Debates of 11 Feb 2020

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 11:26 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 11:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:26 a.m.
Hon Members, Correction of Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 7th February, 2020
Page 1…10--
Rev. John N. Fordjour -- rose --
Mr Speaker 11:26 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Rev. Fordjour: Mr Speaker, page 10, paragraph 10, third line which reads, “… he called for parliamentary inquiry in …” should read, “… he called for parliamentary inquiry into …”.
Mr Speaker 11:26 a.m.
Thank you very much.
Page 11…12.
Mr Speaker 11:26 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Rev. Fordjour: Mr Speaker, at column 024 of the Official Report, the third paragraph under “Mainstream Disability Development Agenda” reads -- “disability is about 15 per cent…” There was an omission of “of”. So it should be corrected accordingly.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 11:26 a.m.
Thank you very much.
Hon Members, any other correction?
Hon Members, in the absence of any further corrections, the Official Report dated Tuesday, 3rd December, 2019 as corrected is hereby admitted as the true record of proceedings.
Hon Members, we have an Urgent Question.
The Hon Minister for Health should please take the appropriate seat.
Hon Member for Krachi West, your Question?
Mr Kwame Governs Agbodza 11:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am not the Member for Krachi West but my Hon Colleague is currently not in the House and we know the Minister is available. So with your indulgence, I would ask the Question on her behalf.
Mr Speaker 11:26 a.m.
You may go on.
URGENT QUESTIONS 11:26 a.m.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH 11:26 a.m.
Mr Kwame Governs Agbodza (on behalf of Ms Helen A. Ntoso) 11:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to ask the Minister for Health when a medical superintendent would be posted to the Krachi West District Hospital.
Minister for Health (Mr Kwaku Agyeman-Manu) 11:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, following the receipt of the Question and notice, I did some quick checks and the information I had for Krachi West District Hospital is that there are
seven doctors in that hospital. Four of them are at post and three of them are actually in college trying to complete their specialisation. So the data I have indicates that they have a Medical Superintendent at Krachi West District Hospital.
That notwithstanding, I have asked for the Regional Director who I am going to meet immediately from here. All the directors are in my office. I would confirm the information and if I see that it is correct, we would rectify the matter.
Mr Speaker, the good news for me is the fact that we got financial clearance only yesterday to employ 390 new doctors; and if Krachi West District Hospital truly does not have a Medical Superintendent within the next four weeks, we would make sure that we post one there.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Agbodza 11:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we thank the Hon Minister for providing the Answers. My Hon Colleague made me aware that indeed, there are other medical doctors but there was a need for a dedicated manager of the hospital. This particular person who is supposed to be a Medical Superintendent ends up in the consulting room, making it difficult
Mr Speaker 11:26 a.m.
Hon Minister, as it is, we have finished with you.
Mr Agyeman-Manu 11:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I thought that the final submission by my Hon Colleague was just a comment. He did not ask a specific question for me to address. I would want to use the opportunity to thank him very much for his understanding and support.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 11:26 a.m.
You are respectfully discharged. Thank you very much for coming.
Hon Members, item listed 4 -- Questions.
Hon Majority Leader, any indication?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, my information is that the Joint Committee to consider the contract agreement --
Mr Speaker 11:36 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader, I would want you to tell us something about item listed 4 -- the Questions to the Hon Minister for Gender, Children and Social Protection.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, my information is that the Minister for Gender, Children and Social Protection has travelled and she is not in the jurisdiction now. So she has requested that we programme her for any time after the 20th of February, 2020.
Mr Speaker, I would contact the Chief of Staff and we would see what to do in respect of the outstanding Questions which relate to some Ministers who declared their intent to travel to participate in the United Nations (UN) Conference. I think the Chief of Staff has issued some directives, so I would have to contact her to know exactly where we stand.
Mr Speaker, in the meantime, as I said, on the referral in respect of the contract agreement which involves the Pwalugu facility, I am informed that the Joint Committee has not met on it. I am further informed that it is
programmed for them to meet tomorrow on the referral. In the event, we cannot take items listed as 6,7,8,9, 10 and11. I believe we can now continue the consideration of the Narcotics Control Commission Bill,
2019.
rose
Mr Speaker 11:36 a.m.
Yes, Hon Minority Leader? Please, go on.
Please, if the Hon First Deputy Speaker will get ready to take the Chair?
Mr Iddrisu 11:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
I listened to the Hon Majority Leader and Leader of Government Business. I am not satisfied with his explanation relative to the availability of the Minister for Gender, Children and Social Protection to appear before this House to answer Questions numbered 655 and 656.
Mr Speaker, in his submission, he indicated that the Minister is abroad, and he would get in touch with the Chief of Staff. Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister has deputies. Where are they? If the Hon Minister is not
available, that does not mean that the Ministry grinds to a halt; that is not acceptable in any bureaucracy.
Mr Speaker, more importantly, with your permission, I beg to read the letter I have. It is from theMinistry of Gender, Children and Social Protection and it was signed by Efua A. Anyanful, Director RSM, on behalf the Chief Director.
Mr Speaker, it is important that I read the third paragraph 11:36 a.m.
“We would be grateful if she is rescheduled to attend upon the House after 20th February,
2020.”
Mr Speaker, with your permission, I beg to read the second paragraph 11:36 a.m.
“We wish to inform you that the Hon Minister for Gender, Children and Social Protection is currently participating in the 58th Session of the United Nations Commission on Social Development…”
Mr Speaker, I am aware that you have so directed that because the State of the Nation Address, pursuant to article 67 of the Constitution, is so important and an extraordinary constitutional activity of Parliament,

you would not encourage Hon Members of Parliament to travel. We would want the Executive to respect same that henceforth, Ministers must stay within and listen to the President in his last of four-year State of the Nation Addresses. He has a mandate for four years which comes to an end this year. Therefore, if the Hon Minister says after 20th February, 2020, it then means she is not even available for the State of the Nation Address.

Mr Speaker, Ministers should be mindful of their travels within this period. They must be in to support the President, not only for the presentation of the Message on the State of the Nation, but for the pursuit of his policy. He is not abroad.

Mr Speaker, I do not find the Majority Leader's explanation satisfactory.

On the second issue he referred to, I have also seen communication from Office of the President dated 16th December, 2019 relating to Executive approval of the matter he referred about Pwalugu, and I would like to know whether or not the Committee has met.

Mr Speaker, I know that last Friday, we made appropriate referrals to the Committees on Food, Agriculture and Cocoa Affairs, Mines and Energy and Finance. In the letter from the Office of the President, this is worth noting, there is a paragraph which reads:

“The Pwalugu Multipurpose Dam and Irrigation Project will be funded through the budget. In 2020...”

Mr Speaker, if it is the Budget, where is the financing agreement? A budget is not a financing agreement and it cannot be. Therefore, they brought a document and they said it is a loan agreement. I am pointing out their contradictions, that they must take us seriously. If there is a financing agreement, they should lay it and bring it and if it is Budget, they should say so. They cannot go and correct anything in the 2020 Budget. If it was not in it, then it is so.

Mr Speaker, for the Pwalugu facility, the Committees should be allowed to work. Hon Members on the Minority Side on the three Committees have no excuse not to participate in any process that would lead to the production of the report for the consideration of this House. I have not seen a financing agreement.

I have seen an Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) contract. If there is any loan or financing agreement under article 181, it is our mandate. They should bring same and we would consider it for them.
Mr Speaker 11:36 a.m.
Thank you very much.
Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Minority Leader stressed what he understands to be the constitutional position. He insists that the President is scheduled to deliver his last Message on the State of the Nation. Mr Speaker, that cannot be correct; that is not factual.
Mr Speaker, he referred to article 67 of the 1992 Constitution. Mr Speaker, with your permission, I beg to read:
“The President shall, at the beginning of each session of Parliament and before the dissolution of Parliament, deliver to Parliament a message on the state of the nation...”[Interruption] --
Mr Iddrisu 11:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
Mr Speaker, I have heard the Hon Majority Leader. Where he is right, I would not belabor the issue, but there is a major issue with regard to the matter of travel of Ministers, who are also Hon Members of Parliament (MPs). This is because, per our Standing Orders, only the Rt Hon Speaker could grant the excuse for a person to travel.
Mr Speaker, the complexity of the issue now is that when you decided that Hon Members of Parliament shall not travel because you want them to respect the onerous responsibility of the delivery of the Message on the State of the Nation Address by the President, a Chief of Staff from the Office of the President, went ahead
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:56 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader wants to raise issues where there are no issues.
Mr Speaker, your directive is not to the effect that an Hon Member may absent himself or herself from this Chamber, between now and the 20th of February, 2020; that was not your directive. Therefore, the Hon Minority Leader impugn motives to the simple guidance that you offered.

Having said so, when you came to a determination, one would also even have to look at the communication. I appreciate what you did on Friday. We do not even know whether it was transmitted to the various Hon MPs who are Ministers. However, the Hon

Minister, I am told, had to travel over the weekend.

So we would see to it that the proper thing is done, and we shall be consultative as much as possible to ensure that the Business of this House gets transmitted.

I thank you Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
The Hon Majority Leader should ensure that the moment the Hon Minister touches the jurisdiction, this matter is placed before the House for relevant attention.
Thank you.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:56 a.m.
Very well, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
Item listed 12?
rose
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
Yes, Hon Chairman of the Finance Committee?
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:56 a.m.
Mr Speaker, last week Thursday, 6th February,
2020, you gave a ruling in respect of the Pwalugu Hydro Power Plant and stated emphatically that come Tuesday, 11th February, 2020, the House would be ready to take the Motion.
Mr Speaker, the indication I get from both the Hon Minority Leader and the Hon Majority Leader is that they are expecting a Report from a Joint Committee. No such referral is before any Joint Committee. So I would like to know the indication in the House; are we ready to go ahead or we are withdrawing the referral that was made? --[Interruption] --
Mr Speaker, I referred to Thursday when I was in the House. What is the indication?
Mr Speaker, that was the indication last Thursday, that on Tuesday, we would take the Motion. That is why the Hon Minister for Energy is in the House and we are ready to take the Motion. I do not know where they are.
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:56 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in this particular matter, the Hon Chairman of the Finance
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
Hon Chairman of Finance Committee?
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:56 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I related to last Thursday when I was in the Chamber. I have in my hands the Votes and Proceedings of last Friday. I have combed through it and there is nowhere that this new referral that the Hon Majority Leader is talking about has been listed.
Mr Speaker, and as of last Thursday when you were in the Chair, you directed that come Tuesday, we would consider the Report from the Committee. So if there was a new referral, I am sure that would have been captured in the Votes and Proceedings of last Friday. There is no such referral in the Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 7th February,
2020.
Mr Speaker, it is according to your directive of last Thursday that I am asking where we are with this matter? If we are withdrawing the referral, then let us know so that we go back to Committee afresh. But as things stand now, there is some ambiguity. The Votes and Proceedings of last week Friday has no such referral.
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
In actual fact, there was a further referral to the Committees of Food, Agriculture and Cocoa Affairs, and Mines and Energy as a result of an application made by the Hon Majority Leader. It was referred to them.
In a way, I appreciate the point of the Hon Chairman because I was myself a bit surprised at seeing this as an item, and I was a good person to take it for granted that the Committees
must have finished their work. But definitely, if the Committees had not finished their work, strictly speaking, the item has no business being on the Order Paper. And I appreciate the point of view of the Hon Chairman.
As it is, not knowing when this Report would be available -- [Interruption] -- As for the Finance Committee's Report, it is pending and it is as valid as gold. When the others come, we shall consider them holistically. So we await.
And I direct further that this item should be listed only when the relevant Report on the further referral is ready for the consideration of this honourable House; and that the Leader of the House and the Clerk should ensure that what we now await to move forward, comes to us as soon as possible.
Hon Members, shall we move to the Consideration Stage of Bills at this time?Item listed 12 -- Narcotics Control Commission Bill, 2019 at the Consideration Stage. Hon Chairman of the Committee?
-- [Pause] --
MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Narcotics Control Commission Bill, 2019 was referred to the Committee on Defence and Interior to be assisted by the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs.
Mr Speaker, after the referral and the proposed amendments that they submitted, we have had considerable discussion and interrogation of the amendments that they raised at the winnowing committee. And we have contributed to the reconciliation of the amendments and even went further to smith it such that any member of that group could sufficiently move the amendments because they are now amendments of the House.
Mr Speaker, many of the amendments are even proposals and we asked the Hon Chairman of the Committee to adopt them and my Hon Colleagues in the winnowing committee appreciated what we did.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.


Mr Speaker, in the absence of the Chairman, I could even lead the amendments proposed by the Hon Chairman of the Committee for us to make progress.
Mr Iddrisu 12:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are on item numbered 12 and ordinarily, there should be no difficulty proceeding. We know that the Hon Majority Leader is very capable but he knows that per our rules, he is not the pilot for the purpose of navigation. This navigation must be done by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
There is even the Hon Minister responsible who must give policy guidance as we go through this. I do not see the Hon Minister for the Interior or any of his Deputies here. Maybe, we could start with one or two clauses, anticipating that they may come. If they would not come, we should do what is proper. If there is no Hon Minister or Hon Chairman - [Interruption.] They should be available to do it but we can proceed with a few clauses.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, for the purpose of records, the Hon Chairman set off from his House but unfortunately had some
challenge and had to branch to 37 Military Hospital. As we speak, he is about ending his own engagement there to join us. These are unanticipated matters, so I believe that we can start.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:06 p.m.
The Narcotics Control Commission Bill, 2019 is at the Consideration Stage now and I would call clause 17.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 12:06 p.m.
STAGE 12:06 p.m.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 17, subclause (1), line 3, delete “proper” and insert “efficient”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 12:06 p.m.
“The President shall, in accordance with article 195 of the Constitution, appoint for the Commission, other staff that are necessary for the efficient and effective performance of the functions of the Commission.”
Mr Iddrisu 12:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would ordinarily object to this based on our practice. In consistence with many Bills that have come before us, we have maintained “proper” and have not used “efficient and effective”. Even if we use “efficient”, must we add “effective”? No. What type of English is that? You can be effective to be efficient.
I would invite the Table Office to give me one or two Acts because I have seen us use the word proper. I would however not object and we can say:
“The President shall, in accordance with article 195 of the Constitution, appoint for the Commission, other staff that are necessary for the efficient and effective performance of the functions of the Commission.”
Should “for the Commission be there”? One of them should go.
Mr Joseph Yieleh Chireh 12:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, all along, we have accepted that instead of “proper”, we should say “efficient and effective”. The two words mean different things and to be effective is different from being efficient. We know that currently, if we use the word “effective”, we want
the thing to have a lasting effect on whatever we do. However, “efficiently” deals with how to do it so that it is timely, among others.
This was agreed upon and we have adopted this method for a few of the Bills that we have passed. I think that we should support the amendment. Instead of the Hon Chairman, we are now being led by the Hon Majority Leader. Something is definitely wrong but we need to support the amendment.
Question put and Amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:06 p.m.
The Item numbered 12 (ii).
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 17 subclause (2), line 2, delete “it” and insert “the Commission”.
The new rendition would read:
“Other public officers may be seconded to the Commission or may otherwise give assistance to the Commission.”
Mr Speaker, we have decided to do away with such pronouns, so for the avoidance of doubt, we would
Mr James Agalga 12:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, something is palpably missing from the advertised amendment. I vividly recall that at the Committee level, when we met and had engagements with the stakeholders, a very pertinent issue arose.
It was whether the secondment of officers to the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) had not become archaic, given the fact that the Board had been in existence since the 1990s and we have now found it necessary to re-enact the legislation that set it up.
We were particularly informed by the practice whereby officers within NACOB could not progress to the very top. We have had practical experiences where occasionally, officers would be posted from other sister security agencies and the next moment, they would head NACOB. This was a problem other security agencies encountered, notably the Ghana Immigration Service. So when we were re-enacting the Immigration Service Act, we specifically took out that provision.
Mr Speaker, you know that in times past, police officers who were in contention to become Inspector Generals of the Police and lost out, would be posted to the Ghana Immigration Service to head that Service. It actually demoralised the officers of the Ghana Immigration Service, and NACOB continues to encounter a similar problem.
We argued exhaustively at that stage that the provision be deleted. Somehow, I have noticed that it has not found expression in the advertised amendment, but I still think that it is important that I draw the attention of the House to it. Fortunately, even the Clerk-at-the-Table was at the Committee hearings.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:06 p.m.
Hon Member, I encourage you to move that the clause be deleted.
Mr Agalga 12:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move a further amendment, that the entire clause 17 (2) be deleted.
Mr Chireh 12:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I fully support the amendment which was made by the Hon Ranking Member of the Committee and the reasons he gave. We should not encourage
anybody to second people to take over the work of other people who have worked in that organisation for years and also aspire to be the head. It has happened in many institutions particularly, Ghana Revenue Authority and other places, where a retired person becomes a boss - what about the officers who have worked in that organisation all the years?
Mr Speaker, for this particular Bill, I support the deletion of this particular clause.
Mr Kwame Governs Agbodza 12:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I perfectly understand why my Hon Colleague has called for the deletion. His point was about the temptation of some of those people on secondment who become heads of those institutions. However, it is very possible that some specialists from other agencies may be required to help the new entity we would enact.
So if we delete this clause without the replacement of anything, it would create a problem. We should rather find a way to secure the situation where somebody on secondment would not automatically become the head of an entity.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:16 p.m.
So if we can second, must we necessarily legislate for that? If an agency wants the assistance of other agency, must it be created by law?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I indeed appreciate the principle espoused by my Hon Colleague, James Agalga. However, this is a Commission that would be established from scratch; there is a Board which would be reconfigured so certainly, it may become important at this infant stage of the Commission to allow some officers to be seconded or to otherwise assist it.
Mr Speaker, with the construct of that provision, other public officers may be seconded. It is not with compulsion - it is not provided that willingly, public officers shall be seconded. They may be seconded if it is deemed appropriate to do that. After they have started crawling and walking and it becomes necessary for us to exorcise that provision, that could come subsequently but this is a general public service arrangement.
Even in the Parliamentary Service Act, other officers could be seconded to assist in the transaction of its business. This certainly is not obnoxious and so if we allow it, it would also synchronise with many of the Bills that we have passed.
Mr Bernard Ahiafor 12:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not see any problem with clause 17(2). This is not the first time that we would put a provision of this nature in our laws.
Mr Speaker, with your permission, I beg to quote section 18(3) of the National Road Safety Authority Act, 2019 (Act 993) which deals with ‘'Appointment of other staff''. It says:
“Other public officers may be transferred or seconded to the Authority''.
Mr Speaker, again with your permission, I beg to quote section 29 (1) of the Chartered Institute of Bankers Act, 2019 (Act 991) which
deals with “Appointment of other staff''. It says:
“Public officers may be transferred or seconded to the Institute or may otherwise give assistance on request by the Council''.
Mr Speaker, this is not the first time that this House would legislate on the issue of secondment because they have been in the previous Bills that we have passed.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my Hon Colleague cited other provisions in other laws that said that other officers may be seconded or transferred but if we look at the wording in clause 17(2), it is less because the word “transfer'' was not used. The word ‘'secondment'', does not even mean that the person would be there permanently. This is a temporary measure that if it becomes necessary that an officer be seconded to do a specific work -- the word used there is even “may'', so that if it is not necessary to second such a person to that office, it would not arise.
Mr Speaker, this provision is harmless and we must allow it to stand.
Mr Mahama Ayariga 12:26 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we should not deprive
ourselves of a system of public service where some institutions cannot compliment the capacity of others. If we do that we would tie our hands. I would go for an encouragement of the practice where when it becomes necessary, we could second staff from one agency to the other.
Mr Speaker, the fear and the concern has been that there has been a situation where in organisations like the Ghana Immigration Service, there was a culture of people from other Services who headed the Ghana Immigration Service. So the concern about headship was what fuelled this desire to exorcise in the Immigration Service Act, that provision that we debate today as applied to this Commission.
Mr Speaker, I do not see how the deletion of this clause would address that fear. This is because section 14 of the Immigration Service Act which deals with the “Appointment of the Controller General'', does not in my opinion deprive a President to appoint a military general to head the Service. It does not say so. It simply said, which with your permission, I beg to quote:
“The President shall in accordance with article 195 of
the Constitution, appoint the Controller General who is the head of the Service''
It does not subsequently make a provision to identify the qualifications of the person to be appointed and insists that the person must come from the Service.

So the removal of that provision that deprives the Immigration Service of benefitting from secondment, does not cure that problem which indeed, was what fuelled the decision to remove it in the Immigration Act.

Mr Speaker, that is why today, we are being referred to the Immigration Serice Act as a practice to follow. So I think that generally, we should have a situation where public sector institutions can complement each other. If we remove it, we will be depriving ourselves of this facility. I do not see how much harm it does to have it or how it ties the President's hands to determine who the head of an institution becomes. Unless, we have a specific provision in the Act which says that the head of the institution must come from within the organisation. I think that is a lesser evil than depriving the agency from the benefit of expertise from other public sectors.
Mr Iddrisu 12:26 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as we look at this clause, there are three issues -- You have asked the question whether we need to legislate on a matter of secondment.
By practice, yes and that is what this House has normally done. We can reference many other Bills that have come before us but the practice within the public service with my experience is that this is ordinary and a regular practice within the public service. Whether you cannot move or shift, it is a kind of mobility within the public service and we should encourage it because tomorrow, you can never know who has the best expertise to perform this role.
Mr Speaker, may I respectfully refer you to Appointment of Director General at clause 14(3). It reads:
“… qualification and experience relevant to the functions of the Commission”.
Mr Speaker, what Hon Agalga has raised is legitimate, and so we should find a cure for it now. He wants us to avoid what I may rightly describe as bureaucratic dumping. That is, they find somebody in the public institution irrelevant or that they do not want the person again and so, ideally, they say; ‘go to the Narcotics Control Commission and become the head'. Hon Agalga is saying that because of the very complexity of the illicit drug problem -- yes, there can be secondment, maybe to persuade him but that should not lead to the person going to head the institution. Perhaps, that is how we should come to a common compromise.
This is because what he says exist. If you are working somewhere that they are not happy with you, they will say that you have been transferred or seconded to the Narcotics Control Commission as a dumping measure, not because they respect your expertise or input but because somebody sometimes wants to frustrate a particular person.
Mr Speaker, maybe, we should leave it as it is but qualify it further that the person shall not, on secondment, go and head the organisation. If the two of them can find that middle ground, that would be acceptable but in practice, if we do not do it, one day, when they shift a person from any public service organisation, they will say; ‘no, does our law provide for secondment and can we accept secondment?
This is because it has effect on salary administration and when you are on secondment, they may not need to do a new payroll input for you but you will still remain within the public service and be entitled to what you earned but perform that other function to which you have been assigned.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:26 p.m.
I think I have heard enough and may want to put the Question. Hon Member for Wa West, I will hear you last and then I will put the Question. -- [Pause] -- Hon Member for Wa West, I gave you the Floor.
Mr Chireh 12:26 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if we recall the argument made by the Hon Ranking Member, he said that considering the Immigration Act, this was discussed because of the experiences they have had.
Secondly, he said that at the Committee meeting with experts and people, they came to the conclusion that this clause be deleted. Now, the important thing is this; if we know the role the Narcotics Control Commission plays, it is more or less also a security problem and therefore, similar to what was done in the case of the Immigration Act, we should not allow this opportunity to have this in there. As all the other people have said, public services, generally, you can second for limited period to perform a function. However, to legislate it, will give that indication that after all, the person can be seconded.
Mr Speaker, I think that we should not allow this to be part of our legislative practice and in particular, when something has to do with a sensitive place like the Narcotics Control Commission or a security agency. This is because the tendency is for other people to be seconded there for convenience. I think that we should rather insist on deleting this clause but can be practiced by the public service arrangement, and I believe that instead of legislating it, we should delete it and leave it like that.
If you look at subclause (3), it has advisers, consultants and other people who can be appointed. So if that
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:26 p.m.
I thought we agreed that I would put the Question after the Hon Member's submission.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:26 p.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, if we delete it, what will be the effect? Would the effect be that officers cannot be seconded? Is that what we are saying? If we delete it, that would certainly not be the effect unless we legislate specifically that officers may not be seconded otherwise, if we delete it, what is the import of this?
Mr Speaker, so I do not really see why we are running around in circles on this matter. I think that it is good, if subsequently, after a while, they believe that no, we have grown sufficiently, - I do not want us to put any time on it otherwise, perhaps, the best thing to do is to provide it.
However, what people fear most is the position of the Director-General
and yet, the appointment of Director- General as covered by clause 14 is sufficient. The provision there is quite loaded.
“The Director-General shall be a person of high moral character and proven integrity with qualifications and experience relevant to the functions of the Commission”.
So it cannot be that anybody can be brought and remain a Director- General.
Mr Speaker, if we go to the Appointment of the governing body, we have gone ahead to provide further elucidation on the qualification of the chairperson. So I believe that this is adequate for the time being and in consonance with what laws that we have been smithing in this House that we go along and urge that you put the Question so that we bring this matter to a closure.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:36 p.m.
Hon Members, the proposal is to delete clause 17(2) from the Bill.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the advertised amendment
is provided in the Order Paper. The suggestion that came up is not even advertised so if you were minded to put that Question then I believe that you should have provided better clarification on that because what the Hon Member said is not advertised in the Order Paper. It was on the spur of the moment matter that he came up with.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, if that is what you intend to do then I may request of you to put the Question again so that we would be clear in our minds on what to do.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:36 p.m.
Hon Leader, do you want me to put the Question again?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is my humble request especially given the fact that the verdict has not been announced yet.
Mr Chireh 12:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, indeed, you have done the correct thing. Firstly, the Hon Majority Leader moved the first amendment so if another Hon Member wants a further amendment which involves a deletion, then the Question is put on the second one. That is what the Speaker has done.
So having deleted this, the first amendment is now null and void and of no effect. I do not think that there is anything wrong with the Question being put, and indeed, the Hon Leader was the loudest. Mr Speaker, so we should maintain it as it is.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, firstly, it must be established that the verdict has not been given and so the verdict can be arrested at any time.
Secondly, the practice is that if contradictory amendments are proffered, the Question is put on the second amendment first except that in this case it was on the spur of the moment matter that the Hon Member raised, because the advertised amendment is advertised in the Order Paper as (ii).
Mr Speaker, so without that further clarification many of us thought that the Question that was put was in respect of the advertised Question. So given the fact that the verdict has not been pronounced, I would plead that you put the Question again.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:36 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, I took my time to read out the Question again. I read that the proposal is that clause 17(2) should be deleted.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:36 p.m.
How would I know who got me clearly or not before I put a Question. Unless you were not paying attention.
Hon Member for Builsa South, it was on your proposed amendment that I put the Question and the verdict appears clear to me, but the Hon Majority Leader is suggesting that I should put the Question again. Do you have any comment on that?
Mr Agalga 12:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, since he is our Hon Leader I would yield to him on this matter.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:36 p.m.
Very well. I would put the Question again on the proposed further amendment by the Hon Member for Builsa South.
The proposed amendment is that clause 17(2) be deleted from the Bill.
Question put and amendment negatived.
Mr Agbodza 12:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader also proposed a further amendment to the advertised amendment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:36 p.m.
Yes. So I would put the Question on the
proposed amendment advertised in the Order Paper.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:36 p.m.
Item numbered (iii).
Mr Kwame Anyimadu-Antwi 12:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:36 p.m.
The Hon Majority Leader has sought permission to lead the process of moving the proposed amendments so may I know why the Hon Member for Asante Akyem Central is moving the amendments.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, subject to the overriding convenience of the Hon Leader, the Hon Chairman of the Committee asked me to hold the fort for him because he has some assignments elsewhere.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:36 p.m.
I was hoping that the Hon Leader would seek permission for you to take over because he sought permission earlier to lead the process.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, appropriately, I would want to seek your indulgence to allow the
Hon Member to deal with the proposed amendments. He is also a member of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parlia- mentary Affairs.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:36 p.m.
Very well.
Mr Chireh 12:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to find out if he is a Member of the Committee on Defence and Interior because I know him to be a Member of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs. The Hon Leader in seeking permission for him was not too sure of the Committee.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am not a Member of the Committee on Defence and Interior, I am an Hon Member of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parlia- mentary Affairs and at all material times, during the Committee meetings, I have been present for discussions.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:36 p.m.
Very well. Let the record reflect that the Hon Member for Asante Akyem Central would lead the amendments on behalf of the Hon Chairman.
Mr Kwame Anyimadu-Antwi (on behalf of the Chairman of the
Committee): Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 17, subclause (3), line 2, delete “recommendation” and insert “approval”.
The new rendition would read:
“The Commission may engage the services of advisors and consultants on the approval of the Board.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 17 -- subclause (4), line 2, after “loyalty” and insert “and suitability”.
The new rendition would read:
“The Commission shall conduct integrity test to ensure the loyalty and suitability of staff of the Commission.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18 -- Terms and conditions of staff
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 18, subclause (1), line 1, after “conditions” insert “of service” and in line 2, delete “the same”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 12:46 p.m.
“The terms and conditions of service of staff of the Commission shall be as applies to the staff of the security and intelligence agencies under the Security and Intelligence Agencies Act, 1993 (Act 526).”
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think there is an omission of the definite article. It should read:
“The terms and conditions of service of the staff of the Commission…”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 18, subclause (2), line 3, delete “Sixth” and insert “First”.
Mr Speaker, I am thinking that this refers to the First Schedule of the Security and Intelligence Agencies Act, 1996 (Act 526). My challenge is that I do not readily have the Act with me here to refer to and that is why. So I pray that I put it on hold - My other Colleagues may help me.
Mr Agalga 12:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the amendment is correct. So it is the First Schedule. We had an amendment - [Interruption] - the First Schedule of the proposed amendment -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:46 p.m.
The Bill refers to the BNI as a specified section and it says that we should change that to the first schedule but the First Schedule of what? He had already referred to Act 526 in the previous clause. So in this clause, the first schedule is to which one?
Mr Agalga 12:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the first schedule at the tail end of the Bill contains some information other than the ranks equivalent to the ranking
system in the BNI. So some amendments were brought from the Commission in pink -- I am sure the Hon Majority Leader has not had the benefit of looking at it. So in this particular document, the proposed amendment would reflect as the first schedule -- [Interruption] -- It is not BNI so it has been reproduced but it is equivalent to the ranking system of this Bill but looking at the Bill, one would not find that there is something else. So those amendments are now captured in this pink document.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:46 p.m.
So the schedule we are referring to must be this Act.
Mr Agalga 12:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, “of this Act”?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:46 p.m.
Yes.
So you must specify.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am very clear now and based on the submission by the Ranking Member, I now move clause 18, subclause (2), line 3, delete “Sixth” and insert “First”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think for the avoidance of
doubt you may at the end insert “of this Act” so that we are clear in our mind.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 18, add the following new subclause:
“Despite subsection (1), the conditions of service attached to posts of legal officers of the Commission shall be the same as those applicable to posts in the Legal Service requiring equivalent professional expe- riences specified in the First Schedule.”
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the amendment - and that is the departure from the BNI. This is because the payments to legal officers under the BNI Act is lower and that leads to attrition. So we decided that in this law, the legal officers' salary must be pegged to that of the Attorney-General's Department. So that has been captured in the first schedule.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:46 p.m.
First Schedule to which Act? This Act.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:46 p.m.


Very well.

I direct that all references to the First Schedule be appropriately captured by the draftspersons.
Mr Ahiafor 12:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we need to bring to the notice of the House that there has been amendments to the First Schedule. However, those amendments were not advertised. That is what is causing the confusion. Other than that, we would straight ahead see the amended version of the First Schedule of this Act and all these problems would not be arising.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19 -- Funds of the Commission
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19, paragraph (b), line 2, delete “its” and insert “the”.
Mr Agalga 12:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not think the deletion of ‘its' is appropriate. If we delete ‘its' and insert ‘the', it would read as follows:
“The Funds of the Commission include --
(b) moneys generated or realised by the Commission in the performance of the func- tions.”
Mr Speaker, I do not think the sentence is correct. It is the possessive ‘its' --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:56 p.m.
Hon Member, ‘or the Commission's functions…' that is what we have been using in recent times.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, during winnowing, we said the whole phrase would be amended to read “…Internally Generated Funds (IGFs)…”
We now have a law in this House that deals with IGFs. All moneys generated or raised by the Commission in the performance of its functions or the functions of the Commission are IGFs.
Mr Speaker, I do not know why the amendment is not on the Order Paper. So I move for a further amendment to the proposed amendment, that we delete paragraph (b) of clause 19 and insert ‘…Internally Generated Funds...'
Mr Ahiafor 12:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the amendment. In the National Road Safety Authority Act, we used ‘Internally Generated Funds'.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19 paragraph (c), delete “gifts”.
Mr Agalga 12:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I suppose the proposed amendment confuses two things namely: Gifts and donations. Donations and grants are synonymous. So ‘gifts' could conveniently give way.
Mr Speaker, the three words 12:56 p.m.
Grants, gifts and donations have different meanings. For instance, grants are for specific purposes. So a donor agency could give a grant for scholarships. But we look at the meaning of gifts, they are given out without any direction. So somebody gives you something and says take it, whatever you want to do with it is your business. It may or may not be in the form of money. I can gift my vehicle for you to determine whatever purpose you want to put it to. The meanings of these words are not exactly the same; the dictions are different.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:56 p.m.
Hon Member, if you gift me a vehicle to use for whatever I choose, that can be called a donation.
Mr Agalga 12:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, diction- wise, I do not think it is the same. The meaning could differ depending upon the context. So I would rather we left ‘gifts' as it is.
Mr Samuel Atta-Mills 12:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are talking about Narcotics Control Commission, and if somebody would give them a gift, it gives a different connotation all together. What kind of gift would you give them? So that when a person is caught, he or she could pass through? They can be given donations and grants, but a gift to the Narcotics Commission does not sound right.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:56 p.m.
My real problem is whether gift, grant and donation are different words.
Mr Ahiafor 12:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the rationale behind the amendment is very simple. It is because of the nature of the work of the Narcotics Control Commission. We do not want to put there simplicita ‘gifts' for it to be something else. Donations and grants maybe a bit different from gifts.
Mr Ayariga 12:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the rationale; especially, for a narcotics control body, we should not encourage them to take gifts. Such a critical security agency should not by law even be allowed to take any gift. It should be a body that should be entirely State-funded. Its funding should be secured in such a way that it should not be possible to influence them through such mechanisms as gifts.
Indeed, I would even extend it to donations. What a gift can do, a donation can also do. We spoke about donations by development partners et cetera. Mostly, development support would come in the form of grants. So we should be very careful in dealing with this clause and we should be explicit in terms of what we seek to achieve. This is one of the most critical agencies that as susceptible to pressure. We know what happens in the narcotics world especially about how much money is available to them and how they operate through all sorts of conduits? What appears to be properly established companies and cor-
porations doing can be vehicles for money laundering by drug cartels. So through such vehicles, they can donate items to Narcotics Control Agencies; they can offer all sorts of gifts on the face of it which look like gifts and donation, but actually intended to enable them exert some form of influence over the management of these agencies.
Mr Speaker, I think that a body such as the Narcotics Control Commission should not be permitted by law to accept a gift or a donation. It should be entirely State-funded because it is a very critical security apparatus. I would support the deletion of ‘gifts', but I would urge us to go further to take out ‘donations'. If we intend to allow them to take support from known bilateral development assistance agencies, we should state is explicitly that support from certain agencies would be accepted. Otherwise, they will use different private entities just to make donation, but indirectly, they would create relationships and mechanisms to influence a critical body such as the Narcotics Control Commission.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the argument of the Hon
Member is sound, except that in the Bill, we seek to establish a rehabilitation centre for people who have been consumed by the overdose use of drugs. We seek to say that people whose relations suffer this affliction could make donations, simply because the State seeks to rehabilitate those people. That is the context under which “donation” is used.
I agree that it extends to development assistance grants. Just recently, the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) received testing equip- ment from the Narcotics Control Board of the United Kingdom (UK); it was a donation to assist them in the performance of their job.
Mr Speaker, it should therefore not be the two together. It says where individuals feel that they still have a role to play to contribute to the rehabilitation of their afflicted family members; family members who have been consumed by drugs, they could make donations to the Narcotics Control Commission.
Again, where foreign agencies want to equip the Narcotics Control Commission with equipment to facilitate their job, they could make donations in terms of equipment. Grants are normally moneys that are brought. That is the sense in which it has been used.
Mr Agalga 1:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Member for Tamale Central has actually made a point that I agree with in part. He goes on to say that when we say “testing equipment” are received from a foreign country, that in itself would necessarily amount to a donation, and that is where I have challenges.
It is true that as a developing country some submission was made to the effect that because of the nature of the work of NACOB, which is an agency responsible for drug law enforcement, it should not be the case at all that it would open up its doors for people to make donations and present gifts because of the likelihood that it could compromise them in their work.
Mr Speaker, I am aware that the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has time without number “gifted” NACOB with some equipment and test kits. This is distinct from the use of the word “donations”. I am equally aware that the British Government at some point, also donated an amount of £3 million for the establishment of a forensic unit for the NACOB. So the distinction goes on and on. If we delete “gift” --
Mr Agalga 1:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I could google the differences. The differences are very clear.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:06 p.m.
I think it is the difference without distinction.
Mr Agalga 1:06 p.m.
It says that donations are supposed to go to charity. In a way, it captures a different sense from gift.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:06 p.m.
Hon Members, I do not know. Maybe, I should just put the Question. If anybody wants to propose another amendment, then I would consider it, but for now, there is only one proposed amendment on the table.
Mr Chireh 1:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think to delete the word “gift” is not correct. We should maintain it because it has to do with our interpretation. The English language is so flexible that somebody might say: “I am gifting this to you”, but another might say: “I am donating this to you.” We should therefore not change it. It should remain as it is. I so move.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to reiterate that the amendment that I have moved is that “gift” be deleted under subclause (c) of clause 19.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if my memory serves me right, I think we did same for the Office of the Special Prosecutor, when we thought that the inclusion of “gift” may compromise the Office. So we deleted “gift”, and rather maintained “donations”.
Mr Speaker, in the Interpretations Act, what we are discussing here could affect the interpretation given to this Act by any presiding judge, if it comes to making a determination on the import of donation or grants. I believe that we have done sufficiently on this, so you could put the Question. Anybody then would know what informed the deletion of “gift”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:06 p.m.
Hon Members, the last amendment to clause 19 is item numbered (xi).
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move,clause 19, add the following new paragraph:
“(#) fifty percent of the proceeds realised from the sale of confiscated property under subsection (2) of section 60”.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the rationale is simply that in clause 19, we had provided that 50 per cent of the funds that come from realisable property would have to be sent to the rehabilitation fund for the purposes of rehabilitating the people. Meanwhile, we have not provided for it as part of the funds of the Commission. They are to retain 50 per cent, which means that when they receive 50 per cent, 25 per cent is sent to the rehabilitation fund.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I want us to be very clear in our minds about what we seek to do. We now seek to insert this new subclause in clause 19, which is funds of the Commission to include 50 per cent of the proceeds realised from the sale of confiscated property under sub-section (2) of section (60).
Mr Speaker, if we look at clause 22(d), this same construction is replicated there. So we must provide the distinction, otherwise, we would
only duplicate what is in clause 22 (d). What is intended is that 50 per cent should come down to 19 per cent, and the 50 per cent again should go into the Trust Fund. Is that not the case? So when we then come to clause 22 (d), we shall have to provide further illumination to that. Otherwise, we would only replicate clause 19 and clause 22, which is wrong.
Mr Chireh 1:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with what the Hon Majority Leader said, I think that once we have it in clause 22, we do not need it in clause 19 again. If we put it in clause 19, it does not solve the problem. It could be used as general sources of funds for the Commission, but we would want this particular one to be applied for rehabilitation. This is why it is also seen in clause 22. We should therefore not seek to move it to clause 19.

Mr Speaker, I would therefore move, that we abandon this amendment.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, by law and by practice in court, when institutions like the Narcotics Control Commission or the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) or institutions like the Revenue
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:16 p.m.
Utilisation of proceeds from realisable
property, that is close to 60. And it has given an apportionment - [Interruption] ——
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:16 p.m.
It has given an apportionment so the apportioned part would have to come to the Commission for their efforts but we are saying that they alone should not keep the money; they should commit half of what comes to them for the Trust Fund.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:16 p.m.
The proposed provision is the same as the other two; clause 60(2) and clause 22(d).
Mr Banda 1:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the rationale has been well espoused but as you rightly pointed out, if we were to leave what has been captured on the Order Paper, it would be repetitive of what is contained in clause 22. But the explanation given by the Hon Ranking Member to the effect that the 50 per cent as contained in clause 22(d), part of it ought to be transferred to the Funds of the Commission.
Mr Speaker, that is the understanding because I have in my notes 50 per cent of the proceeds as in clause 22 (a) in the Bill. That is what I have in my notes, so the whole of the 50 per cent would not be
transferred to section 19 but 50 per cent of the 50 per cent (which is 25%) as captured in clause 19 is what I understand the provision to mean.
Mr Agalga 1:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the proposed addition by way of amendment is proper. And the reason is simple: if we look at clause 60, which you have alluded to, it is very clear, and it says:
“The Court shall direct that 50 per cent of the total amount of realisable property be paid to the Commission”.
Mr Speaker, once the payment is done, how would we classify the said payment? The payment made, would then become part of the funds of the Commission. Mr Speaker, so if we have a provision like clause 19, which deals with Funds of the Commission, we must necessarily capture that one.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:16 p.m.
Is the 50 per cent from an Internally Generated Funds (IGF)?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I just raised this matter because I think we would note the import of clause 22(d). Clause 60 (2) provides and Mr Speaker, I beg to quote:
“The Court shall direct that fifty per cent of the total amount of the realisable property be paid to the Commission”.
Mr Speaker, but the Commission is the parent; the Commission receives the 50 per cent. When we come to clause 22, as I said, we glossed over that rather inadvertently. We now would have to say that the 50 per cent of the proceeds that has been paid to the Commission, shall come to the Fund so that it is 50 per cent of 50 per cent.
Mr Speaker, and that is why I said we should look at it again. Otherwise, the amendment proposed is well positioned. When we come to clause 22(d), we shall have to smith it and then put it in a better place. It is appropriate in clause 19 so when we come to clause 22, we would do what is needful by further classifying what proportion should go to the Fund.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:16 p.m.
Item numbered xi? That should be (xii).
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I seek your direction; I do not know if the item listed xi should be dropped?

have finished with the new clause of the (xi); there is another (xi), and that should be (xii).
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:16 p.m.
Very well.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, add the following new clause after clause
22:
“Bank account for the Commission
Moneys for the Commission shall be paid --”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:16 p.m.
Hon Member, hold on; there are two items listed as “xi”. One is what we just voted on; the new clause. Then, immediately after that is another “xi”. It says:
“Paragraph (b), line 2, delete ‘its' and insert ‘the”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that clause advertised as “xi” is inappropriate. It has been done already in “ix” so it is an error.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:16 p.m.
Let us delete that.
Item xii?
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, new clause add the following new clause after Clause 19:
“Bank account for the Commission
Moneys for the Commission shall be paid into a bank account opened by the Board for that purpose with the approval of the Controller and Accountant- General”.
Mr Shaibu Mahama 1:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think we have done this correction in previous Bills. Time and again, we have said that the Board does not open an account; it is management that opens an account. It is only authorised by the Board.
Mr Speaker, I would propose a further amendment to the proposed amendment, and that would read:
“Moneys for the Commission shall be paid into a bank account opened by management and authorised by the Board for that purpose with the approval of the Controller and Accountant- General.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:26 a.m.
Why do we need the Controller and Accountant-General? We have the
Board, so why do we need the Controller and Accountant-General to approve before they open an account?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Government's treasurer is the Controller and Accountant- General and the Constitution says we cannot open an account without the Government's treasurer. This enables him to know where Government's moneys are at any time. That is the problem.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:26 a.m.
The Government's treasurer manages the Consolidated Fund.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is obvious that money sitting there cannot be operated without the Controller and Accountant-General because he is the treasurer, and he lodges the moneys there.
Mr Atta-Mills 1:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is very important for the Controller and Accountant-General to get involved, otherwise some of these agencies and departments may go out of their way to open so many accounts. You may never know what they use the accounts for and it is important. The Auditor-General would also tell you
that the Controller and Accountant- General needs to approve the opening of these accounts.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:26 a.m.
Let us get the proposed amendment clear because I have a serious problem with the Controller and Accountant- General. From my own experiences, they want to be the signatories to the account. If you want to buy water, you have to get permission and it frustrates a lot of the agencies.
Yes, let us get on with the amendment.
Mr Chireh 1:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Controller and Accountant-General has to post accountants to almost all the public institutions.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:26 a.m.
Even after we have made it a Commission?
Mr Chireh 1:26 a.m.
Without his permission, you cannot open an account because Government's accounts are under his control. By practice and in all the legislations, it is always with the approval of the Controller and Accountant-General. Again, it is the Controller and Accountant-General or his staff in institutions that must present the accounts for auditing.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:26 a.m.
Is that arrangement consistent with what we are seeking to settle? Look at clause 1:
“(1) There is established by this Act a body corporate with perpetual succession to be known as the Narcotics Control Commission.
(2) For the performance of the functions of the Commission, the Commission may acquire and hold immovable property, dispose of property and enter into a contract or any other transaction.”
Yet, its account is under the control of somebody else. How is that practical? It has caused challenges for the management of many of the bodies we have set up. Let us proceed with the proposed amendment. This is a debate for another day.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:26 a.m.
At the Ghana Standards Board, now the Ghana Standards Authority, they opened an account without the approval of the Controller and Accountant-General. The Auditors queried them and they appeared before the Public Accounts Committee.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:26 a.m.
We have created that inconsistency in the Act. The Auditor is only following the law and we have created that inconsistency. Yes, let us proceed with your proposed amendment.
Mr Shaibu Mahama 1:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I suggest that we leave that to the drafters to put it in order. The gravamen of my amendment is to the effect that the Board does not open an account but it is management that opens an account. We have done this and corrected it in the past three or four Bills, so there is a rendition that the draftpersons would capture.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, as Hon Shaibu Mahama has well articulated, it is on the direction of the Board. If however, it should be opened by the Board, the Board Members should be signatories but it is not intended. It is the Commission that is responsible but they would do so on the guidance of the Board. As the Hon Member said, we have agreed on a template for that, so let us capture same. We can leave it to the draftpersons and they would do the appropriate thing.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:26 a.m.
So are we making any amendment to the text or we leave it to the draftspersons?
Mr Chireh 1:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think as he suggested, we could direct the draftspersons to put it in the language that gives the management the - [Interruption] -- The signatories in this case should be the management, and the Board would oversee it. The management cannot open it without the approval of the Board, so if the draftspersons can change that, it is fine.
While I have the Floor, the issue is that this body we are creating is under article 190 (2) of the Constitution. So it is not the ability to sue and be sued.
Article 190 (d)says:
“(a) The Public Services of Ghana shall include --
(d) Such other public services as Parliament may by law prescribe.
What I am saying is that like all these other bodies before it, they are public service bodies and this Parliament is creating one which is a public corporation. Therefore the issue of the Controller and Accountant-General having the role of giving the approval is in line with what we have already indicated in article 190.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:26 a.m.
Hon Member, my position is totally different. We are still thinking in the past. We set up organisations, give them responsibilities, yet hold their hands behind their backs when it comes to financial management because we still think that everything we do must be centrally controlled. I disagree but that is for another day.
Let us conclude the work on this one. Yes, Hon Ranking Member?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:26 a.m.
The Public Financial Management Act --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:36 a.m.
Hon Member, that discussion is for another day -- [Laughter] Let us move to the Bill. I have the acumen but now I am presiding and I am not supposed to be part. My view is totally different.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, the rendition should read:
“Moneys for the Commission shall be paid into a bank account opened by the Commission on the advice of the Board for that purpose, with the approval of the Controller and Accountant- General”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:36 p.m.
I think that is appropriate.
Question put and amendment agreed to.

Clause 19 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 -- Trust fund for the rehabilitation of persons suffering from substance abuse disorder
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 20, headnote, delete and insert “Substance Use Disorder Rehabilita- tion Fund”.
Question put and amendment agreed to
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 20, subclause (1), line 1 delete “Abuse” and insert “Use”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader's amendment has been overreached because he thought we would use the words “abuse” and “disorder'', hence, his amendment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:36 p.m.
Hon Member, which clause are you talking about?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 20 subclause (1), line 1 which is in the name of the Hon Minority Leader.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:36 p.m.
Hon Member, that clause has not yet been moved. I am waiting for the Hon Chairman of the Committee, to move it before I listen to your comments.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that amendment is in the name of the Hon Minority Leader and I seek to withdraw it, that was why I said that the amendment has been over- reached.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:36 p.m.
Very well.
Amendment withdrawn by leave of the House.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 20, subclause (2), line 2, delete “abuse” and insert “use”.
Question put and amendment agreed to
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we effected a minor amendment to clause 20(2) and singularised the word persons''. So the new rendition should read:
“The Commission shall use the Fund to rehabilitate a person
suffering from substance use disorder''.
Instead of “persons suffering from substance use disorder''. That was what we agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:36 p.m.
I think this clause should be sufficient.
“The Commission shall use the Fund to rehabilitate persons suffering from substance abuse…''
Or you said it should be “use''?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:36 p.m.
Very well.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is just to singularise the word “persons'' to “person''.
“….to rehabilitate a person suffering from use disorder''.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:36 p.m.
So you have introduced the article “a'' and deleted the letter “s'' from the word “persons''.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:36 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 21, line 3, delete “abuse” and insert “use”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22 -- Source of money for the Fund
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, before I move the advertised amendment, may I pray that the word “gifts'' in clause 22(c) -- [Interruption].
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22, paragraph (a), delete “any”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 1:36 p.m.
“The source of money for the Fund includes
(a) moneys approved by Parliament”;
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:36 p.m.
Hon Chairman, add the amendment to the paragraph (c), so I can put the Question.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22, paragraph (c), delete “gifts''.
It is consequential from the previous clause we dealt with.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:36 p.m.
Yes, Hon Yieleh Chireh?
Mr Chireh 1:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, because of what we did in clause 19(d), I want to propose that 22(d), should be:
“fifty per cent of what is captured in clause 19 (d) --”
In clause 19, we added paragraph (d), which is the 50 per cent of the proceeds realised -- [Interruption] and now we want to take 50 per cent of that amount [Interruption] --
Mr Speaker, he could further amend my amendment - [Laughter] -- what I have amended is to shorten it. Clause 19(d), is the source of - So I have proposed 50 per cent of what is in clause 19 (d).
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:46 p.m.
Hon Member, can I finish with the proposed amendment first? Two amendments have been proposed to delete the words “any'' in paragraph (a) and “gifts'' in paragraph (c), then the paragraph (d) would be available for further discussion. [Interruption]. I have done that already. I did not announce the verdict when Hon Yieleh Chireh rose.
I would put the Question again.

Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:46 p.m.
Now, Hon Member, you may move your amendment on subclause (d).
Mr Chireh 1:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (d) delete and insert “50 per cent of what is in clause 19 (d)” -- [Interruption].
Clause 19(d) says that “50 per cent of the realisable proceeds” is for the whole Commission. Now, under clause 22(d), we are saying that it should be 50 per cent of the “50 per cent of the realisable proceeds”. That is why I am saying that it should be “fifty per cent of clause 19 (d)”, unless we want to re-narrate the information.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Member is right in principle because we stated that when we came to clause 22, we would have to do what he is proposing, except we are worried about how he is providing for it.
Mr Speaker, we could say, “50 per cent of the amount paid to the Commission as provided under clause 19(d)”.
Mr Agalga 1:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment by the Hon Majority Leader is good but one would have to cross-reference in order to decipher the meaning. Too much cross-referencing creates problems. So could we leave it the way it is? [Interruption] - Different meaning?
An Hon Member 1:46 p.m.
It would have a different meaning.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, because in clause 60(2) we are providing that and I beg to quote:
“The Court shall direct that fifty per cent of the total amount of the realisable property be paid to the Commission.”
So it goes to the Commission.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:46 p.m.
Hon Members, have we agreed that 50 per cent of the proceeds -- [Interruption] -- Hon Majority Leader, kindly reconstruct for the purposes of the record.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I said, “50 per cent of the amount to be paid to the Commission specified under clause 19 (d)”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:46 p.m.
Now, there is a proposed new clause. [Interruption] The item numbered (ix)?
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, add the following new clause after Clause 22:
“Bank account for Fund
Moneys for the Fund shall be paid into a bank account opened by the Commission for that purpose with the approval of the Controller and Accountant- General.”
Mr Speaker, I pray that we use the same phrase as the Hon Majority Leader proposed earlier.
Mr Banda 1:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I know that this is a standardised way of capturing it, but there are words in the proposed amendment which are not clear. If we say “for that purpose”, which purpose are we referring to within this context? If we read this proposed amendment as it stands, the meaning for “that purpose” is not clearly borne out.
Mr Speaker, we have to capture it clearly because we are talking about object but in the proposed amendment, we are talking about purpose. I believe that in capturing it, it should be the way I would want to propose, thus:
“Bank account for Fund
Moneys for the Fund shall be paid into a bank account opened by the Commission for the realisation of the object of the Fund with the approval of the Controller and Accountant- General.”
I believe that reading it the way I have proposed it, the meaning would be clearly borne out.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:46 p.m.
Hon Member, could you read the entire rendition of the clause you are proposing?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the emphasis is on “moneys”. So it should read, with your permission:
“Bank account for Fund
Moneys for the Fund shall be paid into a bank account opened by the Commission for the attainment of the object of the Fund with the approval of the Controller and Accountant- General.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:46 p.m.
I would want to put the Question but I would want to be clear in my mind what I am putting the Question on. So could you please repeat your rendition for the record?
Mr Banda 1:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it should read, with your permission:
“Bank account for Fund
Moneys for the Fund shall be paid into a bank account opened by the Commission for the attainment of the object of the Fund with the approval of the Controller and Accountant- General.”
Mr Ahiafor 1:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe strongly that consistency is very important. In most recent Bills that we have passed, we used the phrase, “for that purpose”.
So if the Hon Member does not have a compelling reason, why then do we depart from the practice? Section 21 of the National Road Safety Commission Act, 2019 states, with your permission,
“Bank account of the Authority
Moneys of the Authority shall be paid into a bank account opened by the Court for that purpose with the approval of the Controller and Accountant- General.”
The Ghana Integrated Aluminium Development Corporation Act, 2018, also states:
“Bank Account
Moneys for the Corporation shall be paid into a bank account opened for that purpose with the approval of the Controller and Accountant-General.”
Mr Speaker, if we do not have a compelling reason, we should just stick
Mr Chireh 1:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we have run into this problem of the new clause because this really should have been a subclause of clause 21 because we are setting up a Fund.

If we set up a Fund and we would want to open an account, unlike the example the Hon Member has given which is for the Commission or whatever he mentioned earlier, this is a Fund that we are creating. So instead of a new clause, I would have proposed that we make it subclause (2) of clause 21. So that the issue of the relationship between the Fund and accounts under the Fund would be tidier. That is my view about it.
Mr Ahiafor 1:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if we look at clause 20(1), we are establishing a Fund just like the way we have been establishing it in the other legislations. This is because clause 20(1) says that:
“There is established by this Act, a Substance Abuse Disorder Rehabilitation Fund referred to in this Act as the “Fund”.
So it is the moneys for the established Fund that would be paid into that account. It should not be a subclause under clause 22 but a standalone clause just like we have it in the other legislations.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:56 p.m.
Please make up your minds whether you want “that purpose” or “for the attainment of the object”.
Mr Banda 1:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe that there should be consistency because in clause 21, a specific phrase has been used which is “Object of the Fund”. If you are linking the proposed amendment to clause 21 as captured in the Bill, the one must see the coherence in clause 21 and the proposed amendment as captured in the Order Paper.
Mr Speaker, if you read the proposed amendment alone, the meaning or the purpose for which it is being referred to will not be clearly borne out unless you want to read clause 21 together with the proposed amendment. Even in that case, consistency will not have been achieved. It is on the basis of this that I am proposing that we should rather add; “for the attainment of the object” so that reading the proposed amendment alone, one would have no doubt as to what the proposed
amendment is intended to achieve. Otherwise, if we leave it as it is, you cannot tell what “the purpose” is being referred to, as it is not captured in the proposed amendment.
However if we add; “for the attainment of the object”, one will then clearly and immediately refer to clause 21 which says; “Object of the Fund” in which case, the meaning of the proposed amendment would have been clearly borne out.
Mr Speaker, it is on the basis that I am saying that we should rather --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:56 p.m.
I would put the Question on the last proposed amendment.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
New clause as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:56 p.m.
I direct that the draftspersons locate the new clause as appropriate in the Bill.
Hon Majority Leader, according to the watch before me, it is four minutes past 2 o'clock and I do not intend that we sit beyond -- Unless, there is a compelling to Sit beyond 2 o'clock.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, may I make a special plea. We anticipate to conclude this Bill latest by Friday. We are not really moving at any good speed. I will plead with you that -- if you may, let us see how far we can go until your body cannot bear it any longer and then we adjourn.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:56 p.m.
You do not know how my body is faring now.
Mr Chireh 1:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I tend to agree with you. When did we start Sitting today? If you want this Bill to be completed by Friday, we must start Sitting early but we do not do that. We started very late and the First Deputy Speaker is a human being with physiological functions and processes and we want him to Sit and anticipate our completion on Friday. If he breaks down, what happens? It is not good and so, --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:56 p.m.
If I breakdown, my Seat will be taken by
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:56 p.m.
Yes, the first proposal on clause 23 says that it should be deleted by the Hon Minority Leader. Is any of you taking the Hon Minority Leader's proposed amendment on his behalf?
Mr Chireh 1:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader asked me to withdraw it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:56 p.m.
Very well. Item numbered (xx) is withdrawn by leave of the House.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 23, line 1, delete “an independent” and insert “a”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition reads 1:56 p.m.
“The Fund shall be managed by a corporate trustee appointed by the Board”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 23, add the following new subclauses:
“(2) The trustee has the same fiduciary relationship with the Commission and the same duty to act with loyalty and in good faith as a director of a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2019 (Act
992).”
Mr Agalga 2:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not think that this subclause is necessary. This is because what is envisaged here is that the Fund shall be managed by a corporate trustee.
So here what comes to the fore is trust and if that is the position, why must we define in an Act what the trust in law connotes because the addition that the trustee has the same fiduciary relationship - Mr Speaker, this is borne out of the law of trust. If we take this step then it would compel us for us to define all the characteristics
of a trust relationship. If we do not then that exclusion in itself could be problematic when it comes to interpretation in the event of a problem.
Mr Speaker, so I would humbly advise that we do not include this subclause at all.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:06 p.m.
Hon Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parlia- mentary Affairs, if we do not state this would the responsibility of the trustee be any different?
Mr Banda 2:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, per the position of the law, once it is to be entrusted into the care of a trustee then all the responsibilities associated with the fiduciary are implied. However, this is not different from what this august House does in our previous enactments. It is out of abundance of caution that we expressly state what has been proposed.
Mr Speaker, so its inclusion would not detract from or add anything to its meaning. Let it be there so that if a person is not a lawyer and reads it, that person would know what it means. Also, the appropriate reference has been made so as soon as a lawyer sees a trustee, that lawyer would know the onerous
responsibilities of a trustee. However, a person who is not a lawyer may not see the responsibilities associated with this; but once we have made reference to the Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992), the person may be curious to have a copy of the Companies Act 2019 (Act 992) and make copious reference to its content.
Mr Speaker, so I would urge my Hon Friend to allow the proposed amendment to be in the Bill.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think what is being proclaimed here is that the corporate trustee, in managing the Fund shall have a duty to act in good faith. Now, the argument by Hon Agalga is that that is a known fact so it may be an overkill if it is provided in the Bill.
Mr Speaker, however, it is just for the avoidance of doubt and it does not kill a fly if we provide it. Otherwise the very genesis of the Bill; the establishment of the Narcotics Control Commission begins with “There is established by this Act a body corporate …” Once we say a body corporate then we should not even say that it has perpetual succession because we can take that for granted. Why do we go further to say that it should have perpetual succession and
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:06 p.m.
Well, I am a servant of the House and so I would put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just a minor - [Interruption] --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the substantive Hon Chairman is here and the protem Chairman had to attend to another Committee meeting so --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:06 p.m.
As of now he is only making contributions so when he takes charge he would explain --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am just making an application that he is here now so he would continue from hence.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:06 p.m.
Very well. Hon Majority Leader, what was he proposing before you arrested the Floor?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, he jumped to clause 24 but we are not there yet.
Mr Agalga 2:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, although I yield, I want to place on record that the argument I made with respect to trustee is very sound and I want to make reference to the National Pensions Regulatory Authority Regulations -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:06 p.m.
Hon Member, your argument was sound. I personally agree with your suggestion that that clause is redundant because without it the responsibility would still be there anyway. However, the House thinks that it should be part of it. So let us proceed.
Hon Members, I would put the Question.
Clause 23 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24 -- Disbursement from the Fund
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:06 p.m.
Item numbered (xxiii).
Mr Chireh 2:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have the authority of the Hon Minority Leader to abandon the proposed amendment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:06 p.m.
THE Item numbered (xxiv).
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to abandon the proposed amendment because upon further research, “addiction disease” is a discipline within the management of narcotic drugs. We realised that it would not follow the consequential amendments that have been done earlier so we would allow it to stand.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:06 p.m.
Very well.
Amendment withdrawn by leave of the House.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:26 a.m.
Item numbered (xxv).
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 24, paragraph (b), delete “abuse” and insert “use”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:26 a.m.
Hon Members, this is a consequential amendment.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 24 paragraph (d), lines 1 and 2, delete “addiction treatment” and insert “the treatment of substance use disorders”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that there is an omission. It should read: “… training and capacity building for professionals involved in substance use disorders…” instead of saying “… for the treatment of substance use disorders”.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, so the final rendition should read:
Mr Chireh 1:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 25, delete and insert the following:
“The Commission shall, at the end of each financial year, submit a report on the management and use of the Fund through the Minister to Parliament.”
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, such reports are to be transmitted to the Hon superintending Minister and another of such report comes to Parliament. So if he says that it should be through the Minister to Parliament, the Minister is left out. He himself should have the report submitted to him. It is usually part of the annual reports that come to the Minister and also to Parliament.
In my view, the Hon Member who proposed the amendment could tidy it up better so that the Hon Minister becomes relevant in the context.
Mr Chireh 1:26 a.m.
I did not put “through the Minister”. It was the winnowing committee. All I did was to try to tidy up the “financial year” in the middle and at the end of clause 25.
However, the Chairman of the winnowing committee insisted that it should be through the Hon Minister. I also know that the way it was captured, there are separated issues. It is the repetition of “end of financial year” and “financial year” that I amended.
So I accept the further amendment so that it would be to the Minister and to Parliament.
Mr Agalga 1:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am a bit confused. I do not know whether the position of the Hon Majority Leader is what the Question is about to be put on or the proposed amendment. This is because I have a contribution to make in support of the Hon Majority Leader's position.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:26 a.m.
The amendment before us is as contained in item (xxvii). If you would want to propose further amendment to that, the Floor is opened.
Mr Agalga 1:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I should oppose the proposed amendment and rather insist that the original rendition in clause 25 which says “… and use the fund to the Minister and Parliament” is correct.
What this simply seeks to achieve is to make it mandatory. In a way, the report must be submitted to the Minister even if it is not to be forwarded to Parliament.
However, here, what is envisaged is that the Minister is to receive the report first and then to Parliament. It is because the Minister exercises oversight over the agencies under his watch while Parliament, as a separate arm of Government, also exercises oversight over all the agencies including the Minister himself.
So “…to the Minister and Parliament” would be very appropriate. However, where the rendition as captured in the proposed amendment seeks to make the Minister a conduit for the transmission of the report is wrong. As for him, he would be there, the report must be prepared and submitted to him for onward transmission. What about the Minister's own oversight res- ponsibility? So this rendition captures that sense - “… to the Minister and Parliament”.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, my understanding of the process of submitting the report through the Minister does not connote that the Minister is just a conduit. There are some administrative measures that the Ministers would undertake. It is not for nothing that we have to forward the report to the Minister. I agree with the earlier rendition. However, if we come in with the premise that the Minister is just a conduit, I do not appreciate that because there are some adminis- trative work that need to be effected by the Minister when it goes to them through the communication.
Mr S. Mahama 1:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the intendment of this is to give the report to two category of people. First is the Minister and second is Parliament. That is why I agree with the original rendition that:
“The Commission shall, each financial year, submit a report on the management and use of the funds to the Minister and Parliament”.
Mr Speaker, perhaps, we may need to do a further amendment to the original rendition which in my opinion should read:
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, upon reflection, for clause 25, we just need to state that:
“The Commission shall submit a report on the management and use of the fund to the Minister.”
Mr Speaker, this is because, when we come to clause 27 which deals with annual reports. It provides that:
“The Board shall, within one month after the receipt of the audit reports subject an annual report to the Minister ….
(3) The Minister, shall within one month after the receipt of the annual report submit the report to Parliament with statement that the Minister considers necessary.”
Mr Speaker, I think we should rather bring the report that the Board
shall submit to the Minister here. This means the report that the Board shall submit to the minister would include in subclause 2(b), the report of the management and use of the fund. Then the Minister is required to ferry same to Parliament. Otherwise, the Minister would be reporting on that matter on two different occasions.
Mr Chireh 1:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, as I said, my original amendment was to avoid the ‘…end of financial year... ' twice. From the way it was captured, the Hon Ranking and the Hon Chairman of the Committee has the occasion to look at the Bill and they did not make any amendments. But the repetition of ‘…end of financial year…' was what I was concerned about.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman talked about administrative procedure. Now, the Hon Majority Leader is further complicating the matter. This is a report on the fact and not the annual report which the Minister has with him. So if we want the report to remain with the Minister alone, that is fine. But adding Parliament also is about the fund and not the Commission's annual report or their audited account. So let us separate it. Whatever the proposers of this Bill want, is what we will put
there and the financial year report should be given to the Minister as proposed by the Hon Majority Leader. If it is so, I have no problem, but we should use clause 27 to justify it, no! It is just about the fund itself.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:26 a.m.
Yes, I want to be guided. Where are we going?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I thought we could relocate the transmission of the report through Parliament to clause 27, but if I am being misunderstood, then for the avoidance of doubt, we could leave clause 25 as it is and just clean it up as proposed by the Hon Yieleh Chireh. So that it would read:
“The Commission shall submit a report on the management and use of the Fund to the Minister and Parliament at the end of the financial year.”
Alternatively, we could say “…for the financial year.” And delete ‘…at the end of the financial year.' So at the end of it, I thought the transmission of the report could find space in clause 27, but if I am being misunderstood, then let us have it in clause 25 as it is, but it is subject to the amendment proposed by Hon Yieleh Chireh.
Mr Chireh 2:26 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Majority Leader because clause 27 talks about all the activities of the annual report, including the Fund. So once it includes the Fund, what he proposed is to the effect that in the amendment, the report should go to the Ministry and not Parliament. I support that amendment. The way he was going about it shows that he is tired.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:26 p.m.
Hon Member, so the rendition we have is that:
“The Commission shall for each financial year, submit a report on the management and use of the Fund to the Minister.”
Mr Banda 2:26 p.m.
Mr Speaker, what is not clear to me is, clause 25 talks about reports simpliciter and clause 27 talks about annual reports and other reports.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:26 p.m.
The other one is management and use of the Fund.
Mr Banda 2:26 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 27(3), with your permission, I beg to quote:
Mr Ahiafor 2:26 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the rendition of the Hon Member. We do not need ‘…Parliament at the end of financial year' in clause 25. At the end of the day, clause 27 says that the annual report would specify the activities and operations of the Commission for the year to which the report relates. The financial year mentioned in the Bill is always from 1st January to 31st December. The activities and
operations would then form the annual report that would be presented to Parliament. So if Parliament takes the management report and again, takes the annual report, for me, the management report is duplicitous. The management report will be contained in the annual report. So, the deletion of ‘…and Parliament at the end of the year' in clause 25 is in order.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:26 p.m.
Hon Members, the item numbered (xxviii)?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:26 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I wish to withdraw the proposed amendment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:26 p.m.
All right. Amendment withdrawn.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:26 p.m.
Hon Members, item numbered (xxix)?
Hon Haruna Iddrisu, the Minority is not in the House.
Mr Chireh 2:26 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have his authority to withdraw.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:26 p.m.
Very well.

Clause 25 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 - Accounts and audit
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:26 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 26, subclause 1, 2, and 3, delete and insert the following:
“(1) The Board shall keep books, records, returns and other documents relevant to the accounts in the form approved by the Auditor- General.
(2) The Board shall submit the accounts of the Commission to the Auditor-General for audit at the end of the financial year.
(3) The Auditor-General shall, within six months after the end immediately preceding financial year.
(a) audit the accounts and submit the reports to Parliament; and
(b) forward a copy each of the audit reports to the Minister and the Board.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27 -- Annual report and other reports
Mr K.S. Acheampong 2:26 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 27, delete and insert the following:
“(1) The Board shall, within thirty days after the receipt of the audit report, submit an annual report to the Minister covering the activities and operations of the Commission for the year to which the annual report relates.
(2) The annual report shall include the report of the Auditor-General.
(3) The Minister shall, within thirty days after the receipt of the annual report, submit the report to Parliament with a statement that the Minister considers necessary and shall cause the report to be published in the manner that the Minister determines.”
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, we could consider the activities and operations
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:36 a.m.
It is an activity of the Commission. Is that not it?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:36 a.m.
Yes, but of course, this is managed by a corporate trustee. That is why I ask if we could consider --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:36 a.m.
Therefore, it shall include a report to the Commission.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:36 a.m.
If we so deem it, then I am all right for that.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:36 a.m.
It would cover the activities and the reports that would come from the trustee. I would therefore put the Question again.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28 -- Authorised officers to exercise powers of police
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:36 a.m.
Hon Members, we would move on to the item numbered (xxxi), by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
Mr K.S. Acheampong 2:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 28 sectional note above clause 28, delete “Office” and insert “Commission”.
Mr Speaker, it would therefore read 2:36 a.m.
“powers of the Commission,” not “powers of the Office.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 28, head note, delete “officers” and insert “officers” and also delete “police” and insert “police”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K.S. Acheampong 2:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, for the head note, we deleted “authorised”, which is why we seek to make “officers” and “police” initial capitals. Therefore,
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:36 a.m.
Hon Members, we would now take the amendment numbered.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, xxxiii clause 28 lines 1 and 2, delete “officers authorised by the Director-General” and insert “authorised officers”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, at the initial stages, we toyed with the idea of deleting “authorised”. However, in view of what we came to agree on in lines 1 and 2 of clause 28, we reinstated “authorised”. Therefore, it was not deleted.
Mr K.S. Acheampong 2:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to make another amendment, which has not been advertised.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that in line 1, before the word “officers”, we insert the word “other”. So it would
read: “the Director-General, Deputy Directors-General and other officers authorised by the Director- General…”
Mr Chireh 2:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman of the Committee is the one who has caused the confusion. The word “authorised” should not have been removed from the head note. So he should rather rescind his decision, so that “authorised” is left to remain in the head note. It has not even been advertised. The Hon Chairman from his head -- [Interruption] -- We seek to consider the advertised amendments, so that amendment should not have come. If the Hon Chairman agrees, then we could put the Question without it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:36 a.m.
I have taken note of the reinstatement of “authorised”, but the Hon Chairman now seeks to propose something new, which is “other officers”, so I would want to be clear on that one before I put the Question.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it really should read: “the Director-General, Deputy Directors- General, and other authorised officers shall exercise the powers and have the immunities conferred on a police
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:36 a.m.
Very well.
So the head note should read: “authorised officers to exercise powers of a police.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:36 a.m.
Hon Members, the second amendment is “the Director-General, Deputy Directors-General and other authorised officers.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29 -- Power to use firearms.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 29 lines 1 and 2, delete “ An officer authorised by the Director-General” and insert “ Without limiting section 28, an authorised officers”
Mr Speaker, the reason for this is that already, we have quoted the
relevant legislations that empower the Commission. Therefore our reference to those laws gives them the adequate clothing. So we thought that it would not necessarily be prudent to allow clause 29 to be captured as it is.
Mr Agalga 2:46 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am looking at the proposed amendment, which says:
delete “and office authorised by the Director-General” and insert “without limiting section 28, an authorised officer'”.
Mr Speaker, what is the rationale? If we use language such as ‘without limiting section 28' left standing the way it is, the question one would ask himself is, does the rendition as it is now, detract from section 28 which simply says; ‘the Director-General, the Deputy Director-General and officers shall exercise the powers and have the immunities conferred on the police officer under the Criminal Law and Other Offences ACT?
Section 29 talks about possession of firearms in the discharge of duties. Standing the way it is, the question one would ask himself is that would it detract from what is envisaged under
section 28? If not, we do not use language such as ‘without limiting'.
Mr Speaker, I am saying that section 29; the proposed amendment may be unnecessary.
Mr Banda 2:46 a.m.
Mr Speaker, section 28 confers on the authorised officers, powers of the police as we find the expression in the various enactments stipulated.
Mr Speaker, the powers of police may include the power to use firearms so all that the phrase, “without limiting section 28” means without derogating from the meaning of section 28. That is what it means, simpliciter. So maybe, notwithstanding clause 28 or without limiting the effect of clause 28
-- 2:46 a.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:46 a.m.
Do we truly need clause 29? Once it is to exercise the powers of the Police which includes the use of firearms, do we need to state it?
Mr Ahiafor 2:46 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the power to use firearms is implied in clause 28. So I believe strongly we do not need clause 29. Unless we are saying that in the Police Service Act, 1970, ACT 350 and any other laws related to the police officer has not
given the police officer the power to hold firearms. Once the authorised officers have the powers and immunities of police officer in line with this law, impliedly, they can hold firearms. So we do not need clause 29 to be able to equip the authorised officers to use firearms. Clause 28 is adequate.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:46 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member for South Dayi?
Mr Rockson-Nelson E. K. Dafeamekpor 2:46 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I wish to draw the House's attention to the fact that the term, “police man” has assumed a generic meaning. Now, we are running an e-service that includes community police men. -- [Interruption]--
It is important that for the avoidance of doubt, if we want to confer powers of the police on officers that we envisage under this Act, we should be able to add that they would have the power to bear arms.
Indeed, there are divisions in the Ghana Police Service now, where when they go on operations, they are authorised to bear arms before they do so; we have the Marine Division in the Police Service now and if they want to go on special operations, they
Mr Agalga 2:46 a.m.
Mr Speaker, this provision is very important. I recall we deliberated extensively on this provision. The current NACOB Law actually has a similar provision to what is captured under clause 28 whereby the Narcotics Control Board, in the discharge of its mandate, exercises the powers conferred on police officers.
Mr Speaker, but because of the absence of an express provision which allows them to possess a bare firearm, they are excluded from using firearms so --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:46 a.m.
Who excluded them?
Mr Agalga 2:46 a.m.
Mr Speaker, that has been the rule, that there is no provision of the Act which allows them to bear firearms. At the level of the Ministry, that was the position. So one of the reasons, — that NACOB has pushed for the inclusion of this provision is for them to be trained and allowed to possess firearms in the discharge of their duties expressly.
Mr Speaker, once again, that was the position with respect to the Ghana Immigration Service under the now repealed Ghana Immigration Service Act. We had a provision which gave indication that they had all the powers of police officers and there was no express provision which allowed them to possess firearms in the discharge of their duties. That explains why across the country, even at our border posts, they were not allowed to bear firearms.
Mr Speaker, so in 2016, we expressly made that provision in the Ghana Immigration Service Law to put matters beyond doubt; section 24 -- Power to use firearms. So this particular provision is so dear to the hearts of the officers of the NACOB.
In fact, the practice is that when they are supposed to embark on operations, they have to draft arm — wielding police officers to police them to go and carry out the operation. The difficulty is that that arrangement sometimes can compromise intelligence. If they have to act on intelligence in real times, getting police officers to come; sometimes they would have to make some disclosures before the Commanding Officer would agree to release them.
Mr Speaker, this provision should be expressly provided for. If we do
not, we are going to go back to the old law under which they had the power but could not exercise it.
Mr S. K. Acheampong 2:46 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to withdraw the amendment as proposed in clause 29.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:46 a.m.
Very well.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:46 a.m.
Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:46 a.m.
Mr Speaker, just what is needed is to delete the phraseology, “an officer authorised by the Director-General” and insert “an authorised officer may, in charge of his duties” and it follows.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:56 p.m.
That is proposing “an authorised officer may” not “an officer authorised by the Director-General.”
“An officer may, in the discharge of his duties…”
Very well, Hon Members.
Question put and Motion agreed to.

Clause 29 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:56 p.m.
Hon Members, it is 3 o'clock by my watch and I think that we can continue tomorrow.
Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the announcement that I am minded to make is to strongly urge that we do clause 30.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:56 p.m.
I have looked at clause 30 and the proposed amendments are too many, so we would defer that to tomorrow.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is appreciated.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:56 p.m.
That brings us to the end of Consideration of the Narcotics Control Commission Bill, 2019 for today.
Hon Members, the House is adjourned to Wednesday, the 12th of February, 2020 at 10 o'clock in the forenoon.
ADJOURNMENT 2:56 p.m.