:44 p.m.