Debates of 12 Feb 2020

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 11:18 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 11:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:18 a.m.
Hon Members, Correction of Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, 11th February, 2020.
Mr Speaker 11:18 a.m.
Hon Members, we have the Official Report dated Wednesday, 4th December, 2019. Any corrections therein please?
Yes, Hon Rev. Ntim Fordjour?
Rev. John Ntim Fordjour: Mr Speaker, the second line of the second paragraph in column 22 should be “talents in our constituencies not only in football'' and not “talents in our
Mr Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa 11:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in the second paragraph in column 012, we should delete “Theroes''and insert “Heroes Park''. Again, the third paragraph in column 018 should be “Black Stars'' and not “Black Starts''.
Also, column 019 should be “Ghana National Petroleum Corporation'' and not “Ghana National Petroleum Company''.
Mr Speaker 11:18 a.m.
Hon Members, any other corrections?
Hon Members, in the absence of any further corrections, the Official Report of Wednesday, 4th December, 2019 as corrected, is admitted as the true record of proceedings.
Hon Members, item listed 3 -- Questions.
If the Hon Minister for National Security could please take the relevant chair?
Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have been looking all over for the Hon Minister for National Security but I cannot find him, so we could begin with Question 658.
Mr Speaker 11:18 a.m.
Question 658.
If the Hon Minister for Chieftaincy and Religious Affairs would please take the seat?
ORAL ANSWERS TO 11:28 a.m.
QUESTIONS 11:28 a.m.
MINISTRY OF CHIEFTAINCY 11:28 a.m.
AND RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS 11:28 a.m.
Mr Kwame Governs Agbodza (on behalf of Mr Dafeamekpor) 11:28 a.m.
Mr Speaker, my Colleague Hon Dafeamekpor came all right but since he is bereaved, he had to rush back.
Mr Speaker, I beg to ask the Minister for Chieftaincy and Religious Affairs how many Traditional Councils had been created in the Volta Region since 2017.
rose
Mr Speaker 11:28 a.m.
Hon Chairman of the Finance Committee, do you have any difficulty?
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:28 a.m.
Mr Speaker, consistently, Hon Kwame Agbodza is the one asking Questions on behalf of Hon Members on the Minority Side. If they are not ready to ask their own Questions, we might as well stand down those Questions.
Mr Speaker, a party seriously hoping to take over the reins of power, look at how empty -- How can we entrust governance in their hands? They are not even ready to come to the House to ask Questions. What kind of opposition is this? They have to keep Government on its toes and they will not even come to the House and ask Questions. What is this?
Mr Speaker 11:28 a.m.
Hon Member for Adaklu?

repeat the Question again for the benefit of the Hon Minister. [Laughter] --

Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, I beg on behalf of Hon Dafeamekpor who is currently out of the House for a very good reason, to ask the Hon Minister for Chieftaincy and Religious Affairs the number of traditional councils that have been created in the Volta Region since 2017?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:28 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Member rose to ask a Question on behalf of our Hon Colleague; Mr Rockson-Nelson Etse Kwame Dafeamekpor. He asked the question once and when you gave him the opportunity, he said; “I am going to repeat the Question again”.
Mr Speaker, the Question had not been repeated by him in the first place and so, he could not repeat again. [Laughter] --
Mr Speaker 11:28 a.m.
Hon Minister, please proceed.
Minister for Chieftaincy and Religious Affairs (Mr Kofi Dzamesi) 11:28 a.m.
Mr Speaker, section 12 (1) and (2) of the Chieftaincy Act 2008 (Act 759) provides as follows:
“12 (1) There shall be a Traditional Council in each traditional area.
(2) The name and members of each Traditional Council shall be stated in the National Register of Chiefs maintained under section 59 of the Act.”
Mr Speaker, since 2017 up to the 1st day of February 2019 when by Constitutional Instrument, two regions were created out of the previously existing Volta Region, and 11 Traditional Councils were created.
Mr Speaker, the following traditional councils were inaugurated of it 11:28 a.m.
a. Aflao;
b. Avenor;
c.Vakpo;
d. Adaklu;
e. Afife;
f. Battor;
g. Logba;
h. Nyagbo;
i. Wusuta;
j. Ziavi; and
k. Achode;
Thank you. Mr Speaker.
Mr Agbodza 11:28 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I thank the Hon Minister for providing this Answer and also for helping Adaklu to have its own traditional council.
However, beyond the creation - the ceremonial function that takes place — does the Ministry have any further commitment to helping these newly- created traditional councils to work effectively in terms of providing them with infrastructure and logistics?
Mr Dzamesi 11:28 a.m.
Mr Speaker, yes. After the inauguration of those traditional councils, the Ministry is supposed to post workers to assist in the functions of the various traditional councils. For example, every traditional council is supposed to have a registrar, a bailiff and a secretary. Unfortunately, we do not have enough personnel to do that. What we have done is that some other registrars are supposed to take over the works of some of the other traditional councils.
Mr Agbodza 11:28 a.m.
Mr Speaker, how soon should these newly-Created traditional councils be looking forward to the Ministry to come up with these necessary logistics and personnel that the Hon Minister has agreed to that
are necessary for the smooth running of the traditional councils?
Mr Dzamesi 11:28 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it depends on the availability of resources and as soon as possible, once we get enough resources, we will be able to let them function as usual.
Mr Richard M. Quashigah 11:28 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would like to find out from the Hon Minister whether the traditional council for Avenor and Afife are of equal status as the Anlo Traditional Council.-- [Interruption] --
Mr Speaker 11:28 a.m.
Hon Member, ask your question.
Mr Quashigah 11:28 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Anlo Traditional Council is made up of 33 states, including Avenor and Afife. I would like to find out from the Hon Minister whether these newly-created traditional councils are of equal status as the Anlo Traditional Council?
Mr Dzamesi 11:28 a.m.
Mr Speaker, yes. They are of equal status. If you go to the Regional House of Chiefs, all those paramount chiefs have the same status in the Regional House of Chiefs.
So the paramount chiefs of the Avenor and Anlo Traditional
Mr Quashigah 11:38 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to find out from the Hon Minister whether that does not create conflicts.

This is because, all these 33 states owe allegiance to the Awomefia of the Anlo Traditional Council. So if the Ministry creates new paramountcies, would they not be generating controversy and conflict?
Mr Dzamesi 11:38 a.m.
Mr Speaker, there is no confusion about that because the status of chiefs is different and at the Regional House of Chiefs, the paramount chiefs are equal. For example, the Asanteman Council has Otumfou Osei Tutu II as the head. This is same with the Anlo Traditional Council where there is the Anlo State, but at the Regional House of Chiefs there is nothing as Anlo State because they are all equal paramount chiefs at the Regional House of Chiefs.
Mr Speaker, thank you.
Mr Speaker 11:38 a.m.
Hon Minister, thank you very much for attending to the House to answer our Questions.
Hon Majority Leader, are we in the position to -- ?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:38 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the information I have is that the Hon Minister responsible for National Security is on his way to the House. He is not here yet so we could enter the arena of Public Business and lay some Papers. Then, when he gets here we can --
Mr Speaker, if there is a Statement then we can take that.
Mr Speaker 11:38 a.m.
Hon Minority Chief Whip?
Alhaji Mohammed-Mubarak Muntaka 11:38 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I just want to be sure since the Hon Majority Leader said that the ‘information coming to him'. This is not definite. So I would want to know if he has spoken with the Hon Minister or the Hon Minister is on his way.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister for National Security is a former Hon Member of this House and he knows that Hon Ministers are supposed to be here at 10.00 a.m. to answer their Questions. If the Hon Majority Leader is saying that the information given to him is that the Hon Minister is on his way, then in my opinion, this
is not definite. So I would want to know from the Hon Majority Leader if he has spoken to the Hon Minister and whether he is coming? We want a definite response from the Hon Majority Leader because the Hon Minister is supposed to be here by
Mr Speaker 10 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I began by saying that it has been difficult for me to establish personal contact with the Hon Minister. I have called him several times but I could not get through to him and I have also sent text messages to him. If I said that information reaching me indicates that he is on his way here, it does not necessarily mean that it has to be personal.
Mr Speaker, the source of the information is credible and I have no cause to disbelieve the source.
Mr Speaker 10 a.m.
Very well. Hon Members, let us wait for the Hon Minister.
We would take a Statement standing in the name of Dr Twum- Nuamah on the gruesome murder of
Madam Ruth Eshun, a constituent of the Hon Member.
STATEMENTS 10 a.m.
Dr Kwabena Twum-Nuamah (NPP -- Berekum East) 10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, Monday 3rd February, 2020 has become a “Black Day” for the health sector of this country. That day witnessed the gruesome murder of Ms Ruth Ama Eshun, a Community Health Nurse stationed at Sewua Health Centre in the Bosomtwi District of the Ashanti Region.
Mr Speaker, what makes it more painful is the fact that this hardworking nurse met her untimely death while returning from work from her duty post.
Mr Speaker, clearly, the hearts of her colleagues at Sewua Health Centre, her compatriots at the Ghana Registered Nurses and Midwives Association, staff of Ghana Health Service, staff of the Ministry of Health and the entire nation are broken following her murder.
Mr Speaker, one of the main challenges the country faces in her
Mr Speaker 11:48 a.m.
Thank you very much.

Death of Nurse Ruth Ama Eshun
Mr Kwabena Mintah Akandon (NDC -- Juaboso) 11:48 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am most grateful for the opportunity to make a Statement on the death of Nurse Ruth Ama Eshun.
Ever since Florence Nightingale laid the foundations of professional nursing, nurses have played a very important role in the socio-economic development of every nation because of their care for the individual, the family and the community. The sacrifices nurses make, sometimes risking their lives as they come face- to-face with all kinds of diseases and ailments in their quest to save lives has made the profession a noble one worldwide.
Mr Speaker, in Ghana, as in all countries, successive governments have channelled lots of resources into the training of nurses because of the critical role they play in health care delivery at all levels. This is more so because the patient to nurse ratio shows a massive deficit as far as the population of nurses in the country is concerned.
From the establishment of new nursing training institutions through to the refurbishment of old ones to the introduction of incentives, a lot has been done to increase the population of professional nurses in the country.
In spite of all these efforts, more nurses are desperately needed to ensure that the patient-to-nurse ratio reaches an acceptable standard. It is in view of this that one finds it very disheartening about the reported murder of the innocent Community Health Nurse at Sewua Health Centre in the Ashanti Region of Ghana on Monday, February 3.
Of course, every murder is unacceptable but this is one of that which the great William Shakespeare, a poet and playwright will describe in his tragic play, Hamlet, as “Murder most foul. ... strange and unnatural.”
Mr Speaker, Nurse Ruth Ama Eshun, a wife and a mother of three, according to reports, was not only murdered apparently for the money she went to withdraw at the bank ostensibly to cater for her house, she was also gang-raped and left dead in a pool of blood! Her murderers, by their barbaric act, have left three children motherless and a nation shocked in pain and traumatised.
I wonder the sort of persons who could be so cruel, heartless and evil to perpetrate such a heinous crime against this nation, against the three children, against her husband and against her.
Mr Speaker, this dastardly act has not only created a vacuum in the life
Mr Speaker 11:48 a.m.
Thank you very much. We will take one contribution from each Side and then the Leaders.
rose
Mr Speaker 11:48 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Mr James Agalga (NDC -- Builsa North) 11:48 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity given me to contribute to the two Statements ably made by the Hon Chairman of the Health Committee and the Hon Ranking Member.
Mr Speaker, from the onset, I would like to express my profound condolence to the family of Madam Ruth Eshun, who was brutally murdered and allegedly raped.
Mr Speaker, the murder of Ruth Eshun is a very serious matter that should not be taken lightly by the managers of our country's security. The reason I am very particular about the murder of Ruth Eshun is because of the location, if you like, the region where the incident occurred.
Mr Speaker, for quite some time now, the Ashanti Region has been in the news in respect of similar occurrences -- [Interruption] -- Mr Speaker, I thought I had thanked --
Mr Speaker 11:48 a.m.
Hon Member, proceed.
Mr Agalga 11:48 a.m.
Mr Speaker, he is distracting me.
Mr Speaker 11:48 a.m.
You are addressing me. Hon Agalga, proceed.
Mr Agalga 11:48 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, it is important to note that the murder occurred in the Ashanti Region. I am particularly worried because this adds to an increasing number of women who have been murdered.
Mr Speaker 11:48 a.m.
Hon Member, do not particularise any regional implication. It is most unnecessary. That is withdrawn.
Hon Member, proceed.
Mr Agalga 11:48 a.m.
Mr Speaker, over the period, quite a number of women
have lost their lives. On the 17th of January, 2020 --
Mr Speaker 11:48 a.m.
Hon Member, you know all that a Statement implies. You can sympathise with this unfortunate matter without going into unnecessary issues. If you move into those waters again you will sit down.
Hon Member, please proceed.
Mr Agalga 11:48 a.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully --
Mr Speaker 11:48 a.m.
Hon Member, you can proceed on the path consistent with the rules or shall I quote them for you?
Mr Agalga 11:48 a.m.
Mr Speaker, yes -- [Interruption] -- Hon Afenyo- Markin, please respects the Chair and your Hon Colleagues. His behaviour is unacceptable.
Mr Speaker 11:48 a.m.
Hon Member, you have the floor. You keep on referring to other people when you should concentrate on addressing me. I am looking - I even have eye contact with you; address me.
Mr Agalga 11:48 a.m.
Very well, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 11:48 a.m.
Hon Member, murders occur all the time. A Statement should not be prejudicial. If you proceed on that pathway, you would have your chance given to your Leader. Otherwise, we would have to treat the whole archival analysis of this history of murders.
rose
Mr Speaker 11:48 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Dr Nana Ayew Afriye (NPP -- Effiduase/Asokore) 11:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Statement.
First of all, I would want to commend the Hon Chairman and also the Ranking Member of the Committee for taking the pain to write the Statements today to talk about the death of Ruth Ama Eshun. We ought to condemn this. What we seek is justice and it must be swift.
Mr Speaker, we have to celebrate Community Health Workers. Many
times they do what we in the health field in terms of health service delivery do not do. We cannot do most of what they do in a day. Whereas a good doctor will sit in the consulting room and take care of patients, these persons always walk miles and distances to houses and individuals. Their targets are normally in the rural areas with poor courage. We cannot and we must not in any case, at any time, delay the course of justice to find those who commited the crime.
Mr Speaker, if you look at the eradication of guinea worm, if we want to celebrate it in this country, it should be non-other group than the Community Health Workers.
Mr Speaker, if we want to talk about expanded immunisation coverage, it is not any other group than Community Health Workers; they go everywhere and they are everywhere.
Mr Speaker, posting is a problem, especially to rural parts of this country. Community Health Workers sacrifice to be everywhere. In parts of this country where there are no Community Health (Based) Planning Services (CHPS), there is what we call Functional CHPS. These are without structures, but we expects Community Health Workers to travel
far to places to provide these services and some Ghanaians were able to rob, rape and kill such a dedicated person in this country at this time, with all this -- whether it is corona virus or COVID -19, as it is being termed, they are the first people who report index cases, in terms of disease surveillance in this country.

The rate of tuberculosis has gone down so much because they actually walked to the houses of persons with TB, and made sure that they took their medications, whereas many of us would not do that.

There is no room at any point in time for this crime to have been committed. It is therefore important for the Hon Minister for the Interior to update us; the people of this country, and for that matter the people of my constituency, so that the health workers in my constituency would feel safe, and be assured of what is being done by the Ministry of the Interior. As soon as practicable, justice must be delivered, and it must be swift.

Mr Speaker, on this note, I would take my seat, while I commend the Hon Members who made this Statement.

Thank you very much.
Mr Speaker 11:58 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Dr Ayew.
Hon Ayamba, you may take the place of the Hon Minority Leader.
Ms Laadi Ayii Ayamba (NDC-- Pusiga) 11:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this Statement.
Mr Speaker, it is very important that we take a serious decision about such issues. If we observe the work of community health nurses, the way they are posted, the places they go to and the work they do, it becomes very disheartening to note that an individual could have the nerve to rape, steal and kill a nurse, who might have been posted there, probably not by her will, but because she might have taken an oath to serve anywhere. As a result of this oath, she had to go through that forest in order to work. However, because those people did not have that empathy, they were able to kill such a woman, who had to leave three children and a husband behind.
Mr Speaker, this should not be left to rest until justice is delivered for the murder of this woman. We have heard
Ms Laadi Ayii Ayamba (NDC-- Pusiga) 11:58 a.m.


so many other murders, but this one would go a long way to affect most of our communities since these nurses are posted to areas where they are not even given any means of transport. Many at times, they walk, but they are those who give first hand information and education to especially women and the elderly in the remote villages.

When we talk of infant mortality, women who die at child birth, and issues that have to do with people having to practice some kind of medications that would help them, the education of such is normally done by these community nurses.

If there is no justice delivered very fast, what impact would it have on other nurses who would be posted to the rural areas? Would they go? Even if they accept to go, would they be ready to go out there and work wholeheartedly? Even if they are ready to work, what would be the security given to them that which would enable them go back home safely to their families?

Mr Speaker, I know very well that it would have a very big impact because members of that particular hospital would not go to work wholeheartedly, meanwhile, there might be times where people would need their services. This murder case would scare many away.

Mr Speaker, the Police or the Security have done their best. We have heard that they have arrested some people, but the issue has nothing to do with the arrests being made. Instead, the investigations should be fast, and there should be justice. We do not need delays because the delays sometimes cause us to lose track of the issues. We do not get to know what happens eventually to the perpetrators; we are not told what is done to them.

These issues come up, we hear of people who have been arrested, yet we do not get to know whether they get punished in order to deter others. I hope that with this particular incident, the security services would do their work and ensure that the perpetrators are made to face the law full rigors of the.

I extend my condolences to the family, and to all nurses. My colleague women who are nurses should take heart and try to comfort themselves, so that we could give the security services the support that they would need to ensure that this matter is dealt with accordingly.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity.
Mr Speaker 11:58 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Member.
Yes, Majority Leadership? Any comments?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe that everything has been said about this. We need to act, and act swiftly. That has been emphasised, and so I have nothing useful to add.
Mr Speaker 11:58 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Leader of the House.
Hon Members, we may take the Questions.
Hon Minister for National Security, you may please take the relevant seat.
Hon Member for Builsa North, you may ask your Question.
ORAL ANSWERS TO 11:58 a.m.
QUESTIONS 11:58 a.m.
MINISTRY OF NATIONAL 11:58 a.m.
SECURITY 11:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:58 a.m.
Yes, Hon Minister?
Minister for National Security (Mr Albert Kan-Dapaah) 11:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it has not been the practice in this country to have a documented National Security Policy that details a strategic framework and describes how the country provides security for the state and its citizens. However, we consider that there is an urgent need for such a documented National Security Policy.
In October, 2017, the Ministry of National Security therefore set up a Technical Working Group to initiate the process of drafting a National Security Policy. The Group comprised representatives of Government Ministries, Departments and Agencies; the Academia and known Security Experts.
2. The Group has made quite some progress. There have been several consultations with various Ministries and State Departments over the period and they have now come out with a draft detailed National Security Policy document. The draft document has gone through various validation and review processes with selected Security and governance experts as well as stakeholder
Mr Speaker 11:58 a.m.
Thank you very much Hon Minister.
Mr Agalga 11:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, there appears to be some delay in presenting the final draft policy document to Parliament. I would like to find out from the Hon Minister what has occasioned the delay given the fact
that he initiated the process as far back as October, 2017, that is way beyond two years.
Mr Dapaah 11:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, this is not a document about the National Ministry alone; we have to go to all the ministries and we have to get all the ministries involved so the consultations have taken much longer than they would normally be the case.
Mr Speaker, again, being the first time we are going to develop such a policy, different people have come up with so many suggestions all of which have to be taken into account. So the Working Group has been sitting and they have had to accommodate the various views of the various groups. I do agree that it is taking quite some time but if it is any assurance, I would like my Hon Colleague to know that by the end of the year, all these would have come to a close.
Mr Agalga 11:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister, in his Answer to my Question stated that when the policy comes into force, would set the stage for a progressive and secured security governance system. I would like to find out whether the progressive and secured security governance system also means that for once, our security sector would be accorded adequate and sufficient funding to carry out its operations?
Mr Speaker 11:58 a.m.
Hon Member, your question talks about policy and its readiness, but you are going into an area of funding. Kindly file a Question.
Next supplementary question?
Mr Agalga 11:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, if I may clarify the question. Here, we are talking about a National Security policy and I have read the policies of other countries; the United States of America(USA), and Russia. What those policies usually seek to achieve is to set out certain achievable goals. And those goals would usually come with funding. So once the policy is approved, it becomes imperative for funds to be sourced for to carry out the activities of the security agencies and to effectuate the policy.
Mr Speaker, I would like to know from the Hon Minister—
Mr Speaker 11:58 a.m.
Hon Member, your question is whether the Hon Minister has plans to introduce a National Security policy before Parliament but now, you are delving into finance and others. That was not your Question.
His plan to introduce a policy has nothing to do with your supplementary question. Ask another one.
Mr Agalga 11:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, sorry—
Mr Speaker 11:58 a.m.
Do you have plans to introduce a National Security policy?
Mr Agalga 11:58 a.m.
Yes.
Mr Speaker 11:58 a.m.
What has this got to do with funding?
Mr Agalga 11:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, his Answer says:
“The policy will set the stage for a progressive and secured security governance system.”
Mr Speaker, so that question flows from that response.
Mr Speaker 11:58 a.m.
It does not. I have ruled that it does not flow nor does it emanate from your Question. Ask another supplementary question.
Mr Agalga 11:58 a.m.
Very well, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 11:58 a.m.
Do you have any other question? You may ask another one and that is why I said ask another question.
Mr Agalga 11:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have exhausted my questions.
Mr Speaker 11:58 a.m.
You have exhausted all questions?
Mr Speaker 11:58 a.m.
Hon Okudzeto Ablakwa, Hon Agalga is exhausted and you may continue from there.
Mr Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa 11:58 a.m.
I am most grateful, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, I rise to ask the Hon Minister for National Security, what would be the duration of this policy when it is completed at the end of this year as his Answer stipulates considering how dynamic security threats are unpredictable and all of that? Would it be a five-year policy or a ten-year policy? Would it be permanent and what does he envisage at this point?
Mr Speaker 11:58 a.m.
Hon Minister, your question.
Mr Dapah 11:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the intention is to have a policy that runs for four years, but the policy document itself would require that at the beginning of every year, the security experts sit down to assess what they perceive to be the important National Security threats that they expect in the coming year.
Mr Speaker, so it would be there for four years but every year, we would go through a process of identifying
emerging National Security threats and this would be done on an annual basis.
Mr Speaker 11:58 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Minister.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 11:58 a.m.
Thank you Mr Speaker. The Hon Minister has said that the country does not have a documented national security policy. My question is, does the Hon Minister have a strategic framework for delivering security to the people of this country and if he does, what informs the strategic framework?
Mr Dapaah 11:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we were very careful in our choice of words. We have not had in this country, a documented National Security policy and it does not mean that in previous Administrations, there were no National Security Policies. Even if there were, it was not documented. What we want to do this time round is to document it, make it public, come to the House and let the House be made aware of what we have.
Mr Speaker, so, what we are doing is probably, not different from what has been done in the past except that we are not going to put it in the cupboard; we are going to have a policy that is known to the country,
to the world and which sets out the way we want to manage our country in a manner to safeguard the people and their properties.
Mr Christian Corleytey Otuteye 12:18 p.m.
Thank you Mr Speaker. In response to the Question in paragraph 3, the Hon Minister states clearly that:
“It is our intention to submit the final draft to the Parliament for their input”.

How soon would they submit this to Parliament so that we could have a look at it?
Mr Speaker 12:18 p.m.
The Hon Minister has answered the Question. He said before the end of the year.
Yes, next one?
Dr Agyeman-Rawlings 12:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon Minister for National Security how the cyber-security document would take its reference from the National Security Policy given that the Ministry of Communication is the one that appears to be in charge of the Cyber- Security Policy in Ghana.
Mr Kan-Dapaah 12:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, cyber-security is one of the major security challenges that we have. The Ministry of National Security works very closely with the Ministry of Communication in this regard. We have to do that now because within the Ministry of Communication, they have quite a lot of expertise which we think could be of use to us.
Cyber-security is one area that falls within the space of national security as a whole and the intention is not to cede it to the Ministry of Communication. For now, we need to recognise the expertise that they have which is very useful to the Ministry of National Security. I can assure you that we work closely together and for now, we believe it is working. Cyber-security would certainly find its necessary space within the National Security Policy that we want to come up with.
Mr Kwame Governs Agbodza 12:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we thank the Hon Minister for his answers.
Very often, we hear citizens complain about having an encounter with somebody who says he or she is from National Security concerning land issues or other things. Could the Hon Minister assure us that by the time that we address this new policy,
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, our Standing Orders provide in Standing Order 69 that:
“As soon as a Question is answered in the House any Member beginning with the Member who asked the Question may, without notice, ask a supplementary Question for the further elucidation of any matter of fact regarding which the answer has been given, but a supplementary Question must not be used to introduce matter not included in the Original Question.”
Mr Speaker, I believe the question asked by my Hon Colleague offends this Standing Order for which reason I would invite you to rule this question out of order.
Alhaji Muntaka 12:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe my Hon Colleague the Majority Leader is very aware that the admissibility of questions lies with you only. You called the Hon Minister
to answer the question and I thought that it had passed through because in your view, that question was relevant. I also believe it is because the National Security Policy would address this ambiguous way of just meeting anybody on the street who would tell you they are from National Security. I am sure that the Hon Minister is capable of answering this question that has been admitted by Mr Speaker.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, a specific Question has been asked and a specific Answer has been given. It should not be used to open a ‘snoozed‘ gate to ask any question that the person desires. In this case he is going fishing on the wild seas. It does not relate to the substantive Question asked and does not also ensue from the Answer and that is why I am asking you to rule the question out of order.
My Colleague the Hon Minority Chief Whip knows that leadership is supposed to assist you in managing this House and that is exactly what I was doing. In any event, you never invited the Hon Minister, but you said “Minister” and I rose. I would want to suggest to my Hon Colleague that what was coming from your mouth had not been concluded until I entered.
Mr Speaker 12:18 p.m.
If I were to reframe the question, I would want the Hon Minister to simply tell us how all- encompassing is his proposed policy.
Mr Kan-Dapaah 12:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the policy would provide the framework for us to identify national security threats, national security challenges and how we would organise ourselves to manage and address those challenges. We do not need to wait for the policy to address the concern that the Hon Member raised with respect to people claiming to be members of the National Security outfit when in fact, that is not the case.
On a day to day basis, we are working hard to address that particular problem. It is not something that may find express mention in the policy document but it goes without mention that there is a need for us to stop that unfortunate situation where people claim to work for the Ministry of National Security when in fact, they do not work for any of the security and intelligence outfits in the country.
Alhaji Muntaka 12:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if you would permit me, I have two short questions to ask the Hon Minister. The first has to do with the steps that have been taken so far to build consensus on both Sides of the
House with regard to political parties, so that we do not have the situation where after all these efforts, another regime comes and does not work with the document that they have tirelessly made efforts to build.
Mr Kan-Dapaah 12:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that it is important that we come up with a policy that would be acceptable to both Sides of the House and it has been our policy to work closely with the Select Committee on these matters. The Select Committee has been involved in what has been done so far and would be involved as we go along.
We would always have it at the back of our minds that there is no need coming up with a policy which would be thrown away when a particular Government is not in power. We want to develop that consensus and it is absolutely critical that we do that. You could say that one of the reasons it has taken so long is that we want to give opportunities for all to have their views incorporated into the policy document.
Alhaji Muntaka 12:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in his answer, the Hon Minister was contemplating that when it comes to Parliament, he may want to engage the Select Committee on Defence and the Interior. Would the Hon Minster
Mr Kan-Dapaah 12:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we consulted on this and tried to find out what the best practice has been in other countries.

In all the other countries entries that have such documented National Security Policy, the interaction with Parliament has been through the Select Committee and also with the Leadership and this is what we intend to do for now. However, we are open to take advice from the Leadership of the House if they think there should be some other means for us to interact effectively with the House.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister in the last paragraph of his Answer said, and with your permission, I beg to quote:
“The vision of the Government is to use the National Security
Policy to set the stage for a progressive and secured security governance system''.
Mr Speaker, I would want to know from him what principle underpins that policy in the overall governance architecture.
Mr Kan-Dapaah 12:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this goes to the very foundation of the governance system that we seek for ourselves as a country which is captured in the Constitution, where we all resolved we want to establish a free will of government which shall secure for ourselves and prosperity for the blessings of liberty, equality of opportunity and prosperity. We see ourselves doing something which conforms to this principle which is set out clearly in the Constitution. What we have done is not different from what we have resolved in the Constitution to do as a country.
Mr Speaker 12:28 p.m.
Thank you very much Hon Minister, for attending upon the House to answer our questions.
You are respectfully discharged.
At the Commencement of Public Business, the item listed 5 -- Presentation of Papers.
PAPERS 12:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker 12:28 p.m.
Hon Members, item listed 6 -- Narcotics Control Commission Bill, 2019, at the Consideration Stage.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 12:28 p.m.
STAGE 12:28 p.m.
Chairman of the Committee (Mr Seth Kwame Acheampong) 12:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, Clause
30 headnote, before “officer” insert “authorised”
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 12:28 p.m.
3 “Duties and powers of an authorised officer''.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K.S. Acheampong 12:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 30 subclause (1), opening phrase, line 1, delete “27, an officer authorised by the Director-General” and insert “28, an authorised officer”
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 12:28 p.m.
“Without limiting section 27, an authorised officer may upon reasonable cause…''
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr S. K. Acheampong 12:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 30 subclause (1), paragraph (a), line 2, delete “place of entry” and insert “entry point”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr S. K. Acheampong 12:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 30 subclause (1), paragraph (a), subparagraph (ii), line 2, delete “place of entry” and insert “entry point”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:37 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member for Adaklu?
Mr Agbodza 12:37 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman of the Committee has made some amendments and substituted ‘'place of entry'' to ‘'entry points''. However, since there are a couple of them, with your indulgence, could you direct that since it is consequential, anywhere we see ‘'place of entry'', it should be substituted with ‘'entry point'', so
that we could make progress? Unless there is a place that we would use ‘'a place of entry'' and it would be appropriate.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:37 p.m.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, that is the suggestion.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:37 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is consequential and as you said basically, that has been the accepted norm.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:37 p.m.
Is that the case to the rest of the proposed amendments to clause 30?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:37 p.m.
Mr Speaker, not necessarily but based on the areas related to the subject matter, we accepted to go by that rendition.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
Very well.

Very well. So rather than going through all of them, I direct that unless the context otherwise, suggests, the draftspersons should substitute “point of entry” for “entry point” in the Bill.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 30
subclause (1), paragraph (a), add the following new subparagraph:
“any other person found at that airport, seaport or river port or other place of entry into this country;”
Mr Iddrisu 12:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, one would have assumed that instead of “place of entry”, the Hon Chairman would have said “entry point” and consequentially, as you directed, the draftspersons would take note of that accordingly.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
Item numbered (vii)? It is the same thing. It is consequential
Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes. We will take a cue from your directives.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
Item numbered (viii) also. What about item numbered (ix)?
Mr S. Acheampong 12:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move Clause 30 subclause (1), paragraph (b), add the following new subparagraph:
“any other person found at that airport, seaport or river port or other place of entry into this country;”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
Are you amending the advertised amendment?
Mr S. Acheampong 12:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes rightly so. It will follow from the earlier amendment --
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr S. Acheampong 12:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is the same as you have directed.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
Very well. So that would cover item numbered (x) and (xi).
Yes, Hon Member for Builsa North?
Mr Agalga 12:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is a problem with the grammar in the amendment proposed in item numbered (ix). So we have “entry point into this country”. The grammar is not correct.
Mr Speaker, it should be “entry point of this country” but we cannot have “entry point into this country”. That is tautology.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
I am getting advised but - Hon Agalga, you are a Catholic right?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
You were supposed to meet with the Bishops today?
Mr Agalga 12:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is so.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
You did not show up.
Mr Agalga 12:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, so many things crossed me this morning against my will.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
When your Bishops are coming, you should pray that you will be lifted above every other thing. [Laughter]
Yes, Hon Chairman, what is your response?
Mr Agalga 12:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I further amend the advertised amendment to read “entry point to the country”. So, we take away “into this” from it.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
Items numbered (x) and (xi) are covered in the directives I gave.
Mr S. Acheampong 12:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move Clause 30 subclause (1), paragraph (f), line 2, after “seaport” insert “or river port”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr S. Acheampong 12:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move Clause 30 subclause (1), paragraph (g), line 1, before “cargo” insert “a”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
Are the rest of the Hon Members of Parliament with us? This is because I am not getting enough participation from them. I am rather seeing pockets of other meetings on my Left and Right.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, unfortunately, the Hon Members of Parliament who mostly support us in this particular Business are engaged --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
Well, I am expecting those in the Chamber to support us.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
Hon Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation, you were also absent from the Bishops meeting.
Dr A. A. Osei 12:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Member's statement is incorrect. We are here to support him and he says that the Hon Members who are going to support him, unfortunately, are not here. So should we go? [Laughter] --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
I have observed that you were absent from the meeting with the Bishops today. [Laughter] No, you were not? You were conspicuously missing.
Very well.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
Item numbered (xiii)
Mr Iddrisu 12:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I may have to indulge you and seek your leave in respect of clause 30 (1) (c). There is no advertised amendment but if you read it: “prevent any traveller or person …”
Mr Speaker, should it just be “person”, or we need to qualify it with “a” or “any”. I know that I am not a
modern draftsperson but when you read it, it says: “prevent any traveller or person authorised to work”.
If it is good enough, I am comfortable.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
So what are you proposing?
Mr Iddrisu 12:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, elsewhere, I have seen us use “a person” but for this, it would have been “any person authorised to work”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
I think that the “any” before the “traveller” qualifies the person.
Mr Iddrisu 12:38 p.m.
All right. Thank you.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
That is, “any traveller or person”. Is that all right?
All right. Item numbered (xiii)?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 30 subclause (1), paragraph (h), line 1, before “waybill” insert “a” and at end of line 2, add “or driver of a vehicle”.
Mr S. Acheampong 12:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 30 subclause (1), paragraph (i), line 1, before “despatch” insert “the”.
Mr Quashigah 12:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have a problem with the amendment proposed by the Hon Chairman.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
Hon Member, which of the proposed amendments please?
Mr Quashigah 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, item numbered (xiv).

We are talking about ‘goods' and it appears to me that. It is most appropriate the way it is. “…demand for shippers instructions for despatch of goods.” Instead of making it definite ‘…the despatch of …', if it is just ‘good', then we may find it most suitable to have the definite article ‘the'.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Hon Member, but the ‘the' qualifies ‘despatch' not ‘goods'. ‘…demand for shippers' instruction on the despatch of goods'.
Mr Quashigah 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, you could look at it from that perspective. But again, you would realise that, the emphasis is on ‘goods'. ‘The despatch' is a verb, it is a doing word. So the emphasis cannot be on that one, but on the object, which is ‘the goods'. So we can only say
‘despatch of something. So it is ‘the despatch of the goods'.
Mr K.S. Acheampong 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I seem not to appreciate the concerns raised by my Hon Colleague on the opposite Side who just spoke. Mr Speaker, from the explanation you gave, that was the understanding on which we amended the particular enactment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Hon Member, “…a demand for shippers instructions for the despatch…” We are demanding ‘…instructions for…' - If we leave it as ‘…despatch of goods', it does not refer to any specific thing. But it appears to me, the Hon Member is referring to any one particular activity relating to despatch of goods. So “…the demand for shippers instructions for the despatch of goods”. I think the ‘the' is appropriate in the circumstance, but I am a servant of the House. I think we should proceed.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Hon Members, item numbered xv on the Order Paper.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 30 Subclause (1), paragraph (j), delete and insert the following:
“(j) perform functions imposed on an officer under this Act and discharge any other statutory duties.”
Mr Speaker, we are just rearranging paragraph (j).
Mr Iddrisu 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if the Chairman has no objection, I would like to propose an amendment to read, “…perform any other function or statutory duty that may be imposed on the officer…” as against his amendment.
“(j) perform functions imposed on an officer under this Act and discharge any other statutory duties.”
Mr Speaker, I would prefer that rendition if the Chairman is comfortable, that would seem to convey what he want to achieve.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Chairman, ‘…any other function…' not related to anything.
Mr K.S. Acheampong 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would go for the rendition which has been made.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K.S. Acheampong 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 30 subclause (2), line 1, delete “officer authorised under subsection (1)” and insert “authorised officer”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr K.S. Acheampong 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, before I proceed to make my amendment as advertised, I would wish to state that from the new works we are doing on the Bill, I would want to crave your indulgence that where we have ‘…officer authorised..', we will insert ‘….authorised officer…', so it become consequential. So you may direct, so that we move on faster.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Hon Member, in respect of which clause?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in respect of what we just did in item numbered xvi, it would come up subsequently in the body of the --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Very well. Now, there is no occasion for me to make order. So when we get there, we will cross the bridge.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.


So let us deal with clause 31.

Clause 31 -- Power to monitor activities in respect of precursors and control-led equipment
Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 31 subcl ause (1), l i ne 1, delete “company, a firm, a” and insert “person, company, firm,” and in line 2, delete “and” and insert “or”.
Mr Quashigah 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, could he give us the new rendition?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with your permission, I beg to read:
“(1) The Commission shall monitor a person, company, firm or partnership or an enterprise that deals in precursors and controlled equipment or…”
Mr Agalga 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was part of the deliberation, but the proposed amendment upon second thought would create a lot of problems.
Mr Speaker, apart from ‘company', which we are seeking to substitute with ‘person', we also have ‘partnership' and ‘enterprise', so why
do we delete ‘company' and maintain ‘partnership' and ‘enterprise'? So maybe, we should leave ‘company' and ‘firm' to stand the way they are because we all that in law, ‘company' could --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
I think what it was intended was to just introduce the person. So --
“(1) The Commission shall monitor a person, company, firm or partnership or an enterprise that deals in precursors or controlled equipment.”
So, if we introduce ‘person' at the beginning and then substitute ‘or' with ‘and' at the last but one word, we will be there. Is that right?
Yes, so we would have:
“(1) The Commission shall monitor a person, company, firm or partnership or an enterprise that deals in precursors or controlled equipment”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 31 subclause (3), line 3, delete “2009 (Act 793)” and insert “2018 (Act
983)”.
12: 58 p.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Hon Members, we would move on to item numbered xviii.
Mr K.S. Acheampong 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32 - subclause (2), paragraph (c), line 2, after “unauthorised” insert “person or”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Hon Members, we would move on to item numbered xix, by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Yes, Hon Ntow?
Mr Ntow 12:48 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, sometimes, it would do us a lot of good, if they are channelled after the proposed amendment is done. The new rendition would then also be read, which would make it flow, so that we enjoy it. So, when you put the Question, we would be in a better position to appreciate the Question, and say “aye” or “noe”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Thank you, Hon Member, except that with this one, I put the Question on the new rendition. I read it out, and
the vote was on the new rendition. I would however ask the Hon Chairman to ensure that the new rendition is read out for Hon Members to appreciate the amendment proposed.
Yes, Hon Chairman?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, before we move on to the advertised amendment, there is a consequential amendment that I would want us to effect at subclause (4). It reads:
“an officer may enter, search and inspect, with or without a warrant;
a) Any premises of a company…”
Mr Speaker, before “a” and “company”, I would want to insert “a person”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Hon Members, let us move on to xix, subclause (6).
Mr K.S. Acheampong 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 31, subclause (6), opening phrase, before “company” insert “person,”
Mr K.S. Acheampong 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 31, subclause (6), paragraph (b), line 1, after “sale” insert “or distribution”.
Mr Speaker, it would therefore read 12:48 p.m.
“A company, firm, partnership or enterprise that deals with unauthorised persons in the sale or distribution of precursors or controlled the equipment in contravention of this section commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine or a term of imprisonment or to both as specified…”.
Mr Speaker, I would not read the entire paragraph, but the “Sixth Schedule” is amended to read “the Second Schedule.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Hon Members, we would now move on to item numbered xxi, by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
Mr K.S. Acheampong 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 33 - Headnote, after drugs add, “and plants”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Hon Members, we would now move on to item numbered xxii, by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
Mr K.S. Acheampong 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 33 - subclause (1), line 1, delete “or” after “imports” and after “exports insert “or re-exports” and after “drug”, insert “or plant”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 12:48 p.m.
“the controlled equipment are as specified in the Third Schedule”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32 -- Oath of secrecy.
Mr K.S. Acheampong 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32 - Subclause (1), line 3, delete “Eighth” and insert “Fourth”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition becomes 12:48 p.m.
“an officer shall, on appointment to an establishmented post in the Commission and in accordance with Oaths Act, 1972 (NRCD 6), take an oath of secrecy as specified in the Fourth Schedule.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Hon Members, we would move on to item numbered xxv, by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
Mr K.S. Acheampong 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32 -
subclause (2), paragraph (c), line 2, after “unauthorised” insert “person or”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Hon Members, we would now move on to item numbered xxvii, by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
Mr K.S. Acheampong 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 34 - - subclause (1), lines 1 & 2, delete “proof of which lies on that person” and in line 2 insert “or plant” after “drug”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Hon Members, we would move on to item numbered xvi, by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
Mr K.S. Acheampong 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32 - - subclause (3), paragraph (b), line 1, delete “concerning operational activities” and insert “relating to operations”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Hon Members, we would move on to item numbered xvii, by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
Mr K.S. Acheampong 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, even though you have put the Question already on item numbered xvi, I am sorry, but I should have qualified the operations with “the”. Therefore, it should have been: “…information relating to the operations of the Commission.” This could be seen in sub clause (3), paragraph (b).
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Very well, I would put the Question afresh.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Hon Members, we would move on to item numbered xvii, by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
Mr K.S. Acheampong 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32 - - subclause (3), paragraph (c), line 1, delete “concerning” and insert “relating to”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
1. 08 p. m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Hon Members, we would move onto item xvii, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, not to send us back but in respect of (c), the amendment which has been captured in xvii, I think in line 1, it is proposed to delete ‘and' and insert ‘or'. So it really should read:
“Any instruction or directive relating to the operations of the Commission”.
Mr Speaker, so there is distance in the use of the disjunct instead of the conjunct.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
So is it xvii?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:48 p.m.
Yes, xviii, that is (d).
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Well, I have just called—
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, sorry, (c) of xvii.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Alright; item numbered xvii -- any instruction or directive?
Very well.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Item Numbered xviii?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32 subclause (3), paragraph (d), opening phrase, delete “concerning” and insert “relating to”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Item numbered xix?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32 subclause (5), opening phrase, delete “A person” and insert “An officer”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think we started amending “officer” by qualifying it with the “authorised” so it should be consequential. It should read:
“An authorised officer who contravenes this section”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Well, for now, it is advertised so let us just vote on it.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Item numbered xx?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32 subclause (5), paragraph (b), line 3, delete “Sixth” and insert “Second”.
Mr Speaker, it is consequential.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Very well.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Clause 33?
Clause 33 - Importation and exportation of narcotic drugs
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Item numbered xxxi?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 33 headnote, after drugs add, “and plants”.
Mr Speaker, the headnote reads 12:48 p.m.
“Importation and exportation of narcotics and plants”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
I think— How many are in there because we took a decision on the ‘plants' and I gave a directive earlier so we could just skip them and go to any other substantive - the directive I gave relating to adding ‘plants'
Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in line 1 of clause 33, subclause 1, we disjuncted it by putting an ‘or' instead of the conjunction ‘and'.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
That is item numbered xxxii.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:48 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 35 headnote, after “drugs” add “and drugs”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Hon Chairman, kindly read the new rendition.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition reads:
“A person who imports, exports or re-exports a narcotic drug or plant without a license issued by the Minister of Health commits an offence and is liable on
summary conviction to fine and a term imprisonment as specified in the Second Schedule”.
Mr Agalga 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if we look at the interpretation clause, narcotic drug has been defined. Now, my worry is, if we have to add plants as we have done so far, we need to define narcotic plant as well. This is because it is too vague; narcotic plant.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we would do that when we get to the interpretation side.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
We could just add “narcotic drug or plant” and the definition would be the same but we would get there.
Let us continue. Can I put the Question on the amendment?
Mr Iddrisu 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 33 (1), I know we have gone beyond the matter of policy and principles. I am looking at the situation where the Airport authorities arrest someone with a narcotic drug and then he manages to come and tell the world that he has the authorisation of the Minister for Health to bring in that quantity of that substance be it cocaine or heroin.
Mr Iddrisu 1:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it would have meant that by accepting clause 33, we had mandated persons to stand in. I do not know what the best practice is; I am just coming to read the United Nations Drug Regulation but my worry is that it is very possible that someone - someone is arrested with huge quantities of cocaine or a particular drug and then, a Minister for Health emanates and says that he has my authorisation. What happens under this circumstance?
I think that we all should think through it, but probably, as you put the Question, I am worried because when you said clause 33(1)(2) apart from (1) and (3):
“The Minister for Health may grant a licence for the importation of a narcotic drug”.

Mr Speaker, maybe, I should now see how we put the Minister to check. We should add “on the recommendation of the Board”. It should not be an individual, we should not leave it just to the Minister for Health. Even if the Minister; has to issue a licence for importation or

exportation, let it be on the recommendation of the governance structure established under this law.

To leave it to an individual, it could be abused. A minister could just come and say that he or she authorised it, then what do we do because by the law, we have given him or her the mandate to do so. So we should check the Minister and deepen clause 33. So maybe it could be:

“the Minister for Health, on the recommendations of the Board or subject to the Board, shall grant the licence”

We should not vest it in the Minister. I do not know what the Hon Chairman and the Hon Minister would want to do by way of policy but I am not comfortable with us giving the power to a minister to have the mandate to import and export what we are saying is illegal without authorisation. Even if he has to do it, he should do it with some other body, organ or structure. I worry about leaving it to an individual's judgement.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:18 a.m.
Let me listen to the Hon Member for Ekumfi.
Mr F. K.A. Codjoe 1:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that the Hon Minority Leader
Mr Patric Y. Boamah 1:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the apprehension of the Hon Minority Leader has been allayed in the Food and Drugs Authority Act. There are processes which any importer of such drugs ought to follow. So I do not think that he should be afraid of discretion being given to the Minister for Health alone.
Maybe, the people of Lamashegu are afraid of getting affected by such orders but I do not think that he should be afraid. The Food and Drugs Authority Act has set out rules and regulations to curtail those abuses of powers given to the Minister for Health. In any case, they are doing it already as they give those orders for the importation of some drugs like ephedrine and other limited drugs.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is rightly stated by Hon Boamah, however, this Bill is a very modern Bill and at the time we were developing it, the outdated Bill could not allow for what Hon Boamah just said. Hence, we needed an administrative body to regulate that, so it was offered to the Food and Drugs Authority.
In the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime's (UNODC) arrangement, however, it is jointly done with narcotics and that is even clearer that the body which is in the management of the prohibition and control of narcotics takes charge of such a responsibility. So, if we are freshly enacting legislation in that order, we need to go by the proper arrangements.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:18 a.m.
So, what are you proposing currently?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, as the Hon Minority Leader proposed, we have in clause 33(3) that:
“The Minister for Health may grant a licence for the importation of a narcotic drug if satisfied that the licence can be properly granted and an application has been made in the prescribed form.”
In the prescribed form it is a process, so we would go with the suggestion made by the Hon Minority Leader and add “on the advice of the Board”, so that it is not solely left to -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:18 a.m.
So, for a person applying for the licence currently, does he go to the Food and Drugs Authority (FDA), gets the licence and go back to the Narcotics Board? Currently, what is the practice?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, currently, the practise is that some precursors are issued by the Food and Drugs Authority and some are also issued by the Narcotics Control Commission.
As I said at the start, the schedule to this very enactment did not exist in the old law, so the Narcotics Control Commission did not have those listings within their schedules. It is however their mandatory assignment in the discharge of their duties. So it is express here in the schedules and that is how the UNODC works. That is the status quo of all the conventions that have been approved.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:18 a.m.
Since they are located at different Ministries, if we are not careful, we would encumber the process for those who
need to import these things to us. So I suggest you reconcile them. There is an existing practice, so if you are going to take it off completely to stop that practice, you should amend that Bill or use this Bill to annul that portion. Otherwise you would go here and the others would also say no, they do not have our licence and it would generate challenges.
Mr Agalga 1:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to throw light on clause 33(5). It actually deals with precursors and that is the only time the FDA comes into the picture. Clause 33(3), however, talks about narcotic drugs, and the responsibility is conferred on only the Minister for Health. So the Hon Minority Leader's argument is sound to the extent that he wants us to place some checks or put in place an arrangement which would require the Minister to act on the advice of the Board.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, on the issue of getting the Minister to act in consultation or on the advice of a body, as far as the grant of licence is concerned, that can be taken care of in clause 33(3). In clause 33(1), the amendment proposed by the Hon Chairman is appropriate, so let us deal with that.
In clause 33 (3) where the Minister grants the licence, we may qualify it to say that:
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:18 a.m.


“the Minister for Health may on the advice of the Board, grant the licence for the importation of…”

So that is where we should find space and not in clause 33(1). Let us deal with clause 33(1). As proposed by the Hon Chairman, in line 2, it is intended to delete the words, “for that purpose”. That is not advertised, so the entire clause would read:

“A person who imports, exports or re-exports a narcotic drug or plant without licence issued by the Minister for Health, commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine and a term of imprisonment as specified in the Second Schedule.”

Mr Speaker, that is the amendment proposed by the Hon Chairman. I am just saying that we should delete “for that purpose” in line 2 because it is just an overkill.

Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:18 a.m.
Item numbered 6 (xxiii)?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 33 -- subclause (1), at beginning, delete “A” and insert “In accordance with section 126 of the Public Health Act, 2010 (Act 921), a” and in line 4, delete “Sixth” and insert “Second”
Question put and amendment agreed to
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 33 -- subclause (2), line 2, delete “Sixth” and insert “Second”
Question put and amendment agreed to
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, xv. Clause 33 -- subclause (3), delete and insert the following: “The Minister for Health may grant a licence for the importation, exportation or re- exportation of a narcotic drug or plant if satisfied that an application has been made in the prescribed form and the requirements for the grant of the licence has been complied with.”
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we want to further amend this amendment to read:
“The Minister for Health may, on the advice of the Board, grant a licence for the import, export or re-export of a narcotic drug or plant if satisfied that the application has been in the prescribed form and the requirements for the grant of licence has been complied with''.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:18 a.m.
What is on the Order Paper is for the “importation'' and exportation'' or “re-exportation''. Do you want those words changed?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:18 a.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker. However, after the modal “may'', we would insert “on advice of the Board''.
Mr Iddrisu 1:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have read the frame work of the international control of the United Nations (UN) on illicit traffic and narcotics drug with reference to the psychotropic substance of 1988. The words, “importation and exportation'' were borrowed from it.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader should convince us. The words “imports'' and “exports'' are not the same. The word “importation'', connotes a certain meaning within international trade and
the word “exportation'', also connotes a certain meaning - not just import'' narrowed to the goods. For example, when cocaine is brought into the country, that item at that moment is the “import'' but the process of bringing it into the country under World Trade Organisation (WTO), is ‘'importation''.
Mr Speaker, I therefore do not see anything wrong if those words are used. Probably, the Hon Majority Leader, could reconsider his position.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in the body of the Bill, there is the consistent use of the words “import'', “export'' and “re-export''. If the Hon Minority Leader insists, it means we have to go back and use those constructs everywhere, but the value is the same as far as this is concerned.
Mr Quashigah 1:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is true that the meanings could be the same but the word “import'' is a direct active verb -- [Interruption] - yes - if it is not only that, then what else? They mean the same but for comfortability, the words “importation” and “exportation'' sit well. So if the Hon Majority Leader would not mind, I would plead with him to agree with the Hon Minority Leader that we go by what is traditionally known irrespective of the
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the word “import'', is completely different from “im-port'' even though the two aspects are the same.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:18 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader, can we restrict ourselves to the text of the proposed amendment before us? The word “exportation'' may stand alone but when we use the word “export'', it may relate to the specific act. So, we could maintain it as it is, if it truly does not make any difference to you.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it does not make any difference to me, except that as I said, in many parts we have used the words “import'', “export'' and “re-export''. So if we want to introduce that terminology, what it would mean is that for consistency sake, we should go back and do same throughout. Otherwise in the context, the word “import'' means the same as the word “importation''.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:18 a.m.
So what do I do? Should I put the
Question on the new amendment or the old one?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, put the Question and let us leave it to the draftpersons to do what is appropriate.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:18 a.m.
Very well.
Mr Agalga 1:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would not contend the additional amendment. I raised the issue earlier about the use of the phrase “narcotic plant'' and the Hon Majority Leader pointed out to me that “illicit narcotic plant'' had been defined.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:18 a.m.
Hon Member, can we finish with what is before me? I want to put the Question on the proposed amendment, unless what you want to say is related to it.
Mr Agalga 1:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is part of the clause.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:18 a.m.
Is it “narcotic drug'' or “plant''.
Mr Agalga 1:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, they have carefully chosen a phrase ‘'illicit narcotic plant'' with a definition. However, there is a clear distinction because there could be a narcotic plant which has not got psychotropic
qualities. For instance, industrial hemps.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:18 a.m.
How are they defined on the ground? If you see one, can you identify it?
Mr Agalga 1:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we do not even smoke industrial hemp because they are for industrial use; fibre is extracted from it and they have no psychotropic qualities.
Mr Speaker, my proposal is that where we have introduced “plant'', we should insert “illicit narcotic plant'' and it would even be in tandem with what has been defined.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, at many places we have used “narcotic plants'' and at some other places we have used “illicit narcotic plants''. It would not mean the same in the context. Maybe for consistency sake the Hon Member wants us to apply ourselves to one. For instance, if we go back to clause 2(c), we used the term ‘'illicit narcotic plants'' and there are other places that we just used “narcotic plants''.
Mr Speaker, if the argument is that we have to be consistent in either the use of the words “illicit narcotic plants'' throughout or may be, “narcotic plants'' throughout, I would
agree with him but the two have been used interchangeably.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:18 a.m.
Probably, they intended different things.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:38 p.m.
That is what was introduced in clause 2 (c) as I said but in other places that is what is introduced in sub-clause 2 (c) as I said. In other places, they simply say, “narcotics plants”.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, “narcotics drugs” have been defined. They are either psychotropic substances or a chemical precursor specified in one of the Schedules, from the First to the Fifth, and which is used illicitly.
Mr Speaker, it means that any drug which is called a narcotic drug should be one specified in one of the Schedules and which use is illegal. So if we still add “illegal narcotic”, it is tautology. That is, anytime we use it, we are using it illegally.
Even if it has been used, we have to go back and delete it. If not, it will be tautologous. This is because a narcotic drug is a drug which is specified in the definition here. We have not defined it yet because --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
Let us read the meaning of illicit narcotic plant. Illicit narcotic plants means vegetation that has psychotropic qualities. That is all. So whether you use psychotropic plants or drugs, I think the definition gives you the same thing.
Mr Agalga 1:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, all I am urging the House to do is to use the phrase as they find it in the interpretation section so that we do not run into problems. So where “plant” has been introduced, we use “illicit narcotic plant” so that the challenge with distinctions will not arise.
Mr Speaker, I tried to distinguish between industrial hemp and hemp with all the psychotropic -- tetrahydrocannabinol THC. That distinction is valid. Some of the plants have the THC in it and others do not -- We are not going there but for the avoidance of doubt --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
Hon Member, let me put my Question on the proposed amendment.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
The draftpersons are directed to use the appropriate term whether it is “export” or “import” or “importation or exportation” or “re-importation”.
Mr S. Acheampong 1:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 33 -- subclause (5) line 1, after “importation” insert “exportation or re-exportation”.
Question put and amendment agreed to
Clause 33 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill
Clause 34 -- Unlawful possession or control of narcotic drugs
Mr S. Acheampong 1:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this is a consequential amendment that has not been advertised to the headnote. It should read: “Unlawful possession or control of narcotic drugs or plants”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
I do not understand by what you mean by consequential --
Mr S. Acheampong 1:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was adding “or plants” to the headnote.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
Very well. I direct that the draftpersons add “or plants” to the headnote.
Now, proceed to the advertised amendment.
Mr S. Acheampong 1:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to withdraw the advertised amendment in item numbered (xxvii) except the second part of the amendment which is to insert “plant” after “drug”. This is consequential to an earlier directive.
Mr S. Acheampong 1:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 34 -- subclause (2), line 1, delete “the” and insert “an” and after “offence” delete “of unlawful possession or control of a narcotic drug” and insert “in subsection (1)”.
Mr Agalga 1:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to more, clause 34(2) line 1, delete “the” -The whole of Clause 34(1) (a) is problematic and so, if you come down to 34(2) (a) - we seek to amend “a person who, without lawful authority, proof of which lies on that person, has possession or control of
a narcotic drug and we add plant. For use or for trafficking, commits an offence”.
That is the first one.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, on my second reading of clause 2, I think we should not delete “the” and I invite the Hon Majority Leader to carefully look at it.
“A person who, without lawful authority, proof of which lies on that person has possession or control of a narcotic drug or plant for use or for trafficking commits an offence”.

Mr Speaker, 34(2) says; “A person who commits the offence specified in subsection (1) because we are removing that long phrase. So it should be “the offence specified in subsection (1).
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:48 p.m.
Hon Member, but I am without lawful authority, prove of which lays with that person. I thought we were deleting it?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we said we should not delete it for the abundance of caution. Mr Speaker, with the greatest respect, I know you know that in such instances,
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:48 p.m.
Revolutionary drafting we have gone past that; we have gone by the Constitution. The Constitution puts that if a person alleges or claims that he or she authority or there is the license to hold it, the evidence should be shown. Otherwise, we have moved away from putting these things in the Bill.
Very well, we would go to clause 34(2). Hon Member you said the, ‘the' should stay, right?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, what is contained in the original document should be allowed to stand, then the definite article is required. But now, there is a new construct, we are saying that, ‘a person who commits an offence - [Interruption] - in subsection (1), it is what you have proposed. He commits an offence in subsection (1). There are some offences listed. One is that the person may have possession. The second is, he or she may be in control, that is also one offence, that is any one of the offences listed in subsection (1), then he or she would suffer some consequences.
So if we are to go that his new construct, then the ‘an' the indefinite article is preferred to the definite article.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was part of the Committee but let us review it again. Subsection (1) is the offence creating section. Subsection (2) then imposes the sentence. So there must be an offence which has been created [Interruption] -- that is what the provision says.
Mr Speaker, I beg to read.
“34(1) A person who without lawful authority, proof of which lies on that person, has in his possession or control a narcotic drug or plant for use or for trafficking commits an offence.”
So, that is the offence -- creating section.
Mr Speaker, clause 34(2) then says 1:48 p.m.
“A person who commits the offences…” - the offences specified in subsection (1).
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:48 p.m.
Hon Member, the offence is listed.
“…who commits the offence of unlawful possession…?”
The offence of control, because he is breaking them up by breaking up by using ‘or'. So, ‘the' is an article that is still needed there.
“A person who commits the offence of unlawful possession or control…” So ‘the' still relates to ‘the' or trafficking. So, ‘the' controls each of these ones. That is why they have been broken up; each one is a specific offence and a person commits any of those offences --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are not using what is contained here. What is contained here has been amended. That is why I said that if we are using the original, then the definite article is right.
They have listed more than one offence in clause 34(1), if we commit any of those listed offences, that the person is subject to subclause 2(a) or (b).
Mr Speaker, that was why I said in the context --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:48 p.m.
Could you read the new rendition?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition is:
“A person who commits an offence in subsection (1)…”.
Mr Speaker, because if we are talking about just one offence there, then it would read:
“If a person commits the offence…” but several has been listed. So, if a person commits any of those offences, he or she is subject to subclause 2(a) or (b). That is the meaning.
Mr Speaker, if you insist, I think --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:48 p.m.
I think that the original rendition is better. We should retain it.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we can do that. In which case the definite article ‘the' is required.
Mr Quashigah 1:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as you said, the original rendition is the most suitable. With the new one, we are transiting from clause 34(1) to 34(2). Clause 34(2) does not introduce a new subtopic. So it takes its strength from clause 34(1). So, the definite article goes to qualify what was said in clause 34(1). Hence to think of even introducing an indefinite article should not arise. What you said
Mr Francis K. A. Codjoe 1:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that if we are interested in dropping the ‘unlawful' possession, then the definite article ‘the' must come, but if we are keeping it, I think the indefinite article makes it better. There are two offences in there. We would now break down those offences. So the person can commit any of offences. So if we would keep it, then it should be ‘an'. If we drop the ‘the', it is better.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:48 p.m.
Hon Member, I think if we use ‘an', the offence has been created by some other subsection, so we are referring to them one by one. ‘The control', ‘the possession', ‘the use' are each a separate offence created already. So I think we should maintain the original rendition.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just to cut a long story short, we could revert to the original construction. It is about the same. But for the purposes of this House, ‘and, so therefore' is wrong English. We say ‘and so' or ‘therefore'.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:48 p.m.
Hon Leader, you are out of order.
[Laughter] There is no just contention.
So we would abandon the proposed amendment in clause 34, item numbered (xxviii). So we would go to item numbered xxxix on the Order Paper.
Mr K.S. Acheampong 1:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is consequential.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:48 p.m.
Very well, the draftpersons will take note and effect the amendments.
Mr K.S. Acheampong 1:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
Hon Member, no, it is not your amendment. This amendment was proposed by the Hon James Agalga.
Yes, Hon Member for Builsa North?
Mr Agalga 1:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 34 -- subclause (2) paragraph (a) delete and insert the following :”for use is liable on summary conviction to the imposition of measures specified in the second schedule”.
Mr Speaker, the rationale behind this is to decouple the sentencing regime, or to remove same in respect of the possession of narcotic drug for use, as opposed to the possession of narcotic drug for trafficking.
Mr Speaker, the underpinning principle upon which this Bill was promulgated is that drug use disorder --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
Hon Member, hold on.
Hon Members, having regard to the state of Business of the House, I direct that the House Sits outside the regular Sitting hours.
Hon Member, you may now continue.
Mr Agalga 1:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, one cardinal underpinning principle under which this particular Bill was promulgated was to ensure that drug use is treated as a public health issue. So what we are trying to drift away from is that users who are convicted should be rehabilitated or treated. Their place is not the prison, and that is why this proposed amendment is relevant. Therefore once the person comes before court, the court rather than incarcerate the person, would now impose measures.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
Hon Member, address me. I am listening to you, so ignore the asides.
Mr Agalga 1:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, therefore first of all, I would like to seek your guidance --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
What you are saying is that the person should be sentenced to the measures, or punished in accordance with the measures. However, the measures in the Schedule of the current Bill includes fines and custodial sentence. You therefore seek to propose that when we get there, we allow you to propose an amendment to the Schedule. Is that right?
Mr Agalga 1:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, except that it has not been advertised. When I enquired why the advertisement has not been made, the Table Office said that the advertisement cannot be made now because it has to do with the Schedule. So I would want to seek your guidance. Having moved the first leg of the amendment --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
All right, let us deal with this one, so that when we get to that point, then what you would do, will become -- [Interruption] it is the same thing. If we amend --
Mr Agalga 1:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, it flows. So when the first leg of it is proposed and the second is not taken, the essence of it could easily be lost. That is why I would want to seek your guidance.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
Hon Member, you have moved this proposed amendment. You proposed that the measures should be introduced at the end. For now, the measures are not part of the Bill, but your intention is clear. So let us deal with this current proposed amendment.
Question proposed.
Mr Chireh 1:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Member has not moved any proposed amendment. He only sought your guidance. This is because if he moved the proposed amendment, then we should take a decision on it After that, he may then seek your guidance on the other things which the Table Office advised him on.
The Hon Member seeks to delete what is in the original Bill by the way he puts it. He says that we should just add what he has proposed.
2. 08 p. m.
In saying so, the objective here is that “for use is liable on summary conviction to the imposition of measures specified in the Second Schedule.”
Mr Speaker, the Second Schedule, if the measures include a custodial sentence, we have not solved the problem; therefore we should just say that we should replace the whole thing and say only for a fine, but not as in the Schedule. If we say as in the Schedule, we would have a problem. And that is why we are seeking guidance and we cannot vote on guidance in this matter.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think at the heart of the proposal by the Hon James Agalga is that people who suffer from substance use disorders should not be imprisoned. We are suggesting that people with substance use disorders should not be imprisoned but should be subject to rehabilitation.
Mr Speaker, but what is stated is not restricted to that; read from the group headnote: “Narcotic drug offences”. And indeed, even to clause 34 which provides:
“A person who without lawful authority…”
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, even though his argument is quite specific, it has been dealt with in this Act. And I would invite the Hon Member to look at paragraphs (a) and (b) and we can see clearly from the sentencing regime that the law deals with use differently from trafficking. It means the law itself accepts the fact that those who use might be suffering from substance abuse or substance use disorders.
Mr Speaker, let us look at the sentencing regime; in sentencing, they are dealt with differently. If it is the Hon Member's case that the sentencing should not include incarceration, he can amend paragraph (a) to remove incarceration, but the law itself deals with it; it says:
“A person commits the offence of unlawful possession or control of a narcotic drug if the drug is for use, is liable on summary conviction to a fine imposed in accordance with the penalty…”
So it is a fine and not an imprisonment.
Mr Speaker, this is because the whole of clause 34 -[Interruption]- is very important in understanding clause 34(2).
Clause 34 admits that there are people who could have in their possession or control, narcotic drugs if they have the permit to have them. Clause 34 says that one could have permit to have a narcotic drug and can then use it; but if one does not have a permit and have a narcotic drug, one has committed an offence. That is what clause 34(1) is telling us.
And if one commits an offence, one must be dealt with. And clause 34 deals with those who commit that offence and it says that there two categories of people; those who use and those who traffic. And the law admits that those who use have a psychological problem that we must deal with. And so they imposed a fine; but in trafficking, they imposed a fine and a term of imprisonment.
Mr Speaker, I do not think that -
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, let me assist my Hon Colleague.
Clause 34(1) talks about - Now, possession for use:
“A person who, without lawful authority, proof of which lies on that person, has possession or
control of a narcotic drug for use or for trafficking commits and offence”.
Now, possession for use has been defined and let us look at the interpretation. “Possession for use” means:
“The possession or control of a quantity of narcotic drug which does not exceed the quantity which can reasonably be used by an individual in a day.”
That is possession for use; but even that, one has to have an authority; if one does not have an authority, it is an offence. Mr Speaker, that is what we are proposing so I do not really see why the Hon Colleague is stagnating the process of passage of this Bill.
Mr Agalga 1:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am not by any stretch of imagination seeking to stagnate the passage of the Bill. Mr Speaker, and let me address Hon Inusah Fuseini's concerns -- [Interruption]
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
Hon Member, I thought you wanted to wind up. Otherwise, I have not given you the floor; I want to listen other people. You have made your argument.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
You do not hijack the floor; unless there is any other person -- Hon Chairman does not want to comment on this.
Mr Banda 1:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I wanted to come in to pose the question as to what is meant by ‘for use' and it appears I was looking at the wrong portion of the interpretation. This is because we have another use of a narcotic drug in the interpretation section to mean to smoke, sniff, consume, inject into the body and so on and so forth.
Mr Speaker, but it appears the portion referred to by Hon Majority Leader is the correct portion contemplated within clause 34(2)(a) of the Bill. The two are not the same. ‘For use' as I have just referred to, is different from “possession for use”.
The two are not being used interchangeably so the two are different. That is what I wanted to --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
Very well, the important thing is that the policy is to avoid punishing people who have illicit drug use complications, and that is what we wanted to create
an offence from, but it appears that has been provided for already.
If not, then we should be looking at the sentencing and not this section.
Mr Agalga 2:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, that has been the crux of my argument and so if you look at clause 34 for instance, the offence creating clause, I have not said anything about that. It is clause 34(2)(a), which then of course, appears in the Schedule which prescribes the forms of punishment that I am looking at.
That is what the amendment says. So I am suggesting that we delete and insert “for use is liable on summary conviction…” but the measures to be imposed -- I have even conceded and that is why I used the word “measures” carefully as opposed to “custodial sentence”.
Now, Hon Fuseini says that what is imposed is only a fine but he forgets that when you default in the payment of the fine, you are then given a custodial sentence. So what we have in the Schedule does not resolve my concerns at all. There should be no fine at all because the moment you introduce the fine, you are definitely
problematic users and people who have disorders.
If they are unable to pay the fine, they would go to jail but the moment somebody with that problem is incarcerated it defeats the very object of the Bill. So when I set out to make these arguments, I was mindful of the fact that we have gone beyond policy but it is the policy which has given birth to subclause clause 2(b) which says --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:18 a.m.
Hon Member, have you looked at clause 38 on offence of purchase of narcotic drugs?
Mr Agalga 2:18 a.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:18 a.m.
That is on a person who purchases narcotic drugs for personal use and then the court is given direction to make an order directing the person to seek treatment and rehabilitation at a facility approved. So it appears that there are provisions for people in that category but probably not in this clause you are looking at.
Mr Agalga 2:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have yet another amendment when we get to clause 38. If you look at clause 38(3), it says:
“A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or subsection (2) is liable on summary conviction to a fine or a term of imprisonment as specified in the Sixth Schedule”.
Subsection 2 talks about personal use.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:18 a.m.
Then you go to subsection 5 which says:
“Without prejudice to subsections (3) and (4), a Court that convicts a person for an offence committed under subsection (2) may make an order directing the person to seek treatment and rehabilitation at a facility approved by the Commission in consultation with the Minister for Health.”
Mr Agalga 2:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the problem here is that we are giving options to the Judiciary to incarcerate even where the user has disorders. So it is a discretion that the Judiciary would have to exercise.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:18 a.m.
How do you determine that the user has a problem? Somebody must determine that as a matter of fact.
Mr Agalga 2:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, that is what I am saying.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Member has been consumed by the passion to Criminalise the use of narcotics but the State is enjoined to maintain a healthy balance between prohibition and rehabilitation. There should be a healthy balance and that healthy balance is to prevent others who have not yet joined the bandwagon of use to be aware that if they use, they would be punished.
Mr Speaker, clause 38 addresses those who are habitual users and the court takes that into consideration. It would be a dangerous law if we removed the penalty here. It would be an invitation to the generality of the Ghanaian people to use narcotic drugs because they would not be punished but would be rehabilitated. We should send the signal to them that if they use it unlawfully and are caught, they would be punished.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:18 a.m.
So I would put the Question on the proposed amendment by the Hon Member for Builsa North. He has not withdrawn it, so I would put the Question on it.
Question put and amendment negatived.
Mr Agalga 2:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it looks like the Noes' voices were more thunderous. [Laughter]
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:18 a.m.
Unfortunately for you, I am the judge and I rule that the Noes have it.
The item numbered 6 (xxxi)?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is consequential.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:18 a.m.
Very well. I would direct the draftpersons to effect the changes as previously directed. In that case, I would put the Question on clause 34.
Clause 34 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35 -- Prohibited business relating to narcotic drugs
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 35, headnote, after “drugs” add “and plants”.
So on the headnote, it would read: “Prohibited business relating to narcotic drugs and plants”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:18 a.m.
Very well. I would direct the draftpersons to add “and plants”.
Item numbered 6 (xxxiii).
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 35, subclause (1), lines 1 and 2, delete “manufactures, processes, produces” and insert “produces, processes, manufactures”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we just want to rearrange it. So instead of ‘'manufactures'', ‘'process'' and ‘'produces'', we would start with ‘'produces'', ‘'processes ‘', manufactures'' or ‘'distributes''.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
That is all right but what we have on the Order Paper is, ‘'produces'', process'', manufactures''. Is that what you want?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is what I sought to further amend.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
I want to get it clear.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we just want to rearrange it.
So the new rendition would be:
“A person who without lawful authority, produces, processes, manufactures or distributes...''.
Question put and amendment agreed to
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 35 -- subclause (2), line 1, after “authority” insert “trade in, purchases or trafficks”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have another proposed amendment. We would not delete ‘'undertakes any activity'' but rather we would insert ‘'trades in, purchases, trafficks or undertakes an activity''. So the word ‘'or'' before the ‘'trafficks'' should be deleted and there should be a comma after the word ‘'purchases''.
Question put and amendment agreed to
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 35 -- subclause (3), lines 3 & 4, delete “manufacture, processing, production, distribution, sale, administration or use” and insert “production,
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there was something missing in the amendment that we effected in item numbered (xxiv) on the Order Paper.
The word ‘'sells'' should come before the words ‘'trades in''.
So, the new rendition to 35(2) would be:
‘'A person who without lawful authority sells or trades in…''.
Question put and amendment agreed to
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 35, subclause (4), line 2, delete “fifth” and insert “Seventh”.
Mr Speaker, this amendment should subsequently be conse- quential.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
I direct the draftspersons to effect this change.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, item numbered (xxvii) on the Order Paper is also consequential.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
I direct the draftspersons to affect the change.
The same thing applies to item numbered (xxxviii) on the Order. Is that right?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:28 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Question put and amendment agreed to
Clause 35 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36 -- Cultivation of plants for narcotic purposes
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
Item numbered (xxxix) on the Order Paper?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 36 - subclause (1), line 2, after “cultivate” insert “or own”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 36 -- subclause (2), lines 1,2 and 3, delete “who cultivates a plant or owns a farm for the cultivation of a plant which can be used or consumed for narcotic purposes or from which a narcotic drug can be extracted or processed” and insert “who contravenes subsection (1)”
Question put and amendment agreed to
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
Item numbered (xli) on the Order Paper?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker that is consequential.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
The draftspersons would effect the appropriate amendment and same would apply to item numbered (xlii) and (xliii) on the Order Paper.
Question put and amendment agreed to
Clause 36 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37 -- Administration of narcotic drugs prohibited
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
The draftspersons would effect the
appropriate amendment with regard to item numbered (xliv) on the Order Paper.
Clause 37 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38 -- Offence of purchase of narcotic drugs.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
Hon James Agalga?
Mr Agalga 2:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 38 - subclause (3), line 2, delete “or subsection 2”

Mr Speaker, the argument is simple. Subclause (2) talks about the purchase of narcotic drugs for personal use. All I am seeking to do is to have us takeaway all forms of custodial sentencing regimes in respect of drug use. I think that runs counter to a very fundamental object of the Bill; that argument is similar to the one I made early on, in respect of clause 34 and I respectfully still stand by that argument.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that issue raised by my Hon Colleague would better be said by the presiding judge.
Mr Agalga 2:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader's view came up
strongly at the Committee level and I recall that a counter argument was that in a given situation where the convict has not got legal representation, particularly, in a rural setting where magistrates sit and accused persons do not have the benefit of Counsel, the convict will not be in the position to properly canvass these arguments. So we leave the judge with the unfettered discretion to then come under subclause (3), convict and impose a custodial sentence.
Mr Speaker, so I made that argument forcefully and I want to repeat same here.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:38 p.m.
You are suggesting that the judge that will convict under clause 38(3), will not be aware of clause 38(5) or he will be aware but will ignore it.
Mr Agalga 2:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, he will be aware but if he so decides that regardless of clause 38(5), first of all, he will give a fine and if the convict does not pay the fine, the default provision here would send him or her to jail.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:38 p.m.
Hon Member, even in the --
Mr Agalga 2:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes. That is what is in the Schedule.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:38 p.m.
Hon Member, even if in the face of evidence that the person is clearly having complications, you do not trust the judge to be able to - Anyway, the Hon Minister wanted to make a point and so, I will listen to him.
Mr Ambrose Dery 2:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you.
I just want to ask for clarification that even if it is a fine and he or she does not pay the fine, what happens? So there must be an option.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:38 p.m.
In fact, his argument is that a person in possession should not be fined at all but should be sent straightaway to a facility but it is not everybody who is in possession that has complication. The policy is to remove people who are “junks” so to speak from the prison and rehabilitate them.
However, we should not also create room for just everybody who uses it to be deemed to be “junk”. No. It is not everybody who uses narcotic drugs who is already “junk”, some are on their way and for those people punishments are --
This first time offender thing, my Senior in practice used to say something that if a young person gets introduced to the use of drugs,
the best treatment is to give him what we call “s-s-s” --“sharp, short and shocking” punishment. For this, he or she is confused when they are sentenced to prison for a month. Their traumatising experience during the one month stay, would deter them from going there again. That sentence is better than saying the convict should go home or to the hospital as they feel they can get away with it and continue.
Anyway, Hon Member, if you are not withdrawing, I will put the Question.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we sympathise with your view but we should not encourage it at all.
Mr Speaker, you are perfectly right. Impunity will reign in this country and the law itself will be abused if we put the Hon Member's suggestion in the law. This is because there is always a natural propensity for young men to try certain things and they must be aware of a law like this that when a court tries them for such an offence, they will go to jail.
So we save the country of the huge resources we produce to rehabilitate them. Even if we read clause 38(5) carefully, the discretion -- and I believe, my Hon Colleague will one day cry at the Bench as well. The
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:38 p.m.
Yes, what do you propose I do?
Mr Agalga 2:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I just want to, at least, so that I can be captured for the records, incarceration has never resolved the problem of drug use and the evidence abounds. In the United Kingdom, the Home Office has come out with a report which clearly shows that none custodial measures is the way to go in dealing with the problem of drug use.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:38 p.m.
Hon Member, that is, in people who have become already complicated but for fresh starters, it has been - I have seen it myself, my clients --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this constant reference to
experiences elsewhere in temperate climates and so on -- the Hon Member has been a former Minister for the Interior and I thought he was going to domesticate his examples that in the Ghanaian context, this is what he has seen.

Mr Speaker, please put the Question and let us make progress.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:48 p.m.
Very well, if you are not drawing, then I will put the Question.
Question put and amendment negatived.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, item numbered xlvi is a consequential amendment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:48 p.m.
Very well. The draftspersons will take care of the remaining subclauses in items numbered xlvi and xlvii.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just a minor amendment to clause 38(5). Perhaps, it may address
the issue raised by my Hon Colleague, Mr Agalga.
Mr Speaker, if we could in line 1, delete, “that” at the end of line 1 and at the beginning of line 2, we may delete “convict” and insert “convicted”. So that it would read:
“ 38 (5) Without prejudice to subsections (3) and (4), a Court in convicting a person for an offence committee under subsection (2) may make an order directing and rehabilitation at a facility approved by the Commission in consultation with the Minister for Health.”
So, that in the course of doing that --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:48 p.m.
Hon Member, in the course of doing the conviction?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:48 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker. In the course of that because they would have looked at that before judgement is read, I thought that would partially address the issue raised by my Hon Colleague.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:48 p.m.
He admitted that the person has used it;
he has committed the offence. So, if the person has not committed the offence or the court is satisfied, he is not convicted, the court has power directing him to go anywhere. It is only after conviction that the power of the court comes to play. When it is satisfied that a person has committed the offence rather than sending him or her to prison and directing that he goes somewhere to seek medical advice. We cannot change that.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, he is my Leader as well, so I want to tell him that after conviction, the court makes consequential orders. The court cannot make consequential order if it does not convict -- [Interruption] -- All right, in sentencing let us leave it like that. There are consequential orders.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, what I have written here is that the court in sentencing the person -- But I leave it to you.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:48 p.m.
I think what is there is sufficient.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:48 p.m.
Hon Members, the advertised amendment is a consequential one, the draftsperson would take note and effect the amendment accordingly. Unless there is any other amendment, I will put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 40 -- Special plea bargain.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 40 line 4, delete “at least” and insert “not more than”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think in line 3, we proposed to have ‘may' inserted in line 3, that is between ‘and' and ‘have'.
“A person arrested and charged with offence of possession of a narcotic drug or plant for trafficking who is only a courier for a principle may plead guilty to the offence during the trial
proceedings and may have the sentence reduce by not more than one and a half if that person co-operates fully…”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:48 p.m.
Hon Member, if we introduce the ‘may' there, then we would give the discretion to the judge after co- operating, he is not assured. If I were his lawyer, I will not advise him to co- operate unless I am assured.
The provision says that “…if that person co-operates…” he gets half remission.
Mr A. Dery 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do know if this amendment would be sufficient motivation to help us get the -- [Interruption] -- because it should be reduced by at least half if that person co-operates fully and you are saying “…not more than…” at least it is the minimum and we have capped a maximum. If the maximum is at half, what is the motivation?
Mr Speaker, plea bargaining is left to the discretion -- it depends on the extent to which the co-operation is obtained and the impact. If it is now being capped, I do not know. We are dealing with drugs. They might as well take moneys rather than co-operate. We have to look at the option. I know that my Hon Colleagues have done a
good job -- I was not of the country -- I want us to look at it. Plea bargaining depends on what the information is. That thought that -- [Interruption] - Well, it depends on the discussion. But if you say we are capping it at half, and that is the best that the person can get, I do not know if it is sufficient motivation in plea bargaining. If I am the lawyer, I do not know --
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the rationale for introducing ‘may' - even though I agree with you, that if you were the lawyer, you would be careful because of the things that have to be done for the courier to enjoy the incentive.
2: 58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it says, the principal must be arrested and convicted. So, it is not only for a person to say that he is a courier. The information that he gives must lead to the arrest of the principal. That principal, when arrested, must be charged with that offence. So the information must irresistibly lead to that person. That is what it says, so we could introduce “may” because he may have that information, and he may give that information out, but the principal is not within the jurisdiction.
So we seek to give that discretion to the judge, so that even though the principal is not within the jurisdiction and he cannot be arrested let alone be charged, the judge gets to still exercise that discretion. That is why we introduced the “may”. This is because if not, then the second leg of the conditions might not be satisfied.
However, the judge can be satisfied that the information was given in good fate, and that if the principal was within the jurisdiction, he would have been arrested, and if he was arrested, he would have been charged. The judge may then decide to exercise the discretion in favour of the courier. That was the issue.
Mr A. Dery 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, when I dealt with the case of Malam Issah, I had a practical situation as a lawyer at the time, to decide whether to accept culpability and offer some reparation. But the condition was that we had to plead guilty to it. We did not take it, and went the longer way.
In his case, the law says that it applies when a person is arrested and charged. So the pre-condition is that the person should be arrested and charged. So what is the need for? I do not get the Hon Member's argument, so --
Mr A. Dery 2:48 p.m.


argument is simple. It says that the law recognises that we are to deal with two types of persons in the narcotic trade business. It recognises that we are to deal with couriers. These couriers, because of hunger, poverty and certain conditions, are being used - the law recognises that these people are being used, and that they are being pushed into carrying drugs for principals because of certain conditions.

Therefore when that courier is arrested and it is established that he is a courier, if he gives information to the Narcotic Control Commission, and that information leads to the arrest of the principal and the principal is charged, the courier should benefit.

He has already committed a crime by carrying the drugs. However, this one incentivises the courier to reveal the identify of the principal. That is why we say that “at least half” should even be changed to “not more than half”. So it says that if a courier gives that information, if he was to go into prison for 10 years, the maximum he may be sentenced to, is five years.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:48 p.m.
In that case, that is not what it means. Not more than half is a benefit. The sentence is now reduced by half, so it is a benefit. However, when we cap
it, it would mean that the person cannot get more than half the benefit. If he gives out information about the principal, then it means that he must go scot free.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:48 p.m.
No, he cannot go scot free. The law is not intended to let him go scot free.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:48 p.m.
That is why the Minister says that the motivation here may not be sufficient enough for the courier to give out all the information that may be needed, if there is no opportunity to get freedom. Maybe, if there is that opportunity, then the courier could lead them all the way to the very top.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the policy of the law, as we understood it, was to punish the courier as well. This is because the mens rea is established. He knew it was a crime because he carried drugs that are prohibited by law. So the mens rea and the actus reus are established.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:48 p.m.
No problem. That is why he pleaded guilty. However, the courier gives them information which is so vital that they are able to dismantle a whole network.
Therefore if we would want to motivate him to give us all the
information, then instead of he being sent to prison for two or three years, we may decide to let him go scot free, just because of the value of the information he gives out. If we limit it to half, then it may probably not motivate him enough.
Mr A. Dery 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this is an amendment that I would plead should be abandoned. This is because the judge, looking at the situation, may find out that the courier is just a vulnerable person, who have been used. If the courier therefore gives out information for the principal to be arrested, it should be possible in that circumstance for the judge to decide to let him go scot free.
However, if evidence shows that he is also a professional courier, who has some benefits, then at least, half of the sentence could be given out.
Honestly, if we would really want to be sure that the vulnerable culprits are saved, then we should give discretion to the court to decide to give half the sentence, but where the judge is convinced that the courier is an innocent person, who had been lured into that, then it should be possible for the judge to decide to let him go scot free. [Interruption] --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:48 p.m.
Actually, what the Hon Leader sought to introduce was to change “half the sentence” to “may have the sentence”. I thought that we would have argued about whether it would be sufficient motivation to leave the discretion to the judge. Therefore I thought that if a courier's information is found useful, then there should be no room for a judge to decide whether he likes him or not. It is the value of the information that the courier gives out which should determine his fate.
So we should have the sentence reduced by at least half. If we say “may reduce”, then there is too much discretion introduced to the judge. I thought that this was what we wanted to discuss. In that case, I think we should leave it as it is.
Mr Banda 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not have a problem with the rendition that they have proposed now, except to say that I have a problem with the addition of the word “charged” as a pre-condition for the enjoyment of the rights of the pre-bargaining by the accused person. This is because once it is established that the accused person has fully cooperated and has given the requisite and the appropriate information that ultimately leads to the arrest of the principal, I think that the
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is the problem when good men are doing laws for bad men; they presume many things. The courier gives information; a person has been arrested as the principal. Until that investigation establishes a prima facie case that he is the principal, and prima facie case can only be established if he is charged before he can enjoy.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:48 p.m.
Is charge not at the discretion of the Attorney-General?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:48 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:48 p.m.
If we decide that notwithstanding all the information, we decide not to charge the person, should I not get my benefit?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the charge is indemnifying the officers. A courier has been arrested, he gives information and the information leads to the arrest of a person. At the time that the arresting officers can be sure that this is that person, the information must lead not only to the arrest but to the charging of that person.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:48 p.m.
That is the problem he is raising. The
decision to charge is not necessarily dependent on the evidence.
Mr A. Dery 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, but if we do not add charge as a pre- condition, then the courier could lie about Mr A who is not the principal. And once Mr A is arrested, the person enjoys? No, he must be charged.
And Mr Speaker should look at it from the prosecution point of view. We are looking for offenders and we have got some who have committed courier offence. The reason why we might let one go so that they give us a bigger fish, but if they do not give us that, then we need to deal with them.
Mr Speaker, I am afraid, the charging should be allowed to stand.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:48 p.m.
That is from the prosecution point of view. What about from the accused person's point of view? Should we decide, for reasons other than evidence and crime, not to charge? And we know that happens. And for reasons other than the evidence being available or sufficient, we decide not to charge the person, should the person not have his benefit if he has cooperated fully?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:48 p.m.
Let us use your case: supposed after your client gave all the information necessary to support a charge and the Attorney-General decided that he was not charging him? Would he not have discharged his responsibility? He cooperated with them; gave all the information; they have actually been arrested; a docket was made and the
Mr A. Dery 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the investigator would take a caution statement and take a charge statement. Once he takes a charge statement, the person is charged. The prosecutor would decide that he prosecutes or not. That is a different thing; but once the charge statement is taken, the person is charged. They did not say convicted, no!
The evidence would come in Court, but the investigator who has benefited from the person giving the information, would not find it difficult charging. Once a charge statement is taken, it is done and I do not think that would be --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:48 p.m.
I get the point; the difference between charging and prosecution. And the law talks about charging, not prosecution.
Mr Banda 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, when a suspect is charged, it means there is a prima facie case against the suspect and the suspect is to be arraigned before a Court. Yes, that is what it means. Prosecution is the trial that goes on in a Court.
Mr A. Dery 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, can I help?
Mr Banda 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am on my feet now.
Mr Speaker, prosecution is the trial that goes on in Court. Charge starts from the police station when a prima facie case has been established that indeed and in fact, one is suspected of having committed offence so one is being arraigned before a Court. That is when one is charged.
General or the prosecutor may even decide not to charge because probably, the case may end up being a bad case in which case
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:48 p.m.
Then you have not given proper evidence; you have not been helpful. A real challenge is, if all the evidence point to the big fish being caught but the prosecutor decides not to prosecute. And that is one of my challenges but now if he is charged - once they put a charge, whether a prosecutor prosecutes is another matter.
Mr A. Dery 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I insist that at the police station, prima facie is not the consideration. At the police station, if there is a reasonable basis for the suspicion, they charge. Prima
facie is when the prosecution closes its case and the court decides to determine if it is a prima facie case or not.
Mr Speaker, so please, it is at the police station; the police arrest the person and they take a caution statement from the person, then, they take a charge statement from the person. The person is charged; finished!
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:48 p.m.
Your point is well made.
Now I will put the Question on clause 40.
-- [Pause] --
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are withdrawing it; we had taken off ‘at least' and put ‘not more than'. If you are reversing it, you could do so.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:48 p.m.
Yes, the ‘at least', I think we should be very careful with it; it is not going to help.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, on that note, I withdraw the advertised amendment because the proponent says he prefers what exists in the original proposed amendment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:48 p.m.
That is right. The original amendment contained in the Order Paper -- yes, Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, the position adopted by the Chairman clearly cannot be sustained. It is Parliament that makes laws; he submits a proposal to us, if on the face of it we think that what is coming from the sponsor is inadequate or unacceptable, we could amend it, but for him to say that because the sponsor says that he does not like it and he is abandoning it, that indeed, cannot be accepted in this House.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:48 p.m.
Yes, your Chairman was wrong. Hon Chairman, do you want to maintain this or the House --?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, you cannot say I am indecisive. I am very decisive. In exigencies, listening to the back and forth, and knowing how we travel in this House, yes, it is our business and before us now. I, as Chairman to the Committee, am persuaded by the argument raised for us to maintain the original rendition.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:18 a.m.


well. Unless there is a counter proposal, I would put the Question on clause 40 as originally provided for in the Bill.

Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41 -- Use of property for narcotic offences
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 41, subclause (1), paragraph (a) after “drugs” insert or “plant”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 41, subclause (2), paragraph (b) line 2, delete “drug”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:18 a.m.
Item numbered 6 (lii) is consequential and I direct the draftspersons to effect the appropriate amendment.
Clause 41 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 42 -- Interference with arrest and seizure
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 42, paragraph (a) before “frees” insert “directly or indirectly”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 42, paragraph (a), line 1, delete “endeavours to free or”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:18 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader, your House is tired, so at the close of clause 42, I would bring proceedings to a close.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:18 a.m.
Very well, Mr Speaker.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 42, paragraph (b) line 1, before “removes” insert “directly and indirectly” and also delete “tries” and insert “attempts” and further delete “causes to be removed.”
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, I think that there is a complete mix up with the amendment that we proposed for clause 42, so I would beg of you to stand clause 42 down so we go and
clean it up. Even for clause 42 (a), what was captured here in the Order Paper is wrong. That is not what we agreed on, so I would plead that you stand clause 42 down.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:18 a.m.
On that note, I can bring the proceedings to a close now and we continue tomorrow. Hon Majority Leader, is that all right?
That brings us to the end of consideration of the Narcotics Control Commission Bill, 2019 for today.
Hon Majority Leader, do you want to do anything about the Order Paper Addendum today?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:18 a.m.
Yes Mr Speaker, I want to do this on behalf of the Minister for Finance.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:18 a.m.
Very well. Order Paper Addendum, Presentation of Papers by the Minister for Finance, presented on his
behalf by the Minister for Parliamentary Affairs.
PAPERS 3:18 a.m.
Minister for Parliamentary Affairs (Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah 3:18 a.m.
None

Request by the Government of the Republic of Ghana for the issuance of Government Shortfall Undertaking Letter (GSUL) in favour of Credit Suisse AG., London Branch, to support Ghana EXIM Bank (GEXIM) to access and drawdown a term facility of one hundred million United States dollars (US$100,000,000).

Referred to the Finance Committee.
ADJOURNMENT 3:18 a.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 3.28 p. m. till Thursday, 13th February, 2020 at 10.00 a.m.