Debates of 14 Feb 2020

MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
Ms Ayamba 1:33 p.m.
Mr Speaker, from the Statement that has been made, it is unfortunate that in the developed world, it is realised that 80 per cent of children suffering from cancer are cured, but in our part of the world, it is only about 20 per cent. This is very disheartening.
Mr Speaker, from the Statement, he has made it very clear that
education is key. And education is key if only we have the appropriate people on the ground giving that education. Mr Speaker, it is unfortunate that some of the communities, especially our rural communities, do not have even the personnel; we do not even have those facilities where women would go with children to get this education.
Mr Speaker, I take my own constituency for example; places like Pusiga Tempani, Seltega, Kuanaba, Kunjam and the rest where people would have to travel about 12 to 13 kilometres before they get to even a Community Health-Based Planning Services (CHPS) Compound. And one wonders what the woman there would be thinking about if a child has this childhood cancer. The woman does not have the education; she is ignorant and she does not know that there is anything like childhood cancer. Mr Speaker, so how would she take the steps to even support that child, not to talk of asking for treatment?
Mr Speaker, prevention, he has mentioned, is very important. It is only when one has the knowledge; it is only when one knows that these are things that one should do to prevent the disease. That is when one does them,
Ms Ayamba 1:37 a.m.
should take it upon ourselves to ensure that at least, that education is given to parents wherever there is a health facility just to create the awareness.
Mr Speaker, he mentioned something that is very important; putting the issue of childhood cancer on the National Health Insurance Scheme. Supposing a woman struggles and gets to the hospital with a child, the woman might not be able to pay; the woman would not be able to make any money. Where is she even going to get the money from?
This is because if one watches these cancer patients, it is not just an issue of them going to the facility - even the grownups -- but the payments that have to be done.

Mr Speaker, our children are our future and it is our responsibility as a nation, to take care of our children and give them support to grow healthy and strong because a healthy nation is a wealthy nation. If we are able to give them that opportunity and support them so that at least, the children between the ages of zero and 19 are given the opportunity to gain treatment, it would go a long way to help us in this advocacy.

Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to this Statement.
Dr Patrick Boakye-Yiadom (NPP -- Obuasi East) 1:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for this opportunity.
I must emphasise that childhood cancers are here with us and they are real. Although there are known predisposing factors as enumerated by my Hon Colleague, very little is known of the possible causes. There is however, one established fact and that is, there is no known spiritual cause of childhood cancers. I must emphasise that there is no known spiritual cause of childhood cancers.
I would therefore encourage and humbly appeal to parents with affected children to first send their children to the hospital. We know that the resort to treatment at herbal centres and prayer camps over the years have done more harm than good.
The golden standard in the treatment of cancer is early detection and prompt treatment. Across the globe, cancer management is very expensive and burdensome. To overcome this burden and high cost, and to save thousands of children afflicted by cancer, I would add my voice to the call for the inclusion of
the management of childhood cancers in the National Health Insurance (NHI) package.
Mr Speaker, I want to end my contribution by commending the Hon Member who made the Statement for bringing to the fore, the reality of childhood cancers in Ghana.
Thank you.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:37 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member for Offinso North?
Mr Augustine Collins Ntim (NPP -- Offinso North) 1:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the Statement ably made by the Chairman of the Health Committee, Hon (Dr) Kwabena Twum-Nuamah.
Mr Speaker, the intention of this Statement is to bring to the fore, the knowledge about the effects and menace of cancer, particularly, those affecting children. Morbidity due to the effects of cancer is so alarming and looking at the statistics, I believe it is about time that it gained the attention of world leaders.
On a global level every year, about 300,000 children are diagnosed of cancer. It is very serious because of the socioeconomic impacts of cancer, particularly those affecting
children. If you bring the statistics down to Ghana, about 1,200 basis are diagnosed on a yearly basis and then it keeps escalating when you read certain literature.
Mr Speaker, the worrying aspect is that when you look at the statistics, about 40 per cent of the causes are preventable, which means we can do something about them. It has to do with the environmental causes. What are the environmental causes? As mentioned, they are essentially due to the electromagnetic effects of radiation among others.
What are the triggers? It is as a result of the attitudinal consequences of modernity and technology and the frequent exposure to mobile phones. People can hang on to mobile phones for close to three hours. The electromagnetic effect is highly penetrative and it is the major cause of congenital diseases, causing abnormalities and mutations, particularly those --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:37 a.m.
Hon Member, this is a very serious Statement. It is emphatic and I want to be sure that we have empirical evidence to support that because you said it is the major cause. We want to be sure for our records.
Mr Ntim 1:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, several literature abound that when even
Dr Sebastian Ngmenenso Sandaare (NDC -- Daffiama/ Bussie/Issa) 1:47 p.m.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to the Statement.
Mr Speaker, generally, as a country, our health system faces two major challenges. One deals with communicable diseases and the other deals with non-communicable diseases. As Hon (Dr) Twum- Nuamah stated, attention has been given to the communicable diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, Human Immunodeficiency Viruses (HIV) and even emerging infectious diseases like the Coronavirus, Ebola and others.
The challenge has to do with non- communicable diseases like paediatric cancers, road traffic accidents among others. Dr Twum-
Nuamah stated in his Statement that about 1,200 children develop cancer every year in Ghana and about 70 per cent to 80 per cent report in the advance stages.

Mr Speaker, the figures could even be higher than what was stated in the Statement because in this country, we still have problem with the correct data of some of these diseases. It is a major concern because if 70 to 80 per cent of children with childhood cancers get to the health facilities in their advanced stages, it means that their chances of survival is very low. They report late because of lack of awareness that childhood cancers could be treated. They can be cured so there is hope even if a child develops a cancer. We need to encourage parents to report early to the health facilities for the needed attention and care.

Mr Speaker, other challenge that the Hon Member who made the Statement stated is the lack of adequate healthcare facility in this country that have the capacity to manage children with cancer. There are only two paediatric cancer centres in Ghana -- one at the Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital in Ashanti Region and the other at the Korle-Bu

Teaching Hospital in the Greater Accra Region. This is not fair to the rest of the children in this country because a child with cancer in Kajekpere in the Daffiama/Bussie/ Issa constituency or in Teakpo in the Nadowli/Kaleo constituency or any remote village in this country, would have to either travel to Kumasi or Accra to access quality healthcare which many parents cannot afford. The cost of transportation alone is even something that many parents cannot afford.

Mr Speaker, I want to join the Hon Member who made the Statement to advocate that there is the need for the construction of more paediatric cancer treatment centres in this country.

All the Teaching Hospitals in the country should have treatment centres and all the regional hospitals should be adequately resourced to be able to manage children with cancers.

This is important because the goal to achieve universal health coverage would not materialise if attention is not given to this important area of children with cancers because every child everywhere in this country should have access to quality health care in terms of paediatric cancers. So there is the need to scale up interventions in terms of the infrastructure and training the needed health personnel that would give special treatment and care to these children.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:47 p.m.
Does leadership wish to contribute? [Interruption] -- Very well.
Hon Member, you have only 10 minutes to contribute.
Dr Kwaku Afriyie (NPP -- Sefwi Wiawso) 1:57 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thank you for your generosity and also thank the Hon Member who made the Statement for bringing to the fore a very important subject, except to say
that I disagree with some of the recommendations which have been made to the House.
First of all, with the financial solutions increasingly taking on cancers unto the National Health Insurance Scheme, it would distort the Scheme and increase its non- viability. So I suggest that we should have a dedicated fund for a national cancer or a paediatric oncology fund which could be dedicated to such things.
Mr Speaker, I also want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that paediatric cancers are fairly common. The figures that were provided in the Statement were gleaned from the centres -- the 1,200 figure which was stated in the Statement amounts to about 20 yutong buses full of people who die every year. So that is completely unacceptable. It is almost getting in imparity terms to maternal mortality.
Mr Speaker, this is an area where the associations are very tenuous indeed. Nobody knows the actual causes of these cancers but the strong associations -- radiology and the rest -- So we need further research and we do not have to think that as a developing country, we should cede that space to the developed countries because there are certain cancers
which are very limited to the tropics like the Becky's lymphomas and others which are like tropical oncological entities and are very different from what is obtained in the temperate areas. We have to do basic research in these areas and as a moral duty, contribute to work knowledge. We have the centres, we have people with the skill set and the knowledge who could contribute to knowledge in this area. As a country, we must take it upon ourselves as a burden to the contribution in this area.

Mr Speaker, again, I would want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that these cancers are not - the maker of the Statement alluded to the fact that it is lack of education and ignorance and our belief systems which are emboldening as it were, the non-recognition of the importance of these entities.

That is also very true but it is not too common to the underdeveloped world. I believe that there are even several cancers in the developed world which report late. That is not to say that we should take comfort in that and then do that. We should make a conscious effort to screen children and diagnose these cancers early because the earlier we diagnose them,

the more elegant and better the outcome of the treatment.

Mr Speaker, finally, I would want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in the solution set, most contributors were of the belief that if we set up more centres, it would help; I believe that is not the way to go. We have two centres; perhaps another centre in the north will suffice because these cases are not clinical emergencies and we need to concentrate the skills set, tools and knowledge in dedicated centres.

So I believe to advocate that more centres should be opened, for management of cancers is not the way to go. It is a very inefficient way of dealing with these problems because when they arise, though we must detect them early, it is not as if when we wait for two weeks, it would be too late. We are talking about months and years when they would have been going to the healers and what-not.

Mr Speaker, the idea is to get our education right and get dedicated centres which are highly specialised and I believe that when we do that, in less than no time, Ghana would be rubbing shoulders with some of the centres of excellence anywhere in the world.

Mr Speaker, I thank you very much for the opportunity.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:57 p.m.
Hon Members, that brings us to the end of the time for Statements.
Item numbered 6; Hon Majority Leader, are we able to present the Papers?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:57 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Deputy Minister for Local Government and Rural Development is here with us, and he could lay the documents on behalf of the substantive Minister.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:57 p.m.
Very well, at the Commencement of Public Business; Presentation of Papers by the Hon Deputy Minister for Local Government and Rural Development.
Item numbered 6 (i).
PAPERS 1:57 p.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:57 p.m.
Hon Members, item numbered 7; the Narcotics Control Commission Bill, 2019 at the Consideration stage.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 1:57 p.m.
STAGE 1:57 p.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:57 p.m.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, we are on clause 34.
Is that right?
Mr Kwame Seth Acheampong 1:57 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we got to clause 46 yesterday but earlier, an amendment was proffered by the Hon Minority Leader on clause 34 when we had completed the other clauses. So it has now been added; we could just take that quickly and move on.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:57 p.m.
Very well, we would take clause 34 and continue from clause 46.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:57 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 34 subclause (2), line 1, delete “the” and insert “an” and after “offence” delete “of unlawful possession or control of a narcotic drug” and insert “in subsection (1)”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition will be 1:57 p.m.
“(2) A person who commits an offence in subsection (1)”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46 -- Power of entry, search, arrest and seizure
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:57 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 46 subclause (1), line 1, delete “it appears to an officer that there is” and insert, “an authorised officer has” and further in line 2, delete “in a vessel or on any premise”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition will read 1:57 p.m.
“Where an authorised officer has reasonable cause to suspect that there is concealed or deposited…”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:07 p.m.
Very well.
Question put and amendment agreed to
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:07 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that in the
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:07 p.m.
Can you read out the rendition as you want it so I can put the Question on it.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:07 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 46(1): “Where an authorised officer has reasonable cause to suspect that there is concealed or deposited in a vessel or in any premises”.
Mr Speaker, that was how it was re-arranged but he left out “the vessel or premises”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:07 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 46 subclause (1), paragraph (a), line 2, delete “reasonably” and in line 3,
delete “is” and further delete the second occurrence of “is”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition is 2:07 p.m.
“a property liable to forfeiture under this Act or to which an offence under this Act is suspected to have been committed or being committed or about to be committed; or”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:07 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 46 subclause (1), paragraph (b) line 5, delete “by” and insert “be”.
Mr Speaker, it reads 2:07 p.m.
“a book or document directly or indirectly relating to or connected with any dealing, or intended dealing, whether within or outside this country in respect of the property that is liable to seizure or forfeiture under this Act or which would, if carried out be an offence under this Act, the officer may, at any time, with or without a warrant,”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:07 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 46
subclause (1), paragraph (b), sub- paragraph (i), line 1, delete “land” and insert “vessel”.
Mr Speaker, so, it reads 2:07 p.m.
“enter the vessel or premises and search for and seize any cargo or property, book or document found in the vessel or on the premises or on a person”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:07 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 46 subclause (1), paragraph (b), sub- paragraph (ii), line 1, before “or” insert “the vessel”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition will read 2:07 p.m.
“arrest a person is in the vessel or on the premises in whose possession any property liable to seizure or forfeiture under this Act is found or whom the officer reasonably believes to have concealed or deposited the property”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:07 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 46 subclause (1), paragraph (b), sub- paragraph (iii), line 1, before “or” insert “ the vessel” and in line 3, delete “whom” and insert “who”.
Mr Speaker, I think that I read a wrong amendment. I gave the rendition of sub-paragraph (iii) for that of sub-paragraph (ii).
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:07 p.m.
Do you mean item numbered (vi)?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:07 p.m.
Yes, please. I think it was item numbered (v) as that was for the item numbered (ii) of sub-clause (b).
Mr Speaker, that is all right. I am sorry for the error. Therefore the final rendition will be:
“arrest a person who is in the vessel or on the premises in whose possession any property liable to seizure or forfeiture under this Act is found, or who the officer reasonably believes to have concealed or deposited a property”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:07 p.m.
Mr Speaker, for the avoidance of doubt, which item did you call?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:07 p.m.
I just put the Question on the item numbered (vii). Now we are going to item numbered (viii). That is subclause, line 1.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:07 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 46 subclause (2), line 1, opening phrase, redraft as follows:
“The officer may, where necessary”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:17 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this is just a minor further amendment. It is: “the authorised officer may where necessary…”

Mr Speaker, the word “authorised” is missing in the advertised amendment.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:17 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think we lost the word “authorised” in the advertised amendment. So it should read the “The authorised officer may …”
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:17 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it should be just “the officer” because it flows from an authorised
officer in clause 46(1). It reads: “Where an authorised officer has reasonable cause …”
So, “the officer” refers to the preceding “authorised officer”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:17 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we decided to keep to the term “authorised officer” because there are places in the Bill where we just have “the officer”. In order not to confuse the two, we decided to keep “the authorised officer” where we refer to “the authorised officer” which is defined appropriately so that we do not mix up the two.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:17 p.m.
Mr Speaker, but if we agree to that then we have to go back to line 3 of subclause 1(b)(iii) where we would see that we did not amend “the officer” which refers to that “authorised officer”.
Mr Speaker, if we agree to the proposal then we would have to insert “authorised” there.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:17 p.m.
Hon Chairman, so what is the agreed position?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:17 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the “authorised officer” is what we agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:17 p.m.
Very well.
So, the proposed amendment would then read: “The authorised officer may where necessary …”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:17 p.m.
Hon Members, the item numbered (ix).
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:17 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 46 - subclause (2), paragraph (a), line 1, delete “outer or inner”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:17 p.m.
Hon Members, I would put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:17 p.m.
Hon Members, the item numbered (x).
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:17 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 46 - subclause (2), paragraph (c), line 2, after “removal”, insert “of any person or item”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:17 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman ought to have called for the deletion of the
words “as the officer is empowered to effect” in which place we insert “of any person or item”.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:17 p.m.
Mr Speaker, unfortunately, it was not advertised on the Order Paper and so I would read the entire rendition: “remove any obstruction to the entry, search, seizure or removal of any person or item;”
So we would delete “as the officer is empowered to effect;”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:17 p.m.
Very well. I would put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:17 p.m.
Item numbered (xi).
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:17 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 46 - subclause (2), paragraph (d), line 1, delete “every” and insert “any”.
The new rendition reads: “Where necessary, the authorised officer may detain any person found within the premises and on the premises until the search has been conducted on the premises”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:17 p.m.
Hon Members, I would put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:17 p.m.
Hon Members, the item numbered (xii).
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:17 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there was a further proposed amendment which unfortunately does not find expression in the Order Paper. The proposed amendment should be part of subclause (2) and it was supposed to be between paragraphs (c) and (d).
We agreed that it should read: “break open or remove any fixtures in the premise that may hold or conceal narcotic drugs or plants”.
However, the draftpersons would know whether to situate it between paragraphs (c) and (d).
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:17 p.m.
Very well.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:17 p.m.
The draftspersons are hereby directed to insert the new paragraph appropriately in the Bill.
Hon Members, item numbered (xii).
Hon Ahiafor?
Mr Bernard Ahiafor 2:17 p.m.
Mr Speaker, before you move further, since this amendment is on 46(2)(b) which reads: “… enter the premises and every part of the premises”, I think that we can simply say ‘enter every part of the premises' and it would include entry into the premises. If a person has the right to enter every part of the premises then definitely the person has the right to enter the premises. So, “… enter the premises and every part of the premises” looks as if entry into the premises is different from entering every part of the premises.
My proposal is that we should delete “the premises and” so that the rendition would read: “The authorised officer may where necessary, break open door or window of the premises and enter every part of the premises”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:17 p.m.
Hon Fuseini?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:27 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yesterday, he served notice that he would raise this matter on the Floor and we convinced him that a
person needs to enter the premises first before entry into every part of the premises.

It is for emphasis. We can say, “enter the premises and any part of the premises”.

One has to enter Parliament first before entering any part of Parliament. So one cannot enter every part of Parliament. He has to enter Parliament and every part of Parliament.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:27 p.m.
Mr Speaker, to avoid confusion, I do not know whether this formulation would meet the acceptance of Hon Ahiafor: “enter the premises and have access to every part of the premises.” I think that is the sense in this. So if we want to capture it that way, maybe it would be a better expression.
Mr Ebenezer Okletey Terlabi 2:27 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if one has access to every part, it means he can enter the premises. He has the authority to enter then he can have access to every part.
Mr Ahiafor 2:27 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is a right that we are creating for the authorised officer. So if the right being created is that the authorised officer can enter every part of the premises, then automatically, he is having the
right of access to every part of the premises. So the provision should be: “right to enter every part of the premises” not “enter the premises or every part of the premises” or “enter the premises and have access”. Once a person has the right to enter every part of the premises, it means that he has the right to access every part of the premises. So the use of “every part of the premises” --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:27 p.m.
If Parliament were the issue, he has the right to enter the precincts of Parliament. Those are the words we use. Does that include the Chamber? This is because we allow visitors to every corner except the Chamber. So if for example, somebody was hiding a narcotic drug in here without giving the authorities the right to enter every corner in Parliament they may say the Chamber is not included.
Mr Ahiafor 2:27 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as an Hon Member of Parliament, I have the right to enter every part of Parliament, including the Chamber, but the general public does not have the right to enter every part of Parliament. That is why they do not enter the Chamber. Assuming the general public have the right to enter every part of Parliament, then they would have the right to enter this Chamber. But here we are talking about an authorised officer.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:27 p.m.
So that is the question. Has an authorised officer the right to enter the precincts of Parliament? Yes. Has he the right to enter the Chamber? No. Unless you grant that right that ordinarily only Members of Parliament and officers of Parliament can enter here. Now, if a policeman or a security officer has reason to suspect that an Hon Member is hiding a narcotic drug under his seat here, by this rule, would that give him the permission to enter the Chamber?
Mr James Agalga 2:27 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my sense is that insofar as an exception has not been created here, if we say, “enter the premises”, it would include all parts of the premises, but in the particular case of Parliament, I think there is an exception albeit unwritten. There is an exception that is why an officer would not be able to enter the Chamber but in the subclause (b), if we are to delete “and every part of the premises” - [Interruption] - That is the point I am making but I am saying that without an exception, “enter the premises” should suffice.
Mr Ben Abdallah Banda 2:27 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that at the winnowing level, Hon Ahiafor and I were on the same side but upon a second thought, I realised that we are looking at two issues here or two rights are being granted. The first right is the capacity
the authorised officer has to enter the premises and this is express.
Mr Speaker, the fact that the authorised officer has entered the premises does not necessarily mean that he can enter every part of the premises. So the second right would have to be granted to the extent that if the authorised officer should enter the premises, then the authorised officer has the right to enter every part of the premises.
Mr Speaker, as you rightly pointed out, if we do not make that power or the grant of that power express and unambiguous, anybody taking it would assume that the authorised officer has just the power to enter the premises but does not have the power to enter every part of the premises. So I would urge my brother to abandon his proposed amendment and let us stick to what is in the Bill.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:27 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have always said that in drafting, there must be rules.
This is a proposal from the sponsors of the Bill. Is it right? Does it convey the sense? If it does not convey the sense, we as Hon Members of Parliament assist in conveying the sense.
The sense that the proposers of the Bill want to convey is that there must not be a hindrance to the officer when
he enters the premises and they told us that when they go with a search warrant, they are following somebody who is a suspect and they identify the House of that person and enter the room of that person, they normally face resistance in entering other rooms or parts of the house. This is because they are following a suspect. I am saying that we should look at the construction.
Apart from the suggestion given to change “every” to “any”, it conveys clearly, the sense that the sponsors of the Bill want to convey which is to give the power to the officer to enter the premises and additional power to enter any part of the premises, and I do not think it is wrong.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 a.m.
Let us look at it this way, there are some premises and areas that are not generally accessible. So when you say you have the right to enter the premises, Parliament is one example. There are only a certain class of people who can enter this Chamber. So should the Marshal resist an officer that he can search every office except the Chamber and if the search officer says he has the right to enter the precincts and the Marshal says that he is in the precincts but cannot enter the Chamber.
Let us not give anybody the ground to say that his warrant does not cover a particular place.
I would give another example; supposing you live in a house with your family and one of the members of the family is being pursued and they come with the person that that is his apartment.

But adjacent to his apartment is his son's, probably another eminent lawyer. They are in the same compound, but it is the Hon Osei- Owusu who is being looked for and that is where he lives. That is his bedroom but the officer cannot go there. If the officer confronts him and tells him he has the right to enter the premises -- Yes, that is his premises, it does not include his son's, but they are on the same compound. Probably, we should not give anybody the opportunity or something to hold on to if the need arises.
Mr Shaibu Mahama 2:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I could not agree more with you. In modern construction, we have premises within premises. So, you would have a premises that also has premises either below or above. Those premises may be occupied by different persons apart from the person who is being pursued. So, if an authorised officer enters the general premises and there are other premises within it which supposedly does not belong to the person who is being
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 a.m.
Which one is clear?
Mr Shaibu Mahama 2:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, that we use “the premises and any other part of premises”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 a.m.
Hon Member, for the purposes of the search referred to in subsection (1)(b): “…enter the premises and every part of the premises…” Is it every part or any part?
So, you proposed that we change “every part” to “any part”.
Mr Ahiafor 2:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, honestly, I need to be convinced that entering any part of the premises and every part of the premises does not in itself include entering the premises. Once an officer has the right to enter any part of the premises, the right of entry is automatically embedded in that. How does an officer enter every part of the premises without the right
to enter? So entering the premises and entering every part of the premises or any part of the premises includes entering the premises. So the use of the two is tautologous.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 a.m.
Hon Member, I think you are outnumbered.
Mr Terlabi 2:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, any part of the premises can be behind it. Sometimes officers go for a search and they do not find it inside; it may be hidden behind the premises. So any part of --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 a.m.
Or the water tank in the premises. [Laughter]
Mr Terlabi 2:37 a.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker. “…any part of the premises…” could be inside or behind it.
Mr Joseph Yieleh Chireh 2:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in Parliament, this is the Chamber -- [Interruption] -- Yes -- [Laughter] -- I raised this issue with him and I said that if a person has entry into Parliament premises, it does not mean that he has been to all parts of Parliament. There is the Job 600 Building, Administration Block and the Speaker's Block, so that bit must be added because it is a purpose to search. It is just that one enters the place and the moment he or she has
entry to the premises, that means that the person has been to all parts of the premises. So the Hon Member has lost his argument.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 a.m.
I think he has accepted that he is out numbered.
Hon Members, let us continue with the item numbered (xii).
Mr K.S. Acheampong 2:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 46 subclause (3), line 1, delete “in relation” and in line 2, delete “banker's books in a bank” and insert “the books in the bank”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K.S. Acheampong 2:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 46 subclause (4), line 1, delete “officer authorised by the Director-General” and insert “an authorised officer”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K.S. Acheampong 2:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 46 subclause (4), closing phrase after paragraph (b), line 1, delete “is”.
Mr Ahiafor 2:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, if you read the whole rendition:
“4(b) an authorised officer may arrest with or without a warrant, a person the officer reasonably suspects is about to commit…”
Mr Speaker, if we delete “is” then, it would be “…suspects about…”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 a.m.
Hon Member, no. That is not what -- it is the last one. It is the last line: “…and shall as soon as is possible…” it is that “is”.
Mr Ahiafor 2:37 a.m.
Very well, Mr Speaker.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K.S. Acheampong 2:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 46 subclause (5), line 3, delete “transferred to” and insert “placed in the custody of” and in line 4, delete “transferring agency” and insert “agency that first sought to enforce the provisions of this Act against that vessel” and further in line 5, delete “of the transfer”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 a.m.
Hon Member, the new rendition.
Mr K.S. Acheampong 2:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker,
“A vessel stopped, detained, seized or arrested with narcotic substance on board or
Mr Agalga 2:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the entire subclause (5) is problematic. We said that: “A vessel stopped, detained, seized or arrested...” and with the amendment proposed, we could add “…placed in the custody of…” shall be transferred to the Commission and the transferring agency shall within thirty-six hours inform the Director-General in writing of the transfer.
Mr Speaker, I asked very fundamental questions and I never had answers. So we are not told what happens after the transfer.
2: 47 p. m.
Mr Speaker, this provision can form the basis of some injustice being perpetrated on very innocent people. If Mr Speaker, for instance, is the owner of a vessel, which unfortunately is boarded by a person in possession of narcotic substances, the fact that the person is arrested in the vessel and the narcotic substances are retrieved,
would this mean that under this provision, the whole vessel must be transferred to the Commission?
Mr Speaker, to make matters worse, we are not told what happens thereafter. I understand and I am guided, that when they do this, it amounts to a complete seizure. So at the end of the day, the vessel would remain in the custody of the Commission, and it is scrapped. That was what happened to the MV Benjamin Vessel. At the time it was seized and eventually scrapped, they did not have a provision of this kind. So, this one has now been introduced to provide for cases like that of the MV Benjamin Vessel. We need to look at the entire provision carefully.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 a.m.
Hon Member, what do you therefore propose?
Mr Agalga 2:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I propose that the whole of the provision, if agreeable, be deleted.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 a.m.
I thought you would have proposed a new amendment, subsequent to that. For instance, you could have proposed that after a period, this or that action should be taken but, certainly, the provision is necessary.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, Hon James Agalga is not a man of patience. He should look at the subsequent provisions, and avail himself of those provisions. [Laughter] The Hon Member should look at the clauses that follows. Clause 56 deals with the seizure of movable property. If he took his time, his fears --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 a.m.
It appears that provisions have been made for the circumstance. Clause 50 deals with some part, and clause 56 also deals with the other parts.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I know that Hon Agalga, the Ranking Member, is very patient. However, under this Bill, he has assumed some human rights obligations, and since he is the Hon Ranking Member, that is not a problem.
Mr Speaker, in the MV Benjamin case, there was no direct responsibility for the ship. The Police claimed to be responsible for the ship, but the customs officials also said that it was seized at the port, so they were responsible. The Narcotics Control Board had seized parcels on the ship, so this provision is intended to deal with such situations, so that no matter who seizes a conveyance, that ship or vehicle must be transferred within a certain period of time to the
Narcotics Control Board. So it is a proper allocation of responsibility for the article of conveyance, and that is what it does.
However, subsequent provisions deal with whether the vessel can be released or not released. It also deals with the ownership but this is just for responsibility.
Mr Chireh 2:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, if the Hon Member says this, then does it mean that we can also detain a vehicle that is suspected to carry drugs? If we can, then is it because it has to do with the sea that it should not be detained? No, the whole idea is to detain a conveyance that is suspected to carry narcotic drugs, and it is subject to being searched. At that point, somebody must be responsible for it. It should not be the responsibility of the arresting officer but the Commission, which should be held responsible. So long as vehicles that are suspected to be carrying narcotic drugs would be detained, vessels should also be detained.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 a.m.
Hon Members, let us proceed.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 46 as amended is ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47 -- Search of person
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 a.m.
Hon Members, we would move on to item numbered (xvi), by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
Mr K.S. Acheampong 2:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 47 subclause (2), lines 3 and 4, delete “as may be necessary to have the search carried out, which, in any case, shall not exceed” and insert “not exceeding”.
Mr Ahiafor 2:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 47 (2) is a consequential amendment, therefore, “officer” should read as “authorised officer.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 a.m.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, do you agree to the proposed amendment?
Mr K.S. Acheampong 2:37 a.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker, I agree.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 47 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, we may break off from the Consideration of the Bill, and permit the Minister for Finance,
represented by the Deputy Minister, to lay two documents captured on the Order Paper Addendum.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 a.m.
Minority bench, what is your reaction to that?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we have no objection.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 a.m.
Very well.
I would have wished that the Ministry of Finance abided with us till the end, but -- [Laughter] --
Hon Members, we would move on to the Order Paper Addendum, item numbered 1 (a), Presentation of Papers.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 a.m.
Hon Members, the Consideration of the Narcotics Control Commission Bill, 2019 is suspended.

2. 57 p. m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 a.m.
The item numbered 1 on the Order Paper Addendum, Presentation of Papers, by the Hon Minister for Finance.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, as I indicated, the Hon Minister for Finance is represented on this occasion by the Hon Deputy Minister for Finance, so if you would permit her to lay the Paper on behalf of the Hon Minister for Finance?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 a.m.
Yes, available Hon Leader?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we have no objection, except to remind the Hon Deputy Minister that she has spoken to the media and we are observing her closely. [Laughter.]
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 a.m.
Very well.
Yes, Hon Deputy Minister, the item numbered (a)(i) and (a)(ii)?
PAPERS 2:37 a.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 a.m.
The item numbered (b) by the Hon Minister for Sanitation and Water Resources.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I may seek your indulgence
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:37 a.m.


and concurrence of Hon Colleagues to lay the Paper on behalf of the Hon Minister for Sanitation and Water Resources?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 a.m.
Very well.
By the Minister for Parliamentary Affairs (Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah- Bonsu)(on behalf of the Hon Minister for Sanitation and Water Resources)—
Commercial Contract Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana (represented by the Ministry of Sanitation and Water Resources/Ghana Water Company Limited [GWCL]) and Lesico Infrastructures S.r.l. (Società a responsabilità limitata) for an amount of eighty-five million, one hundred and twelve thousand, eight hundred and fifty-four euros (€85, 112,854.00) for the design and execution of the Expansion and Rehabilitation of the Keta Water Supply System.
Referred to the Committee on Works and Housing.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 a.m.
Now, we shall resume the Consideration of the Narcotics Control Commission Bill, 2019.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 2:37 a.m.
STAGE 2:37 a.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 a.m.
Clause 48?
Clause 48 -- Obstruction of inspection and search
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 a.m.
The item numbered (xvii), Hon Chairman?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 48 subclause (1) paragraph (a), before “officer”, insert “authorised”.
Mr Speaker, that is consequential.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 a.m.
The item numbered (xviii)?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, before the item numbered (xviii), I would like us to do similar consequential amendments which have not been advertised here on line 1, subclauses (b), (c) and (d).
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would like us to go back to clause 48 (1) (a), but we could deal with this one first, then I would go back.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 a.m.
Sorry, what should we first deal with?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:37 a.m.
I think he has moved the amendment for clause 48 (1) (b), so let us finish with that.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 a.m.
The item numbered (xvii) is on clause 48 (1) (e). He did not move it but he said we should do some correction before that. So if it is now ready, you could move the item numbered (xviii).
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the reason I said we may have to do a minor surgery on clause 48(1) (a) is, what we did in clause 46(2) on the issue that we were engaged in in respect of entering a premise and having access to every part of the premise. I think that for
clause 48(1) (a), it must consequentially affect clause 48(1) (a) to read:
“A person who
(a) refuses to allow an authorised officer to enter or have access to any premises or any part thereof of that premises or to exit from that premises.”
Mr Speaker, this will enable us to capture what we did in clause 46. I think that would satisfy the construct in clause 46(2) (b). It is not only in the premises but any parts of the premise.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 a.m.
Hon Chairman, now, you can move the item numbered (xviii).
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 48 subclause (1) paragraph (e) delete the entire subparagraph.
Mr Speaker, the reason is that the lawyers have taught us to realise that we cannot force people to give information when they do not want to give it. This is calling for that so we ask that it be deleted entirely.

Question put and amendment agreed to.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:07 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member for Wa West?
Mr Chireh 3:07 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this human rights approach we want to adopt is not correct. If somebody refuses to give an information, we would not immediately send the person to prison. The person has to explain why he or she would not give the information but to just indicate that everybody has the right to keep quiet if that person refuses or neglects -- and this is something to help arrest wrongdoing. I do not see the human rights aspects of it at all. Apart from that if the person knows that he or she is right, he or she should say - or if he or she does not have anything to say - I do not see the point why we should not legislate it. It is to assist investigations into wrongdoings.
Mr Agalga 3:07 p.m.
Mr Speaker, under article 19 of our Constitution, it is clear, and this is what is known as the “Miranda right'' in other jurisdictions. We cannot enact legislation contrary to that particular provision of our Constitution. It is as simple as that. The House is duty
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:07 p.m.
Hon Member, article 19 is fair trial and we have not reached there yet.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:07 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Member indicated that what he said predicated in article 19 of the Constitution, which is on fair trial but at this stage, the person is not even on trial. So, the issue that he raised does not hold, unless he has some other constitutional provisions to draw our attention to. What he just said is incongruous to the point that he made.
Mr Agalga 3:07 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader knows that the right to remain silent at all times begins even at the point when a person is under investigation. It may not be article 19 but I would try and get the particular provision right. I also talked about “Miranda rights'' in the United States of America. When we talk about the “Miranda right”, it is very clear - the right to remain silent even at trial is constitutionally guaranteed. So we cannot take it upon ourselves to enact legislation which would not be in consonance with those constitutional law principles.
Mr Ahiafor 3:07 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in our criminal jurisprudence, everybody, including the accused person, has the right to remain silent. That is why there is a clear requirement in our Criminal Procedure Act. Even where a caution statement would be taken from a person, the person would be made clearly aware that he or she is not under any obligation to speak.
However, whatever the person would say would be reduced into writing and would be used against him or her but even at that point, the person reserves the right to remain silent. Until the person is convicted, he or she has the right to remain silent throughout. So, for us to enact a law to make it an obligation on the person to give information, I do not think it is right, so I support the deletion of the provision.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 3:07 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I oppose the deletion of the provision because it is not within the remit of the right to remain silent that this provision would deal with. We should look at the provision carefully. It says:
‘'A person who
(e) refuses or neglects to give any information which may reasonably be required of the person and which the person has power to give''.
This refers to public officers - people who are put in positions which require them to collaborate and to give information and not suspected persons. So that person must be in a situation in which he or she has authority. For example, a person works as a clerk at the Ghana Postal Service and the Ghana Postal Service has intercepted a parcel and because the person works in that Service, he or she has the power to give information but when he or she refuses to give the information the law says that he or she should be punished and they say that provision should be deleted?
Another example is, if a person who has injected cocaine goes to a medical officer at the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital for the removal of the cocaine, the doctor has the power to give that information and if he refuses to give that information they say he should be allowed to go? That is what this provision would deal with. This provision would not deal with an accused person but with somebody who has the authority to give that information.
Mr Banda 3:07 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is worthy to note that the opening language; “a person'' does not make any exception. “A person'' could be a suspect or anybody at all. The Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) makes reference to a situation that
Mr Banda 3:17 p.m.
when a matter is pending in court, a witness is compellable but cannot be compelled to give evidence. Even at the police station, a suspect cannot be compelled to give a written statement. The suspect may have whatever information that would aid investigation but the law says that the suspect cannot be compelled to give information in police station and even in court.
Mr Speaker, my Hon Colleague made reference to article 19 of the Constitution. Although article 19 is not specific to this particular provision under discussion, it makes a lot of sense by necessary implication. Mr Speaker, with your permission, I beg to quote article 19 (10), which says:
“No person who is tried for a criminal offence shall be compelled to give evidence at the trial''.
Mr Speaker, this amounts to proffering information although this matter is before a court of competent jurisdiction which would try it.
Mr Speaker, if even a court of competent jurisdiction cannot compel a person to give information in court, how much more an officer?

Mr Speaker, it is trite that we cannot criminalise a person's refusal to give information. If one believes that he is an authorised officer, and he has all the powers of the state to carry out an investigation, so be it.

If a person, whether a suspect or whoever, has an information, it does not matter whether the person has the power to give information or not; to the extent that the authorised officer is exacting the information from him, the law says that we cannot on that basis criminalise the person's refusal or failure to give information to the authorised officer.

Mr Speaker, so I submit strongly that if we purport to find space for this provision in this Bill, that to me, by all indication, would be ultra vires of the Constitution. This will go contrary to the fundamental right of every person to remain silent.

Mr Speaker, when has it been the case that a person can be forced to give information? We cannot force a person to give information. When is it lawful that a person could be forced to give information? I have not found anything like that in any law. So, I believe that the deletion of this provision is appropriate.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:17 p.m.
the Hon Ranking Member was on his feet; after him, I will listen to the Hon Member for Daboya/Mankarigu.
Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 3:17 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this is a House of records and that is my Chairman and my Colleague and mate at the Law Faculty, so I would want to give information.
Mr Speaker, if a person buys stolen goods and knows that those goods are stolen and yet he buys it, he commits a crime. If he is arrested, he has to provide information; if not - [Interruption] - He has to because he has aided in the loss of the property. He has to give information on who; if not, he is complicit.
Mr Speaker, if a medical doctor treats a person who is an armed robber or a person who has been shot and then the information comes to the medical officer, he is under obligation to disclose that --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:17 p.m.
Hon Member, it is under which law? Is it the medical officer who is under obligation, and under which law? [Laughter.]
Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 3:17 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Medical Profession Public Officers --
Even in his profession, he is under duty to disclose that he has treated gunshot wounds.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:17 p.m.
All right; that may be in the ethics of their profession. Today, I attended the call of some 49 lawyers and the Chief Justice admonished them that it is not their duty to conceal information. That is an ethic but if I do not do it, I do not commit any offence.
But I am reading the Head Note of the whole clause 48, “Obstruction of inspection and search”. Suddenly, you introduce, “failure to give information”. I do not know whether it fits in properly but I was looking at article 14 (2) (ii) which talks about a person who is arrested, restricted or detained. So the Constitution does not provide specifically for a person who probably can be called to be obstructing justice.
If you can have evidence that such a person is obstructing justice, can you charge him under the Criminal and Other Related Offences Act? If so, then you probably do not need to make any strict provisions here because you can charge the person under the Criminal and Other Offences Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act
30).
This compulsion to give evidence may be sticky.
Mr Chireh 3:17 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much. With your permission, I would want to refer to article 21(1) (f) of the Constitution which states:
“(21) (1) All persons shall have the right to --
(f) information, subject to such qualifications and laws as are necessary in a democratic society;”
Mr Speaker, now, we passed the Right to Information Act, 2019. Under that Act, what Hon Members argued is that, even an officer who has the information cannot be compelled to provide it. So why did we waste our time passing the Act?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:17 p.m.
Hon Member, but that is a totally different thing; that is a person in charge of official information.
Mr Chireh 3:17 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree, you quoted article 14 (2) (ii) and qualified it. The point I am making is that we should not reduce accused
persons to somebody offering or who can give information. In any case, we are dealing with criminals and somebody has information which he has the power to give, yet he is refusing to do so. He is not being a good citizen.
Mr Speaker, those people who conceal suspects in their rooms are all offenders of the law. I do not see why one could now argue that anybody who has information may not give it. The person is not accused; he is not before a court of law. He is not being asked by the Police to write a statement. The “Miranda principle” is not what is being envisaged here. This is something to assist to get information. Whatever it is, we should not contradict ourselves.
Mr Speaker, if I am an information officer and I have information and one comes through the Right to Information Act for same, are we saying I can decide not to give the information? That is ridiculous.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:17 p.m.
Hon Member, I believe the linkage to the Right to Information Act is misplaced. [Laughter.]
Mr Ahiafor 3:17 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Yieleh Chireh is saying that one has to assist. So when are we going to criminalise? Should we criminalise a refusal to assist? Giving one the information is being considered,
according to his submission, as an assistance to the prosecution. So for failing to assist the person, I have committed a crime. What kind of legislation would it be?
The Hon Inusah Fuseini asserted that anybody who purchases stolen goods is under obligation to speak. Such a person is not under any obligation to speak. There is a presumption and it is in his or her own interest to rebut that presumption that the goods that he or she has purchased are not stolen goods.
However, if a person exercises his right to remain silent, then the prosecution would have the burden to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the person can remain silent until he is convicted and sentenced. The person is not under any obligation to give any information.
Mr Speaker, but the law that we are making is imposing an obligation, failure for which one would be guilty of committing a crime for which one would be convicted and sentenced for failure to give information. I think that the deletion is in place.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:27 p.m.
I have two examples of lawyers. One, somebody was charged with rape and
the defence lawyer questioned the accused person and he said that he did not do it. At trial, the victim was not forthcoming in giving the details and so, it became easy for the lawyer to defend the accused person and he was acquitted.
The day after the acquittal, there was another part of the crime and he came to the lawyer and confessed that he did it. Now, the lawyer was faced with a dilemma whether he should go and confess to the court that after acquittal, the accused had confessed that he indeed did it. This is a lawyer-client relationship and it is the right of the client that you do not -- [Interruption]-- So, what the lawyer did was to inform the accused that he could not continue to defend him and went to court and discontinued it.
In another case, somebody was accused of stealing somebody's goat. In the course of the trial, he also went to the lawyer and confessed that he had hidden the goat and if the lawyer gets him out, he will give him a big portion. Now, the lawyer was in a dilemma as to whether he should confess to the judge. What to do is to refuse to represent or stop representation because you cannot trust the word of -- [Interruption]--These are some of the things that happened in my Chambers whiles I was in legal practice.
An Hon Member 3:27 p.m.
[Inaudible] --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:27 p.m.
Very well.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:27 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 48 subclause (1), paragraph (g), line 1, delete “endeavours to retrieve or”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:27 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just a minor insertion should have been made but we did not advertise it. Sorry about that.
We will delete “endeavours to retrieve or” and then insert “attempt”. So the new rendition is going to be: “retrieves or causes to be retrieved anything which has been duly seized”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:27 p.m.
So what did you say you were inserting?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:27 p.m.
Mr Speaker, for the sake of simplicita, I would say that we delete “endeavours” in line 1 and then insert “attempt”. So it reads: “retrieves or attempts to retrieve or causes to be retrieved anything which has been duly seized”.
Question put and amendment agreed to
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:27 p.m.
Mr Speaker, item numbered (xx), is part of the consequential amendments. That is “authorised officer”. However, we will make it “provides an authorised officer”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:27 p.m.
Hon Chairman, in which subsection please?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:27 p.m.
Mr Speaker, subclause (1) (h) line 1, delete --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:27 p.m.
Very well. I direct the draftpersons to insert “authorised” before “officer”.
Mr K.S. Acheampong 3:27 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 48 subclause (1), closing phrase after
paragraph (i), line 3, delete “Sixth” and insert “Second”.
Mr Speaker, this is also consequential to earlier amendments we have effected.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:27 p.m.
Yes, I repeat the earlier direction I have given, to the draftpersons to effect the said change.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:27 p.m.
Mr Speaker, subclause (1) after paragraph (h), there is (i) and we left it to the draftpersons to repeat same construction in (i). Unfortunately, I think it is not captured here and so (i) should read:
“before or after any seizure, breaks or attempts to break or otherwise destroys or attempt to destroy anything to prevent the seizure or securing of that thing
…”
Mr Speaker, so, let them take care of that since that is what we said, that it should be consequential. Unfortunately, we lost it. So we do not --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:27 p.m.
If we said it is consequential, it is still --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:27 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we told them that it should consequentially be after the others.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:27 p.m.
Yes, so the Bill is still here. I direct that those consequential amendments be effected.
Hon Chairman, item numbered (xxii).
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:27 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 48 subclause (2), line 2, delete “Sixth” and insert “Second” and also delete “imposed” and insert “not paid”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 49 -- Power of investigation
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:27 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 49 subclause (1), line 1, before “officer” insert “authorised” and further delete “if satisfied that it is necessary”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:27 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 49
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:27 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 49 subclause (2), line 1, delete “Any” and insert “A” and also delete “disclose information” and insert “produce documents” and further in line 4, delete “Sixth” and insert “Second”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 49 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 50 -- Release of property seized
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:37 p.m.
Item numbered (xxvi).
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:37 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 50, subclause (1), paragraph (b), delete “otherwise”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:37 p.m.
Hon Members, I would put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:37 p.m.
Item numbered (xxvii).
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:37 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 50 - - subclause (2), line 1, after “drug” insert “or plant”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:37 p.m.
Item numbered (xviii).
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:37 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 50 - subclause (3), delete.
Mr Speaker, we are deleting the entire subclause.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:37 p.m.
Mr Speaker, maybe, I lost out on that, but the penalty to be paid must be provided for. I think that the purpose of this is to take a discretionary power from the Director-General. So where would we situate it? Would it be in a Regulation or in a Schedule?
Mr Speaker, I am not too sure where it would be situated and that is
why I am asking the Hon Chairman where it would be.
Mr Banda 3:37 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the reason for the deletion is that subclause (1) is an error because it is supposed to be subclause (2) above. The requisite penalty has already been determined in subsection (2). This explains the deletion.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:37 p.m.
Subclause (2) reads:
“A person whose vehicle is used to transport narcotic drug is liable to pay a penalty of not more than one thousand two hundred and fifty penalty units to the Commission before the vehicle is released to that person.”
Mr S. Mahama 3:37 p.m.
Mr Speaker, while that is determined, I have a problem generally with that clause. A driver of a vehicle on a frolic of his own goes to commit a crime somewhere and by this clause the blame would be put on the owner of the vehicle. I do not think that this is right so we should look at it again.
The clause, in this case, talks about the owner, but we should create a regime where perhaps after the investigation, the penalty should be on
the driver up to a certain point where it is proven that the owner is complacent. Otherwise, a driver could be on a frolic of his own and -
- 3:37 p.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:37 p.m.
Probably, if you read from 50(1) you could get the sense. It reads:
“Where property is seized under this Act, an authorised officer other than the officer who effected the seizure may, with the consent of the Director-General acting on the advice of the Attorney-General, at any time before the property is forfeited, release the property to the owner or apparent owner of the property, if the officer is satisfied that the property is not
(a)Liable to forfeiture under this Act, and
(b) Otherwise required for the purpose of proceedings under this Act.
2. “A person whose vehicle is used to transport narcotic drug is liable to pay a penalty of not more than one thousand two hundred and fifty penalty units to the Commission before the vehicle is released to that person.”

For me, this appears to be unfair to the owner of the vehicle. As I sit here, I do not know the whereabouts of my driver even though he is an official driver.
Mr Ras Mubarak 3:37 p.m.
Mr Speaker, you are absolutely right. If I had a taxi and on daily rounds, the driver uses the taxi to transport some contraband goods, how does it impose on me to be the one to suffer the penalty thereof?
So I think that it should be on the person who is using the vehicle at a material moment unless it could be established that the owner of the vehicle has something to do with it otherwise it would be so unfair on many vehicle owners like yourself, Mr Speaker.
Mr Banda 3:37 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in dealing with serious offences, to wit, drug related offences and other offences, certain items or properties can be forfeited. One instance is the situation where a property is derived from an illegal source, which is a tainted property. In a situation where a conveyance is used to carry a controlled substance, the law enforcement agencies are empowered to administratively seize that conveyance until a penalty is paid. This is trite.
The mens rea of the owner of the conveyance or the vehicle does not need to be established because once the fact is established that a particular conveyance has been used to cart or transport a controlled substance, then in law, that conveyance can be impounded.
Mr Speaker, this is trite in any of the established democracies. This is a kind of administrative arrangement where the law enforcement agencies are empowered to immediately seize the conveyance as soon as the law enforcement agencies realise that that conveyance has been used in transporting a controlled substance, to wit, a drug which is prohibited under this law.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:37 p.m.
So who is the charge against; the owner of the vehicle or the vehicle? If the issue is that the vehicle has been used to commit a crime and before it is released, there is a fine - I think under the Customs Act, vehicles that are used to smuggle items are seized and a fine is imposed. The weakness in this clause is to put in a vehicle owner who may have nothing to do with the crime, but if the fine is imposed on the vehicle then we do not care who would pay for it because the vehicle has been used to commit a crime. So the fine would be paid before it is released. In this case, it may be easier to manage.
Mr Ras Mubarak 3:37 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just a quick one. There is even another angle --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:37 p.m.
Hon Member, I have not given you the Floor because others want to speak.
Hon Agalga?
Mr Agalga 3:47 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the provision needs to be looked at.
In establishing a crime, first of all, we need to understand that vehicles do not commit crimes. Then if one is called upon to establish the mens rea, it cannot be established on a part of a vehicle. So the crimes can only be committed by somebody in control of the vehicle. So at the material moment, if we are saying that the owner should be the one to pay the penalty here, maybe, it is possible that at the time the vehicle was used to cart narcotic substances, the owner had no knowledge whatsoever.
Mr Speaker, if we can establish that the owner had knowledge that his vehicle was about to be used to cart narcotics and he did nothing about it, fair enough --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:47 p.m.
In that case, you charge the owner if you
Mr A. Dery 3:47 p.m.
Mr Speaker, liability or culpability is very important in this case.
Mr Speaker, I can tell you my personal experience when I started running commercial vehicles. The drivers would do their own things and it is not vicarious liability in criminal offence. So we should make sure that we do not expose owners of vehicles unduly to penalties when they are not culpable. The drivers, most of the time, would do these things without the knowledge of the owners.
So Mr Speaker, I think that we need to be careful not to punish the wrong people for other people's offences.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Ahiafor 3:47 p.m.
Mr Speaker, two things constitute a crime. The act and the intention --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:47 p.m.
Unless the law changes --
Mr Ahiafor 3:47 p.m.
Yes, unless the law otherwise changes.
Mr Speaker, why do we have to leave the driver in control of the vehicle only to punish an innocent owner who is sitting at home and may not know anything about this crime?
Once the driver is in charge of the vehicle and is conveying narcotics, then he is the first person to be held responsible for him to come and say that the owner of the vehicle requested that he conveys the substance. Then the owner could also come in. In a situation where we would be leaving the driver in charge of the vehicle and be proceeding against the owner, I do not think we are being fair.
Vehicles per se, cannot commit any crime. Somebody in control of the vehicle would definitely be guilty of committing the crime and at every point in time, there is a driver responsible for driving the vehicle. Now, by this provision, we would leave the driver and then proceed against the owner of the vehicle.
Mr Speaker, to the extent that we mention owner of the vehicle expressly here -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:47 p.m.
We agreed that we want to move out the owner but we want to put a fine on the vehicle.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:47 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would propose that to cure this mischief, we have to do further amendments to read: “A person in control of or whose vehicle is used to transport narcotic drugs is liable to pay a penalty of not more than …”
Mr Speaker, I am saying this because if we come to clause 56, Seizure of movable property:
“Any movable property which an officer reasonably suspects to be the subject of an offence under this Act or which has been used for the commission of that offence, or illegal property, is liable to seizure.
“Wherever any movable property is seized under subsection (1), the officer effecting the seizure, shall by notice in writing, inform”:
(a) the owner of the property, or where the whereabouts of the owner is not known, the known agent of the owner, or
(b) the pilot or the master respectively, in the case of aircraft or a vessel…”
So it depends on the situation. The driver may be held but if he says that he is in control but it is the owner who asked him to do it, then we hold the owner. That is why I am saying that perhaps we could further amend clause 50 (2) so that either the person in charge of the conveyance, which
should be the driver and perhaps the driver's mate -- Sometimes, perhaps, it is the mate who would even be doing it. So as the situation may be, even the driver would be held liable. If it is not the driver, the owner - depending on the circumstances.
Mr Speaker, those of them in charge would be able to establish on the spare of the moment who should be held liable. So I would propose that, just so that we are able to have this, especially against the backdrop of what clause 56 provides, either of them could be held liable depending on what may dictate on the ground.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 3:47 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I argued for the retention of this provision on two grounds. First of all, when the vehicle is used for the purpose of conveying a narcotic drug or plant, that vehicle has a conveyor who by a conveyor belt is already subject to penalty whether the conveyance of the narcotic drug was with the consent of the driver or the owner. This is because that is the conveyor belt. But this law is trying to deal fairly with the owner. Where the owner is unaware --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:47 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think I was dealing with something else. Now, the reason why we are deleting clause 51(2) --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:47 p.m.
We actually proposed the deletion of clause 51(3) and it was challenged. Then our attention was drawn to clause 51(2), which we find very precarious.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:47 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 51 does not have subclause (3).
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:47 p.m.
Clause 50(3).
3. 57 p. m.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:47 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 51 does not have a subclause (3) - [Interruption] -- Clause 50(3), is that where we are? -- [Some Hon Members: Yes.]
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:47 p.m.
The proposal is to delete clause 50(3) and an Hon Member asked why?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:47 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker, I asked why the question.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:47 p.m.
Right. Then the argument came in whether clause 50(2) is actually a fair clause.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:47 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 50(2) is what I propose that we further amend. In that case, we can then delete clause 50(3).
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:47 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, may I suggest that the winnowing committee would reconsider the clause 50 and link it with the Customs Act; compare how the officer deals with vehicles used to convey smuggled goods and so on?
Hon Members, I would bring the proceedings to a close now; it is 4.00 p.m. So that on Monday - Sorry, Tuesday --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:47 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I noticed that you want the House to Sit on Monday. We shall oblige you. [Laughter]
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:47 p.m.
I am seeking leave to be absent the whole of next week. So whether Monday or Tuesday --
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:47 p.m.
Yes, available Minority Leader?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 3:47 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not know whether it is Mr Speaker who presents the Business Statement or the Majority Leader because he told us this morning that the House will Sit on Tuesday. [Laughter]
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:47 p.m.
Very well.
Hon Members, that is the end of the Consideration of the Narcotics Control Commission Bill, 2019 for today.
ADJOURNMENT 3:47 p.m.