Debates of 6 Feb 2020

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 11 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon Members, correction of Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, 5th January, 2020.
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon Members, any correction to the Official Report of Friday, 29th November, 2019?
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon Members, there was no Statements. We have
item numbered 3, Urgent Question in the name of Hon Helen Ntoso, the Hon Member for Krachi West to ask the Hon Minister for Health an Urgent Question.
Mr Kwasi Ameyaw-Cheremeh 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I called the Hon Minister for Health this morning and the indication he gave was that he understood the Question to be an oral Question. So an Answer is being prepared and he would be ready to answer the Question on Tuesday. So with your leave, if we could reschedule the Question for Tuesday to enable the Hon Minister to come and answer.
Mr Kwame Governs Agbodza 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, this understanding was brought to our attention at conclave and I think it is appropriate for us to wait for the Hon Minister to bring the Answers next week.
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
Very well.
At the Commencement of Public Business, item listed 5. Hon Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs?
Mr Cheremeh 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, Hon Patrick Yaw Boamah would present the Paper on behalf of the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
PAPERS 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
Item listed 6, Motion.
Mr Cheremeh 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, item listed 6 stands in the name of the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. She is not available. If we may stand it down.
Mr Speaker, I have an indication from the Hon Chairman of the Finance Committee that we could take the item listed as 8.
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
Item listed 8, Motion. Hon Chairman of the Committee?
Mr Agbodza 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the understanding we had from both leaders yesterday was that there were questions as to whether the Finance Committee actually was well vested with the authority to deal with the Contract Agreement instead of the Financing Agreement because what went to them was a Contract Agreement, and we did not get a clear direction from leadership whether we could take that Report. I thought leadership was supposed to give us a direction whether they would want to withdraw this and redirect it.
Also, as a matter of fact, nobody here has got a copy of the Report. [Interruption.] Do you have one? Who else has one? Almost the whole Chamber does not have a copy of the Report.
So, Mr Speaker, I am not sure we are ready to take this Report currently. I do not have one.
Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have been away. I just came back last night.
The referral which came before the House went on recess was a referral signed by three Ministers; the Ministers for Finance, Energy and Agriculture and Food? This had no
Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member for Adaklu?
Mr Agbodza 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, that is not the point we are making. There are conventions in this House. When we have Credit Agreements, normally, the Finance Committee does it. I am not a Member of the Finance Committee. When issues of the contract were raised at the Finance Committee, the Hon Chairman told us to wait till it came to the subject matter committee; that is the Commercial Agreement was to come, then we could deal with it.
Mr Speaker, this is a critical project and a complicated one. Building a hydro dam -- I am not sure how the Hon Chairman of the Finance Committee can tell me that he understood all the issues about building a hydro dam and that the Report he has brought to this House should be enough. In the case where he said that they added the Leadership of the Committees on Food, Agriculture and Cocoa Affairs and Mines and Energy, the truth is, the Minority Side did not attend that meeting -- [Interruption] -- It is a fact that we were not there, and the Leadership of those Committees could not have been able to do a better job than the subject matter committees themselves.
Mr Speaker, nobody would stampede it. We just want the right thing to be done. We would
encourage the Hon Chairman of the Finance Committee to liaise with Leadership and Mr Speaker, so that we could make progress with it. It should not be “they are there and we are here”. It is not about them or us; it is about how we can move this process forward appropriately.
Mr Speaker, I believe now that we do not have the Report -- [Interruption] -- I am in the Minority Leadership seat at the moment and nobody has got a report. In fact, we do not have the Ranking Member on our Side here. I think the process can be suspended. Maybe, later in the day, we can make progress when we have some understanding. Currently, we have serious problems about taking the Report. I do not believe the Hon Chairman of the Finance Committee has got all that to tell us that his Committee took adequate steps to produce a report to build a hydro dam, and I am a bit uncomfortable with that at this stage.
.
rose
Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Mr Quashigah 11:10 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
A copy of the Report has just been given to me. The Hon Chairman of
the Finance Committee mentioned specifically and repeatedly that the leadership of the Committee on Committee on Food, Agriculture and Cocoa Affairs participated. I would want to refresh his memory if indeed the leadership of that Committee really participated. The Hon Chairman of the Food, Agriculture and Cocoa Affairs, who sits next to me, expressed absolute shock when he said the leadership of that Committee was part, the reason for which he has moved to confer with the Leadership of his Side.
Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Hon Member, just in case -- when was this shock transmitted?
Mr Quashigah 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, a while ago, just before the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Food, Agriculture and Cocoa Affairs left his seat to join the Deputy Majority Chief Whip.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
rose
Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Yes, Hon Yieleh Chireh?
Mr Chireh 11:10 a.m.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Hon Member, subject matter committee only, irrespective of the financial implications?
Mr Chireh 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, no. What happens in that case is that --
Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
No, Hon Member. You are an authoritative Member of the House, so I just wanted clarity. Is it always to the subject matter committee only?
Mr Chireh 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, not to the subject matter committee only.
Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Hon Member, say it in full, then we are all advised.
Mr Chireh 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, on occasions, the Finance Committee is added. That is where the Finance Committee would ask the subject matter committee leadership to join the Finance Committee, even in considering the terms of agreement of the loan or contract. But in this case, there have been issues that were raised by the Hon Minority Leader -- [Interruption] -- He is here; he will tell you when. We should not hurry about it because there is -- When did we come? And today when Hon Members are not in the Chamber, do they want us to discuss a major thing like this? It is not right -- [Interruption] -- I can raise the issue of quorum in that case.
rose
Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Yes, Hon First Deputy Speaker?
Mr J. Osei-Owusu 11:10 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, yesterday, I was here when the Hon Minority Leader raised the issue that the document was referred to the Finance Committee only. The Majority Leader affirmed that it was supposed to be joined by the leadership of the two other Committees; Food, Agriculture and Cocoa Affairs and Mines and Energy.
Indeed, the Hon Chairman of the Finance Committee has just confirmed that for those two committees, the referral was for them to join the Finance Committee.
First, let us confirm whether the referral was indeed to the Finance Committee, and the leadership of Food, Agriculture and Cocoa Affairs and Mines and Energy Committees were asked to join.
Second, Mr Speaker, the Report is before us now and the House would discuss it. If anybody thinks that there is anything missing, if anybody wants anything to be added or if at the end of it, we are dissatisfied with the Committee's work, it is open to us to say that having read the Report, we think that, there are shortcomings, so it should be taken back because certain parts have not been adequately considered.
Mr Speaker, I think that it is not open to anybody to say that he or she refuses to participate in considering the Report, therefore, it cannot be a Report. I do not think we should encourage that. When a person is prevented, it is one thing; but when he or she voluntarily refuses to participate for whatever reason, it may be a good one. That should not be a reason for stalling the
Committee's work because somebody else refused to participate. Otherwise, I think that the Report is before us, if there is anything that should be added, we should do so. If there are things that were not adequately discussed, it is opened to us to say the Committee should go back and present the Report.
Mr Speaker, I think we have gone past the stage where we would talk about whom it was referred to. The records would reflect whom it went to. What we should do now is, to discuss whether the Report satisfies our requirements and whether it has been adequately discussed. If there are any shortcomings and we want them ratified, this is the stage to do it.
Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Member.
rose
Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I thank you very much.
Mr Speaker, it is not for nothing that you engage Hon Leaders at conclave, so that we have an understanding of the issues that you
Mr Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Hon Member, let us be a bit careful here.
If we want to establish that the Hon Member was not present at that meeting, then this is definitely not the way. This is because we have always separated Chamber from Committee. This House is also ad idem and clear on that matter. If the Hon Member's Committee Chairman calls him, and he is elsewhere but is able to come for the Committee meeting, he -- [Interruptions] --
Hon Members, those who are shouting, please, at least, show some regard when the Chair is speaking.
Hon Minority Leader, you should therefore leave that line. You know how to approach this issue seriously, if you still want to pursue it.
Mr Iddrisu 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am within the Standing Orders, but I would be guided. Standing Order 53, says that after prayers, the Rt Hon Speaker is required by the Standing Orders to go through the Votes and Proceedings. Therefore, it is not out of place for me to make reference to the authoritative Votes and Proceedings. I am however guided.
Mr Speaker, the Hon First Deputy Speaker --
Mr Speaker 11:20 a.m.
No, Hon Minority Leader, if you seek to quote the Standing Order, then you should quote it well, so that we go through because reference to a Standing Order cannot be -- once you go into that terrain you must go into it deep enough.
Mr Iddrisu 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would quote Standing Order 53. Under “Order of Business”, “Correction of Votes and Proceedings and Official Reports”.
This is a mandatory obligation of this House, as you take us through it as the head of this organ. Therefore, we refer to this as an authoritative source. I cannot refer to any other secondary source than to rely on this. I am however guided. That is not my
-- 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Hon Member, if that is so, then you are out of order. This is a mere reference to the order of Business. I say that this has nothing to do with a person attending a Committee meeting without coming to plenary. It is therefore totally out of place in the Standing Order that you have read. If you would want to abandon that pathway, then you should do so and continue.
Mr Iddrisu 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is abandoned, so now we do not need to correct the Votes and
Mr Speaker 11:20 a.m.
A contract agree- ment with financial implications in this House? Since when?
Hon Minority Leader, I am very much interested in the rules and procedures. If you are speaking authoritatively, then please, I wish to draw your attention to the fact that this is a financial matter. It is not only financial; it has got other inter-sectorial implications, hence, inter-sectorial Committees. Let us get that straight.
To say that a thing which is clearly monetary in this matter is not for the Finance Committee, I refuse to understand. The referral was made in this House, and clearly so. I would however give a ruling. I would come to that, but please convince me on some other matters.
Mr Iddrisu 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon First Deputy Speaker said that there is a Report before us. Repeatedly even as we go for committee meetings and there is a report to plenary, we are sometimes told why you did not raise those issues at the committee meetings. Therefore, if we hurriedly went to a committee meeting to consider an amount of US$1 billion loan, which has an impact on debt distress and the economy, and come back within 30 minutes or one hour to present a report, do you expect us to adopt it without an input from the Minority Side of the House?
Mr Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Hon Minority Leader, respectfully, again -- there was the attempt to interrupt you, but I stopped it. We should therefore move in a direction that would be proper. This matter has been canvased, as to the time there. The matter of time has been canvassed, and I had already ruled upon that. I said that if a committee meeting ended at a certain time, it does not mean that it started at 10.00 a. m. We should
face it; otherwise, we would throw our own procedures and the things that we always do into a limbo.
I have been a member of the Energy Committee of this House, which for good reasons, sat at 6.30 a. m. So, do not lead us into murky waters. This is because I do not want the un-informed to say that this meeting was sort of performtorily undertaken. You should please make other points.
Mr Iddrisu 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I know, and I recognise that there is a Government and a Majority party, but what I would not agree to is to circumvent our process and procedures.
In the Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, 4th February, 2020, it reads:
“The Committee met on Monday, 23rd December, 2019 at 9.30 p. m. and considered the following:
1. EPC Turnkey Contract Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana (represented by the Ministry of Energy), Power-
china International Group Limited for an amount of
US$366.011,991.38
2. EPC Turnkey Contract Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana (represented by the Ministry of Energy) and Powerchina for an amount of
US$55,379,808.67.
The Hon Chairman, Dr Mark Asssibey-Yeboah presided. The following Hon Members were present:
Mr Kwabena Amankwah Asiamah; Dr Anthony Akoto Osei; Mr Kobina Tahir Hammond; Mr Frederick Opare-Ansah; Mr Kwame Anyimadu-Antwi; Mr Matthew Nyindam; Dr Kwabena Twum-Nuamah who was supposed to be flying as I indicated; Mr Daniel Agyekum Aboagye; Dr Nana Ayew Afriye; Mr Kojo Oppong Nkrumah; Mr Issah Fuseini; Mr Anthony Effah.
Then it provides “In attendance” which Table Office should capture again.
Mr Speaker, but significantly for me, it concludes 11:30 a.m.
Mr Nyindam 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would like to beg the Hon Minority Leader to perform his responsibility as the Minority Leader and not to run away --
Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Hon Member, the Hon Minority Leader may not take kindly to advice. I would be glad if you would not advise him but you would make your point on the issue on the Floor and I will rule.
Mr Nyindam 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am guided. This is not a new document. I remember very well that if the Majority
wanted to use their numbers, we would not be where we are today. I remember the day this Report was supposed to be taken, which was on the 24th December, 2019. Issues were raised and we all agreed for the interest of the nation. The Hon Minority Leader agreed with the Hon Majority Leader that, looking at the time, we should not take the Report but Hon Members should be given ample time.
Mr Speaker, from 24th December, 2019 to today is enough time for Members to have read the document that they had and claimed was so voluminous that we could not take it that day. For the Minority to come back today after one month to say that because other committee members were not involved in the committee sitting and for that matter, the Report should not be taken, I think the Minority is trying to, for some reason, stampede the progress of the Project that we have.
Mr Speaker, why are we talking about this issue today? It is because we have had enough time to read the document that was given to us. For the Hon Minority Leader to voluntarily say that he would not take part in the meeting -- [Interruption] -- yes, the referral was made here; unless they are questioning Mr Speaker's referral.
It was on this Floor that the referral was made; it was not made by the Majority, it was made by Mr Speaker and on those bases they claimed that they did not have enough time to take the debate that day.
If the Majority wanted to use their numbers, we would have done so. We have given them the time to go and look at the document and if they have nothing meaningful to add, let us take our report. If they have something meaningful to add, this is the opportunity for them to raise those issues. The Hon Minority Leader cannot do a u-turn and be quoting Votes and Proceedings to determine who was in the meeting and who was not in the meeting.
Hon Okudzeto Ablakwa, who is good at doing these corrections for us, was here but unfortunately, he did not see those corrections. He is good at doing those corrections for us. And there have been instances that members went to committee meetings but unfortunately, they were marked absent on the Floor here. We are all witnesses to these issues.
Mr Speaker, I think that the Minority Side have had enough time and for them to come and quote Votes and Proceedings to invalidate this particular Report, I think they are not being fair to the people of this
Mr Nyindam 11:30 a.m.


country; they should help us debate this particular report if they have issues - the Hon Majority Leader has said it and I want to repeat it. He said if at the end of the debate there are overwhelming issues and the House decides the report should be looked at again, we would do so. For the Hon Minority Leader to start demonising the report that he claimed he needed more time to read, I think they are trying to stampede the progress of the Pwalugu Dam.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
This is my ruling -- [Uproar] -- Hon Members, I would rule. What else? Should I abandon my duty?

Hon Members, what else? Do you want me to abandon my duty or what?
rose
Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Hon Minority Leader, in deference to your position, notwithstanding the ample time given you, I would allow you to make the final statement.
Mr Iddrisu 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am not a member of the Finance Committee. Hon Nyindam has said that members
of the Finance Committee were given ample time and it is only fair that you would hear from a member of the Finance Committee whether after the holidays they met as a Committee to consider and bring this Report.
Mr Speaker, for the record, we have nothing against Pwualugu Dam or irrigation development and its expansion; we have nothing against the expansion of electricity. Mr Speaker, but audi alterem partem; let a member of the Finance Committee tell us that after we went on holidays and came back they have met as a committee, if that was the essence.
Mr Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Thank you; I have heard you. I will proceed.
Hon Members, I remember clearly that -- [Interruption] -- It would be fine if we would listen. I did say clearly while even the Leaders were debating what time we would Sit, the Chief Justice matters and so on and so forth, that I am not interested in the Chief Justice matters. One thing that I knew was that the House was seized with a whole variety of business and that this honourable House would Sit and work till all pending matters had been fully dealt with -- surely to be supported by the Hansard. And I knew why I was doing so.

We are not here to single out any business but to do our business generally.

I did say inter alia, that if it involved we even sitting on Christmas day, we shall do so. So, all those with references, please let us give them out because I am only dealing with business which this honourable House is fully seized of accordingly.

The referral was made to the Finance Committee and leaders of the Committee on Food, Agriculture and Cocoa Affairs and Committee on Mines and Energy. Those whom it was referred to had the duty to do their work and report to this House. Those who choose to contribute may do so and those who do not want to contribute at committees may not do so.

Furthermore, we all know in this House that on both Sides, there have been all manner of boycotts at some time or the other which is fine. If a boycott arises, those who are seized with the work may do so and have to do so, otherwise, Government business and Ghana business would cease. No group, no matter what it belongs to, can arrest the business of the nation because they choose not

to take part in a particular business at a particular time.

That selectivity -- [Interruption] -- Hon Members, let decency prevail. That is that. There is undoubtedly a report and I remember clearly that I also ruled at one point that the Paper should be duly admitted and a report be made available to Hon Members and that there would be sufficient time during the break to study and contribute. For that matter we were not continuing at that time. I believe that there has been ample time for Hon Members to study this.

There is a report and there is no evidence to show that any process of this honourable House has not been followed. In fact, the reference to Standing Order 53 is manifestly out of place. The Hon Minority Leader talked about not being able to participate. Even as we speak today, I would say that I trust that would not happen because that would be another boycott approach which I would not recommend for any Side in this honourable House.

Hon Members, there have been references to the fact that some have not got the report. I will adjourn this matter to Tuesday for any Member who wants to do any research, analysis or presentation whatsoever to get himself or herself fully prepared.
Mr Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Let us face it; we are now only debating the matter. Please do your research and bring your facts, figures and analysis because a committee of this honourable House is not the House.

Hon Majority Chief Whip, next matter.
Mr Cheremeh 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, if we may consider item numbered 14, the Narcotics Control Commission Bill, 2019 at the Consideration Stage.
Mr Speaker 11:40 a.m.
The Hon First Deputy Speaker would please take the Chair. Item numbered 14, the Narcotics Control Commission Bill, 2019 at the Consideration Stage. [Pause]
Chairman of the Committee, where exactly are we now?
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 11:40 a.m.
STAGE 11:40 a.m.
Chairman of the Committee (Mr Kwame Seth Acheampong) 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we are on clause 4 (1)(i).
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4 subclause (1), paragraph (i), delete and insert the following:
“a representative of the Ministry of Interior not below the rank of a Director nominated by the Minister for the Interior”
Mr Speaker 11:40 a.m.
What is the justification?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 11:40 a.m.
The justification is that we are nominating a representative of the Ministry. With the current drafting principle, the representative who is going to be on the Council should not be below the rank of a Director. Also, the person is supposed to be nominated by the Minister for the sector and he is there as a representative of the sector.
Mr Joseph Yieleh Chireh 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the amendment. I was to move it but the Hon Chairman has done it very well for me and I thank him.
Mr Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Over here on the Order Paper, it stands in the name of both of you.
Mr Chireh 11:40 a.m.
The reason is that, in the main Bill, it talks about the representative of a Minister but it is not the Minister who would send the person but the Ministry. Our legislation would normally say the institution rather than the office holder as the head of that institution. That is why he has been chosen --
Mr Speaker 11:40 a.m.
So, you are agreeable to the amendment?
Mr Chireh 11:40 a.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr Kwame Governs Agbodza 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, can the Hon Chairman tell us why, for instance, we have representatives from the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), a representative from the Prison Service and we still need a representative of the Ministry of the Interior since all of them appear to be under --
Why could the Minister not nominate one of them to be part of the Committee? I just want clarification. You could explain to me why we needed all of them.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, this is a very specialised legislation. It is a cross-sectorial legislation and this would require the services of investigation. Crime is under the United Nations Organisation's convention on drugs and crime. We work with the preventive and control measures and at the same time with corrective measures. The corrective measures are managed by the Prisons Service; preventive measures are undertaken by the Customs Division of the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA); and then the crime management is by the Ghana Police Service.
Mr Speaker, we require the expertise of all these agencies under the sector to assist the Commission in the discharge of its duties. The Ministry is the overarching sector and leader of policy and it requires that its eye is always present there. So, the representative of the Minister is very crucial there as well.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 11:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (1), paragraph (j), line 3, delete “Director-General of the” and in line 4, delete “who is”.
The new rendition will be;
“The Director-General of the Criminal Investigations Department of the Police Service or a representative of the Criminal Investigations Department not below the rank of an Assistant Commissioner of Police nominated by the Inspector General of Police;”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 11:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (1) paragraph (k), delete. The reason for calling for the deletion of this is because the Director- General of the Commission who serves as the lead person in the institution is already on the Council. In modern administration and
management, we try as much as possible to prune down on large Boards. In this body, we have subcommittees where we would co- opt other interest groups and parties. Hence, we find it appropriate to take a member of staff from the Service who would be doubling up as an additional member. It would enlarge the Board.
At the same time, the Director- General is clothed with all the knowledge as far as the essence of council deliberations are concerned. Hence, the call for a deletion of the subclause.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:51 a.m.
Very well, Hon Members, I will put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 11:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (1), paragraph (l), line 2, delete “after Prosecutions” and add “or a representative not below the rank of Chief State Attorney nominated by the Attorney-General”.
Mr Speaker, the final rendition will be;
“The Attorney-General repre- sented by the Director of Prosecutions or --”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:51 a.m.
Why do you want to delete “Prosecutions” unless you are removing the entire “Director of Public Prosecutions”?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 11:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think it is a wrong advertisement.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:51 a.m.
Yes, Hon Ranking Member?
Alhaji I.A.B . Fuseini 11:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, what we are trying to achieve is, “the Director of Prosecutions or a representative not below the rank of Chief State Attorney nominated by the Attorney-General”.
We want a Director of the State Prosecutions Department to be part of the Board but if the Attorney- General cannot nominate him, he should nominate a person not below the rank of Chief State Attorney.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:51 a.m.
So, we are not deleting “Director of Public Prosecutions”; we are just deleting the semi-colon and adding “or”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 11:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (1), paragraph (m), line 2
delete “Director-General” and insert “Prisons Service”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition will be;
“The Director-General of the Prisons Service or a repre- sentative of the Prisons Service not below the rank of a Director- General nominated by the Director-General of the Prisons Service.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (1), paragraph (n), line 1, delete “one” and insert “a”.
The final rendition would read;
“A representative from the Armed Forces of Ghana not below the rank of a Colonel or its equivalent nominated by the Chief of Defence Staff; and”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 11:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (1), paragraph (o), delete.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 11:51 a.m.


Mr Speaker, per the same principle upon which we deleted paragraph (k), we are deleting paragraph (o) as well.
Mr Agbodza noon
Mr Speaker, the paragraph (o) that the Hon Chairman of the Committee intends to delete is about one representative of the Ministry of Education. For me, one sure way of dealing with drug abuse is education. Can the Hon Chairman of the Committee tell me why there is not a need for somebody from the Ministry of Education to be on the Board to advise?
Why do we think it is not necessary to have somebody from that outfit to be on the Board?
Mr K. S. Acheampong noon
Mr Speaker, when we move forward, in the body of the proposed Bill, clause 10 has to do with “Establishment of committees” and the principle by which we are reducing large Boards. We are establishing committees that will give us the opportunity to introduce members with special knowledge to assist the Board. Hence, we will invite those members to those committees to assist the board in the discharge of the duties of the Board.
There are four main pillars in management of the war on drugs. All those four main pillars are enlisted in the subclause; it is all about enforcement, drug demand and harm reduction, alternative development and appointments and promotions.
Mr Speaker, alternative develop- ment and drug demand and harm reduction are all part of the information and education and so, in areas where we will be advancing knowledge in the educational sector, we will require them to serve them in those committees. They have been provided for by law in this proposal.
Mr James Agalga noon
Mr Speaker, although, initially, I was in agreement with the proposed amendment, upon sober reflection, I strongly believe that the proposed amendment should be abandoned. This is because education is very critical when it comes to the institution of preventive measures in fighting drug abuse and addiction related issues especially, in our schools.
So, it is important that the Ministry of Education is represented at the level of the Board and not the committees because all the critical decisions will be taken at the level of the committee. In any case, as we speak, I have served on the Board of the Narcotics Control Commission
before and in fact, there is a representative of the Ministry of Education on that Board. I think that their representation has been very useful to the Narcotics Control Commission.
Mr Speaker, so, to delete their representation now, while considering this Bill, will not help matters. I would propose that the Hon Chairman abandons the amendment and we make progress.
Mr K. S. Acheampong noon
Mr Speaker, the Committee is managed by myself and my Hon Colleague, the Ranking Member. We have had a lot of conversations about this matter and we are not going to split hairs on this. I will abandon my amendment for us to make progress. I have consulted with my sponsor and I think I can allow this to go. So, I should just allow that to go.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Well, so, will that subclause stand as it is or you are proposing an amendment to it?
Mr K. S. Acheampong noon
Mr Speaker, I have no proposal to this amendment. I would allow it to stand as it is.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini noon
It is a consequential amendment.
Mr K. S. Acheampong noon
Mr Speaker, yes, it is true. The Hon Member is right.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini noon
Mr Speaker, instead of “one”, we use “a”.
Mr K. S. Acheampong noon
Mr Speaker, instead of “one”, following from what we did at clause 4 (vi), it is consequential.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Sorry, I do not understand. Following from what?
Mr K. S. Acheampong noon
Mr Speaker, following from what we did at roman numeral (vi), that is clause 4 (vi) we are just replacing the word “one” with “a”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Very well. At the beginning of subclause 1, paragraph (o), delete “one” and insert “a”.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi noon
Mr Speaker, sorry for not being able to catch your eye but I want to find ou; it seems to me that we will have a 14-member Board which is an even number and I want to draw the Hon Chairman's attention to that. This is because ideally, the total membership
Mr Bernard Ahiafor noon
Mr Speaker, with all due respect, I disagree with my Hon Learned Friend. There is no rule or law that says that membership of Boards must be odd numbers. It is not always the case that there will be a record of an odd number in attendance that is why the chairman of the Board has a casting vote. So, if the membership of the Board is even and the chairman has a casting vote, decisions will be taken and where there is a tie in a decision making exercise, the chairman will then use the casting vote to give a majority decision.
So, I do not see the rule or law which spells out that a membership of a Board must always be an odd number but not an even number.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi noon
Mr Speaker, I would say that by convention, this is the practice in this House for all the years that I have been here. We do not legislate to create problems or lacunas in future. If we make it an odd number, there is a probability that there will come a time that everybody would be present. Besides, what my Hon Learned Colleague is saying about a casting vote is never addressed in the Bill.
Therefore, if we have to cure it, let us cure it now. Either we add one more or take one out so that the number will be an odd number. So that in future, we would have actually legislated for problems that would be associated with quorum and so on.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Member, did you say that the casting vote is not legislated? It is not in this Bill.
All right. So, you have a choice to either add one more person or give the chairman a casting vote.
Mr Agalga noon
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader has a proposed amendment. His amendment was to get us to delete paragraph (o) but we have argued that it is very important and should stay as it is.
So, I think that in order to cure the anomaly -- [Interruption] -- is the casting vote there? Then let me yield to you.
Mr Ahiafor noon
Mr Speaker, when you look at clause 8(5) and with your permission, I read: “Matters before the Board shall be decided by a majority of the members present and voting and in the event of an equality of votes, the person presiding shall have a casting vote”.
Mr Speaker, it is clearly spelt out in the law. Therefore, to say that the person presiding does not have a casting vote in this particular Bill cannot be correct.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Yes, Hon Member, now you have a casting vote, do you still wish to add another member? Hon Minister, I saw you standing.
Mr Ambrose Dery noon
Mr Speaker, I think that the provision for the casting vote under clause 8 solves the problem. This is because I believe that the Hon Chairman wanted to get an odd number by dropping a representative from the Ministry of Education but education is indispensable in this matter. This is because they lead the youth who are our main target group.
Mr Speaker, so, let us leave it at the odd number so that it would be solved by the casting vote provision.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
There is another proposed amendment in clause 4 by the Hon Minority Leader where he is seeking for us to add the Director-General of
the Ghana Immigration Service or his representative not below the Deputy Director-General.
Mr Richard Quashigah 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I wish the Hon Minority Leader was here to advance his argument as to why he made this particular proposal, but I believe that the essence of the officers of the Ghana Immigration Service at the various entry points of our country are catered for by the officers of the Narcotics Control Board. So, it would only be a duplication if we should necessarily accept to add the Ghana Immigration Service.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
So, item numbered 14 (vii) is dropped. We would now move to item numbered (viii) standing in the name of the Hon Minority Leader.
Mr Kwame Governs Agbodza (on behalf of Mr Haruna Iddrisu 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (1), paragraph (o), delete and insert the following:
“(o) Director-General of the Ghana Immigration Service or his representative not below the Deputy Director-General”
Mr Speaker, however, we now know that we are not deleting (o) so this would be an additional clause that
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the amendment because if we look at the Memorandum accompanying the Bill, we would realise that the purpose of this Bill is more of enforcement than reformative. That is why I would support that the Ghana Immigration Service should be added and it would also cure the problem of having an even number on the Board. So, I support the amendment.
Mr Agalga 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am opposed to the proposed amendment and my reasons are that the Ghana Immigration Service is responsible for allowing entry into our country. So, whether a person is engaged in the importation or exportation of narcotics, the person would definitely pass through -- It is also important to note that these days officers of the Narcotics Control Board are also deployed at our entry points. For instance, at the airport when you cross the immigration check points, the next check point is the narcotics control check point.
Mr Speaker, the available Hon Leader talked about issues bothering on nationality and so on, but I would remind him that the Ministry of the Interior has not ceded that function to the Ghana Immigration Service yet. So, it is the preserve of that Ministry and the Hon Minister who is here would bear me out. The Ministry firmly holds on to issues bothering on nationality applications, dual nationality applications et cetera. At the same time the Ministry is also fully represented on the Board so this should cure all issues relating to nationality. However, whether a person is engaged in importation or exportation of narcotics or not, a person would necessarily have to pass through immigration when
entering or exiting the country. So, the proposed amendment would not add much.
Dr A. A. Osei 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am very surprised at the former Hon Deputy Minister of the Interior because we are talking about operational matters and policy making, but he is mixing the two. At the entry points of this country, the immigration officer is stationed there for operational purposes but this is a Board that would implement government policies. Mr Speaker, the two cannot be the same so I do not understand him. It is important that we would have an immigration officer who would know Ghana's policy on entry and exit as well as the new changes that would be implemented to inform the Narcotic Control Board, otherwise they would not know. That is why we would need the Director- General or a Deputy Director- General to be included.
Mr Speaker, policies are changed all the time so how would the Board know. The former Hon Deputy Minister should step down his objection so that we can move on.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is precisely the reason -- [Interrup-tion]
Mr Agalga 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have been advised to yield and so I would yield.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Hon Member, I have not given you the Floor.
Hon Fuseini, I am listening to you.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, even his argument defeats his objection because the people are at the entry points and drugs move in and out of the border. The Commission would have experts who would treat drug addiction, enforce drug laws, and investigate crimes so they would be able to tell the Ghana Immigration Service the modus operandi of these people. The immigration officers would know the routes that the people use so that they would be able to enforce the laws better. So, I think that the Hon Member should withdraw his objection.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, to further strengthen the need to include the Ghana Immigration Service, we further must go afield such that they should help in the control and patrol of the landing sites. We also said in clause 3 (j) that they would help to build an intelligence database on the activities of drug dealers. So, knowing the nationalities

of the people involved would be critical to this.
Mr A. Dery 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I just want to support by saying that, in fact, the operations of the Ghana Immigration Service are more ubiquitous than we think. They are in all the communities and they have an intelligence wing and so I think that it would be good to allow the amendment.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just a little consequential amendment before you put the Question. In line 2 of the proposed amendment, there is a personal pronoun -- “his representative”. I beg to further propose that it should read “a representative”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Item numbered (ix).
Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (2), line 1, before “members” insert “The Chairperson and other”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 12:20 p.m.
“(2) The Chairperson and other members of the Board shall be appointed by the President in accordance with article 70 of the Constitution.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Item 14(x)?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, add the following new subclause:
“The President in making the appointments shall ensure that at least three of the members are women.”
Mr Speaker, the reason for calling on H. E. the President to ensure that, this is captured in the body of the law is that in modern practice, as we all know, where the world is looking for enhancing and respecting rights, it is proper that we capture this as a very progressive country.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Is that problematic because it is almost 100 per cent institutional representation? The positions are given and in case we do not have people holding the position restricted
to him, do we still want him to appoint females. Why do we introduce that difficulty?
Mr Chireh 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we considered this important in the sense that the Hon Minister who would submit the names would first write to the agencies that are listed. However, in doing so, he should also further consult to ensure that if there are qualified people in this category, they should be considered.
If we look at the list, we know that some of them have people who qualify and are in these positions already, but they would prefer to send vociferous male persons. This is why we are guiding him. In this particular case, if the Hon Minister who submits the list feels there is nothing he could do about it, there would be a slight issue, but we think that we should guide the Hon Minister in this legislation that he should not submit the names of men only.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not intend to engage in any anticipations, but as we know, we have the Affirmative Action Bill in the pipeline. This is one of the insistence of that Bill, and this would respond adequately to the Bill that is in the pipeline. The President makes the appointments but the nominations would come from various
departments and agencies. Of course, the Hon Minister responsible for the Interior, sniffing around, would get to know who would be nominated. Then the Minister on behalf of the President, could send that signal whether it would be rotational for those institutions. Perhaps, it could lead the Hon Minister to provide that direction, but I believe the three being women out of 15 members certainly is required under the circumstances.
Mr Ahiafor 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there would be difficulty in the sense that, if we look at the composition of the governing body, it is purely institutional. It is only when the institutional representation is composed that the President comes in to appoint. The power is given to the Hon Minister to bring representations. At that moment, the President would not be involved. It is only when the various representations are made that the President would come in under article 70 to do those appointments. How would the President ensure that out of those institutional representation, at least, three are women? This is because the President does not have control over who would represent the Ministry.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
That should not be difficult if one is told to bring a woman from his agency. The challenge I envisage is that we have
Mr A. Dery 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think these are matters that could be resolved in the implementation. This is because the President would not issue appointments until he gets all the proposals together. At that stage, he would be able to tell how many women are in the basket. If we do not have, there is a way we could get them because of the representation. It is important that we allow this provision. We would be able to implement it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
There are two people whose voices I have not heard at all.
Hon Ayariga?
Mr Mahama Ayariga 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is a very progressive
provision to ensure that more women representation is seen in appointments to institutions or in governance arrangements in institutions.
It is possible to achieve this because, notionally, all appointments into the Public Service are done by the President. So if he appoints the Chief Executive of an organisation and its Board and says that they are to choose females to represent them in another body that he is supposed to constitute, it would be impossible for the organisation to say they would not bring a female representative. He appointed them and could tell them to bring a woman. That is perfectly possible.
However, at the same time, it is also perfectly possible that the organisation may not have a woman who falls within the category of people who are supposed to constitute the new body at all. So the impossibility could also arise from that circumstance even though the possibility of that circumstance, given the development in this country, would be very minimal.
If it is the desire of the promoters of the Bill that we maintain it this way and impose the obligation on Presidents to start thinking about how we could always get women to populate organisations who would then send representations to fill the
Commission, I think we could do that because there has been so much advocacy about ensuring that we have a certain percentage of women representation. Each time, we just give women a paltry figure and say, for instance that, at least, one shall be a woman.
This is because anytime we say the President should appoint and give a leeway of only two or three people and that only one shall be a woman, the one woman might end up being the only woman on that Board or Commission. So when we say, at least, three shall be women, it puts pressure on the President then we would be inching towards meeting the women quota in appointments to public agencies.
So even though I promised the Hon Member that I was rising on my feet to support him, once on my feet, reality made me to shift grounds.
Mr A. Dery 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, let me assure Hon Members that there is a 15-member Board and to have three women is no problem at all. I could assure you that with the agencies under the Ministry of the Interior, we would get them.
Mr Speaker, you know that at the Attorney-General's Department, we would get them. I think that is a progressive provision that we could afford, so we should allow it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
It is all right, I think we are ad idem?
Yes, Hon Agalga, what is the issue?
Mr Agalga 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to correct the impression created by Hon Ahiafor that the membership of the Board is all institutional. That is not correct. If we look at paragraph (a), the chairperson does not belong or is not supposed to belong to any institution. So, the President could always ensure that the chairperson is a woman in order to satisfy the subclause we are looking it.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Alhaji Fuseini 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would crave your indulgence to bring us back to clause 4(h) and to invite the Chairman to look at a better formulation.
Mr Speaker, with your permission, I beg to read 12:30 p.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Hon Member, yesterday, it was changed to “the Ministry of Health”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 -- Secretary to the Board.
Mr K.S. Acheampong 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, line 1, delete “Head” and insert “officer in charge”
Mr Speaker, the new amendment would reads 12:30 p.m.
“The officer in charge of Legal Services at the Commission is Secretary to the Board.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
What is it intended to achieve?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we could have a person in charge of legal services within the Commission and that person then becomes the Secretary to the Board.
Now, the original rendition, ‘The Head of Legal Services' would require the creation of a department for legal services which may not exist. So, at any time, whoever is there as the person in charge of legal services would then be the secretary even before the creation of a substantive unit designated as Legal Services Unit. That is the import of it.
Mr Shaibu Mahama 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support that. In addition to what the Hon Majority Leader said, the reason it should be “officer in charge” and not “head of service” is that we would be pre-empting it, in the construction of a legislative instrument to say that, they should create a department or an office called Head of Legal Services. However, we want to leave that to the organisation. Whether they want to hire somebody -- we should remember that one of the clause says that they could hire consultants to be legal officers. Once we say “Head of Legal Services”, it means that there is a department called legal services and there is a head.
We contemplate a situation where we could get an officer from anywhere seconded to the institution and he is the legal officer. So, that person would become the secretary to the Board and not necessarily to make a nomenclature that would pre-empt
the institution from creating a head called ‘Head of Legal Services'.
Mr A. Dery 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the amendment because most of those positions of head of legal services in State institutions are normally designated to be of a certain class; either Chief Principal State Attorney or Chief State Attorney. Therefore, if we just restrict ourselves to that designation, it might not even be part of the structure, but any competent lawyer could play that role. I think that “officer in charge” is a more flexible and acceptable one.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
So, an officer in charge will not be Head of Legal Services?
Mr A. Dery 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, not Head of Legal Services.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Whether you call him head or not, he is the officer of legal services.
Mr Agalga 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the phrase “officer in charge” is an appro- priate phraseology when we are dealing with regimented organisations like the Armed Forces, the Police Service et cetera.
What is envisaged here when we talk about legal service? We are not talking about the creation of a service within the Commission? We are talking about the professional service that is rendered. So, whoever is in charge of rendering that service; “the head” is what we are talking about.
Mr Speaker, we are talking about the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB). At the moment, there is a Legal Department at NACOB which has even metamorphosed into a prosecutions unit. So, these days, NACOB does their own prosecution. It is not like the days of old when they used to refer all their cases to the Attorney-General's Department for prosecution. Now, they have a complete unit. So, why should it be a problem to say “the head of that unit”? After all, it is a service that is rendered. So, I think the proposed amendment would not add much, let us leave it the way it is.
Mr Kwame Anyimadu-Antwi 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in fact, I do not see a difference in the proposed amendment and what we have here. I also agree that the “officer in charge of the Legal Services at the Commission” would be more flexible. I would want to propose that we go by the amendment. It would not change anything; it would not cause any mischief. To me, this simple thing we are dragging, we have already
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
You have not told us why we should change from |Head of Legal Services”. We want to understand what we want to achieve by this amendment. This is unusual.
Mr Ahiafor 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe the rendition as it is should remain, because if there is one man rendering legal services that person is the head. However, if we change it to “officer in charge of Legal Services”, it is possible to have two or more people in charge of legal services who have the responsibilities.
Mr Speaker, to change it to “officer in charge of Legal Services”, for me, it is a bit nebulous. So, we should allow the rendition to stand as it is.
Dr A. A. Osei 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to support my Hon Colleague who just spoke. The current rendition “Head of Legal Service” is adequate. The head is also the officer in charge at that time. So there is no problem with that. I do not see the need for the argument about “officer in charge”. If somebody goes there and asks about the officer in charge, that person would be taken to the head of the service. I think we should leave it and not squabble about all these things.
Mr Ayariga 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I asked some questions. The question is: in the Act, have we established a department of Legal Services? Legal Services have been captured in capitals, and this denotes that there is an institution called “Legal Services,” or that there should be a department called “Legal Services”.
Therefore, if we want the Head of the “Legal Services”, then it pre- supposes the institutional existence of a department of “Legal Services”, which means that the head of that department is the person who is being contemplated. However, if within the legislation, we do not have a legal services department contemplated or enacted, but we now use “Head of Legal Services”, it becomes quite a problem. So, it may be more appropriate to just say “the person in charge of legal services.” Otherwise, we must enact a department called “Legal Services,” then the head of that department would be the one being contemplated.
Therefore, my further amendment to this amendment is that the rendition should be “the person in charge of legal services.” Definitely, that person would be an officer. [Laughter] The terminology should be “the officer in charge of legal services.” It would still be all right, if it is captured as “the officer in charge of legal services” or
Mr A. Dery 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the use of “officer in charge”, I think, is appropriate. The Hon Ayariga talked of legal services as being distinct, but this is an agency under the Ministry of the Interior. It is a security agency.
Mr Speaker, we do not only have to have a legal department; we also need to have an established position of “Head of Legal Services”, for the person to qualify to take that position. However, whoever would be in charge at any time would be the “officer in charge”. We should therefore not make rigid rules to incapacitate this Board from acting.
Mr Speaker, for instance, we have many institutions that have lawyers, but they do not have a head of legal services. Therefore, whoever is the lawyer at a certain point in time, is the Head of Legal Services. If they are more than one, the one who would be in charge would be considered the head. We should, therefore, adopt the “officer in charge”, to make this law functional.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
The use of “officer in charge”, does not appear to fit well in a legal sector.
Dr A. A. Osei 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the statement here is captured as “the Head of Legal Services.” This assumes that there is a legal services department already. If it does not exist, then we should make it small letters, in which case “officer in charge” would be right. The use of initial capitals in “Legal Services” means that already, there is a legal services department. It does not exist, so we cannot use capitals here.
Alhaji Fuseini 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with you, but I do not agree with the Hon Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation.
We could cure it in that very provision, when we put it clearly as “there shall be a legal services department of the Commission.” The head of the legal services department shall be the secretary. We could establish the office, and leave -- [Interruption] -- By the use of the small letter “l” for “Legal Services”, I do not know whether they mean to diminish the status of the legal services.
Mr Ahiafor 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if we go through the Bill and get to clause (51), under “power to prosecute”, clause 51(1) says:
Mr A. Dery 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, all State institutions that have lawyers are somehow linked to the Attorney- General's Department. He kind of oversees their activities. So, the fact that he gives them the authority to prosecute does not mean that the legal officers there are of a specific rank. If we use “head of legal”, I tell you -- [Interruption]
I would give this example for instance. During my National Service, I was the counsel to the House of Chiefs. I was a lawyer there, and so I
was the Head of Legal Services. However, once we make that a title, they would then give a specific class of lawyer who must occupy that position. Although they would give authority to a trained lawyer to prosecute, who could be the Assistant State Attorney or a State Attorney's equivalent, when we use “head” the likely designation would be “Chief State Attorney”. I know it; I have been at the Attorney-General's Depart- ment. In most institutions like the Volta River Authority (VRA), if they have the chief head --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Hon Minister, let us raise this question. Let us assume that at the National House of Chiefs, you were the lawyer, you were alone, and was supposed to have 15 years and above post-call experience to be called “the director of legal services” but you were five years old. You would still be the head until a man of 15-years' experience comes; would you not?
Mr A. Dery 12:40 p.m.
The law says that before one would be considered as counsel, he should be the equivalent of a Principal State Attorney. So, when I was doing my national service, I was not a counsel; I was a lawyer, which is what we would want to be careful about. For a person to be counsel, one's position must be equivalent to that of a Principal State Attorney.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
For that period, you were a lawyer who headed a legal department.
Mr A. Dery 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was the officer in charge. I was not a counsel.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
You say you were the officer in charge, but not the head. [Laughter] -- I like the distinction between counsel and the head. Counsel is a title that is introduced by law.
Mr A. Dery 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, let me make this point. The counsel is like the head. Its designation is defined by law. Let me give us an analogy. The Attorney-General Department gives the authority to the Police to prosecute cases, so, police officers with some training prosecute, but when it gets to a certain type of crime, they insist that it should be the Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) or some level, who should prosecute.
Mr Speaker, the officer-in-charge is flexible and any qualified lawyer from the Ghana Law School is competent to be the Secretary to the Board, but when we say “head”, we must first establish that office, establish the qualification, which is not likely to be at the lower level, and that level is not necessary to be the Secretary to the Board.
Mr Speaker, I think we are just playing with semantic but the designation of “officer-in-charge” under the Ministry of the Interior is appropriate and I think we should have that.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Clause 6?
Clause 6 -- Functions of the Board
Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 6, subclause (2), line 1, delete “proper and effective” and insert “efficient and effective”.
Mr Speaker, this is in consonance with modern legislative practice in this House and we have been doing so.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Clause 7?
Clause 7 -- Tenure of office of members

numbered (xiii)?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 7, subclause (2), delete “or any other ex-officio member”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 12:50 p.m.
“Subsection (1) does not apply to the Director-General of the Commission”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
The item numbered (xiv)?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 7, subclause (5), line (1), delete “that” and insert “a”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 12:50 p.m.
“The President may, in writing revoke the appointment of a member”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 7, subclause (6), line 3, delete “would result” and insert “results”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 12:50 p.m.
“Where a member of the Board is for a sufficiemnt reason unable to act as a member, the Minister shall determine whether the inability results in the declaration of a vacancy.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Clause 8?
Clause 8 -- Meetings of the Board
Mr Shaibu Mahama (on behalf of) (Mr Joseph Yieleh Chireh) 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, subclause (1), line 1, delete “two” and insert “three”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 12:50 p.m.
“The Boards shall meet at least once every three months for the dispatch of business at the times and in the places determined by the Chairperson”.
Mr Speaker, I note that there is a subsequent clause down there that would further correct clause 8(1) but the first is to delete “two” and insert “three” but looking at it, quarterly meetings, I would not buy into it.
Mr Ahiafor 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the amendment because it is in line with the modern laws that we have passed that the Board would have to meet quarterly; and “quarterly” means at least once every three months. The amendment is in order.
Mr Agalga 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with the greatest of respect, I do not like to do this, but often times, we like to make copious references to previous legislations passed without asking ourselves the context within which the proposed legislations were put together.
Mr Speaker, the sponsors of this Bill said they want to have meetings in two months and, and we are saying that because we have previously passed legislations which say, that
Boards should meet quarterly -- that should not necessarily find expression here. We have forgotten that this is a security agency; the Commission performs security functions so it may be necessary for the Board to meet at times --[Interruption] -- I know there is a provision for emergency meetings but let us not transport provisions from other Bills that we have already passed.
I know in legislative drafting -- consistency is important but this Bill relates to a security institution so we need to be careful sometimes.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Colleague who just spoke would want the Board to perhaps, be meeting much more often; perhaps, even weekly or monthly. Mr Speaker, but this construction, “the Board shall meet at least once every three months” does not derogate from his own proposal. If they elect to meet once a week, they could do that.
Mr Speaker, I do not see the argument the Hon Member is making. What he is raising is a distinction without difference. With respect to my Hon Colleague, could we go on?
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Item numbered (xvii)?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, subclause (1), line 2, delete “the times and the places” and insert “a time and place”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8 subclause (2), line 3, delete “the place and time” and insert “a time and place”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, subclause (3), lines 2 and 3, delete “in respect of an important matter”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the amendment involves many more words. We decided that we should end the sentence at “Board” in line 2 so that it would read;
“The quorum at a meeting of the Board is nine members of the Board.”
So, we delete,
“or a greater number determined by the Board in respect of an important matter.”
That whole thing will go and “seven” becomes “nine”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
So, first, we are amending “seven” to “nine” and then we delete --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
We delete all the words after the first “Board” in line 2.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9 -- Disclosure of interest
Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 9, subclause (1), line 2, after “Board” add “shall” and delete “shall” at the beginning of paragraphs (a) and (b).
Mr Speaker, this will read;
“A member of the Board who has an interest in a matter for consideration by the Board shall;
(a) disclose the nature of that interest and the disclosure shall form part of the record of the consideration of the matter; and
(b) not participate in the deliberation of the Board in respect of that matter.”
Mr Ahiafor 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the amendment on the principle of brevity.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 9, subclause (1), paragraph (b), line 2, delete “deliberations” and insert “deliberation”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Is it the same thing?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, again, I think those who captured the conclusions at the Winnowing Committee got it wrong. We have lifted the “shall” up. So, it would read,
“A member of the Board who has an interest in a matter for consideration by the Board shall;
(b) recuse oneself and not participate in the deliberation or determination of the Board in respect of that matter.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
This is difficult to follow; can we stand this down? Those of you who discussed that --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the entirety of the Winnowing Committee came to that determination after the consideration.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
All right, the Winnowing Group, the rest of us cannot understand because the amendments on the Order Paper is different from what you are reading.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is what I explained that, unfortunately, the Secretariat could not get the conclusion right which is why I am reading what we agreed on.
Indeed, Mr Speaker, that has been the practice; that is how we have captured in recent times that particular provision.
Mr S. Mahama 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we had determined that there are two
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Alright; so, can we get the rendition again on record before I put the Question.
The front bench of the Majority is disturbing proceedings in the House.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, where you are looking at certainly is not the front bench of the Majority. It is the middle bench of the Majority.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
No, where you are is the leadership bench -- [Laughter] -- That means it is the front bench.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we agreed that paragraph (b) should read,
“recuse himself and not participate in the deliberation or determination of the Board in respect of that matter.”
Mr Speaker, but because of how we have been crafting these, the use of the pronoun, “himself” should be looked at. That is why I said that we have to do further engineering on the use of the word “himself”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
I would rather suggest we stood that down and properly redrafted it.
Mr Ahiafor 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have the rendition of the Hon Majority Leader in the States Interest and Governance Authority Act, (SIGA) 2019, (Act 990). This is what it says and with your permission, I read;
“(10) (1) A member of the Board who has an interest in a matter for consideration by the Board shall disclose in writing the nature of that interest and is disqualified from participating in the deliberations of the Board in respect of that matter.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
But this does not appear to fit in where we have broken it up from elsewhere unless you would recraft the whole subclause (9).
Mr Ahiafor 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my suggestion is that once the House has agreed on it in the year 2019, we can
direct the drafterpersons to just lift what is in the SIGA, 2019, (Act 990) and then place it there.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
If we want that we should just formulate that and adopt it.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the difficulty really arises from the use of the word “himself”. If we say “himself”, we should necessarily include “or herself”. That is an option.
Alternatively, our attention is being drawn to the fact that we are now using; “the recused and not participate in the deliberation or determination of the Board in respect of that matter”. Maybe, we will take the latter and I think that will be alright.
Mr Speaker, so paragraph (b) will then read 1:10 p.m.
“shall be recused and not participate in the deliberation or determination of the Board in respect of that matter”.
Mr Speaker, I think that is simpler.
Mr Banda 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe that this rendition is more gender neutral than the earlier one which
sought to use the word “his” which is masculine in nature. So, I support this current rendition.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill
Clause 10 -- Establishment of committees
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, subclause (1), line 2, after “both” insert “members and non - members”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just a further amendment to what my Hon Colleague has said. The “of the Board” in line 2 should follow after this new insertion, that is, “members and non-members of the Board”. That is where it belongs appropriately so that it will read:
“The Board may establish committees consisting of members or non-members or both members and non- members of the Board to perform a function”.
Mr Ahiafor 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the rendition as it is, reads;
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the value appears to be the same but it is not exactly so. We are saying that:
“The Board may establish committees consisting of members of the Board or non- members of the Board or both members and non-members of the Board to perform a function”.
Mr Speaker, for better clarity, if you said 1:10 p.m.
“The Board may establish committees consisting of members or non-members or both members and non- members of the Board to perform a function”
Mr Speaker, this is neater.
This is the reason I said that for purposes of clarity, we should relocate where “of the Board” and bring it after both members and non-members of the Board. That is neater and it offers itself to better understanding.
Mr Speaker, I agree that we need to be consistent but sometimes, we also improve as we go along.
Mr Banda 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my only worry with the rendition is that you cannot have “non-members of the Board” but “members of the Board”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
This is a sub-committee.
Mr Banda 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, “non- members of the Board”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Hon Member, it is “non-members of the Board serving on a sub-committee.”
Very well.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Item numbered (xxiii)? The Hon Minority Leader filed the amendment.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader is not available. This is a minor thing but we can go on with the next item.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Hon Member, it says that we should delete (x) (2) (c) in paragraph (c); delete.
Paragraph (c) reads “alternative development; and”
Mr Chireh 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we considered that thing because if we say alternative, we should say livelihood alternative development because that is part -- We cannot delete it because it is a cardinal principle in the Bill, in that we are rehabilitating people. Also, people cultivating narcotic drugs will have to find alternative livelihoods --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Hon Member, I understand you. So if we take the item numbered (xxiv) and we agree with it, then the item numbered (xxiii) would have been overreached.
Very well.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10,
subclause (2), paragraph (c), after “alternative” insert “livelihood”.
Mr Speaker, it reads 1:10 p.m.
“alternative livelihood development; and”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this is really in tandem with the object of the Commission as established under subclause (2) (c) that they are to develop, in collaboration with other relevant bodies, alternative means of livelihood for farmers who cultivate illicit narcotic plants.
Mr Speaker, this is in tandem and that is why we had to insert “livelihood” after “alternative” to have the full complement of it.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
The item numbered (xxv) also in the name of the Hon Minority Leader.
Would anybody move the amendment on his behalf?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am not sure the Hon Minority Leader has any sympathisers so we can move on.
Mr Chireh (on behalf of Mr Haruna Iddrisu) 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, subclause (2), paragraphs (d), delete.
Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Minority Leader because this is a standard practice in the public service. We cannot have a committee to deal with it at that level.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is consistent with modern trends and so we do not need a single person to exercise discretion to determine who to promote and who not to promote. That is why a committee is set up and given the terms and reference to examine all workers within the establishment and recommend promotions. So, I do not know what informed the decision by the Hon Minority Leader to delete this one. It is consistent with modern development where a committee must determine that.
Mr S. Mahama 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I can appreciate why appointments and promotions should not be part of any committee to be established. Mr Speaker, the Civil and Public Service system has already made provision and room for appointments and promotions so why should we set up another committee which would create another bureaucracy to sit and
determine how promotions and appointments would be.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Hon Agalga.
Mr Agalga 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am opposed to the proposed amendment because, for me, paragraph (d) engenders transparency when it comes to appointments and promotions. [Interruption] It does not matter because this is healthy democracy so that it would not become the preserve of the Director- General of the Commission for instance. At the end of the day, this Committee would make recommendations for the Director- General or the Board to act. So, it is all about transparency.
Mr Chireh 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Hon Minority Leader, I beg to withdraw the proposed amendment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Item numbered (xxvi).
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, subclause (3), delete and insert the following:
“Committees of the Board may be chaired by a member or a non-member of the Board.”
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to further propose that it should be in singular form. So, it should read: “A committee of the Board may be chaired by a member or a non-member of the Board.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Item numbered (xxvii).
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, subclause (4), delete “8” and insert
“9”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Very well.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Quashigah 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the committees that have been captured here would not suffice because this whole Bill, to a large extent, is about prevention. The memorandum even says that education is also concluded in the functions of the Commission. so I think that education is very critical and relevant so there must be, at least, a committee on education. There is a committee for enforcement, drug
demand et cetera, so there should be a committee on education especially when --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Hon Member, the whole subclause (2) reads: “Without limiting subsection (1), the Board shall have a committee for enforcement, drug demand and harm reduction, alternative livelihood development, and appointment and promotion”.
This is just like saying “including”. It means that it is not limited.
Mr Quashigah 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with you but we could have even mentioned paragraphs (a) and (b) followed by the “Without limiting subsection (1), the Board shall have”.
Mr Speaker, because we find these committees to be very critical, in that same vein I find a committee on education to be very critical to this Bill, especially when in the memorandum, education has been mentioned specifically. Education does not necessarily come by way of classroom activity but also public awareness through the media and so on. All these things must be considered and that is the only way we can achieve the preventive aspect of this whole exercise.
Mr Speaker, thank you.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there are enough provisions in what is available before us now because paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) are the main pillars. We are talking about drug demand reduction and harm reduction. These are all education. When we say demand reduction, we are trying to educate people who access drugs to stop the habit. Harm reduction refers to trying to convert those who are already within drugs.
Mr Speaker, these are all part of the process. It is a specialised area and so I would encourage my Hon Colleague to read further and then join us to run with it. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) is getting all of us to promote harm reduction; hitherto we were all involved in enforcement which is preventive and prohibitive. Today, it is more human centred and that is why harm reduction is being enshrined. It is part of the major pillars in helping with the drug management menace.
Mr Agbodza 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the position of my Hon Colleague for Keta.

Mr Speaker, ideally, everybody should know the dangers of illicit drugs. We do have to have a way of trying to catch anybody, however, the truth is it is difficult to do so.

Mr Speaker, if I read the committees we are setting up, nothing here tells me how any of these committees would go to secondary schools or senior high schools to tell them why these things are wrong. If we talk of drug demand and harm reduction, how exactly would that be a clear mandate to set up a committee to educate young people not to even venture to experiment on illicit drugs?

In my view, having a committee specifically on public education or awareness on the dangers of drugs would not spoil anything. In any case, the rendition says “may have”. So even if we legislate and put it here and they feel they could deal with it under one of those committees, it would not be bad.

Mr Speaker, drug is a serious issue, and I am not sure whether we are even pushing hard enough to let everybody know what it does and the cost of treatment when a person is addicted; it is not cheap. So anything we could do to sway young people away from even experi-

menting, the better it would be for us. Therefore, having a committee to educate - [Interruption.] No, that is not harm reduction. Sometimes, people are already addicted and trying to stop them is different from stopping people from even experimenting with it.

Mr Speaker, so it would not spoil anything if we have an additional committee on public awareness per se.
Dr Anthony A. Osei 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not know if we all have different concepts of education so that we put in a committee on education. Now, he is talking about going to high schools to educate them.
Mr Speaker, he should tell me how we could do drug demand without education. So it is implied that there would be continuous education. We do not need committees specifically for education to think that people must go to schools and so forth. It says “without limiting”. There is no harm there. Education is implied in all the committees provided for. To say it does not harm so we should have a committee specifically for education, how would he define education; tertiary, secondary or basic?
Mr Agbodza 1:30 p.m.
No, no, no.
Dr A. A. Osei 1:30 p.m.
What is no, no, no? That is exactly the point. Demand reduction and harm reduction imply education. In public awareness, you would have to do that to achieve it.
Mr Speaker, if he is not familiar with the area, he would not know that is what it means. That is implied.
Mr Agalga 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the Hon Chairman's position that on education, broadly speaking, the technical term so far as this subject is concerned is demand and harm reduction.
Mr Speaker, I would want to give some guidance on the basic definitions of demand reduction. The definition is:
“Demand reduction refers to efforts aimed at reducing the public desire for illegal and illicit drugs”.
Then harm reduction is:
“A set of practical strategies and ideas aimed at reducing negative consequences associated with drug use.”
So these two — harm reduction and demand reduction, both talk about education. One deals with the preventive aspect which seeks to minimise the desire for the illicit or
Mr Chireh 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the committee on education is not necessary. This is because, in the main Bill, there is no mandatory requirement for education. What are we to educate on? Even if we are talking about public awareness, it is through this same harm reduction and demand reduction committees. We could do that.
In my view, the recommendation on education should not find expression here. If at any time the Commission decides that they would want to set up a committee for public awareness, they could always do so, but we should not legislate it.
It is also not necessary to say that it can set up committees and begin to list all the committees. The key ones are those we select, those mentioned in the Act which require every day activities. If he talks about a committee on education, who would be the members of that committee and what would they do every day? However, the subject matter on which we have specific committees have
activities that are in the Bill itself which require constant attention. That is why they have been mentioned.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
Hon Members, I would put the Question. I have heard enough.
Hon Member, did you propose an amendment or it was your proposed amendment that you added the “committee on education”? In that case, please propose an amendment so that I could put the Question on it.
Mr Quashigah 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that clause 10, subclause (2), add a new paragraph:
(e) Committee on education.
Question put and amendment negatived.
Clause 10 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12 -- Regional and district offices of the Commission
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 12, subclause (3), line 2, delete “that the Board directs”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13 -- Independence of the Commission
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 13, subclause (1), delete.
Mr Speaker, we are deleting the entire “The Commission is an independent and autonomous body”. We have looked at the various established institCommission which would be operating under a sector Minister. To grant them the powers of autonomy, going by the various organisations and entities established under the 1992 Constitution, we cannot grant the Commission the autonomy it demands and seeks since they have some level of autonomy already in the body. We cannot allow them because they are supposed to be under the direction of the sector Minister in respect of policy.
Mr Speaker, so we saw it was a superfluous provision and should be taken out.
Mr First Deputy Speakers 1:40 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member for Asante Akim Central?
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have no problem with the deletion, but I think that the reason would be that the subclause (2) has the same intended purpose and therefore it would be superfluous to have the two clauses together.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
They do not mean the same because the Constitution gives the Minister a responsibility to provide policy direction.
Mr Chireh 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, apart from what he raised, if you look at the next proposed amendment, we have decided that it should be policy directives, so it is separate. That is why we are deleting the whole thing, so that we would provide for the policy directives separately.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K.S. Acheampong 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 13, subclause (2), line 3, delete “its
Mr K.S. Acheampong 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 13, subclause (3), delete and insert the following:
“Policy directives
The Minister may give policy directives consistent with the objects of the Act to the Board.”
Mr Agalga 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to take us back a bit in respect of clause 13(1). I agree with the proposed amendment for the deletion of 13(1), which says that the Commission is an independent and autonomous body.
Mr Speaker, but if you look at subclause (2), I think it could be reworded to insulate the Commission from all forms of interference when it comes to execution of its operational mandate as distinct from policy.
Mr Speaker, if you look at the Police Service Act, for instance, it is explicitly stated that the operational command and control of the Service is by the Inspector General of Police. So, at that point, you would see clearly that that particular Act has conferred some level of independence on the Service, while at the same time, the
power of the Minister to issue policy directives has been preserved.
Mr Speaker, maybe, we could reword the subclause (2) by stating that subject to the Constitution and this Act, the Commission is not subject to the control or direction of any person or authority in the performance of its operational mandate. It could reword it in a better way, but I can see the sense that they sought to achieve by conferring some level of independence on the Commission.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, ordinarily, I should not be doing this with the Hon Ranking Member of the Committee. If you go further in the body of the proposed Bill, clause 28, we would offer some powers to the officers of the Commission and it is in relation to the concerns espoused by my Hon Colleague in respect of their operations. They would be clothed with all the authorities of the Police Service Act, 1970 (Act 350).
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Hon Member, frankly, what was the difference between what is already in there and what is proposed? There is no difference. How people would behave depends on their own orientation and courage. Otherwise, the provision in clause 13(2) is sufficient.
Dr A. A. Osei 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if the Chairman would advert his mind, I am not comfortable without the further amendment. I think the words “…and the Board…” should be added for the avoidance of doubt. It should be “…policy directives to the Commission and they shall comply” but it is missing here. It is important that we add that.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
What is here reads:
“…policy directives consistent with the objects of the Act to the Board.”
It is not the Commission; this is different. The previous ones that I have seen is to the particular agency, not to just the Board of the Agency. If it is to the Commission, “…and the Board shall comply…” I do not know whether we can consider that.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Is it to the Board? Very well.
“…and the Board shall comply.”
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I guess we have finished with the proposed amendment even though the Question was not put. I agree with you entirely that there is no material difference between what
Ranking Member for the Committee on Defence and the Interior said and what is on the paper.
What is on the paper talks about operational independence? So, they are subject to the control and direction of anybody in the performance of their duty.
Mr Speaker, I thought that even though we have further amended the amendment, it should come under it because there is a subheading. That is a new clause.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
I would rather direct the draftspersons to appropriately place that.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14 -- Appointment of Director-General
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 14, subclause (3), line 2, before “integrity” insert “proven”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 1:50 a.m.
“The Director-General should be a person of high moral character and proven integrity with the qualifications and experience relevant to the functions of the Commission.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.

Clause 14 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 -- functions of the Director-General
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 a.m.
Hon Members, we would move on to item numbered xxxiii, which stands in the name of the Hon Minority Leader, Mr Haruna Iddrisu. It says: “Clause 15 - Amendment proposed - Delete.”
Mr Chireh 1:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Hon Minority Leader, I beg to withdraw the amendment. In all our legislations, we bring out the functions of the appointed officers; so, this cannot be an exception. This is the reason he has agreed for me to seek your indulgence to withdraw the amendment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 a.m.
Very well, the records should reflect that the Hon Member for Wa West has withdrawn the amendment on behalf of the Hon Minority Leader.
Hon Members, we would now move on to item numbered xxxiv, by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, subclause (1), opening phrase, after “Director-General” insert “is answerable to the Board in the performance of functions under this Act and” and further transpose “is responsible for” to the beginning of paragraphs (a) and (b).
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we want to make it abundantly clear that no matter where the appointment of the Director- General comes from, or who has appointed him, he is answerable to the Board in the performance of his functions under this Act, and he is responsible for the day to day operations. This is because there has been a lot of conflicts. In the recent Ghana cylinder case --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 a.m.
This is a very serious governance issue. If the person who appointed me barks, and my Board houses me, we would see where power lies. Frankly, the
only way to get out of that is to let the Board do the appointments, then they would be responsible, but as long as we give the power of appointment to the President, we would have that challenge.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 a.m.
Hon Members, we would move on to the item numbered xxxv, by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, subclause (1), paragraph (a), lines 1 to 3, after “Commission” delete “and is answerable to the Board in the performance of functions under this Act”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 a.m.
Hon Members, we would now move on to item numbered xxxvi, by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, subclause (1), paragraph (c), delete and insert the following:
“shall collaborate with other heads of relevant agencies and
bodies concerned with the control and elimination of narcotics.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16 -- Appointment of Deputy Directors-General
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 a.m.
Hon Members, we would take the item numbered xxxvii, by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
Mr K.S. Acheampong 1:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 16, subclause (1), lines 3 and 4, delete “General Enforcement and Control” and insert “of Enforcement, Control and Elimination.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 a.m.
Hon Members, we would move on to clause 16, item numbered xxxviii, by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
Mr K.S. Acheampong 1:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 16, subclause (2), line 2, before “functions” insert “other”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Anim 1:50 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, we seize this opportunity to thank you as well as Hon Members, for the good job done so far.
Mr Speaker, at this stage, we humbly ask for an adjournment, so that we can come back tomorrow at 10.00 a. m. in the forenoon.
Dr A. A. Osei 1:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is past 2.00 p. m., yet the Hon Deputy Majority Whip asks for an adjournment. I think it lies in the bosom of the Hon Speaker to decide whether he would want to keep us here.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 a.m.
Sorry, what did you say?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is not 2.00 p. m. It is about
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 a.m.
I do not know the watch that you use.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2 a.m.
Mr Speaker, that notwithstanding, I rise to support the Motion for adjournment.
Mr Speaker, at the beginning of this week, we were told that today; Thursday, because of the Coronavirus, we would invite the Hon Minister for Health and the Hon Minister of Finance to come to this House to tell us exactly the preparations that are being done [Interruption] --
Mr Speaker, it was decided that those Ministers would come to this House to discuss serious matters in connection with the mandate of the Ministry for Local Government and Rural Development and also the Ministry of Sanitation and Water Resources.
Mr Speaker, I see the Hon Minister for Water Resources and Sanitation; I also see the Hon Deputy Minister for Local Government and Rural Development. Indeed, I thought that the Hon First Deputy Majority Whip would inform us that immediately after adjournment, we would have a Committee of the
Whole because I see the Ministers here but he did not inform us. Is it that he is taking it for granted that when we do adjourn, we would have a Committee of the Whole?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 a.m.
Hon Members, I announced that it was two o'clock and I was bringing proceedings to a close. Committees are sitting and that is why I invited Leadership if they have any announcements to make. So far, I have not heard any announcement so they probably do not have any preparations -- yes, Hon Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation.
Dr A. A. Osei 2 a.m.
Mr Speaker, when we come here, we are expected
to be guided by Leadership so when Leadership gets up and talks about the Hon Minister for Health coming here, I am a bit surprised. They are supposed to guide us but he does not even know that the Hon Minister has been here.
Then, he moves on to Local Government. How is the Leadership going to guide us? He is taking us to a lost land. He cannot do that.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 a.m.
Hon Members, the House is adjourned till tomorrow Friday, 7th February, 2020 at 10 o'clock in the forenoon.
ADJOURNMENT 2 a.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 2.02 p.m. till Friday, 7th February, 2020 at 10.00 a.m.