Debates of 13 Feb 2020

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 11:24 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 11:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:24 a.m.
Hon Members, Correction of Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, 12th February, 2020.
Page 1…9 --
Rev John Ntim Fordjour -- rose --
Mr Speaker 11:24 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Rev Fordjour: Mr Speaker, in the fourth paragraph on page 9, the title of the late Ruth Ama Eshun, could not be ‘'Mrs'' because her husband is Mr Kwadwo Arhin. So, I suggest that we replace the ‘'Mrs'' with ‘'Ms''.
Mr Speaker 11:24 a.m.
Page 10…32
rose
Mr Speaker 11:24 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, I would want to refer to the Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, 11th February, 2020.
Mr Speaker, it would be recalled that on the issue of the Pwalugu Dam, there was a referral to the Joint Committee on Mines and Energy then Food and Agriculture.
However, the Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, 11 th February, 2020, indicated that the Finance Committee was part of that joint referral, so the Hon Ranking Member of the Committee on Mines and Energy, drew my attention that the Finance Committee, was supposed to be part of their meeting but I told him we were not part of the referral and he referred me to the Votes and Proceedings. They even have a meeting as I speak.
Mr Speaker, please, that correction should be effected because we were not part of the referral. The Hon Ranking Member and other Hon Members of the Finance Committee are even in the Chamber now.
Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, that indeed, is the request that I made that the Contract Agreement ought to be referred to the relevant Committees on Food and Agriculture and Mines and Energy, for their consideration and Report and you granted same and caused the document to be referred to that Joint Committee. So that is the proper state of affairs.
I think the two Committees would meet anytime from now because they indicated to me that they would start by 11.00 a.m.
Alhaji Mohammed-Mubarak Muntaka 11:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in relation to what has been said, copies of these documents were not distributed to Hon Members. It was after I had complained --
Mr Speaker 11:24 a.m.
Hon Member, just a moment. Copies of which documents?
Alhaji Muntaka 11:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the documents on these Agreements
were not distributed to Hon Members. It was after I had complained that some copies were given to me. However, it is very clear in Order 75 that documents are supposed to be distributed to all Hon Members, so that when the Committee consider that document and makes reference on the floor of the House, Hon Members could follow.
I am happy that the Committee would meet because the Hon Chairman of the Committee has informed me that they would get copies of the document for all Hon Members. I hope that the Hon Majority Leader would make efforts to ensure there are copies for every Hon Member, so that by the time the Report is r eady we could also follow. Mr Speaker, this issue had to be mentioned now, so that efforts would be made to get sufficient copies for all Hon Members.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the point raised by the Hon Minority Chief Whip, is well noted. That indeed, should be the situation.

Unfortunately, documents that are very voluminous -- In this case, there

are three fat documents and, I understand, there is a fourth one added. The volume of all the four together is about one foot. The appropriate thing to do now is to avail the documents to the relevant Committee Members for their own study and scrutiny and report to us.

It is important that because the Report would be coming to the Plenary, Members should have copies of them in order for us to contribute from a very informed perspective. That ordinarily should be the case except that, in this particular case, I am wondering how we would do it.

Mr Speaker, however, at least, the relevant portions that the Committee would be relating to should be extracted and made available to every Member of Parliament. Many portions are mere recitals and so on but the Agreement itself -- [Interruption] --

Mr Speaker, since I see that somebody is in a hurry to rise, I would yield to him; knowing what is on his mind, I would respond appropriately.
Mr Joseph Yieleh Chireh 11:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I thank you very much. The Hon Majority Leader wants to vary the rules of this House by saying documents are voluminous. If anybody
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I began by saying what must be done appropriately but let nobody in this House make it appear as if this is the first time this has happened. We should be truthful to ourselves - [Interruption] - Let nobody pretend that this is the first time this is happening. We have witnessed this in this House from the time of Hon Duffuor through to Hon Seth Terkper. I have always insisted that that certainly is not the best way to go but let nobody throw dust in the eyes of
the general public that this is the first time this is happening.
Mr Speaker, I have insisted that Hon Members should at least be served with copies, and indeed, the Table Office can attest to the fact that sufficient copies have been brought and all the Committee Members including the Leadership of the House should have copies of these.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Member for Wa West has said that the Committee took 20 minutes to peruse the document and came up with a Report. That is his own thinking but some people who say that they have not seen the document have gone ahead to organise a press conference and said to them that the cost is over bloated when they have supposedly not seen the documents.
Mr Speaker, what is needful would be done. Hon Members would be appropriately positioned to make informed contributions and meaningful contributions and then the House, as a collective, would come to a determination. I believe the determination we would come to would be well informed.
Mr Speaker, I thank you.
Mr Speaker 11:34 a.m.
Hon Members, whatever it takes and what Hon Members are entitled to should be provided for them. We would not go into history here. It is very clear that documents must be made available to Hon Members; all Hon Members.
Hon Members, you would remember that there was a clear indication from here that Hon Members would have sufficient time to study the documents even during the holidays. We are back; how do I go back and say Hon Members who have not got the documents should nevertheless go ahead and debate?
The Hon Leadership should ensure that Hon Members have the documents and then we would proceed. If you want us to conduct that business with despatch, let all documents also be made available with despatch.
It is inconvertibly clear that the referral does not include the Committee on Finance. If we go back to the Hansard we would see clearly that I did say that they have finished their work and the House is properly seized with their Report.
Now, we want what the Committee on Food, Agriculture and Cocoa Affairs and the Committee on Mines and Energy would add thereto
Mr Speaker 11:34 a.m.
from their perspectives, then we proceed accordingly.
So, make all documents available and let the Report be made in this connection and we would proceed with despatch.

Hon Members, Questions -- [Interruption] -- Did we complete the correction of the Official Report or there was an intervention?

Yes, [Pause] the Chairman says his intervention was useful. No wonder it took us so much time.

Yes, Hon Member, sorry?

Rev. John Ntim Fordjour: Mr Speaker, on column 011; the second paragraph, with your permission, it reads:

“The Hon Member submitted in his comments that constraints confronting small [farm] holders…”

But Mr Speaker, “farm” is omitted. So, “farm” should be inserted before “holders”. In the fourth line of the last

paragraph in that same column, it should read:

“The Hon Member submitted that the Ministry of Food and Agriculture's continued support [for]…”

So, “to” should be deleted and replaced with “for”.
Mr Speaker 11:34 a.m.
Thank you very much. Hon Members, any further correction? [Interruption]
Yes, Hon Member?
Mr Alhassan Umar 11:34 a.m.
I thank you Mr Speaker. I am sorry to take us back to the correction of Votes and Proceedings. [Interruption]
Is it not part of the corrections? On page 8 --
Mr Speaker 11:34 a.m.
Hon Member, just a moment, please. [Interruption] -- Order! To avoid our going forwards and backwards, shall we finish with the Official Report and then go back to your point?
Any further corrections to the Official Report; in the absence of any further corrections, the Official Report of 5th December, 2019 is hereby admitted as the true record of proceedings.
Yes, Hon Member, you may go back to Votes and Proceedings.
Mr Umar 11:34 a.m.
I thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to take you back. Page 8 of the Votes and Proceedings; I am numbered 61 and I have been marked absent but I was in the House yesterday.
Mr Speaker 11:44 a.m.
Thank you very much. It is noted and will be included in the corrections accordingly.
Hon Members, we have a Question on item numbered 3 but I am told that there is a development.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:44 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I did not hear what you said.
Mr Speaker 11:44 a.m.
Sorry, I am told that there is a development in respect of item numbered 3 and if you would please apprise the House.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:44 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister for Transport was slated to come and respond to a Question in the name of Hon Richard Mawuli Kwaku Quashigah. Unfortunately, the Hon Minister is indisposed and even though he submitted the Answer, he has just been discharged from the
hospital this morning for which reason we have decided to reprogramme the Question to next week Tuesday for the Hon Minister to come and respond to.
Alhaji Mohammed-Mubarak Muntaka 11:44 a.m.
Mr Speaker, yes that was the understanding that the Hon Minister was around but not feeling well. So we agreed to reschedule him for next week Tuesday.
Mr Speaker 11:44 a.m.
The Question is to be rescheduled accordingly for next week Tuesday.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:44 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we just dealt with this matter relating to the Pwalugu Irrigation Project and the Multi-Purpose Dam.
There was a report in the Daily Graphic on this last week Tuesday and I think that the report was most inaccurate. The report in the Daily Graphic was that it was the Minority that submitted the request to you to have the contract agreement submitted to the joint committees on Agriculture and Mines and Energy. That indeed, was gross inaccuracy.
Mr Speaker, flowing from that the second thing has to do with you being reported to have said that the document should be given to the Minority in order for them to be able
Mr Speaker 11:44 a.m.
Thank you, Hon Majority Leader.
Alhaji Muntaka 11:44 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you. It took the intervention of the Hon Majority Leader for the referral to be made on that day. If the Hon Majority Leader will recall, it has been a consistent position of the Minority that the document had not been referred to the appropriate Committee. Even from the very first day that the Finance Committee tried to sit for the committee meeting, and that was the night of 23rd December, 2019. That was where the Hon Minority Leader looked at all those documents that they had put together and none of our Hon Members on our Side had been part of it. So it would be better if it were referred to your Committee.
Mr Speaker, I remember that on either Wednesday or Thursday when the Speaker ruled that the Report would be taken on Tuesday before the Friday that we rose sine die, it would have been the argument that the Committee had not sat on the issue and were providing evidence in the form of the Votes and Proceedings that some Hon Members who were not in this House, were marked present while they were attending Committee meetings. So I do not want us to go back and forth with this issue.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader should be clear on this that the Minority side had consistently insisted that this be referred to the Committee to work. This has been our main argument that it was not properly considered at the Committee level. The Committee on Mines and Energy was not privy to it and these were issues we raised. Yes, it was the intervention of the Hon Majority Leader that caused the referral but it was our position all along that the matter has not been properly dealt with and therefore, there could not be a report.
I have not seen the report in the Daily Graphic and so it would not be fair on my part to say that what the Hon Majority Leader is saying is not true. However, if I summarise what he is saying, it means that the referral was made by his inter vention. It was when the matter was going on that he intervened and said that he thought that the thing should be referred to the Committee on Mines and Energy because the last time it was done, it was referred to only the Finance Committee.
Mr Speaker, although I have not seen the report in the Daily Graphic, it was not solely the Hon Majority Leader's intervention that caused the referral to jointly done by the
Committees on Finance and Mines and Energy. It was when those arguments were going on that the Hon Majority Leader intervened that it should not be only referred to the Finance Committee but the Mines and Energy Committee as well. So I would not want us to belabour this point.
Mr Speaker 11:44 a.m.
Thank you very much.
Hon Members, may I please make this matter clear? I am glad that the Hon Minority Chief Whip concedes that it was the Hon Majority Leader who raised that matter on the floor of the House.
If the Daily Graphic reported otherwise, then the Daily Graphic was palpably wrong and they should make a withdrawal and correction immediately. We will not go into the past difficulties of this matter save to say that I am advising all the reporters to report parliamentary proceedings with accuracy and we will insist upon that. They must be accurate and factual in every reportage and they may make comments. The reporters themselves say that; “facts are sacred, comments are free” but as for the statement of bare fact, this honourable House will not accept contortion of facts. The Daily Graphic should
Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
please make appropriate amendments before this matter travels any inch further.

I did not and Hansard would report that I did not make any order that the Minority should scrutinise anything. The order made was to the Food, Agriculture and Cocoa Affairs then Energy and Mines Committees to meet and work on the referral I made and bring a report.

The Minority was not asked to assess any document and in fact, in this House, no Speaker makes a direction to either Majority or Minority to go and assess anything. These are made to our Committees, which comprises both Majority and Minority. They should learn that and in future, know that that is how we make referrals in this honourable House.

Please, school yourselves accordingly and make appropriate amends.

Thank you.

At the Commencement of Public Business. Item listed 5, Presentation of Papers.
PAPERS 11:54 a.m.
rose
Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Mr Agbodza 11:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity.
I am not an Hon Member of the Finance Committee but I had an interest in the issue of the hotel in question. So I attended the meeting. Hon Members raised some significant
concerns including the documents that were brought by the sponsors of the tax waiver to get it passed. One of the issues raised was that --
Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
Hon Members, after distribution, such matters may be raised. So there is more time. At the appropriate time -- in due season. We are not going to discuss that matter anymore. There would be time for that matter after the distribution.
Hon Members this morning we were just talking about the need to have documents and then they would act along. The documents are now for distribution.
Item listed 6, Narcotics Control Commission Bill, 2019 at the Consideration Stage.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 11:54 a.m.
STAGE 11:54 a.m.
  • [Continuation of debate from 12/ 02/2020]
    • Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
    Clause 42, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Chairman of the Committee (Mr Kwame Seth Acheampong) 11:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we would be working with the addendum Order Paper that has the rightly advertised amendments.
    Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
    Very well.
    Clause 42 -- Inference with arrest and seizure.
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 11:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 42, paragraph (a), line 1, delete “frees or endeavours” and insert “frees, attempts”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition is going to be “frees, attempts to free or causes to be freed any person who has been duly arrested for a narcotic offence”.
    Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
    Hon Members, the First Deputy Speaker would take the Chair.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 11:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 42, paragraph (b) line 1, delete “removes or tries” and insert “removes, attempts”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 11:54 a.m.
    Mr Acheampong 12:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 42, paragraph (c) line 1, delete “otherwise” and insert “attempts to break or” and in line 2, after “destroys” insert “or attempts to destroy”.
    Mr Joseph Yieleh Chireh 12:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Chairman's amendment attempts to always say ‘attempts' but in criminal law, when somebody is prohibited from doing something, it also includes attempt to do that thing. Do we have to put all these in the legislation? If we say ‘tries to' or ‘attempts to'. What is all that? Unless the Chairman has better explanation. He is making the law more difficult for us; he is just adding unnecessary words.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the fact is, these are
    particulars of reference. If we do not put ‘attempts' there and somebody is going to be charged under this law, which is just a charge of ‘attempt', we have to go to Act 29 to be able to charge that person because this law does not provide for it. That is the first thing.
    The second thing is that, if we look at paragraph (a), ‘'frees”, “attempts to free”, “causes to be freed” deals with the various particulars of the offence. So if a person is being charged under clause 42(a), if that fellow commits a substantive offence, he would be charged with that. If it is an equate offence, the law provides that it is also an offence. So we are just bringing in consistency. So “breaks” or ‘attempts to break', “destroys” or “attempts to destroy”, so that it can follow from paragraphs (a) and (b).
    Mr Speaker 12:04 p.m.
    Hon Yieleh Chireh, for the avoidance of doubt, can we have “attempt to” despite the fact that we all know from the general law that an attempt is just some preparatory act or an act which ends in failure towards a particular offence. But if we have it there in the light of this explanation, does it stir any problem?
    Mr Chireh 12:04 p.m.
    Thank you Mr Speaker, I appreciate the explanation and the fact that we already have it in
    our legislation especially the act 29. But for the avoidance of doubt, it has been put here to guide everybody in this.
    Mr Speaker 12:04 p.m.
    So we can keep it. The objection is withdrawn.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is a minor amendment which unfortunately got lost in printing the amendments on the Order Paper Addendum. It relates to the definite article. In paragraph (c), the definite article at the end of line 2 should read “that” and not “the”.
    Mr Speaker 12:04 p.m.
    Well, the objection to the amendment having been withdrawn, shall we take the Question with regard to the Hon Majority Leader's -- ?
    Mr K.S. Acheampong 12:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is a further amendment to the advertised amendment --
    Mr Speaker 12:04 p.m.
    Hon Members, the First Deputy Speaker will take the Chair.
    MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman?
    Mr K.S. Acheampong 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am making a further amendment to the advertised amendment on the Order Paper Addendum, item numbered (iii).
    Mr Speaker, in line 2 of the paragraph, the last word “the”, based on the amendments we have effected as advertised, the definite article changes to be “that” item.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Sorry, Hon Member, which clause are we dealing with?
    Mr K.S. Acheampong 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 42 (c).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon Member, item numbered (iii) on the Addendum Order Paper?
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, advertised as item numbered (iii) on the Addendum Order Paper.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Richard Quashigah 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have observed that in clause 42 (a) and (b), the word “causes”, a person who causes some
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes indeed when we considered paragraphs (a) and (b) at the winnowing, I said that it should have consequential effect on paragraph (c). Unfortunately, as my Hon Colleague has just put it out, it does not appear. I think we should show appreciation for bringing us back to that. What he said is germane. Paragraph (c) should have same reconstruction as we have done in paragraphs (a) and (b). So it is most appropriate.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    So what is the construction?
    Mr Chireh 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Question has already been put on that one. But what you ruled on is that new thing that he will read now to guide us and direct the draftspersons as a consequential order to affect paragraphs (a) and (b).
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I recollect that the Question was put on paragraph (c). I do not recollect whether you announce the verdict. If you announced the verdict, then what my Hon Colleague has said is appropriate. If you have not announced the verdict -- [Interruption] -- Did he not take the vote on paragraph (c)?
    12: 14 p.m.
    So if the question has not been put on paragraph (c), then we can allow it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    I would want you to add it and tell us the construction.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the new construction would then read:
    “a person who;(c)before or after the seizure of an item, breaks, attempts to break or
    destroys or attempts to destroy the item to prevent the seizure or security of that item”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    What he suggested was that we should add “the person who causes” another person to do these things.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it should therefore follow after “break”, so it would read:
    “…attempts to break, or causes to be broken, destroys or attempts to destroy, or causes to be destroyed, the item to prevent the seizure or security of the item”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    I think we could put the Question on the whole of clause 42.
    Very well.
    Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Iddrisu 12:10 p.m.
    Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker, I heard you say that you would want to put the Question
    on clause 42. I am now looking through the Addendum, Order Paper but when we come to clause 42 (b), the last line, it says: “…duly seized or is likely to be seized in connection with a narcotic offence or…”
    Mr Speaker, all through the Bill, we used “a narcotic drug”, so we cannot let the “narcotic” just stand alone. The construction reads: “narcotic offence”, but what is that? [Interruption] -- When the offender is taken to court, would it be said that he has committed a narcotic offence? In my view, he has committed an offence under the Criminal Offences Act and its amendments. So why should we put it as “narcotic offence”?
    Mr K.S. Acheampong 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, to allay the fears of the Hon Minority Leader, I would want to say that “narcotic offence” is defined at the interpretations. Narcotic offence is defined to mean “a serious offence”. [Interruption] --
    Mr Iddrisu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman of the Committee has even made my argument more relevant. Narcotic offence is defined to mean a serious offence, but what is that in law? Under the Constitution, we must define the offence in law. I believe that beyond article 11, there is a provision
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what we have agreed to do is to further amend the definition of “narcotic offence”. What it means is that it should include both the drug and the plant. So any offence that is related to narcotics in this context, relates to the drug and the plant. This is what has been abbreviated to “narcotic offence”. The issue that the Hon Minority Leader raised came up, and accordingly, it was decided that we would have to define “narcotic offence” appropriately. That is what we would do.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    What is the issue now? Truly I cannot understand the issue that is holding us.
    Mr Iddrisu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my worry was the use of “narcotic offence” in the last line of clause 42(b). The Hon Chairman of the Committee stood up and said that at the
    interpretations section, “narcotic offence” has been defined as “a serious offence”. I however say that such a definition is not enough to meet the requirement of the law.
    Mr Speaker, however, when we come to clause 42 (c), on the second line that follows, we see “commits an offence”. This “offence” here was not qualified as a “narcotic offence”. So we should clean all of it up for the sake of consistency.
    Mr Rockson Nelson E. K. Dafeamekpor 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity.
    Mr Speaker, I would want the House to take a look at the use of the word “likely” under clause 42(b). It says: “a person who removes or tries to remove or causes to be removed any item which has been duly seized or is likely to be seized in connection with a narcotic offence, or…”
    Mr Speaker, we seek to criminalise a certain conduct here, yet, we use the word “likely”. Would the removal of the item be in the anticipation of the person who seeks to remove this thing? This is because we say that it is “likely” to be seized. I think we must therefore remove the word “likely”. This is because to attach an offence to somebody's conduct in this manner, for me, is problematic.
    Intent is very important in defining or prescribing the offence in this way. We make that assumption because the person is seen to have removed a seized thing, or a thing that is likely to be seized.
    If it is not in one's anticipation that the thing is likely to be seized and he removes it, then how does that become an offence? Therefore it is a bit of a problem that we would want to prescribe a conduct for the removal of something that is likely to be seized. So for me, there has to be an introduction of an anticipation. This is because in practical terms, a vehicle might be pulled to a halt --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon Members, the Hon Second Deputy Speaker would take the Chair.
    12: 24 p. m. --
    MR SECOND DEPUTY SPEAKER
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Inusah Fuseini?
    12. 24 p. m.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, Hon Dafeamekpor raised a
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon Member, let me first get the clause; which clause are you referring to?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:10 p.m.
    Clause 42, line 2. He says we should not use the word “likely” in the phrase, “it is likely to be seized'. And we are saying that actus reus and mens rea could be established even in that situation because we are dealing with an investigation into a likelihood of the commission of an offence.
    Mr Speaker, so, reasonably, the person who is in possession of that chattel knows that if the offence is established, that property is likely to be seized. And the law seeking to criminalise any attempt to frustrate officers from realising the property. That is what the law is trying to do.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon Member, let me hear him first; I have not heard his submission but I heard your reply.
    Yes, Hon Member?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my point is simply this; the language

    is painting a chain of a picture which says that:

    “A person who removes or attempts to remove or causes to be removed any item --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Have you amended the “tries” to “attempts”?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 12:10 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, we have done that.
    “A person who removes or attempts to remove or causes to be removed any item which has been duly seized or is likely to be seized in connection with a narcotic offence, commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine or to a term of imprisonment as specified in the sixth Schedule”.
    And my humble position is that as much as I agree with all the other segments of the offence creating section, I disagree with the word, “likely” at the segment where it says: “. . . is likely to be seized”. And the problem is this; very often vehicles are put to a stop at road checkpoints by policemen or other law enforcement officers and seizures of items are made especially those that
    are suspected to be narcotic items. We are criminalising that conduct; once it is seized and the material is determined to be narcotic material, that conduct is criminalised.
    Then we are moving to a segment where we are saying that the person who removes that item, because it is likely that that item would be seized, he commits an offence. And I am saying that if it is not in the anticipation of an innocent passenger that the item in his bag would be seized and he so removed it, how could his conduct be criminalised? Unless in the context of the law, we are saying that in the course of the search, there is an apprehension and the person anticipates that if he does not remove what is in there, he would be apprehended.
    Mr Speaker, but if we leave the word “ikely”, we are assuming that everybody knows that the item would be seized. And that is my difficulty.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Yes, you have made a good point.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon Member, do you want to take the place of the Hon Member for Effutu who was trying to react to something?
    Mr Boamah 12:10 p.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, do not worry, I would come to you.
    Mr Boamah 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my Hon Colleague, Mr Dafeamekpor should advert his mind to the heading of clause 42 on interference with arrest and seizure and posit his argument in clause 42 (b).
    Mr Speaker, the word, “likely” tries to deal with reasonableness or - where the item is likely to be seized. It is a matter of evidence that ought to be led by whoever seeks to punish the person who ought to have known that this item in question, if evidence and investigations are gathered, would be seized. That is all the law seeks to do.
    Mr Speaker, so, we do not have to be afraid of that word is used there; it tries to cover every aspect of anyone who seeks to interfere with the investigation. So it is a matter of evidence for the investigator or the person leading evidence in Court to establish the fact that the said item, but for the person's conduct, would have been seized for which the Court
    would make a ruling. So I do not get the argument he is making.
    Mr Iddrisu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would persuade the Hon Nelson Dafeamekpor to abandon his course on this matter. The language there, “of interference with arrest and seizure”, whether the word, “likely” does not relate to “they are likely to do something which can affect” seizure and arrest. If that is so then the word “likely” is still relevant because it reads:
    “An item which has been duly seized or is likely to be seized”.
    Mr Speaker, it addresses the complexity of the particular criminal matter that we are dealing with. Where someone is arrested at the airport or there is an item, we have often heard that an item is missing.
    Mr Speaker, so we want to be able to trace that for whatever it is so that there is accountability for it. I believe that is why the word “likely” is used there.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I take a cue.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon Members, the Hon Member has agreed to the submissions and I am sure he has withdrawn his objection,
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    I will put the Question.
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, sorry, we have moved on; we are working on the Addendum Order Paper and we had done (iii) and the Question had already been put on (iii).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    The Addendum Order Paper? I do not have an Addendum Order Paper; I have the Order Paper.
    -- [Pause] --

    Hon Chairman, it means that we have to move to item numbered 4 in other to complete your proposed amendment on clause 42.
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, rightly so.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    You may do so.
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 42 -- closing phrase after paragraph (c), line 2, delete “Sixth” and insert “Second”.
    Mr Speaker, we have been doing this with a lot of the clauses since we started. So, this is consequential.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Hon Members, I would put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 42 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 43 -- Previous convictions
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Hon Chairman?
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Iddrisu 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I crave your indulgence and seek your leave because I have no advertised amendment. I would want to persuade the Hon Chairman to also accept same.
    Mr Speaker, even the headnote of clause 43 which reads “Previous convictions” is problematic. The entire clause reads:
    “Where a person is found guilty of a narcotic offence and the
    court finds that that person has been convicted in this country
    …”
    Mr Speaker, even this language is problematic because by the Criminal and other Offences Act, 1960 (Act 30), once a court finds a person guilty, the person is convicted and is subject to a sentence. So for the clause to read that “Where a person is found guilty of a narcotic offence and the court finds that that person has been convicted in this country …” -- which court would find out about the conviction? When a person is guilty, the court would convict and sentence. So the language must capture the sense of what we want to do. Mr Speaker, we want to deal with what Criminal Sociologists refer to as recidivist or recidivism, that is, persons who are known to commit crime repeatedly. However, what we want to say here is the issue of life imprisonment for that category of criminals and not first time offenders.
    Mr Speaker, in my view, the whole rendition must be recrafted elegantly to get the intentions of the clause clearly. The clause is suggests that a person who has been convicted previously of a narcotic offence shall suffer life imprisonment. Currently, it reads:
    “Where a person is found guilty of a narcotic offence and the court finds that that person has been convicted in this country or any other country on two previous occasions …”
    Mr Speaker, I think that we should marry the two for it to be neat. I also disagree with the headnote because it does not reflect the content. We want to say that there must be life imprisonment for persons who are known to have committed the offence on at least two previous occasions.
    Mr Speaker, thank you.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, let us take your proposed amendment advertised on the Order Paper then we can tackle the headnote.
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 43 -- subclause (1), line 2, delete “that that” and insert “that the” and in line 4 before “manufacture” insert “re- exportation, processing, sale”.
    The new rendition would read:
    “Where a person is found guilty of a narcotic offence and the court finds that the person has been convicted in this country or any other country on two
    Mr Iddrisu 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I can understand that you want us to take the advertised amendments on this clause, but we need to look at the entire clause. I would have suggested that where it has been established that a person has been convicted previously for narcotic offences relating to illegal importation and so on, then the person would be liable to life imprisonment. I still maintain this because --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, I do not have the rendition you are giving now.
    Mr Iddrisu 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is why I sought for your leave because I am now suggesting it. All I am saying is that the whole sense of clause 43 is to make a provision for life imprisonment for ex-convicts. In criminology there is a term called recidivist which refers to people who offend repeatedly. These are the people we want to punish, so if the clause says “when the court finds out”,
    then how about if the Hon Minister through his own research traces through the criminal history of a person and finds that the person has been convicted before in Mexico or somewhere else?
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister is not the court, but this clause suggests that it is only the court.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, but it is only the court that can sentence.
    Mr Iddrisu 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, it says when the person has been sentenced in any other country, but the court in Ghana --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    There would be evidence before the court from whoever has the information and the court would have to make a finding and accept that evidence before they can pronounce the sentence. So it is only the court that would pronounce the sentence.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 12:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just to add to what the Hon Minority Leader has said. Mr Speaker, very often in court, after conviction and before sentencing, the prosecution is asked whether -- [Interruption] -- Very well.
    My point on this issue is that the proposition in respect of life imprisonment is too harsh because -- [Interruption] -- I know we are not dealing with misdemeanour, but I just want to paint a practical picture that often times in the primariness of our everyday lives, some persons even in farming activities get caught up in some of these issues and it would be on record.

    Sometimes a person would be employed to work on a farm but the person would not be told that the farm is for weed cultivation. He gets there, there is a police raid and he is caught up. He wants to earn his daily bread but then the record would show that he has been employed as a farmhand on a narcotic cultivation farm. That would be the first record.

    The second record, perhaps, may be that he has been caught up in what the courts would say was for personal use in a small corner. [Interruption] We are tracing a record and saying that where prosecution establishes to the court that the person has two previous convictions and was found guilty -- If the person, perhaps, works as a farmhand on the farm and has been convicted, then he may have been

    cautioned. Then the second one may be for personal use in a small corner in the neighbourhood and he may have been fined.

    This law is then saying that where a person is found again in court the third time, in respect of this matter, prosecution could establish to the court that that person has two previous conducts which led to convictions. The person must then be imprisoned for life which I think is too harsh. We can say that the court must impose a punitive custodial sentence but not life imprisonment because we must have regard to how our everyday life situations in our villages occur.

    Persons could be caught up, so to legislate that the court cannot exercise any discretion in this matter, given the nature of the evidence and that the court must impose a life sentence, I think with all humility to the House, is too harsh. We must say it should be punitive enough but certainly not life imprisonment.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the worries expressed by Hon Dafeamekpor are taken care of a elsewhere. He should read the text. Here, we are not talking about the use but about the importation of narcotic drugs or plants. You are exporting, re- exporting or cultivating maybe
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
    Let me listen to Hon James Agalga.
    Mr Agalga 12:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am tempted to support the argument of Hon Dafeamekpor. This matter came up at the Committee level and argued that the life sentence for a person who is convicted and has a previous conviction was draconian. The Hon Majority Leader has made reference to importation, exportation, manufacture and distribution.
    What the Hon Majority Leader has not adverted his mind to is the fact that a person can cultivate narcotic plants for personal use. Time without number in this country, people have been arrested and jailed for cultivating marijuana for use.
    So we are saying that by this provision, if I cultivate marijuana in my maize farm for personal use and recreational purposes and I suffer conviction once, the next time when I am engaged in that same conduct, I should be given a life sentence.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
    No, it is after twice. It is the third time that you would be given life imprisonment and not the second time.
    Mr Agalga 12:44 p.m.
    Yes Mr Speaker, but we need to be realistic in our country. This provision --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
    I do not know where this realism is coming from. Even in football, the red card is permitted. [Laughter] The first offence is sometimes ignored by the referee who just gives you a verbal caution. The second time, he would show you a yellow card and the third time is automatically a red card. We do not want to encourage the cultivation of narcotic drugs for
    Mr Agalga 12:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that was just an example.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
    The Chair is not with you on this matter. [Laughter]
    Mr Agalga 12:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, could I advance my argument further?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
    Yes, go on.
    Mr Agalga 12:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, even if it is not for recreational use, how about use for medicinal purposes? That is not even the issue. The reason I would lend my support to my Hon Friend is that yesterday, in this House, a proposed amendment which sought to take drug use out of custodial sentencing was rejected.
    Now, that rejection squarely leaves users within this very provision. That is the effect of the rejection of that proposed amendment, yet this is a Bill which says the place of drug users should be in the rehabilitation centres. That is one cardinal object of the Bill. So I support the argument by my Hon Friend.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
    I thought that we had heard enough but so many people still want to contribute. Hon Majority Leader, and after I would listen to the Hon Member for Keta.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I cannot understand the issues raised by my two Hon Colleagues, with Hon Agalga, joining ranks with Hon Dafeamekpor. Hon Agalga was there at the winnowing where we discussed this, yet he wants to further litigate this matter here. Hon Dafeamekpor was not there, so for him -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
    By the rules, he is permitted. At the winnowing, he could seem to accept the position of the Majority but on the Floor, he could air it because maybe he could get more support on the Floor than at the Committee.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I know that you are a champion of this principle.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
    Yes, the Bagbin's rule is still applicable.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:54 p.m.
    The Bagbin theory -- [Laughter] .

    However, on a serious note, the export, import, manufacture, the distribution and the cultivation that we have related to could be done on authority - they should apply their minds to the previous clauses.

    Mr Speaker, one could only use it on authority. Who says that a person could cultivate two or three acres of marijuana for his or her personal use? If a person needs that quantity, that person should seek permission.

    Mr Speaker, in clause 33 --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, do not belabour the point. I do not side with them on that issue at all because it is about convictions -- there is the first conviction, the second conviction and the third conviction. The sentence should not be discretional. It should be life imprisonment. We are not dealing with cultivation for personal or medicinal use. That is not what the law is about.
    Mr Iddrisu 12:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the recent ruling of the Supreme Court, a parliamentary debate is a guide to further interpretation of the decision in Pepper vrs Hart case, therefore as we discuss it, the arguments that
    are canvassed would be helpful tomorrow.
    Hon Dafeamekpor just wanted to have an assurance because we know that, people cultivate and engage in marijuana in Ghana. It is not acceptable, but we want to make provisions in the law that if a person cultivates it for any other persons, the person must seek and be granted authorisation. Is that the case in Ghana?
    We need to answer that, whether when people want to be licensed for the purpose of cultivating it in small quantities or others, they would be permitted. If they would be permitted, then this could stand, but if they would not be permitted, we would only pass the law knowing that we are pretending because they would continue to cultivate it. It is true that in Ghana there is a culture of persons engaged in the use and cultivation of marijuana.
    Mr Speaker, our quagmire is we cannot elevate marijuana to cocaine. Nobody wants to hear about cocaine, but must persons who engage in marijuana suffer the same fate like somebody who engages in cocaine? That is where the difficulty is. So we need to be assured that there is a system and authority in Ghana which is ready and prepared to deal with them. I am not aware -- [Interruption] -- the Hon Majority
    Leader has drawn my attention to clause 33 --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
    Apart from clause 33, there are other clauses which talk about lawful and unlawful use and authority granted. They are all covered in clauses 33, 34, 35 and 36.
    So if a person would cultivate it for personal or medicinal use, the person would go for a license, permission and authority. However, if a person cultivates it unlawfully and is brought before a court and tried, convicted and sentenced, whether it is a fine or not, if the person is caught again and brought before the court for the second time he or she would be tried and convicted. However, if the person is caught for the third time, he or she should be given life imprisonment; but you say it should be punitive.
    Mr Quashiga 12:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, to an extent, I agree with Hon Dafeamekpor that the punishment is quite harsh, especially when we consider the fact that we lump various categories of offenders together. We have added the sale of marijuana, so for instance, if a young man is caught in Agbogbloshie or Akoto Lante for the first time selling small rolls of marijuana and he is arrested and he is
    again arrested for the second time, if that same person is caught for the third time, is he supposed to suffer the same punishment of a life sentence as --?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
    Hon Member, that is not covered under this provision.
    Mr Quashiga 12:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that provision talks about “sale'' --?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
    Under which clause?
    Mr Quashiga 12:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in clause 43 --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
    Clause 43 talks about illegal importation, exportation, re- exportation, processing, illegal manufacture, distribution, cultivation or the supply of a narcotic drug.
    Mr Quashiga 12:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, even if it is about supply and distribution, there are very minute distributors who could be compared to someone who steals a goat. I hope we would not say that a person who steals a goat should suffer the same punishment as somebody who engages in galamsey that destroys the environment. We must do some categorisation of --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
    This provision does not talk about that.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
    I have allowed more than enough time for this and so I need to put the Question for the House to take the decision. What I know is that the intention of the promoters of the Bill is to make it draconian.
    Let me listen to the only lady who has caught my eye.
    Yes, Hon Agyeman-Rawlings?
    Ms Agyeman-Rawlings 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with regard to this particular clause, with the definition of the word “cultivation'', we were not given the acreage, provided for a person who wants to grow it. It means that the point that Hon Quashigah made with regard to whether the person sells a roll or a whole bill of marijuana, the person suffers the same punishment is a bit excessive because, it is, as the Hon Member rightly said, a person who steals a goat is on the same level as a galamsey operator. However, based on what we have seen in the law, it is supposed to be proportionate in terms of its punishment.
    Furthermore, with regard to the schedule of drugs, if we are talking about the definition of the various derivatives of cannabis and this is meant to talk about things that have a psychotropic effect, cannabis oil has been indicated not to have any hallucinatory effects, and yet it has been put on the same level as heroin and cocaine. If we would go to that extent, then we must look at it based on also the medical research since there is a whole medical component of this.
    Mr Speaker, we could make reference to what the Canadians did. They had five years of research before they brought the Bill to Parliament. There are a lot of reasons why this punishment is harsh. There may be a situation where people use it for medical purposes and may not have been able to access the legal right to cultivate it, so should they be arrested and convicted on two previous occasions and the fate that they would suffer.

    For example, if it is somebody who may have cancer and may be using this for medicinal purposes and has been convicted on two previous occasions and is sent to life in prison

    and he is on the same level as somebody who is importing tonnes of heroin into the country from somewhere else, is it justified?

    Mr Speaker, so I also agree with my Hon Colleagues that perhaps we need to look at this again with regards to how it is defined. In this, if it says cultivation and it is specified with regards to how much; distribution, and it is specified with respect to how much, then perhaps we are getting closer to what makes sense in terms of the weight of the punishment involved.

    I thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    Hon Members, well, this vigorous attempt --

    I will listen to you.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:04 p.m.
    Who has spoken more on this than him?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    I will listen to you; we are at the Consideration stage. You can speak more than once and I will listen to you.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, he has spoken about three times and rather he says I have spoken more on this. [Interruption] --
    I am not intimidating you.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, do not litigate it.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as you said, we cannot spend time ad infinitum on just one matter. With respect, there comes a time that we must put the Question, with respect, because we are not making progress.
    Mr Speaker, the same arguments are coming up. I have drawn attention to what is covered by the provisions in clauses 33, 34, 35 and 36. These things are covered there; cultivation, importation and exportation without authority. If it is medicinal, one still needs authority to do that. If one has authority, it is not criminal to do that. One does not have authority and is cultivating and importing and re- exporting. If one is caught on an occasion and perhaps has been jailed in the US, where he served a jail term and he does so a second time and is jailed again. On the third time, they would throw him out; after the second offence, they would deport him. He comes to
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    It is the same; it is the same?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, but as I said, our rules provide in Order 96 that when you have heard Hon Members in the event as we are now subjecting ourselves to, we may come to a determination and put the Question.
    Mr Speaker, I believe you would want to hear one more person.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, I already indicated that I was ready to put the Question, but I saw so many Members on their feet objecting. I am not part of the decision making process; I only guide you. So if it is the sense of the House that I put the Question, I would do so.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, and that is why I am invoking Standing Order 96 that after a Question has been proposed and debated -- and we have debated this several times; and indeed, we are going back and forth -- a member may claim to move, I move that a Question be now put unless it appears to you that the Motion is an abuse of the rules of the House or an infringement on same.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    It does not appear to me as an abuse. I
    will put a Question. We have had a long time on this matter.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:04 p.m.
    Precisely! So I invite you under 96 to put the Question.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    We have had a long time on this matter, please.
    Hon Dafeamekpor?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I will fortify my position, but the Hon Leader of the House -- [Inter- ruption] I have been here and participated in the naming of so many laws. Sometimes when the matters are so controversial, the issue is deferred.
    Mr Speaker, I am making the point that we have lumped a lot of categories together. May I refer you to the interpretation section of the Bill, which is clause 105; it states, with your permission:
    “cultivate” includes growing a plant, sowing or scattering the seeds produced by the plant or any part of a plant, nurturing or tendering the plant or harvesting the flowers, fruits, cultivation including cell or tissue culture and genetic engineering;”
    Mr Speaker, the provision under question is talking of previous convictions. I am not talking about the illegality or otherwise of all that. We are legislating that a court that comes to a determination that a convicted person had been previously on two occasions convicted of, for instance weeding a narcotic farm -- [Interruption] -- That is what we are saying under “cultivate”. We have defined the activities that constitute cultivation, that if one tends the plant and is caught and convicted, it is part of the record.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    Did we define cultivation to include weeding?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes. I have just referred the House to the definition. If I may take that again. “Cultivate” --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    I am happy it is still a Bill and not a law; what you are reading is still part of the Bill and subject to amendment by this House.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am very glad to hear that.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    Let us go on because we have had enough time on this matter. My personal values and principles do not
    Mr Dafeamekpor 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, very well, but the life imprisonment is --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    I know you are counsel and you have been defending accused persons so I understand you. You are putting in a serious mitigating submission but I am not part of the decision taking. You would take it as a House, and the House would either support the proposition from the proponents of the Bill or say otherwise. Let me just listen to Hon Inusah Fuseini who has been on his feet for some time now.
    Yes, Hon Member?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I share in your values. I got up to fortify your hand. We are looking at two regimes here. When this Bill becomes a law, everybody will have a right to apply for and obtain a permit to cultivate narcotic drugs. When that person cultivates a narcotic drug, it is no offence. He cannot be convicted. So why would we, good people -- [Interruption] -- and that is the problem; when good people are making laws for bad people, they think like good people,
    but the bad people do not think like good people.
    The issue is that the state too has a responsibility to prevent the commission of a crime and punish those who commit those crimes. In the sentencing regime, the state gives an opportunity for reform. So when a person is sentenced to a number of years, the state says if he serves two- thirds of that, he comes out; if within the two-thirds that person commits another crime, the state forfeits the remission it has given him.

    Mr Speaker, even in the utilitarian theory, if sentencing is to reform you and you refused to be reformed, at a point, we have to give up. So if a person is caught once and by court rules, a minimum sentence is imposed -- [Interruption] --

    Mr Speaker, the court rules say that when he is caught the second time, if he is known, the court should impose a double sentence. So even without making it a law, if a person is convicted for a narcotic offence and appears before a court of competent jurisdiction, the court is enjoined to look at the previous conviction where that person is known.

    We are now saying that after the second conviction, that person is now beyond redemption and he should go to prison so that he would not have land to cultivate any more. They will not give you permission to cultivate again. That is all. Even if it is a small parcel of land, in prison, he will not have that small parcel of land to cultivate.

    Mr Speaker, we see that that person is irredeemably lost and so, should go.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
    Hon Members, if it had been a death sentence, definitely, I would be totally against it because I am pro-life, but just to clean the society to guide against such bad nuts and, impunity; that I support. We should not encourage it at all.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have been listening to the argument. The Hon Dafeamekpor made an argument. The gravamen of his argument is that life imprisonment is a harsh punishment.
    I would want to depart from his side of the argument, but as we have it now, if we implement this, it means that if a person who is in possession of a narcotic drug is convicted twice and the third time he commits any of the offences we have listed as
    “importation”, “exportation”, “manufacture” and so on, that person will be caught by this.
    Mr Speaker, it is in the light of this that I agree with what the draft persons have given us that they would want to actually bring the offence of importation, exportation, manufacture, re-exportation, distribution and cultivation earlier that you should have been known on two previous occasions in this before you could be given life imprisonment if you commit the same offence. This is the rendition and I so propose. It goes like this:
    “Where a person who has been convicted on two previous occasions in Ghana or outside Ghana for a narcotic offence relating to illegal importation, exportation, manufacture, dis- tribution, cultivation, processing, sale or the supply of a narcotic drug and is subsequently convicted of a narcotic offence, the court shall sentence that person to life imprisonment”
    Mr Speaker, so what they have done is to bring the other part, which is at the tail end to precede the sentence. I think this will take care of what Hon Dafeamekpor said as it would also achieve the same purpose.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:14 p.m.


    Mr Speaker, I so propose.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
    Hon Members, I will put the Question on the original clause as amended so that we can move forward.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
    Dr Ayine, you insist that you want to have a bite?
    Dr Ayine 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes.
    I just want to add two minor points. The first one is that we need to also look at the budgetary implications of the law that we are enacting. Once we say that upon the commission of the third offence -- this is known as the “Three Strikes law” in the United States of America (USA), where upon the commission of the third offence the culprit is sentenced to life imprisonment.
    Mr Speaker, this means that we have to take account of the budgetary allocations to be made for our prisons to be able to contain and then make sure that those persons are taken care of in prison.
    We already know that our prisons are congested --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
    You look at the cost -- benefit analysis of leaving the person in the society and the cost to the society. Have you also considered that?
    Dr Ayine 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this should have been done by the sponsors of the Bill. At this stage --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
    You are raising the cost issue in connection with the person's incarceration.
    Dr Ayine 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I can only give examples from other jurisdictions. I do not have empirical evidence to be able to answer your question.
    In the state of California for instance, due to the “Three Strikes law” and especially with respect to narcotics, the Minister for Finance made an estimate that annually, US$19 billion is added to the budget of the state of California as a result of the “Three Strikes law” alone. So, it means that the budgetary implications are severe and we need to take that into account.
    Mr Speaker, an Hon Member contributed made a proposal that if this is becoming controversial, maybe we should stand it down and ask for me and better particulars regarding
    this particular provision before we proceed.
    Also, the last point I would want to make is that the provision does not make a distinction between very serious and minor offences. I think that its broad nature should let us take precaution so that we do not lump offences that are serious and minor ones in nature together in respect of the “Three Strikes” provision.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
    Hon Member, are drug offences minor? Are some drug offences minor offences?
    Dr Ayine 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is a distinction even under the current law under Narcotics Control law between possession and personal use.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
    Hon Member, I know that. You used the word “minor” and I would want to know whether some drug offences are minor.
    Dr Ayine 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, let us take the question of cultivation. If somebody is cultivating 10 acres of a narcotic plant and some other person has a little backyard garden, the person cultivating in acres for commercial use is more serious than
    the one who has the narcotic plants in his backyard.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
    When you decide not to go for a licence to do so, the law has provided you the opportunity to cultivate it and you refuse to do that, then you are convicted and sentenced and then you go and continue till the third time and then you say that it is minor?
    Well, please I will put the Question.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that where we are now, you can put the Question.

    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 43, subclause (2), redraft as follows:
    “Penalty for offence committed by an officer of the Commission”
    44. An officer of the Commission or any other officer discharging narcotic duties, who is charged with an offence under this Act is liable on summary conviction to a term of imprisonment that is double the penalty provided
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:24 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, you would have to convince me under what order you are coming. If you are trying to say that clause 43, subclause 2, delete, then we would proceed to delete. Then you can propose a new clause, which you are trying to do as clause 44 and then we can move on.
    Well, Table Office has drawn my attention to where the fault originated from. So Hon Chairman, let us listen to you again.
    Mr K.S. Acheampong 1:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 43, delete subclause
    2.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:24 p.m.
    You are proposing that we delete clause 43(2), which is dealing with officers of the Commission?
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:24 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 1:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am in support of the new position, except to say that it means that clause 43(1) would now become a stand- alone clause.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:24 p.m.
    Yes, when I put the Question. This is because 43(2) itself is completely misplaced. It has no place under that subheading.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:24 p.m.
    Hon Members, note clearly that clause 43 is now standing alone. There is no subclause 1.
    Clause 43 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Iddrisu 1:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, having passed clause 43, I still maintain that the headnote does not guide the
    interpretation to the understanding of that clause. “Life imprisonment for previous conviction” in my view it should be the headnote. If we just say “Previous convictions”, what are we connoting? We are saying that a person who has gained notoriety for committing this offence shall be sentenced to life imprisonment. So anybody picking the Bill when it becomes an Act should understand that in clause 43, we are referring to the headnote, “Life imprisonment for previous convictions” or “Life imprisonment”. I so move.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree that we could improve on the headnote and I think that we can simply write, “Life imprisonment”. This is because the body of clause 43 would indicate what qualifies to attract life imprisonment. So if we make it just “Life imprisonment”, I think it is all right.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:24 p.m.
    I am trying to recollect any legislation where we specifically stated the sentence as a heading or subheading: “Life imprisonment”. We may have something like “Penalty for something”, but to specifically say “Life imprisonment”, I am trying to
    recollect if we have done that before and whether it is advisable to do so now.
    Can anybody draw my attention to it?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought the proposal from the Hon Minority Leader satisfies that, but you are introducing a new dimension; maybe “Penalty for persistent offences”.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is nothing wrong with this headnote: “Previous convictions”. In reading this law, it is drawing our attention on how to deal with previous convictions in connection with this offence. That is just what it is telling us; that under clause 43, in dealing with this Act, take note of previous convictions in connection with this offence.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:24 p.m.
    Well, you had the opportunity of going to learn drafting. That is a useful advice.
    Mr Iddrisu 1:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am yet to be trained, but I disagree with him. He knows that in the rules of interpretation, he gave me one of his books to read, headnotes are a guide to interpretation. So the headnote must guide us. When we read the headnote: “Previous convictions” -- what about previous convictions? Life
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:24 p.m.
    Hon Members, we are being asked to amend the heading to read: “Life imprisonment”.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:34 p.m.
    : Mr Speaker, the headnote is, “Previous Convictions”. If the person has been convicted already. So when sentencing, the judge has to satisfy himself that the person has been convicted already. Is he known? If he is not a first time offender, what the provision tells us is that in convicting him, the sentence must be double the sentence; it is not life imprisonment.
    Mr Speaker, this provision says that when he has been convicted twice, it is life imprisonment. That is what the provision tells us.
    Mr Banda 1:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the headnote gives us a gist of the content of provisions of clauses. There are two matters spoken about in this clause: the first matter is about previous conviction and the second, is life imprisonment. These two issues are intertwined.
    Mr Speaker, in order to get a fair idea of what clause 43 talks about, I would propose that we add “life imprisonment” to “previous conviction” in order to get a clear headnote clause. It could be “life imprisonment for previous convictions”. The grammar may not be correct or elegant, but these two matters conspicuously stand out in the provisions and they must be borne in the headnote.
    Mr Iddrisu 1:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am happy the Hon Chairman of the Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Committee has gone to his notes on his course on interpretation. When I started, those were my words. “Life imprisonment for previous convictions”, Hon Fuseini is modern trained, but6 it does not mean we should abandon the earlier good writers on interpretation. The fact that you go to England and you are newly trained does not mean that we should abandon the very principles that the earlier writers established. [Laughter] So we can
    marry the two so that the headnote stands clear.
    Mr Speaker, you would recall that a while ago, I deliberately made a point. Earlier, parliamentary debates were not even a guide to interpretation in Ghana reference Pepper v Hart — In Ghana, there is now a Supreme Court ruling which says it is a guide, so even the debate we are having is useful to the extent that tomorrow, they will know what the intention of the lawmaker was. So as we debate the proposed amendments to the clause - This is the Leader - we should not want to be conclusive. We are enriching the process tomorrow because any person who goes to court, it is likely to call for the parliamentary debate on the subject to understand what our true intent was when we made that particular clause or Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:34 p.m.
    Hon Members, may I propose for your consideration the subheading of “life imprisonment on third conviction”? Is that acceptable?
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 43 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 44 -- Original jurisdiction of the Court
    Mr K.S. Acheampong 1:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before clause 44, there is an advertised redrafting of the two which we deleted earlier. So we want to introduce then It is a new clause.
    Mr Speaker, the headnote is “penalty for offence committed by an officer of the Commission”. I would want to make a further amendment to the advertised amendment. We have been using “authorised officer” throughout the process so far. So I will insert “authorised” before “officer”.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move 1:34 p.m.
    An authorised officer discharging narcotic duties, who is charged with an offence under this Act is liable on summary conviction to a term of imprisonment that is double the penalty provided for that offence under this Act.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:34 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, do you need to always bring “the Commission” again? When we say “authorised officer”, it means you are referring to the Commission.
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:34 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker. “The Commission” has been taken out.
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:34 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:34 p.m.
    What you read said “An authorised officer of the Commission.” That is why.
    Hon Chairman, take it again.
    Mr K.S. Acheampong 1:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I will read:
    An authorised officer discharging narcotic duties, who is charged with an offence under this Act is liable on summary conviction to a term of imprisonment that is double the penalty provided for that offence under this Act.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:34 p.m.
    Hon Member, “or any other officer” should be part of it.
    Mr K.S. Acheampong 1:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, no.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:34 p.m.
    Hon Member, are you dealing with only officers of the Commission?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, an authorised officer
    includes any other officer. That is why we are saying we would remove “of the Commission or any officer”. So “…an authorised officer discharging narcotic duties…” A person could be an authorised officer, but not discharging narcotic duties.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:34 p.m.
    Anyway, we could have taken this new addition at the end, but once it has been moved, we will take it.
    The headnote now reads: “Penalty for offence committed by authorised officer.”
    It reads:
    “An authorised officer discharging narcotic duties, who is charged with an offence under this Act is liable on summary conviction to a term of imprisonment that is double the penalty provided for that offence under this Act”.
    Mr Rockson-Nelson E. K. Dafeamekpor 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my objection is that the intention as I gather from this new provision -- [Interruption.]

    My disagreement is that the intention, as I gather from this new provision is that for one to get

    recruited and serve with the Commission, one must go through a rigorous process. One must be of high moral integrity to serve with this Commission because of the nature of the functions of the Commission.

    So one could be a receptionist or could be a Human Resource (HR) person, but it is important that for one to be able to work with this Commission, he must be above reproach in his conduct. The intention is that it would be serious for an officer of the Commission to be convicted of a narcotic offence. That officer's punishment would be double.

    What I gather is that if we use the phrase: “authorised officer”, then it would be as if we have employed the phrase “authorised . That is why for instance, we anticipate that in an operation where they do not have sufficient staff, they could have secondment from the Ghana Police Service for instance, who would be authorised to help them to go and operate. That person from the Ghana Police Service would also be considered as an authorised officer.

    However, for me, it simply has to be an officer. This is because an officer implies an “authorised officer”. Therefore once a person's status is that he has served with the

    Commission in any capacity, if he is found guilty or convicted of the offence of narcotics, then his punishment by this provision should be double. That is why I would rather prefer that we maintain the use of “an officer”, which to me implies “an authorised officer”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    Hon Member, you seek to introduce something, but I do not know why you are doing so. You are trying to show the difference between somebody who is authorised, but is not an officer, as against those who are officers, when we are dealing with officers in the service. By your submission, you seek to show that we are dealing with those that are officers, and not junior staff. Is that what you are saying?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this provision applies to where one is a staff. That is my understanding. As a staff of the Commission, if one engages himself in a conduct that breaches any of this Act and he is convicted, his punishment should be double. I am however saying that to say an “authorised officer”, as we have employed throughout in this Bill, we would mean that the provision applies to only operational officers, who go out to carry out operations, but what
    I -- 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, not all staff. That is what -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    I do not think that is the intention. The intention is to cover all staff. That is my understanding.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my understanding however is that it should affect all staff.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    That is what it is meant to do. I think it is meant to affect all staff. The use of the word “officer” does not show any difference between juniors and seniors. It is not a matter of ranking, but maybe --
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    Hon Member, do you want to say something?
    Alright, go ahead.
    Mr Shaibu Mahama 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you so much for the opportunity.
    Mr Speaker, if my Hon Colleague would address his mind to the definition of authorised officer on page
    52, “authorised officer” means “an officer of the Commission or any public officer authorised by law to exercise police powers…” This solves his problem.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    The Hon Member just wants to remove all doubts that the use of the word “officer” there does not mean senior staff, but all staff, and I think that is the understanding that we all have.
    Hon Members, my attention has been drawn to an Hon Member who would want to make a contribution.
    Yes, Hon Member?
    Mr Kingsely Ato Cudjoe 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity. Mr Speaker, I am still on the same point that they have raised. “Authorised officer”, by definition means an officer of the Commission or any public officer authorised by law to exercise police powers. My view is that not every officer may be authorised with the power to exercise police powers. So if we would want to cover everybody, then it needs to be --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    Hon Member, are you talking about officers in Parliament? I do not know
    which officer in the Police Service or in the Commission, who would not be authorized to use police powers. I do not know about that, so you may have to draw my attention.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    Hon Members, I direct that the draftperson finds the appropriate place and number for it.
    Yes, Hon Chairman, do you seek to come on the same new clause?
    Mr Acheampong 1:44 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, it has to do with the head note. I would want to make a little amendment to the head note. The head note should be captured as “penalty for offence committed by an authorised officer.” I would want the head note to end at “an authorised officer”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    You do not need to put the “an” there. It could just be “penalty for offence committed by “authorised officer”, and that would be all.
    Hon Members, I have put the Question on the new clause that is to be numbered by the draftsperson. So we would now move to clause 44.
    Mr Acheampong 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is no advertised amendment to clause 44.
    Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 45 -- possession of property obtained by trafficking.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    Table Office, have you already amended it? You did not complete reading the head note of the clause.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is just a minor amendment to clause 44. In line 1, we have introduced the definite article; “the”. The phrase there should be captured as: “...the District Court, the Circuit Court and High Court.” We do not need another “the” before the “High Court.
    1. 54 p. m.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, I think it is appropriate. ‘the High Court'.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was saying that because we have introduced the definite article before District Court, we would not need another definite article before High Court. Otherwise, we would say; the District Court, the Circuit Court and the High Court.
    Mr Chireh 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we leave ‘the' before the High Court, it is perfectly correct. This is because where his ‘the' is, is far away. -- [Laughter]- and it is qualifying district and circuit so it has not changed the meaning at all. The purpose of legislation is to make things clear.
    If it is an English class where we are marking grammar, it is a different matter.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would support the Hon Majority Leader's amendment that we delete ‘the'. That is the second definite article before the ‘High Court'. The reason being that if we put the ‘the' there, it means that the ‘High Court' has been previously mentioned, but this is the first time we are mentioning ‘High Court'.
    Mr Speaker, so if we say “the District Court, Circuit Court and High Court”, it is neater this way so I would support it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs?
    Mr Banda 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we all do know that we have one High Court; everywhere, it is one High Court so what I do know is that we normally precede with ‘the' but the reason why the Hon Majority Leader's amendment is correct is that because we already have a definite article there preceding the ‘District Court', it means that it would still be qualifying the ‘High Court', and it would be superfluous to still have the definite article preceding ‘High Court'.
    Mr Speaker, so I would like to support the Hon Majority Leader's proposal that the second definite article should be deleted.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have rather turned the thing upside down. It is the first definite article, ‘the' that should be deleted and substituted with ‘a'.
    Mr Speaker, it would read 1:44 p.m.
    “Subject to section 48 of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459), a District Court, Circuit Court and the High Court …”
    Mr Speaker, this is because we have many District Courts; they are not binding on each other and they are treated as individual entities. We have Circuit Courts which are treated
    as individual entities and the High Court is only one so it should read:
    “Subject to section 48 of the Courts Act, 1993 Act 459, a District Court, Circuit Court and the High Court shall have…”
    Mr Speaker, so we delete the first ‘the' and insert ‘a' there.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am tempted to agree with what the Hon Ranking Member has said except that I am not sure whether we have to qualify the Circuit because there are various District Courts in Ghana. So, if he introduces ‘a District Court' there is no problem. I am not sure about the Circuit Court, and we have only one High Court --[Interruption] -- we have only one High Court in Ghana, but for Circuit Court, we have different Circuit Courts.
    Mr Speaker, so I am not sure what article we have to precede with Circuit Court. That is my concern.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    Hon Members, because we have already started with ‘a District Court, the ‘a' will precede Circuit Court, but High Court should be preceded by
    ‘the'. I think I am persuaded by the submission by Hon Inusah Fuseini and the --
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member, do you want to be heard before I put the Question?
    Mr Chireh 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, not to be heard, but because we are talking about a Circuit Court, District Court -- the order is important; that is District Court, Circuit Court, which is higher? A Circuit Court or District Court?
    Mr Speaker, so the order for it to reach the High Court which is - [Interruption] -- Yes, I support his amendment, but I only wanted to be clear that we are ascending and not descending.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    It is not because we are ascending, it is because we have many District Courts, many Circuit Courts, but we have only one High Court. So ‘a Circuit Court' refers to one; ‘a District Court' refers to one but there is only one High Court so we cannot be talking about ‘a High Court'; we can only say the High Court.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    Hon Members, my attention has been drawn to the time; I should have earlier applied Standing Order 43 to say that in view of the nature of business before the House, the time for Sitting is extended. I now do so.
    And I saw Hon Kpodo on his feet. Is it in connection with what we have already done?
    Mr Kpodo 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes. I rose before you put the Question.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    Sorry.
    Mr Kpodo 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I wanted to again listen to the rendition
    that you gave. This is because the amendment makes it very clear that District Courts are many; similarly, Circuit Courts are also many, so I was expecting that you would say “a District Court, a Circuit Court and the High Court, but it appears you skipped the second ‘a' before Circuit Court. I do not know whether that is what the law will agree to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    Hon Member, we dealt with that; it was raised by the Hon Member over there and we said the first ‘a' applies to Circuit Court.

    So we do not need to repeat it. This is what I got from the discussion in the House. Do you want us to go back and consider it again?
    Mr Kpodo 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, because we did not link district to circuit with “and”, it needed to have its own separate identity. We did not say ‘a district and circuit' because if we had linked district to circuit, then the first “a” would have applied to both. In this case, it is “a circuit court, a district court and the high court”. So they are on their own and that is why I think that the second “a” should come before “circuit”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    We have over relaxed the rules at the Consideration Stage and that is why we are not moving forward.
    Mr Chireh 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, he did not get the import of the debate because the Hon Majority Leader said that because we used “the” before the “district” and followed by the “circuit”, there was no need for us to repeat the “the” before the “High Court”. That was his original argument.
    Now, what the Hon Member is saying means that the “the” at the beginning should also qualify the “High Court”, but it was further amended that we can have ‘a district court, a circuit court and the High Court'. But if we put “a” before all, then by the time a person finishes mentioning the “a” the person would be tired and would have collapsed - [Laughter] So the “a” qualifies “district” and “circuit”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    Hon Members, I think that what we did is correct so we would move on to clause 45.
    Clause 45 -- Possession of property obtained by trafficking in narcotic drugs.
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 45 - subclause (1), line 1, before possess insert “on that person's own or through that person's agents or assigns”.
    The new rendition would read: “Except in accordance with this Act, a person shall not on that person's own or through that person's agent or assigns, possess or own property or the proceeds of any property that is obtained or derived directly or indirectly from …”
    Mr Benito Owusu-Bio 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this particular clause must be looked at critically because the said property always belongs to someone else. Also, when we say “assigns” the question is which “assigns”?
    Mr Speaker, thank you.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, you have to relook at this proposed amendment because I also seem to have a problem with it.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the problem we are trying to overcome is that we do not want to bring “directly or indirectly” twice
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:04 p.m.
    in the same Bill. Otherwise how we should have crafted it would have been:
    “A person shall not directly or indirectly possess or own property or proceeds of any property which is obtained or derived …”

    I am trying to rationalise why we used the phrase “on that person's own or through that person's agent or assigns” because we realised that “directly or indirectly” might appear twice and it would make it confusing. So we want it to read:

    “A person shall not possess or own property or the proceeds of any property on that person's own or through that person's assigns or agents”.

    Mr Speaker, on that person's own, it is directly, and through his assigns

    it is indirectly. So we employed this construction so that we do not repeat “directly or indirectly”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that sentence relates to two issues; one is the ownership and possession of the property. That is where we are talking about the person owning the property directly or the property exists in the name of an agent or an assigned. The other leg talks about how the person came to own. So how the person obtained the amount; whether directly or indirectly from narcotic dealing is also another matter.
    So there are two legs that we are dealing with and I believe that Hon Members would now appreciate why we have that construction. If Hon Members agree, then we can move on.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    He agreed, but because I demanded an explanation on the new rendition that is why he tried to give reasons for that proposal.
    Mr Agalga 2:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have a problem with even the structure of the sentence. To say that “Except in accordance with this Act, a person shall not on that person's own” I think that this is repetitive.

    “A perso n shall not”You are referring to the person, then you can introduce the second leg through his agents or assigns. If you however start with “a person shall not on that person's own”, it is one and the same thing. So let us look at the sentence.
    Mr Banda 2:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the rationale is accurate. I also agree with the Hon Ranking Member of the Committee that the sentence structure is a bit problematic. So if I could be permitted to proffer a rendition, which I think would be a bit elegant. I propose that:
    “Except in accordance with this Act, a person shall not through the agents or assigns of that person possess or own property or the proceeds of any property that is obtained”
    Mr Speaker, it follows and the reason is that --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:14 a.m.
    What you just read, you have excluded the person.
    Mr Banda 2:14 a.m.
    Very well. I have a problem with the use of the
    possessive. It appears we are using a possessive noun in the provision which I thought --
    Mr Chireh 2:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the problem we are running into is that the draftspersons formulated the clause very well except what we are talking about. We do not need an amendment because you directly or indirectly own or possess property. Therefore when you put it like that, “indirectly” covers the agents. When you want to again specify with “through that person's agents or assigns”, then what is the meaning of “indirectly”?
    If I own a property, I can own it directly, but if I put it in the name of my spouse or child, the beneficial ownership is still with me and therefore is indirect. So it is the indirect one. The word “indirectly” covers whichever name the property has been put in. I do not see the need for any amendment, except where we say that “Except in accordance with this Act”.
    Mr Speaker, “this Act” alone should not be the reference point. We should just say that “a person” and the rest remains, otherwise, we would be introducing “agents or assigns” which are really indirect.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:14 a.m.
    The Committee would have to draw our attention to why the use of the phrase “Except in accordance with this Act”. Is there any provision in the Act that permits some of those things to be done? We can then get “Except in accordance with this Act”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Commission could possess -- We have asked that after “seizure” and so on, they may be transferred to the Commission in which case the Commission would possess it. That is why we are saying “Except in accordance with this Act” so that the Commission itself would not be caught by this construction. That is the first leg.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:14 a.m.
    I am saying that after confiscation, the assets would be transferred to the Commission and not to the State.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the process of the investigation -- Let me relate to where it is. If it is transferred to you, it is not ownership, but possession. Clause 51 (2) says:
    “Any vessel stopped, detained, seized or arrested with narcotic substance on board or concealed on the vessel or any attachments to the vessel or in
    parts of the vessel shall be transferred to the Commission”
    So in that case, it comes into the possession of the Commission. There are a couple of places where we have similar constructions. It is just to make that distinction.
    Mr Speaker, the second one raised by Hon Yieleh Chireh in his argument is also sound. That is the reason we have introduced “on that person's own or through that person's agent or assigns” in line 1. If however, you like, we could do away with that one and there, even say “directly or indirectly” so that it would read:
    “Except in accordance with this Act, a person shall not directly or indirectly possess or own property or the proceeds of any property that is obtained or derived directly or indirectly from”
    If we like, we could bring it up there and repeat it down there. That is another way we could put it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:14 a.m.
    Let us listen to Hon Kpodo.
    Mr Kpodo 2:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am even worried about the addition of “person's agents or assigns” to the clause. I know that in general law,
    there may be a definition for “agent” and “assign”, but it appears that in this case we might be chasing a wild goose to identify “agent or assign” of a drug trafficker who owns property.
    Even looking at the asset declaration rules, we are not required to declare the assets of our assigns or agents in the document, so how would we track the agent or assign's property? To me, it would be a difficult exercise, but I want the lawyers to maybe comment on it if it is possible.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:14 a.m.
    Actually, it is not difficult, but once you have asked the lawyers to explain it to you, I would let them explain. I can see Hon Dafeamekpor is so eager.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in response to the Hon Member for Ho Central, it is a very simple process we call tracing in law. Tracing ownership of property that on its face lies in the name of another is something we do in law.
    My difficulty with the provision here is that we are introducing the exceptional clause to suggest that even when as part of the performance of its functions of office, the Commission comes into possession of property that they have gathered in the course of its activities, it could be proscribed.
    With all due respect, that would be an absurdity. The law is not to proscribe the functions of the Commission.

    The law is not to post scribe the functions of the Commission. The law would be set up to empower the Commission that as part of its functions when they are fighting, preventing and checking the activities in narcotic trading, property could come into their possession for them to manage until such time that it would be disposed of lawfully.

    Mr Speaker, the remedy lies in the removal of the exceptional clause and when that is done, it would prohibit the activity. In the tenure of the law when we say ‘'a person'', it is the offender. We cannot by any stretch of imagination say that where the Commission comes into possession of property we could except it from activities that this clause is supposed to deal with. If we take out the opening p, so that we could make progress.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fusein 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am persuaded by Hon Dafeamekpor's amendment. It means that no matter the capacity in which a person holds the property, if it was obtained through trafficking in
    Mr Banda 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want to submit that the caveat ‘'except in accordance with this Act'' could
    conveniently be taken out and the provision would make sense. We are talking about property which has been acquired through trafficking. Whether property which has been acquired through good money is commingled with property acquired through trafficking, at the end of the day, it is a matter of evidence that would determine whether property ‘'a'' was acquired through good money or property ‘'b'' was acquired through bad money.
    Mr Speaker, the fact of the matter is that this provision wants to criminalise the possession or ownership of property that is obtained through an illegal means or trafficking. So if we delete ‘'except in accordance with this Act'', the provision would still make sense. We do not even need to insert ‘'directly or indirectly'', or ‘'assigns or agents'' because there are certain specific words that could still take care of whatever situation we could imagine.
    If a person owns a property and the possession of the property is in the hands of a second or third person, this provision would take care of it, and if the person directly owns the property, the provision would also take care of it. Even if we delete ‘'except in accordance of this Act'', this provision would still make sense.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want to draw the Hon Member's attention to the provisions in the Bill that protect third party. Confiscation order could be overreached by provisions in this Bill and that is why the provision starts with that caveat. It takes cognisance of provisions in the Bill that seeks to protect third party -- specifically clause 55.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
    I would have proposed that the ‘'directly or indirectly'' comes first - so that it would be ‘'shall not directly or indirectly possess''. We do not even need to repeat it at the other end because we know that ‘'property obtained or derived from the proceeds of the commission of such a crime'', is either directly or indirectly.
    Mr Chireh 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Majority Leader's amendment, so I want to read it out so that you could put the Question.
    ‘'Except in accordance with this Act, a person shall not directly or indirectly possess or own property of the proceeds of any property that is obtained or derived from…''.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
    There is another proposed amendment to clause 45.
    -- [Pause] --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
    Hon Members, the existing amendment which has been proposed by the Hon Chairman has been withdrawn.
    Mr S. K Acheampong 2:24 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker. Item numbered (vii) on the Order Paper Addendum has been withdrawn.
    Mr Speaker can I move item numbered (viii) on the Order Paper Addendum?
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, can I go on to move item numbered (viii) on the Order Paper Addendum?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:34 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member.
    Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 45 subclause (2), line 3, delete “Sixth” and insert “Second”.
    This is consequential to earlier amendments we have taken.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:34 p.m.
    Hon Members, I direct that the draftpersons should capture it as so because it is a consequential amendment. Once the House has taken a decision on it, it applies throughout. We do not need to be moving it again.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is just a little amendment. The clause talks about ownership and possession, but the head note only refers to possession. I believe it would be appropriate to add “ownership or possession”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:34 p.m.
    “Possession or ownership of property obtained…”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:34 p.m.
    “Ownership or possession”; it should be “ownership” first.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:34 p.m.
    Well, in the body of the clause, we would say, “possession or ownership”. I think it is still right.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:34 p.m.
    We can amend it appropriately.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:34 p.m.
    So the head note should read:
    “Possession or ownership of property obtained by trafficking in narcotic drugs”.
    That is the proposed amendment from the Hon Majority Leader.
    I will put the Question.
    Mr Quashigah 2:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not know whether it captures the entire essence if we use, “in narcotics”. Earlier, we have talked about narcotic drugs and plants. I thought that was what has been captured all through. If we restrict it to only drugs, does that capture the entire essence?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:34 p.m.
    Hon Member, is your proposal for us to add “plants”?
    Mr Quashigah 2:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if that sits well.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:34 p.m.
    What about if we end at “narcotics”?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, at certain places where it is deemed appropriate, the body even uses “narcotics” and sometimes “narcotic offences”. So I believe in this case we could just say “dealing in narcotics” otherwise, as the Hon Member has just listed, we may then have to include at the end, “and plants”. But this would be too long for a Head Note. Maybe we could just say “narcotics”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:34 p.m.
    So the headnote should read:
    “Possession or ownership of property obtained by trafficking in narcotic”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 45 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:34 p.m.
    Hon Members, we may need to take a break subject to the guidance of Leadership.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I really thought that we could proceed, but indeed I had forgotten that there is a programme for Members of Parliament. Also, I guess
    today is the final day for the training on e-Parliament. That being the case, we may have to take an adjournment because it would be difficult for us to suspend Sitting and come back. We can then take an adjournment today and promise to ourselves that tomorrow we would work late into the evening.
    With that understanding, I guess we can take an adjournment and appeal to the Winnowing Committee to let us congregate at 6.00 p.m. to do what we could.
    Mr Speaker, so I guess I have some understanding with my Hon Colleagues who are assisting in the winnowing. If we adjourn now for the e-Parliament programme to commence, the Winnowing Committee will meet at 6.00 p.m. to continue with the winnowing because I believe some of them would be participating in that.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:34 p.m.
    Hon Members of the Winnowing Committee are reminded of a meeting. I am sure you would agree on the final time around 5.00 p.m. or whatever to meet.
    We have come to the end of the Consideration State of the Narcotics
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:34 p.m.


    Control Commission Bill, 2019 today. With that, I will proceed to adjourn the House.
    ADJOURNMENT 2:34 p.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 2.43 p.m. till Friday, 14th February, 2020 at 10.00 a.m.