Debates of 25 Feb 2020

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 11:01 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 11:01 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:01 a.m.
Hon Members, Correction of Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 21st February, 2020.
Mr Speaker 11:01 a.m.
Hon Members, we have Official Report for Thursday, 20th February, 2020. Any correc- tions?
rose
Mr Speaker 11:01 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member for North Tongu, Mr Okudzeto Ablakwa?
Mr Ablakwa 11:01 a.m.
Mr Speaker, with regard to the list of distinguished personalities you acknowledged in the House that day which is captured in column 007, correction should be done to the name of His Lordship the Chief Justice, Justice Kwasi Anin Yeboah. The “Anin'' has been captured with a double “n'' but it should be one “n''. In column 008, the name of the National Chairman of the Peoples National Convention (PNC), “Mr Bernard Mornah'' was spelt “Mr Bernard Mona''. Finally, in column 009, there should be an “h'' at the end of the surname of the General Secretary of the National Democratic Congress and also a former Hon Member of this House - “Mr Johnson Asiedu Nketiah''.
Mr Speaker 11:01 a.m.
Any other correction, please?
Yes, Hon Okudzeto Ablakwa?
Mr Ablakwa 11:01 a.m.
Mr Speaker, there is a strange entry in the first paragraph of column 009. It has been captured, one, “Hon Nyantakyi of the NDC'' but we do not know who that person is. We do not recall you acknowledged any “Hon Nyantakyi'' on that fateful day. We do not know if it is Mr Kwasi Nyantakyi, formally of the Ghana Football Association (GFA) but, probably, that may have to be expunged.
Mr Speaker 11:01 a.m.
Hon Members, the Official Report of Thursday, 20th February, 2020, as corrected is hereby admitted as the true record of proceedings.
At the Commencement of Public Business, item listed 4 -- Presentation of Papers.
Item numbered 4(a)?
PAPERS 11:01 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:11 a.m.
Hon Members, item numbered 6 -- Motions. Hon Minister for Information?
Mr Kojo Oppong-Nkrumah (NPP -- Ofoase/Ayirebi) 11:11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that this honourable House thanks His Excellency the President for the message on the State of the Nation which he delivered to Parliament on Thursday 20th February, 2020.
Mr Speaker, as the House would recall, on that day, our Hon Colleagues on the Minority side excused themselves from Business in the House. After they had excused themselves, you also observed that the Majority extended their occupation of the House on some of the Minority benches, perhaps a sign of what the House would look like in the near future. -- [Hear! Hear!] The nation itself was caught up in the Parliamentary drama but this morning, we gather to have an opportunity to have a detailed examination of the President's State of the Nation Address.
May I admonish Hon Colleagues that in future we avoid these exercises and endeavour to conduct Parlia- mentary Business in a manner that
upholds the decorum and authority of this august House.
Mr Speaker, the President appeared before the House to fulfil a constitutional obligation under article 67. He spent time speaking to a number of themes, some of which I will highlight as I start the debate this morning but principally speaking to the progress that has been made by the Republic across the sectors that he spoke to.
The President spoke to raw facts. In our debate today, we will be putting those facts in context because facts without context is often not understood and we will be giving general meaning to what has happened in Ghana in the last three years under the Akufo-Addo Administration.
Mr Speaker, the first thing that the President spoke about is the subject of Ghana rising on the global stage, the Ghana, which around the year 1957 was the leader and beacon of hope for Africa, and which around the year 2016 was now dwindling in growth, foreign direct investments, not necessarily the leading destination in the context and a nation that had literally become a beggar nation. By that time, we had to go to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) asking for a bailout. We no longer
looked like the nation that was capable of managing its own affairs.
Three years on, His Excellency the President reports to this House that the world now receives us with enthusiasm from Europe to the Americas, to Asia and back home in Africa.
Mr Speaker, this has not been by happenstance but by clear thought through strategy that has been well executed and three things have been done in that regard.
Firstly, the Akufo-Addo Administration has defined a very clear compelling dream and vision for Ghana. This is what we call, “Ghana Beyond Aid” and I will speak to that shortly.
Secondly, the Administration has successfully sold this vision locally and internationally to the admiration of everybody.
Thirdly, the Administration has backed this vision with good policies that are now translating into the tangible benefits that are making Ghana reclaim its pride of place globally and on the African continent.
Mr Speaker, the “Ghana Beyond Aid” is to build an optimistic, self- confident and prosperous nation
through the creative exploitation of our human and natural resource base and thus operate within a democratic, open and fair society in which mutual trust and economic opportunities exist for all.
It is this vision that has been successfully sold and implemented which is the reason for which we are resuming our pride of place all over the world.
Mr Speaker, rhetoric matters but it has not just been empty rhetoric; it has been backed by an improved macroeconomic environment and a bright investment horizon. For this reason, today, the foreign direct investments that we were losing are now back and we are reclaiming our place as the highest recipient of the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in West Africa, at least, in the year
2018.
This rhetoric has been backed by a well thought through diaspora attraction programme and that is why you are noticing that thousands of tourists are flocking into the jurisdiction, first from the “Year of Return” and hopefully, in the decade afterwards that we call; “Beyond the Return”.
Mr Speaker, it has been backed by leadership for which reason, the entire West Africa is now gravitating
Mr Speaker, in the earlier paragraph, it says 11:11 a.m.
“Increased production and high yields of some food stuffs like maize, rice, sorghum, groundnut, soyabean, cowpea, cassava and plantain have led to a decrease in the wholesale prices in market centers and furthermore, we are no longer importers of maize as we are reducing our dependence on rice imports and are now in effect, net exporters of foodstuffs. Food prices are at their lowest in decades”.
All of this is because of the clear programme of “Planting for Food and Jobs” that this Administration introduced. I would like to commend
Mr Speaker, in the earlier paragraph, it says 11:21 a.m.
the Hon Minister for Agriculture, Dr Owusu Afriyie Akoto for the kind of work going on there.
Mr Speaker, beyond agriculture, having resolved dumsor, the agenda for growth in industry and services has now got the best chances of success. Indeed, even if we had no clear programme for industry, just by resolving dumsor, we created a stimulant for industry to function better than it was doing prior to the year
2016.

Manufacturers who had no electricity to run their plants in the year 2016, no longer needed to shut down production for half a week because doing so would lead to low production. If one did not want low production then one would have to choose high cost of fuel and generators which would also lead to high losses. If one did not like that as well then one would have to cut jobs, but none of this was acceptable to the people of Ghana. This was the sorry state of industry by 2016.

So, if indeed we did nothing at all, just by bringing back reliable and affordable energy supply, we helped to boost industry. In addition, we introduced the One District One

Factory (1D1F) Programme. The visionary President Akufo-Addo targeted 275 factories at the start of this industrial programme. Mr Speaker, our Hon Colleagues on the other Side in 2016 told us that the 1D1F Programme was not feasible. By extension what this means is that if they were in power by now, there would not have been a 1D1F Programme; indeed, there would be zero factories under a programme of this sort.

As the President reports, today, we have 181 of those factories at various stages of construction and over 50 of them are operational and on any day, 181 is greater than zero. With the approval of the Automobile Industry Policy, we have also sent a very strong signal to the sector that we have policies that would grow the sector.

Not only has the Kantanka fleet now gotten room to embark on commercially viable production, but other brands such as Toyota, Volkswagen (VW), Renault, Hyundai, Suzuki are now heading to Ghana, and the President provided details on when we should expect them. Mr Speaker, I beg to quote the President on page 16 where he said that:

“VW is building its plant at the North Industrial Area in Accra, and is due to start production by the end of April. Sinotruk has begun assembling its trucks.

Toyota is scheduled to start the assembly of vehicles in Tema in the last quarter of this year. We have high hopes for this new industry, which has come to join our own Kantanka.”

Mr Speaker, with industry in general, the automobile industry is expected to see an uptake. It is not only this, because bauxite is now establishing its footprints after the establishment of the Ghana Integrated Aluminium Development Corporation and the Iron and Steel Industry is also expecting to see a boom after this House graciously passed the Ghana Integrated Iron and Steel Develop- ment Corporation (GIISDC) Act on the President's request. While we continue with all of this, we are also working to reduce the burden that the energy sector imposes on our fiscal position through the energy sector reorganisation programme.

Mr Speaker, services have also been doing very well in the last three years. With regard to services, I would narrow on the financial services sector because the financial sector is tied to the apron strings of the real sector. One of the functions of the financial services sector is credit provision and this is a major stimuli for economic growth. Mr Speaker, it can also be the Achilles' heel of the economy. As

we are all aware, Ghana's financial sector challenges started prior to 2016. At its peak, the Bank of Ghana reports that deposits from about four million Ghanaians, totalling about GH¢16 billion had been consumed. Mr Speaker, table 3 (b) of the 2020 Budget Statement gives a true context of what GH¢16 billion means.

In the 2020 Budget Statement, the entirety of taxes on domestic goods and services; Value Added Tax (VAT), Excise Duty, National Health Insurance Levy (NHIL), GETFund and Communication Service Tax (CST), all totalled GH¢19 billion.

So when we say GH¢16 billion one can see the comparatives very well. On the expenditure side, all the moneys that should go into the National Health Insurance Fund, GETFund, Road Fund, Petroleum- related Funds, District Assembly Common Funds, Internally Generated Retentions and transfers to GNPC put together is about GH¢13 billion. So the GH¢16 billion can be put in proper context.

Mr Speaker, we were told that about 10,000 jobs at that time had virtually been lost and there were abundant reports of workers in these institutions who worked without pay. Indeed, in those days, we all saw the footages on our mobile phones and televisions where if depositors went to some institutions for their money, they were met with police brutalities.
Mr Speaker, in the earlier paragraph, it says 11:21 a.m.
The risk of contagion effect was real, but the Akufo-Addo Administration underwrote a Bank of Ghana proposal to resolve the financial services blues. Today, over GH¢11 billion has been paid and in this week payment would commence with about GH¢5 billion for institutions under the non-banking financial framework. Mr Speaker, deposits of over four million Ghanaians has been saved. Can one imagine if four million Ghanaians would have lost their deposits?

This biggest bailout of at least GH¢16 billion could have done a lot of things for Ghana. It could have eliminated the double track system, built thousands of kilometres of roads or further be invested into agriculture, industry and the services sector but because this Administration is in cognizance of the impact of human lives, that is why it has invested all these amounts of money to clean up the financial sector. So we have saved deposits of over four million

Mr Speaker, another thing the President spoke about is peaceful coexistence. Sometimes as a country, we forget too soon the kind of gains that we have made, but it is important to remind ourselves and use it as a platform to build for the future. The Dagbon crises is one such example and it was a conflict that over a decade tore brother and brother apart; it cost us tens and millions of Ghana cedis and it grounded all progress around the area to a halt. As part of the President's agenda to ensure peaceful coexistence, he stimulated the resolution of the Yendi crises and the

Mr Speaker, in a similar vein, he has also appointed mediators to resolve some of the other disputes across the country. President Akufo- Addo believes in peaceful coexistence and he commits to invest in it. He has spearheaded the passage of an anti- vigilantism Act by this House to forestall the creeping culture of political violence in our body politic. Mr Speaker, we must applaud him for this.

Under his watch, the National Peace Council is spearheading an anti-vigilantism accord among political parties. Though our Hon Colleagues on the other Side have refused to sign, this House should endeavour to call on all parties to do the honourable thing and to join the President on the initiative to ensure peaceful coexistence.

Additionally, those who are beating war drums that if the 2020 General Elections witnesses any untoward actions, it would be addressed to some quarters, should be advised to desist from that. The President is committed to a peaceful 2020 General Elections and we believe that nothing

will transpire so we encourage all parties to comply with the rules of engagement that are being laid down.

Mr Speaker, to secure our peace, this Administration has also been investing heavily in the security agencies. Over 600 vehicles have been procured for the Ghana Police Service and today many districts in the nation have augmented their police fleets. This has enabled police patrols thus ensuring that citizens are safer.

Mr Speaker, more officers are being injected into the services and on the job training is being upgraded. Mr Speaker, the military has not been left out and they have also received a fair share of equipment which is necessary for their work. Today, operation Conquer Fist among others is delivering safety and protection to the people of Ghana.

Mr Speaker, the President spoke to the nation about the fight against corruption. As we are all aware, corruption cannot be fought successfully if we would only resort to one strong or one macho man. It is fought by building strong institutions. We have seen the best of men lead revolutions aimed at ridding the society of corruption only for their own administrations in the very end to be accused and caught up in corruption. So in building a strong
Mr Speaker, in the earlier paragraph, it says 11:31 p.m.
anti-corruption framework, the President has done a number of things.

At least, four pieces of legislation has been passed in the last three years to support the fight against corruption. This included the Witness Protection Act, 2018 (Act 975), the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2018 (Act 959), the Right to Information Act, 2019, (Act 989) and the Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992).

Additionally, Mr Speaker, President Akufo-Addo's Government has increased budgetary allocation to accountability institutions between 25 and 34 per cent since 2017. Parliament, the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), the Judiciary, the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), the Office of the Special Prosecutor and the Police are all beneficiaries.

Again, he is ensuring that prosecutions are done without political colour. It is no wonder that sometimes we hear supporters of the governing party accusing their own party of not taking on persons from

the previous Administration strongly enough despite the fact that about 40 persons are currently before the court for corruption-related offences.

Mr Speaker, he is also charging the anti-corruption agencies with a free hand to investigate allegations of corruption even against Government officials. These institutions should help us uncover, for example, who “Government Official 1” is and hold him and his compatriots accountable for the actions that they are alleged to have committed. We would all help the fight against corruption.

Mr Speaker, investment in entrepreneurial support has also been going on. Business resource centres are being built across the country. As the President mentioned, about 37 of them have been completed so far and 30 more are being rolled out. Yes, entrepreneurs need working capital as well as start-up capital, but without technical and managerial support, they cannot even manage that capital well. The Ministry of Business Develop- ment is also doing a yeoman's job in ensuring that capital and technical knowledge is availed to young entrepreneurs across the country.

Mr Speaker, so on the back of the macro gains, young entrepreneurs, when supported technically and

financially, can also flourish. That is exactly what the Akufo-Addo Administration is doing.

Mr Speaker, I would want to speak briefly about public goods and services, starting with education. Today, the major point of complaint about education is the double track system.

However, Government is committed to completing work on the over 800 infrastructural projects nationwide aimed at eliminating the double track system. For example, in my own constituency, Akokoaso Senior High School has just benefited from the completion of a dormitory block. We expect more other schools to benefit from same for the eventual roll back of the double track system.

Not only is the double track system a phenomenon for us here in Ghana. Countries like Kenya would want to learn from it. At first the problem in education was that majority of parents complained that they could not afford senior high education for their wards. Today, the problem is that they could have it for free, but they would like to have it on a single track. We believe that is a beautiful problem to have which this Administration is committed to fixing. What is exciting is that about 1.2 million Ghanaian children are benefiting from the President's Free

Senior High School Programme, the largest and most impactful social intervention programme.

Sport development is on the rise. About 10 youth and sports centres are being built across the country. Several sports complexes and Astro Turf are also being built in various parts of the country. This would lead to an improvement in sports talents and in health conditions.

Mr Speaker, social protection programmes are also being improved. The Kufuor Administration introduced a number of social protection programmes including the School Feeding Programme, Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP) and even free maternal care. We believe that if the economic conditions of the last eight years had not dwindled, it would have been better to maintain and build upon these social intervention programmes. Thanks to God that the New Patriotic Party (NPP) is back in power and social protection programmes have now been resuscitated and are being expanded.

Mr Speaker, on the watch of President Akufo-Addo, the School Feeding Programme is being expanded and LEAP is being expanded. This is boosting basic school enrolment, nutrition among

school children and creating jobs for a lot of young women across the country.

In the area of health, Mr Speaker, not only is the National Health Insurance Scheme being improved, but a lot of health infrastructural projects are now also being completed. Additionally, pre-hospital emergency healthcare has received the boost with over 307 ambulances, the largest fleet ever in the history of our country; and the drone delivery network that we rolled out is also delivering tens of thousands of drugs across the length and breadth of this country.

Mr Speaker, the road network is now being attended to. Paragraph 867 of the 2020 Budget Statement outlines many roads that are being worked on. Digitisation is now a big deal, offering a lot more efficiency and productivity and also reducing corruption for our citizens.

Mr Speaker, the President also finally acknowledges some challenges, for example, in the area of galamsey that while a lot of gains have been made, the new challenges would be fought head-on. He also speaks about the fact that challenges in domestic resource mobilisation among other

things need to be tackled so that we can raise the necessary revenues to complete the unfinished agenda.

Mr Speaker, not only have we become a healthier nation across various sectors, but we now have a bold and compelling vision to live up to a wealthy, inclusive, sustainable, empowered and resilient nation that is a Ghana beyond Aid.

My prayer to my Hon Colleagues in this House is that now that we are on this path, we should support the President and encourage him to get us to that land of milk and honey.
Mr Speaker 11:31 p.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Minister, for the Motion so moved.
Who seconds the Motion?
Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah (NPP -- New Juabeng South) 11:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion. In doing so, I would make my own contribution.
Mr Speaker, contained in the Message on the State of the Nation --
Mr Speaker 11:31 p.m.
Hon Members, just a moment, please.

Order!
Alhaji Mohammed-Mubarak Muntaka 11:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, like you rightly said, it is not a rule, but just a convention. Our principle is that we are not participating in the debate. So we would not speak to it.
Mr Speaker 11:31 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as I indicated earlier, a Member of the House is not required to be in the House to participate in the voting of any Question that is put in the House. After we have debated, a Question would be put on this Motion. Any Hon Member who is not in the House when the Statement is being made is still technically qualified to participate in the debate. Nothing prevents the Minority from participating in it.
Mr Speaker, meanwhile the decision is totally theirs whether to participate or not. The Hon Minority
Chief Whip has said that they would not participate. That decision must be respected except that I heard him say that they have a principle not to participate. I do not know what the principle is. It is a decision. I do not want to go into principles, but it is a decision which must be respected. As to the principle, I do not know which principle underpins this decision.
Mr Speaker, as I said, if they opt not to participate, we can go on and debate. Perhaps we could speak what they are thinking for them.
Mr Speaker 11:31 p.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Majority Leader.
Hon Chairman of the Finance Committee?
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:41 a.m.
Mr Speaker, once more, I rise to second the Motion and to make my own contribution.
Mr Speaker, contained in the Message on the State of the Nation is also the state of the economy.
Mr Speaker, in the fourth year of the NPP Administration, I would attempt to compare the state of the economy in 2016 to the state of the economy today.
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:41 a.m.
Mr Speaker, under former President John Dramani Mahama in 2016, Ghana experienced declined economic growth. The real GDP growth was 3.4 per cent which was the lowest in 23 years - Mr Speaker, since our Hon Colleagues would not debate, I would go into my lecture mood and take my time and teach. [Hear! Hear!] --
Mr Speaker, economic growth measures the increase in the production of goods and services. It captures economic activities. So, in 2016, the economy grew at 3.4 per cent; it captures the extent of expansion of the economy.
Mr Speaker, in 2017, the economy grew at 8.1 per cent. So economic activities increased. [Hear! Hear!] In 2018, the economy grew at 6.3 per cent and in 2019, it grew by 7 per cent. The growth in 2019 was one of the fastest in emerging economies in the world. [Hear! Hear!] -- Mr Speaker, numbers do not lie. Whereas in 2016, under the first Government Official of the land, the economy grew at 3.4 per cent, presently, the economy is growing at 7 per cent. It is even projected to grow at 6.8 per cent in 2020. Mr Speaker, 6.8 per cent would have doubled the economic growth we experienced in 2016, which was 3.4 per cent. Clearly, as the economy expands, jobs are created and true to the

Again, in 2016, under the first Government official of the land, there was persistence in high rates of inflation. In that year, the annual rate of inflation was 15.4 per cent. I will take my time to explain what inflation is because of the students here. Mr Speaker, inflation rate is the percentage increase in the general price level. So if the inflation rate is 15.4 per cent, it means that if one has a GH¢100.00 under his pillow, at year end, the value of the GH¢100.00 would be GH¢84.50.

Presently, the inflation rate is 7.9 per cent. So, if the GH¢100.00 is kept under the pillow and the person is prudent, at year end, the erosion of the currency now is just 7.9 per cent as compared to 15.4 per cent in their time, eroding the purchasing power of the cedi.

Mr Speaker, clearly, a lower rate of inflation would translate into improved cost of living; it translates into lower cost of borrowing and it is a healthy economy for everyone. So once again, numbers do not lie. Whereas it was 15.4 per cent during their time in 2016, now, it is 7.9 per cent.

Mr Speaker, the fiscal deficit -- Again, I would take my time and explain -- the fiscal balance is the difference between revenue and expenditure. So if the revenue exceeds the expenditure, then there is a budget surplus. If the revenue is less than expenditure, then there is a budget deficit.

Mr Speaker, in my life time Ghana has not had a budget surplus. It has been deficits upon deficits, so the lower the deficit, the better. In 2016, under their watch, the deficit was 6.5 per cent. Consistently, it has been declining. It was 4.8 per cent in 2017; 3.9 per cent in 2018; 4.8 per cent in 2019; and it is projected to be 4.7 per cent in 2020.

The Government of Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo brought legislation to the House to legislate the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2018 (Act 982) which says that deficit cannot exceed 5 per cent in any year. This is the Government itself tying a noose around its neck that if it exceeds the 5 per cent deficit, the Minister for Finance should be censored. I advised the Hon Minister at Committee that he should not do that, but he said he wanted to be a prudent Minister for Finance, so he would go ahead. That is the law that we have now.

Mr Speaker, to coordinate and monitor discipline, the Government has also set up the Fiscal Responsibility Advisory Council. So the Minister does not only live within his means, the Advisory Council continuously monitors what the Ministry does.

Mr Speaker, another beautiful feature of the law is that the Government is supposed to maintain a positive primary balance. Again, I would explain it -- [Interruption] -- Mr Speaker, the primary balance records tax revenue minus expenditure which excludes interest payments. I will take it again. The primary balance measures revenue minus expenditure when debt servicing is taken out or interest payments. So if there is a negative primary balance it means that one is borrowing to service his debt.

Mr Speaker, in 2016, they had a negative primary balance of negative 1.1 per cent. It means they borrowed to service the debt. Under the watch of the NPP and the Economic Management Team headed by the
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:51 a.m.


Mr Speaker, the low inflation, positive primary balance and the others that I have talked about, should translate into something. They have translated into lower interest rates. In 2015, under the first Government Official of the land, interest rates were around 23 per cent. Presently, short- term interest rates; 91-day treasury bill is 14.7 per cent.

Mr Speaker, under their watch, it was an incentive for people to place their funds with savings and loans, and microfinance companies because they were guaranteed high returns. Presently, one would not get a return of more than 20 per cent anywhere in the land because interest rates have declined.

As a matter of fact, in 2016, lending rates hovered around 32 per cent and we have evidence to that. The Road Fund borrowed at 31.9 per cent in 2016; that was the lending rate. As

we speak, lending rate is around 23 per cent. Mr Speaker, presently, the Central Bank has reduced the Monetary Policy Rate from 25.5 per cent to 16 per cent. [Hear! Hear!] These are numbers that do not lie.

Mr Speaker, on the exchange rate depreciation, Ghana had consistently experienced depreciating currency; a weakening currency. As we speak today, year to date, the Ghanaian Cedi is the best performing currency in the world. [Hear! Hear!] -- I did not say it is the best performing currency in Africa; I said it is the best performing currency in the world. [Hear! Hear!]

Mr Speaker, as we speak, the cedi is appreciating against the United States dollar. Nobody wants to hold the greenback again. If we continue to hold on to the United States dollar, we would lose value. Therefore under the New Patriotic Party (NPP), nobody wants to hold on to dollars; that is what is happening right now in the economy.

-- That is what is happening now; “the cedi is appreciating the dollar.”

Mr Speaker, we have also built up buffers, so this appreciated currency would stay. The National Democratic Congress (NDC) Administration, in 2016 left the seat of government with gross international reserves of US$3.4 billion. As we speak, we have reserves in excess of US$5 billion. There is a buffer; we have a cushion, so this currency would grow stronger and stronger.

Mr Speaker, when we do all these magnificent things in our country, there are external observers who rate us. Under former President Kufuor, Ghana achieved the credit rating of “B+” in 2008. Afterwards, the First Government Official of the land took over. [Laughter.] In 2016, the credit rating of “B+” that we gained under President Kufuor declined to “B-”

Mr Speaker, the better managers of the economy took over, and guess what, Moody's rate Ghana at “B3” with a positive outlook. [Hear! Hear!] Also, Standard and Poor, which had rated us at “B+”, from which we declined to “B-”, have now upgraded us to “B” with a stable outlook.

Mr Speaker, the coupon rate on the Eurobond that we issued recently was 6.375 per cent. In 2016, under the watch of the NDC Government, Ghana, the sovereign, borrowed at a rate of 9.75 per cent. Now, if Ghana borrows money, we borrow at a rate of 6.375 per cent. [Hear! Hear!] This is about 3.4 percentage decrease in the interest rate. We therefore have to be careful that this country does not slide back into the hands of the previous Administration.

This is because if a country would borrow at a rate of 9.75, and within a matter of three years, another Administration is able to bring it to as low as 6.375, then we should not take it for granted. So clearly, the state of the economy is stronger, it is better, and it is moving forward. If we go along this trajectory, then the cedi would exchange to the dollar under less than GH¢5 -- we should watch
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:51 a.m.
out for this. If we continue along this trajectory, then we would be able to hit the “B+” rating again.

Question proposed.
Mr Speaker 11:51 a.m.
Hon Members, in the interim, I would make a little variation and take the item numbered 5, which has to do with the First Reading of the Customs (Amendment) Bill, 2020.
Yes, Hon Minister for Finance?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister for Finance is unavailable, so the Hon Deputy Minister for Finance, Mrs Abena Osei-Asare would hold the fort for him. She would accordingly do what is needful.
Mr Speaker, it is important to know that the Bill is with us in this House. It was first laid on the 19th of December, 2019, but what is to be done now by the Hon Deputy Minister is to withdraw the old one that was laid, and substitute a new one by laying it afresh. That would be the task
of the Hon Deputy Minister for Finance. So you may grant her the opportunity to do so.
Mr Speaker 11:51 a.m.
Yes, Hon Deputy Minister for Finance?
Mrs Abena Osei-Asare 11:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I rise to withdraw the first Bill that was laid on the 19th of December, 2019 and with your permission, replace it with a new Bill.
Mr Speaker 11:51 a.m.
Permission is granted; you may present it.
BILLS -- FIRST READING 11:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:51 a.m.
Hon Members, we would go on to the Motion ably moved by the Hon Minister for Information.
MOTIONS 11:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:51 a.m.
Hon Anthony Effah, you have the Floor.
Mr Anthony Effah (NPP -- Asikuma/Odoben/Brakwa) 12:01 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I also rise to thank the President for the Message on the State of the Nation. In so doing, I would like to make reference to pages 7 and 8 of his Message, which emphasise the effort that Government has put in trying to resuscitate the dying banking sector.
Mr Speaker, at the time of the interventions, it is on record that several of those banks that were affected were seriously under- capitalised; risk management was
poor, corporate governance was very weak, many of those banks were insolvent, banks faced liquidity challenges, there were various suspicious transactions identified, there was excessive risk taking, and it is also on record that there were some creative accounting practices which were a threat to the banking sector then and led to its total collapse.
Mr Speaker, with the involvement of the present Government, there have been some positive impact on the industry, and I would like to make reference to the Bank of Ghana Banking Sector Report, November, 2019, which I hold in my hand, and make references to some of the developments that have occurred or happened since the clean-up exercise.

Mr Speaker, reading from the Bank of Ghana Banking Sector Report, November, 2019, we realised that total assets of the banking sector grew at about 13.8 per cent to more than GH¢120 billion. It is important to note that about 92.2 per cent of this growth in total assets were with domestic sources. The foreign component was only 7.8 per cent, which should be of interest to us, as the banking sector itself has 92.2 per cent of total assets on their books.

Mr Speaker, there were also increases in bank investments and bills, securities and bonds. The growth for the period up to October 2019 was 10.8 per cent, increasing it to GH¢47.47 billion.

In the past, the growth in investments in Government securities and bills was about 62 per cent. What that meant was that the banking sector was very risky to invest in private sector, so banks decided to invest more in Government bills than in the private sector in the Small-Medium Enterprises (SMEs). Today, we understand that investment in securities is normalising at about 45 per cent.

Mr Speaker, industry credit to the portfolio also grew by 17.72 per cent and there was an increase in advances to about GH¢42 billion as at October 2019 and the reference I have given is the Bank of Ghana Banking Sector Report of November, 2019.

Mr Speaker, deposits as of October 2019, had increased by 17.1 per cent to almost GH¢80 billion from the GH¢ 67 billion that was recorded in the year earlier. This points to a renewed confidence in the banking sector as a result of the reforms.

Mr Speaker, in the past, banks had relied heavily on borrowings to support their operations, but with these revision and reforms, it is good to note that total borrowings by these banks declined significantly and that the total borrowing has now reduced from about GH¢18 billion to GH¢17 billion as of October 2019.

Mr Speaker, the slow-down is as a result of the increased capitalisation of these banks as well as the sustained growth in deposits. The industry is well capitalised; paid-off capital has grown by 38.4 per cent to GH¢9 billion from the GH¢6.6 billion that was reported in October 2018.

Mr Speaker, shareholder funds, as important as it is, has also grown. It was increased by about 25 per cent to GH¢17.34 billion from the previous GH¢13 billion. This is because of the profitability that is registered by these banks and the reserves that they keep as a result of the profitability.

Mr Speaker, on liquidity side, the Report indicates that the funding mix of banks still remains strongly on deposits. Deposits continue to support the financing of banks; but what has changed is that, whereas in the past banks had relied on borrowing as a secondary source of financing their businesses, today, share-holder

funds have overtaken borrowing. It is very important for us to know the funding mix and the change that has occurred in the funding mix.

Mr Speaker, asset quality has improved. Looking at the non- performing low ratio, it has been reduced from about 20.1 per cent in October 2018 to 17.3 per cent. This is due to the intensified loan recovery by the banks and also good and stronger credit arrangements and management practices.

Mr Speaker, the soundness of the industry has some basic indicators, and I would like to make reference to just a few of them to show how well the banks are now doing. I would look at liquidity for example.

Mr Speaker, the ratio of core liquid assets to total assets is recorded at 62 per cent. This is huge enough to show how liquid these banks are now.

Mr Speaker, capital adequacy, I have said, is 18 per cent above the basal II and basal III requirement of 13 per cent. This is strong and it shows how resilient the banks are. It also shows how these banks would be able to withstand losses following the banking reforms.

Mr Speaker, the cost to income ratio of banks has now improved from the hitherto 84 per cent to 80 per cent. This is good enough to suggest that there is now more efficiency in running the business of the banks.

Mr Speaker, so we should say that there has been some positive impact with the reforms that the Government was able to put in place.

Mr Speaker, the Ghana Amalgamated Trust (GAT) has also been able to successfully recapitalise four (4) of these indigenous banks. That is a good thing from the total package of reforms undertaken by the Central Bank.

Mr Speaker, I would like to make reference again to the document and then make some conclusions. One, we now have a stronger banking sector which has emerged from the improved solvency, liquidity and profitability. Two, asset quality has improved and the banks' resilience to shocks has also strengthened. Three, key financial soundness indicators remain positive. The banking sector continues to exhibit strong prospects in the medium term.

Mr Speaker, we have learnt some lessons from having a very weak banking sector so we do not hope to go back to this same situation where
Mr Speaker 12:01 p.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Member for your contribution.
Mr Ben Abdallah Banda (NPP -- Offinso South) 12:11 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to support the Motion moved to thank His Excellency the President for appearing before this august House to perform a constitutional obligation, to wit, delivery of the Message on the State of the Nation.

Mr Speaker, on 25th February, 2017, after His Excellency the President had been sworn into office, he came to this august House to deliver his maiden Message on the State of the Nation. At paragraph 19 of the Message, this is what he said, and I beg to quote:

“Mr Speaker, I say nothing new or dramatic when I tell this honourable House that the economy of our country is in a bad way.”

Mr Speaker, on the 20th February, 2020, that is last week, His Excellency the President came here again to perform a constitutional obligation; to wit, to deliver his Message on the State of the Nation and this is what he said, and I beg to quote:

“Mr Speaker, our economic growth has rebounded to place Ghana among the fastest growing economies in the world at an annual average of seven per cent, up from 3.4 per cent in 2016, the lowest in nearly three decades.”

Mr Speaker, in 2017, the picture of the economy of this country was very bizarre. The economy that the National Democratic Congress

(NDC) Administration bequeathed to the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Administration was sick, ailing and nothing to write home about. This economic growth did not happen by coincidence. It is as a result of a very competent and experienced management team of H. E. Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, who is effective and visionary.

Mr Speaker, every Government is elected based on, at times, its track- record, promises and assurances given to its citizenry. This is a social contract that the Government enters into with its citizenry and citizens of this country would expect the Government to fulfil its promises to its people. That goes to showcase the credibility and trustworthiness of that Government.

Mr Speaker, the fact remains incontrovertible, that the NPP Government under H. E. Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo is delivering or has fulfilled, as has been touted, 78 per cent of these promises. This symbolises the NPP Government as a reliable and dependable Govern- ment which can be trusted.

Mr Speaker, every Government must be accountable, transparent and uphold the tenets of the rule of law. In fact, that is the essence of article 1

(1) of the 1992 Constitution which is corroborated by article 35 (1) of our Constitution. With your permission, I beg to quote article 1(1):

“(1)The Sovereignty of Ghana resides in the people of Ghana in whose name and for whose welfare the powers of government are to be exercised in the manner and within the limits laid down in this Constitution.”
Mr Speaker, article 35 (1) also says and with your permission, I beg to quote 12:11 p.m.
“(1) Ghana shall be a democratic state dedicated to the realization of freedom and justice; and accordingly, sovereignty resides in the people of Ghana from whom Government derives all its powers and authority through this Constitution.”
Mr Speaker, in making trans- parency and accountability possible, certain measures ought to be put in place. The necessary laws would have to be enacted. It is on record that the Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo's NPP Administration initiated and facilitated the passage of certain very important laws, which passage have been sitting at the backburner for a
Mr Speaker, article 35 (1) also says and with your permission, I beg to quote 12:21 p.m.
very long time. They are the Right to Information Act, 2019, the Companies Act, 2019 (Act 975) and the Witness Protection Act, 2018 (Act
975).
Mr Speaker, the passage of the Companies Act, 2019, for instance, has been very useful in the sense that the Companies Code, which was promulgated sometime in the 1960s was, in a large measure, lagging behind. A lot of novel provisions have been incorporated in the new Companies Act, 2019, such that one does not even have to file an object when he or she is incorporating a business.
Just like a natural human being, every registered company can engage in any business or switch to any business at any particular point in time without hindrance. One does not even need to get a certificate to commence business or before one starts a business. One can sit in the comfort of their home or office and electronically register their business. This again did not happen by happenstance. It is easier and more convenient to do business here in Ghana than it was five years ago or specifically, in the National Democratic Congress (NDC) era.
Mr Speaker, an economy cannot be developed without digitisation and
that has been one of the hallmarks of the NPP Administration. This vision is being actualised by H. E. the President, led by his able and competent Vice President. The Judiciary and Judicial Service of this country have not been left behind. It is on record that today, the Judiciary, under the auspices of H. E. the President, has put in place what we call the e-Justice System.
For the e-Justice System, parties and lawyers can sit in the comfort of their homes and offices and electronically file court processes. Though it is on a pilot basis in Accra, lawyers and parties in Accra and its environs have been spared the ordeal and inconvenience of having to walk personally to the premises of a court to file a process. This has been made easy by the Judiciary and the Judicial Service, under the auspices of H. E. the President.
Mr Speaker, it is very common to hear that court files and dockets are missing. A party goes to the court and is told that his or her docket is missing. After having spent so much to go to court to file a process, it would be very regrettable for such a person to be told that his or her docket is missing. Under the auspices of our able leader and President of this country, H. E. Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the Judiciary has in
place what they call; Case Track Management System.

Mr Speaker, what it does is that, prison officers, police prosecutors, the judiciary, lawyers and political parties could sit in their offices and homes and explore the stages or statuses of cases.

If a person wants to know how adjournments have been done in respect of a case, the person does not need to file a search but could just click a button and would be informed accordingly.

One does not even have to go to the court premises to even file or pay money for the process to be filed but the person could pay at the bank and everything would be reflected in the office of the registry. Convenience and speed have been brought to bear on the administration of justice.

Mr Speaker, although litigation is not good, it has been made simple. The administration of justice has been detailed to the door steps of political parties and this is as a result of no other person than H. E. Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo.

Mr Speaker, there are so many districts without courts and one would have to travel a long distance in order to be able to access justice. However,

as I talk now, this information could be well corroborated by the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development that H. E. Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, has earmarked funds for the construction of 100 courts. The Hon Deputy Minister for Local Government and Rural Development is seated next to me and could also verify it. This is unprecedented. In 2008 alone, the President at that time engaged about 28 judges -- just within a year. This has never happened in the history of this country. [Hear! Hear!].

Mr Speaker, education is a constitutional right and that explains why article 25(1) of the Constitution says, and with your permission, I beg to quote.

“All persons shall have the right to equal educational oppor- tunities and facilities and with the view to achieving the full realisation of that right --”

Mr Speaker, with your permission I beg to quote the Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG) which aim is:

“To ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all''.
Mr Speaker 12:21 p.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, for your contribution.
The Hon Member for Effutu, Mr Afenyo-Markin would contribute, after which the Hon First Deputy Speaker would take the Chair.
Mr Alexander Kwamena Afenyo-Markin (NPP -- Effutu) 12:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to add my voice to the debate on the Floor.
Mr Speaker, as we all know, in accord with our constitutional custom, the President appeared before the House and delivered a Message on the State of the Nation. The Majority decided to accord the President the respect to stay in the House and listen to him whereas others decided to go to their offices to watch on the television.
Mr Speaker, today, we are debating this Message for Ghanaians to know the real issues that were raised so that they would see what this Government has done and is capable of doing and that they would be more than fortified in the decision they take on this Government.
Mr Speaker, I would want to take all of us down the memory lane, but before I proceed, I may want to crave your indulgence to humbly urge --
Mr Speaker 12:21 p.m.
Hon Member, address me and continue. Keep your eyes on the ball. [Laughter]
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would keep my eyes on the ball but I am obstructed with the loud noise.
Mr Speaker 12:21 p.m.
Hon Member, keep your eyes on the ball.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, very well. I would keep my eyes on the ball but while I make my submission I encourage my Hon Colleagues in the Minority to be quiet since they have decided not to debate, so that I could make my submissions in peace.
Mr Speaker, 31st December, 1981 saw another revolution which lasted
for 11 years. Thereafter, we initiated a constitutional practice and in that constitutional practice, the same group that ruled for 11 years had the opportunity to rule for eight more years which totalled 19 years. Then by the Grace of God, we had a new dispensation led by former President John Agyekum Kufuor and his New Patriotic Party (NPP) which had only eight years. Soon thereafter, we had another dispensation of the same old group that had 19 years which came in for a first term of four years and a second term, with a very controversial four years which made in total eight years.

Mr Speaker, If we add eight to 19, it is 27. If you look at their 27 years in office and the eight years of the Kufuor-led NPP Administration and this Nana Addo Government which is in its fourth year -- [Pause] --

Mr Speaker, our friends who have had 27 years cannot boast of a single social intervention policy they have initiated and implemented successfully. They claimed they are social democrats; they claimed that they are in for the downtrodden but what do they say when issues of social inclusiveness are raised? They say it is not possible; the money is not there.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:31 p.m.


Mr Speaker, if my calculation is right, I am sure this September, the first batch of the free SHS beneficiaries would be entering the university. It means that the savings parents made would go into their university education, and it has lessened the burden on all of us; MPs were overburdened with the payment of school fees to various secondary schools.

Mr Speaker, added to that is the opportunity for children to get access to well-respected schools in this country. Previously, we all know there used to be a struggle to have access to the St Augustines, the Mfantsipims, the Adisadels and the Achimotas. Today, people who would not have had the opportunity are getting them. This is something that we can safely describe as unprecedented since in their time they could not --

Mr Speaker, so going back to the fact check, the NDC which is today in opposition and is itching to come back to power, and has decided to disrespect our Constitution by boycotting the State of the Nation Address, is benefitting from the good policies of this Government.

Mr Speaker, apart from the free SHS, we know of the opportunities in the private sector that Ghanaians are enjoying today. We were here in this Chamber when in 2015 H. E. President John Mahama, in delivering a Message on the State of the Nation, said that it was as a result of poor supervision by Bank of Ghana that we were experiencing financial crisis in this country. The government distanced itself; it did not take responsibility. This mess was transferred to the new government and thank God that the NPP took office.

Mr Speaker, Nana Akufo - Addo's government did not do blame game; what the Nana Akufo - Addo Government did was to move swiftly into action, intervene and resolve the issues. Today, we see our friends who have refused to debate but are busily talking and obstructing this debate, making political arguments all over on the streets of Accra. What do they seek to achieve? To gain political advantage?

Meanwhile, some of them have had their investments with some of these questionable financial institutions that they poorly supervised and their moneys were being paid back, yet they do not come here to praise the government.

The very moneys that this Government could have invested in the roads in Elmina; the very moneys that this Government could have invested at Ningo Prampram; the very moneys that this Government could have invested at Ho Central; the very moneys that this Government could have invested at North Tongu; the very moneys that this Government could have invested at Asawase; Mr Speaker, the very moneys that this Government could have invested at Ablekuma South --

These are moneys that are being used to pay vulnerable Ghanaians who have lost their investments. Yet, we have seen more Questions being filed by the same Minority that supervised this mess calling on government to construct roads, improve on infrastructure. How could they eat their cake and still expect to have it?

Mr Speaker, the Latin man says, ex nihilo nihil fit; to wit, one cannot place something on nothing. How do

we expect it to stand? It would fall. You destroyed the very foundation of this economy and if this Government had behaved the way you behaved, we would have allowed the mess to go on and there would have been no money; but we are making the country better. We have not been in office for even 16 years.

Mr Speaker, Pru East deserves a lot of projects but what do we see? A lot of petty traders at Pru East lost their investment and this government is paying those people. [Hear! Hear!] -- Mr Speaker, we could have done more -- [Interruption] -- I mean Pru East where Hon Dr --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:31 p.m.
Hon Member, do not invite anybody. Concentrate on your contribution.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am doing so but he shouted “DKM 1”; he did.
He knows that in his constituency, people are being paid. I am aware of the first 10,000. I am again aware of the 20,000 and more people who fall below are being paid. I know that people who lost their investment at Ningo Prampram are receiving payments. Constituents of my own good friend, Hon Bawa, are receiving moneys.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:41 p.m.


Mr Speaker, if they had been prudent in the management of the economy; if they had properly engaged Bank of Ghana -- Those appointees got their positions because their Administration appointed them, yet, the former President H. E. John Dramani Mahama came and stood here and said that poor supervision -- [Interruption] -- Hon Members could go and check page 14 of that Message on the State of the Nation.

Mr Speaker, I know they are itching to debate but they have restrained themselves and are painfully suffering for that. All they can do is to listen in silence.

Mr Speaker, I am lecturing them on the fact that the former President, H.E. John Dramani Mahama who lost the elections in 2016 came here and told us that Bank of Ghana had been irresponsible but as a leader he did not take responsibility.

Today, we have been able to manage and sustain the Free Senior High School Programme. They are surprised, wondering how we are doing that — the naysayers, to the extent that they say they are going to review it. It is not possible.

Mr Speaker, I know of the then Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, the respected Dr Dominic Ayine. I do not know whether he advised the Bank of Ghana and they ignored it or he refused -- When the mess came to his attention, I do not know what he did in that capacity as the chief legal advisor of the Government.

I also do not know what my Hon Colleague, Mr Ablakwa did, when people took contracts and refused to execute projects of which their Government promised 200 day- schools and they could only achieve about 30 to 40 per cent of it. [Interruption] --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:41 p.m.
Hon Member, are you done with your contribution?
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if you want me done, I will take the
-- 12:41 p.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:41 p.m.
If you are done, I will take the --
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have 20 minutes, so says the Hon Majority Leader. I have done nine minutes.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:41 p.m.
Then kindly go on with your contribution.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am doing so but I am citing examples. These are constituency specific issues and they were there in comparing yesterday and today.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:41 p.m.
Hon Member, you know that we are not permitted to make personal reference to --
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am not doing so. In his official capacity, it is my contention that as Hon Deputy Minister of that programme he appeared before us, as I was an Hon Member of the Finance Committee. He came touting the issue of free day-schools and so on. He was all over the place defending it but he could not supervise it properly by seeing to it that those contracts were properly awarded.

Mr Speaker, I would like to debate them on the Common Fund. This Government has lived up to

expectation as projects that they were here on the floor of this House claiming that they were not being constructed are actually being constructed. I want one of them to rise, especially, Hon Agbodza to tell me that nothing at all is happening in his constituency. Apart from the politics that he plays in his constituency, he should tell the entire country that no projects are being done in his constituency. Can he say that they are getting nothing? He should not pretend to be busy reading, he should respond if I am lying. [Laughter] -- They cannot say so.

I can see that the Hon Minority Chief Whip is prompting you. If he wants to speak, he should do so in the microphone. [Laughter] --
Alhaji Mohammed-Mubarak Muntaka (NDC -- Asawase) 12:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we have to be responsible in this Chamber. You drew our Hon Colleague's attention to the fact that he should not incite Hon Members and he went on to call names. He is not being fair and he should be very responsible in the way he is carrying himself. This is because he cannot be insinuating others by calling their names; he needs to be called to order. If he has chosen to debate, it is up to him and it is within our right to abstain. That is a political tool used
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am a student of parliamentary jurisprudence and I know how to act within the remit of this parliamentary jurisprudence. [Hear! Hear!] I will never insinuate; I will never call any Hon Colleague names. I am arguing on facts.
Mr Speaker, is the Hon Minority Chief Whip saying that this Government has done nothing in his constituency within the last three years? Can the Hon Member --?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:41 p.m.
Hon Member --?
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am arguing based on facts.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:41 p.m.
Please, let me draw your attention to Standing Order 93(1). It says that you cannot make personal allusions. I have stated this so that you can make reference to the constituency but leave out the Hon Member's name. Please, I have pointed that out to you. Let us not go back there.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are guided and when you rule, we yield in obedience.
Mr Speaker, before I proceed, I humbly call on you to make a determination on a statement made by Hon Alhaji Muntaka to the effect that my statements which refers to specific constituencies and officers and Hon Members of Parliament is irresponsible. If his walking out on the President is not irresponsible, he cannot -- It is very rich on his part to make that statement.
I humbly call on him to withdraw and apologise to me. I will comply with your ruling but he should withdraw.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:41 p.m.
Hon Member, kindly draw my attention to the specific reference to the man on his seat. At what point and under which Standing Order are you asking me to make a ruling?
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, under the general rule of [Interruption] -- Mr Speaker, may we refer ourselves to Standing Order 93(2) and even if the specific provision -- [Interruption] --With your leave, may I read:
“It shall be out of order to use offensive, abusive, insulting,
blasphemous or unbecoming words or impute improper motives to any other Member or to make personal allusions”.
On the strength of this provision and relying on an earlier sentiment by the Hon Alhaji Muntaka who has had the cause to complain about certain phrases used by the Hon Majority Leader against him, I am saying that the use of the word “irresponsible” offends and sins against this provision and he should be called upon to withdraw it.
He is a very sensitive person and would not take kindly to this. He should withdraw and apologise.
Mr Speaker, I so apply.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:41 p.m.
Hon Minority Chief Whip, do you want to respond to that before I make a ruling?
Alhaji Muntaka 12:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is not my intention to respond to him.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:41 p.m.
Sorry, I did not hear you.
Alhaji Muntaka 12:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I said that I do not want to respond to him.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:51 p.m.
Hon Members, I had earlier advised my Friend, the Hon Member on his feet to keep away from making personal allusions but he kept doing the same thing. The Hon Member made reference to “being responsible” in reference to respecting the rules as was pointed out to him. In that respect, I do not consider it offensive and therefore I overrule the objection.
Hon Member, you may proceed and please be guided by Standing Order 93(2) which you referred to - the issue of personal allusions.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I intend to enjoy the privilege you have accorded me to debate, but vital and material preliminary matters have arisen, and I so apply to you to make a determination to enable me proceed in peace. Mr Speaker, I am entirely in your hands.
To what extent does a reference to an Hon Member become a personal allusion? If I say that -- [Interruption] -- Mr Speaker, I am making an allusion and they are to keep quiet. They are intimidating me. Mr Speaker, they are my juniors and they are obstructing me.
Mr Speaker, with all respect, I did not make a personal allusion. I made
Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:51 p.m.
a specific reference and I think that the Hon Member quoted me out of context. On that basis, I pray that the specific context that I placed my submission in must be looked at rather than the general view that if an Hon Member's name is mentioned, it amounts to a personal allusion. Mr Speaker, it is not so and I humbly pray that such should be considered as I proceed.
In making my next point, it is my case that the posture of the Minority side coming into the Chamber, exchanging pleasantries and just walking out is most irresponsible especially when the Minority side were led by their Hon Leaders including the Hon Minority Chief Whip.
Mr Speaker, it was most irresponsible to walk out on the first Gentleman of the land. [Hear! Hear!] Again, for all of them to go and watch the proceedings in their offices is most irresponsible.

Mr Speaker, but we are very responsible and law abiding and this Government deserves an opportunity to serve beyond 2020. This Government wants to ensure certainty in the elections ahead and that is why it has taken a position to support the need to have a new register as expressed by the Electoral Commi- ssion. Even when in opposition, this Government demonstrated its respect for the rule of law by going to court to challenge Election results, and the outcome of it was a huge margin of one million votes which denied those, who were having their day, the opportunity of tampering with election results.

Mr Speaker, with what we are seeing today, the question is, has the National Democratic Congress (NDC) changed its leadership? Has the NDC brought on board new men and women or it is the same old NDC which is fighting its founder, and bringing back the same flagbearer? The same flabearer who said that he could not implement Free SHS, and ensure the payment of nursing trainee allowances; he also said that we have taken off the meat and it is left with the bare bones. Mr Speaker, what new is the NDC introducing? In their 2008 and 2012 Manifestos, especially

on their policy of one-time premium payment, which they abandoned when they had their controversial second term, is there anything new? Mr Speaker, in reality, there is none -- Hon Ahiafor, there is none in reality, therefore I hold the view most humbly that should this government get an opportunity to rule for another four years -- [Interruption] --

Mr Speaker, in making this submission, I am not referring to personalities; I am talking about the party upon whose shoulders an individual rides to office -- the New Patriotic Party (NPP). If this NPP gets another opportunity, we would see true and real transformation and not that which -- [Interruption] -- Mr Speaker, I would conclude because Hon Kpodo wants to say something.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:51 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we can take item numbered 9 -- the Narcotics Control Commission Bill, 2019 at the Consideration Stage.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:51 p.m.
Hon Members, item numbered 9 -- Narcotics Control Commission Bill, 2019 at the Consideration Stage.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 12:51 p.m.
STAGE 12:51 p.m.
Mr Ben Abdallah Bandah (on behalf of the Chairman of the Committee) 1:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have the permission of the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Defence and Interior to move on with the Consideration of the Bill.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 50, subclause (2), line 1, after “drug” insert “or plant”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:01 p.m.
Hon Ahiafor?
Mr Ahiafor 1:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, before we move to item numbered 9(ii), which is to delete clause 50(3), I beg to move that the entire clause 50(2) be deleted.
Mr Speaker, clause 50(2) states 1:01 p.m.
“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 Speaker, if you look at this by way of a crime, I submit that two things constitute a crime; the act and the intention.
Mr Speaker, if we look at it as a civil penalty, then there would be a need to establish that the driver at all material time in control of the vehicle is acting in the course of employment. The owner of a vehicle is at home and has employed a driver to drive his vehicle. In the process, the driver has decided to engage in unlawful business. With this, even in a civil forum, the driver cannot act in the course of employment for the owner of the vehicle to be vicariously liable to pay a penalty of one thousand, two hundred and fifty penalty units which is equivalent to about GH¢15,000. If it is a crime, there is also no vicarious liability when it comes to a crime being committed.
Mr Speaker, therefore, to legislate that the owner of a vehicle who is “sitting somewhere” should be liable to pay this penalty just because his driver has decided to veer off the lawful business to do an illegal business for the vehicle owner to pay a penalty such as this, I believe strongly we are not being fair to the owners of vehicles.
Mr Speaker, if the rendition would be as it is, then I pray that the House supports me in deleting clause 50(2) in its entirety. We might end up imposing penalties on innocent people.
Alhaji Inusah A. B. Fuseini 1:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I oppose the amendment. Assuming a taxi is converted into an ambulance and it is conveying a sick person to the hospital and the vehicle overruns the red light, it has committed an offence. It does not matter that he was carrying a sick person.
If a vehicle owner allows or permits or in any case, if a vehicle is used for the purposes of conveying narcotic drugs, and an offence has been committed, it is a strict liability offence. We do not need mens rea. The mens rea is inferred from that act, and so this is one of those cases we do not need mens rea to establish guilt.
Mr Speaker, what is most absurd about this case is that it means that if we accept the interpretation, a vehicle could actually convey narcotic drugs and not be punished for it. What it requires the owner of the vehicle to say is that he did not know the vehicle was being used for the conveyance of narcotic drugs or substance. That is why we must punish and communicate to the owners of vehicles that a responsibility is now placed on them to ensure that their vehicles are not used for the purposes of conveying narcotic substances.
Mr Speaker, the second is that assuming, but not admitting, that the owner of the vehicle is not aware that his vehicle is being used for the conveyance of narcotic substance, this is why the law does not confiscate the vehicles. If the owner of a vehicle willingly allows his vehicle to be used for the purposes of conveying narcotic drugs, the vehicle would be confiscated to the State.
Meanwhile, this law is granting the owner of the vehicle the benefit of the doubt. And so if sitting in Akatsi South, one's vehicle is used, the law says that, the owner of the vehicle should come and pay one thousand two hundred and fifty penalty units and take his vehicle. Again, because he did
not allow his driver to use the vehicle for that, he has the civil course of action against his driver to reclaim his money.
I have heard somebody shout across the aisle, asking what would one get from the driver. Mr Speaker, one might not get anything from a driver, but we cannot allow the driver or the owner of the vehicle to suffer consequences which either he is not part of or the driver has willingly conspired for the vehicle to carry drugs.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:01 p.m.
Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it was to avoid the issue about vicarious responsibility that we called for an amendment to be made. Of course, if the driver absconds, the vehicle owner would be held ultimately liable. However, we said in an amendment which unfortunately has not been captured that we insert “in control of or” between “person” and “whose” in line 1 so that it would read:
“A person in control of or whose vehicle is used to transport narcotic drug or product is liable to pay a penalty of not more than one thousand two hundred and
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:01 p.m.
So the rendition would be: “A person in control of or whose vehicle …”
Yes, Hon K. T. Hammond?
Mr Kobina T. Hammond 1:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I intend to endorse the view of the colleague Hon Member who suggested that clause 2 should be deleted. I heard the argument of my friend suggesting that it is a good idea.

Mr Speaker, in the course of his submission, he kept talking about mens rea and I suspect there seems to be some kind of conflict between the two; the mens rea. Thereafter, he thinks that criminality should be attached to somebody who did not have mens rea by virtue of what is being put in the Bill. What is in the Bill suggests that even though he may not have the mens rea, he would have to pay the fine that we have talked about.

Mr Speaker, “the person whose vehicle is used…” So, the Hon Majority Leader's vehicle is used when he is relaxed in the cosy comfort of Suame, he has absolutely no clue of what is happening to his vehicle -- [Interruption] -- he said I should not “for instance” him -- [Laughter] -- but in this context, I think it is a good “for instance” for him.

Mr Speaker, he has absolutely no clue and then he gets a call to report to the Narcotics Control Com- mission, and then he is handed a bill or a penalty point that he has to pay the equivalent of. Why? His vehicle has been found to carry a contraband item. Mr Speaker, I think it imputes criminality and punishes criminality where there is no criminality; where there is absolutely none.

Mr Speaker, if of course at the end of the day, it is determined -- That is what the criminal authorities are supposed to do -- that though he was at home, he knows, and so the mens rea is triggered; it is engaged. Then of course, the clause becomes active. But if we leave it as it is, Mr Speaker, our vehicles would be seized while we are resting at home, and we would be called upon to meet this liability even though we have absolutely no knowledge.

Mr Speaker, take for example, a taxi vehicle. The Hon Leader just told me that if somebody gets into a taxi, the driver should try to check what they put in. That is absolutely impracticable in the country -- [Interruption] -- Mr Speaker, they are trivialising this issue. The Majority Leader is making it a banter between the two of us.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:11 p.m.
No, it is you who is responding to his comments. Talk to me.
Mr Hammond 1:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have heard. It is because he is my boss that I tend not to be able to ignore him. I should really concentrate on you.
Mr Speaker, that is the point. I do not think the sentimentalism about it while the vehicle is seized -- this is not military days. You would recall those days when taxis were seized, thrown over and burnt; they did all sorts of things.
Mr Speaker, it is not fair. This clause imputes criminality, punishes where there is no need. There is no cause for it. When a vehicle with contraband in it is seized, investigation should be conducted. If the driver
does not know anything about it and I do not know anything about it, why should I be lumbered with the kind of punishment that is there? It is not fair; it has to be removed.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:11 p.m.
Yes, Hon Kpodo?
Mr Benjamin Kpodo 1:11 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would want to support the position of Hon Bernard Ahiafor that that clause should be deleted. As Hon K. T. Hammond has said, it appears we are criminalising ownership of vehicles. If we even stretch or limit it to drivers, it is still problematic. As he said earlier, no driver searches the bags of passengers before -- [Interruption] -- I have seen some pandemonium. I do not know what is happening.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:11 p.m.
Hon Member, just keep addressing me. [Laughter]
Mr Kpodo 1:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, even the drivers in the local transport terminals do not check containers, bags, et cetera of passengers before they get on board the trotros or taxis. How much more when the owner of a vehicle who is somewhere in Tanyigbe when the driver of the
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:11 p.m.
Yes, Hon Minister for Works and Housing?
Mr Samuel Atta Akyea 1:11 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
When it relates to narcotic offences, at all times, it is a prosecutor that should prove knowledge which is actual or constructive. That is the point of the matter. But if we say that somebody is in control of a vehicle, it has two elements; is he driving the vehicle or somebody has asked him to use the vehicle for some other purposes? So the owner of the vehicle
might be in control of the vehicle not in terms of him driving it, but directing a transaction.
Mr Speaker, I am of the view that we would go into too much of adjudication if we try to look at it. We could also say that for a person who is in control of a vehicle which is used for narcotic activities, this penalty would ensue. But when we want to proffer charges against the person, we would need to prove all the elements.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:11 p.m.
Yes, Hon Dafeamekpor?
Mr Nelson-Rockson Dafeamekpor 1:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the position of my Brother, the learned Hon Ahiafor.
Mr Speaker, we already have provisions in respect of inchoate offences in this matter in clause 35. If we succeed in maintaining this provision, we would set a very dangerous precedent.
Mr Speaker, we must address our minds to everyday activities in society. If we go to Agbogbloshie Lorry Station now, vehicles may be loading to Bolgatanga; big trucks. We are trying to craft a law to suggest that while such vehicles are being loaded, the driver should have the time to check the luggage of every passenger who would board that vehicle. That is why it is a crime.
If in packing a luggage, a person smuggles narcotic products, and then he or she is arrested, evidence would be led to suggest that he or she did that wilfully. But where we want to proceed beyond that and craft statutes to say simpliciter that, while a vehicle owner who would only be expecting revenue by 5.00 p.m. is called to go and pay an amount of money because the vehicle has been impounded upon suspicion that luggage or passengers in the vehicle had in their possession and by parity of reasoning, they were in the vehicle, so the vehicle became the container.

So the vehicle owner should pay the sums applicable under this penalty unit. What we have done is that we have taken the judicial adjudicative powers of the courts, and we have given it to the Narcotics Control Commission to make that determination.

Mr Speaker, you know that when suspects are arrested in respect of narcotic matters and investigations are concluded and prima facie determinations are made for the purposes of arranging them before court, every other aspect of the prosecution is a matter of leading evidence. That is why I just made an application recently to have a vehicle released by the High Court in Koforidua. This is because the vehicle was arrested with its driver in matters like this.

We had to provide a lead evidence that even though the driver was arrested with his passengers because the luggages of some of his passengers contained narcotic products, the driver of the vehicle did not set out from home to engage in such an act. Instead, it was the passengers that he had picked along the way, between Kpong and Accra, who brought the products on board. We had to go and
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:21 p.m.
It is all right. Your point is well made.
Yes, Hon Deputy Minister for Local Government?
Mr Osei Bonsu Amoah 1:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that what we are trying to legislate is the ideal situation. If we had a system which really works, then we would expect passengers to have gone through a search or a scan before they board any vehicle.
It could have then been compared to boarding an aircraft, where the luggage and body of a person is checked before they go on board. Once a person is on board, if any narcotic substance is found on him, the airline could even be fined. However, if we want to translate it into the normal situation we have here, it would be a bit onerous, and I think it would be difficult to legislate such a situation.
The prosecution should be able to show that indeed the person that drives the vehicle is complicit in the
whole thing than to expect him to carry the burden of passengers when he did not even know what they were up to. It is a bit difficult to legislate on this matter.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:21 p.m.
Has any of you here been a “driver's mate” before? [Laughter] -- I have; and I know that often, the driver and the mate in current situations do not even take part in the loading. They have the people we call “bookmen”, and they are the ones who -- Sometimes the driver would sit somewhere, so that when the vehicle is full, they move it out of scale and invite him to come and take over.
In this circumstance, the challenge is; do we even have to hold the driver responsible for what is on the vehicle, much less the owner? I think this is the challenge that we would have to deal with in this legislation. The lawyers have taken over.
Yes, Hon Deputy Minister?
Mr Agalga 1:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am in support of the deletion. First of all, under clause (34), which is the provision on unlawful possession, it is trite knowledge that with persons charged with the possession of narcotic substances, the prosecution usually assumes the burden of proving
that not only is the accused in physical possession, but he has knowledge. So under that provision, possession without knowledge in law is not even possession.
With that at the back of our minds, it would be far-fetched if we read closely clause 52, which seeks to penalise an owner who may not be in control of his vehicle at the time it is used to transport narcotic substances. So here, we are saying that it is not even relevant to establish that the person is in possession or had knowledge that his vehicle would be used to transport narcotic substances.
Mr Speaker, we should be careful here. Even the driver of the vehicle, if we take the law of possession in its proper context under clause 34, it should be possible that if he is caught with narcotic substances in his vehicle -- [Interruption] -- The mere fact that the substances have been discovered in the vehicle should not be sufficient for the person to be penalised. So the provision here should be taken off.
Mr Speaker, however, if it is the general view that we need a provision of this nature in the law, we could propose a further amendment to read as follows: “ A person who knowingly allows his vehicle to be used to transport narcotic drugs is liable to
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:21 p.m.
Hon Chairman, you would have the last word, but let me listen to the Hon Minister for the Interior.
1. 31p.m.
Mr A. Dery 1:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we must be careful not to penalise people who are not culpable or who are not liable for certain -- even if we lose certain occurrences -- as you rightly pointed out, yes, even in America, they are called Team State Union. Those people who are at the lorry station and actually take control of loading vehicles.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:21 p.m.
Indeed, that is my problem; I wish I could get a prosecutor to speak to this matter because all the people speaking are defence lawyers.
Mr A. Dery 1:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as Deputy Attorney-General, I was prosecutor for a brief period. Mr Speaker, let us put, “where liable shall pay a penalty of at least”. This is because if he is also liable, then that figure could well be -- so let us insert that.
Mr Speaker, but just to constructively attribute intention to the owner of the vehicle, even actus is not there at all. Mr Speaker, strict liability is not easy so if we insert that, it would be good.
Mr Speaker, let me say something else and I hope the Hon Majority Leader is listening. I have been a transport owner before. As a former
Deputy Attorney-General who -- is one of my young and longest; I do not know about him but he knew that I was.
Mr Speaker, when dealing with the Customs officials, they have some procedure that allows some investigation. First, what they do is to give the person a seizure notice, and before the seizure notice becomes confiscation, they would have looked at the circumstances of it and the person is given a hearing.
Mr Speaker, so sometimes when the person petitions and they see that in fact, one is unaware of the thing, and one is not liable, they release it to the person.
Mr Speaker, this is a law that would be more responsive to drugs and things related to narcotics. Generally, we are prepared to let it be a health issue where appropriate, but in doing so, we are going to put more in charges and the liabilities that they do not deserve because honestly speaking, rule of law has said it. Mr Speaker, so if we add “where liable”, then, I think that would be a better solution.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:21 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, I would come to you; I want to hear more people.
Yes, Hon Member for Sefwi- Wiawso?
Dr Kwaku Afriyie 1:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am not a lawyer but I believe that this proposal should not stand at all. This is because it cannot stand what you lawyers call the black stone formulation, to wit, it is better for 10 guilty persons to escape than one innocent person suffering. I do not see why we should entertain this provision.
I support the Hon Member who said it should be deleted in its entirety.
Mr Chireh 1:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister talked about this law and the Hon Ranking Member is also saying that we should delete it. Mr Speaker, but it is the Minister who promoted the law, defended it in Cabinet. When it was referred to the Committee, the Hon Ranking Member was there and the Hon Chairman and everybody agreed that this clause remains as part of the legislation.
Mr Speaker, now that all of a sudden the matter has been raised, I would only like to caution a bit because we are making this law contingent upon a West African adopted protocol law. Sometimes
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:21 p.m.
Hon Members, let me listen to the Hon Majority Leader if he has any solution.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the reason the Minister
submitted these proposals to this House or brought these proposals is that the regime that obtains now is inadequate to deal with the menace.
Mr Speaker, the anti-drugs and anti-money laundering measures in other regions of the world such as the Caribbean and Central America have all been strengthened. Mr Speaker, check the legal regime in the Caribbean today; what we are doing now is replicating what obtains in the Caribbean now.
-- 1:21 p.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:21 p.m.
Hon K. T. Hammond, you are disturbing the House.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, Hon K. T. Hammond is disturbing the peace of this House. [Laughter]
Mr Speaker, so I am saying that we are now taking a leaf from what is being done now, and indeed, it is the reason why I offered that amendment. That amendment is in the legislation of the Southern American countries that the United Nations (UN) is recommending should be the way forward for us. That portion was left out and that is why I said we can amend it to that extent.
stand that if we deliberate rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:41 a.m.
Hon Minister, are you on a point of order?
Mr A. Dery 1:41 a.m.
Yes Mr Speaker, I am on a point of order.
The Hon Majority Leader who knows me very well should not quote me out of context. I did not ask that it should be expunged. I was trying to
work with it on there and make room for a determination of liability. So it should not be presented as if I brought a law and all of a sudden, I said it should be expunged. No, I have not asked for it to be expunged but at the same time --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:41 a.m.
Very well noted.
Mr A. Dery 1:41 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:41 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader, you may continue.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:41 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the point I am making is that we want to strengthen the current regime. If you delegate a responsibility to -- You were talking about a driver and “mate” sitting somewhere, relaxing and “bookmen” taking over. If you delegate a responsibility to a third party, you cannot absolve yourself from the outcome -- [Interruption]
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:41 a.m.
Hon Members, please let us direct the discussion.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:41 a.m.
Mr Speaker, Hon O. B. Amoah was saying that it should include offering lifts to ladies and I asked him to speak into the microphone.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:41 a.m.
I thought that was an aside to you.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:41 a.m.
Mr Speaker, but if one delegates a responsibility to any person, he should ultimately live with the consequences of his delegation. Even in aeroplanes, there is the charge to inspect luggage. What happens is that planes that are found ultimately to be bearing narcotics are themselves surcharged. After the drug has been intercepted, that aircraft is also surcharged. That is why they are so serious about this.
So Mr Speaker, the owners cannot run away from it and that is why I am saying that perhaps we could amend that provision, that is clause 50 and insert:
“a person in control of a vehicle or failing that, the owner which vehicle is used to transport narcotic drugs is liable to pay a penalty”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:41 a.m.
Hon Members, I think that the controversy is every person's right to property as guaranteed under article 18 of our Constitution. I own a vehicle, I have engaged a driver, the driver is engaged to do a specific thing which is not illegal but as we say in law, the driver goes on a frolic of his own to engage in an illegal act.
Now, the proposed Bill is saying that I should be held responsible or punished to pay a fine and if I do not pay the fine, the vehicle be seized. That is the controversy now. So if we direct the discussion -- but the proposed amendment by the Hon Majority Leader does not still remove that because it still leaves the owner, whom we have not proved to be complicit, to bear a punishment. That in our Constitution may be difficult to defend.
Dr A. A. Osei 1:41 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have tried to listen to all the lawyers here, both those on the defence side and those on the prosecution side and I am not sure they are helping us very much. Common sense tells me that if I engage a driver and he gives somebody a lift, I do not ask him to check what is in the person's bag. This is common sense and practicable.
Is this legislation enforceable? No way. I think that we should stand this down and think it through again because this amendment is not helping. If I delegate someone the responsibility to just drive a car or take my children to school, did I delegate for him to check my children's bags? No. I, the parent, supposed to check the bags and have not asked the driver to do so as he takes them to school. So if they find cocaine in my children's bags, then do
I have to come and pay? I do not think that it makes common sense.
Mr Speaker, we should take it out because it affects everybody who has a private or commercial vehicle. We have to be careful because it is not enforceable. So my crime is that I bought a car. Now, is that my crime? We need to tread slowly and just leave this out. It cannot be enforced. Whether we call it vicarious liability or not, it is common sense. It is not enforceable, so let us stop debating this and just take it out.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:41 a.m.
Yes, Hon Nii Lantey Vanderpuye, I would hear you and then come to the Chairman of the Committee.
Mr Vanderpuye 1:41 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I may agree to some extent but what are we looking at? Is it not the deterrent factor we are looking at? We are looking at a situation where people would not facilitate the commission of this crime. It is in this country that we have relaxed some of these things. Some time ago, if one was putting his luggage on State Transport Company (STC) buses, they would search the bags.
In this day when people are committing all sorts of crimes, how is it possible for one to just say that he is allowing anybody to put anything in
his vehicle? Let us assume the person has a weapon and gets it onto the vehicle, and the next moment, kills somebody.
So Mr Speaker, we must begin to put some responsibility on the owners and facilitators of vehicles to make sure that such things are -- The issue here is that the law seeks to deter people from engaging in that act, so we are placing responsibility on others within the chain to make sure that we all act appropriately.
So to the extent that we would say that we are just going to -- We would just allow people to say that they do not know anything about it. Whether it is used to carry drugs or other things, they would say they do not know anything about it. Maybe, the car owner could be facilitating the transaction.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:41 a.m.
All we need you to do is to prove that.
Yes, Chairman?
Mr Banda 1:41 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is not out of place to have a provision like this in our laws. It is trite knowledge in every criminal jurisprudence. It may be unconscionable but it is not unlawful. We have three different types of forfeitures. We have criminal, civil and administrative. This provision
Mr Banda 1:41 a.m.


that we are debating on is the administrative type. With the criminal and civil, one has to go through trial, but administrative does not go through trial. What it says is that the moment the vehicle is used in conveying contraband goods, it is seized. That is law.

We have a similar provision in the Customs Act, 2015 (Act 891) but if the State wants, it could pursue an in personam criminal action against the driver if he has guilty knowledge, or against the owner if he has guilty knowledge. This is however an in rem action against the vehicle. [Interruption] It is a fine against the vehicle, a seizure and an in rem action against the property and it is the owner who pays. This is trite and there is a similar provision in the laws of the United States of America (USA). It is everywhere.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:51 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, if we want to make progress, we have to stand this
provision down. I encourage all those who have strong views to join the winnowing team on this matter. The winnowing team members agree at the winnowing meeting and come to -- They said they disagreed at winnowing, so they have brought the matter to the Floor.
Mr Agalga 1:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I just want to draw your attention. A submission was made to the effect that under the Narcotics Drugs (Control Enforcement and Sanctions) Law, 1990 (Act 236) there is a similar provision on vehicles but there is no such provision.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:51 p.m.
No, the Hon Majority Leader said there is no such provision.
We have deferred discussion on item numbered (i), so we would move to item numbered (ii) on the Order Paper,
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 50, subclause 3, delete.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:51 p.m.
Item numbered (iii) on the Order Paper.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we may have to stand item numbered (iii) down because it is consequential to item numbered (ii) which has been stood down.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:51 p.m.
In that case, I would not put the Question on clause 50.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, at winnowing, we discussed something which has not been advertised. With regard to clause 50(1) (b), we are supposed to delete ‘'otherwise'' at the beginning of the sentence.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:51 p.m.
I think we have deleted it already. From my record, that has been cancelled out.
Clause 51 -- Power to prosecute
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 51, subclause 1, line 3, delete “being granted authority by'' and insert “the authority of'' and in line 4, delete “all''.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 1:51 p.m.
“Subject to article 88 of the Constitution and section 56 of the Criminal and Other Offences Procedure Act, 1960 (Act 30), the Commission shall, on the
authority of the Attorney- General, prosecute narcotic- related cases in Court''.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we rather decided to delete all the words from “on to Attorney- General'' because article 88 of the Constitution is what grants the authority to prosecute through the Attorney-General. So once we mention “subject to article 88 of the Constitution and section 56 of the Criminal and Other Offences Procedure Act, 1960 (Act 30), the Commission shall prosecute narcotic- related cases in Court''.
It is as simple as that.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:51 p.m.
So the reference to “Attorney-General'', would be deleted altogether. Hon Majority Leader, is that the proposed amendment?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is the case.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:51 p.m.
Very well.
So the new rendition would be:
“Subject to article 88 of the Constitution and section 56 of the Criminal and Other Offences Procedure Act, 1960 (Act 30),
Mr Hammond 1:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the rendition as found in clause 51(1) seems to be different from what has been suggested.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:51 p.m.
Hon K. T. Hammond, you did not follow the discussion, so I would continue.
Mr Hammond 1:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, please, do not. The Hon Majority Leader has explained something to me. I see the point but why should we make the law to the extent that the Attorney-General would either be persuaded or obligated to yield the grounds to this Commission -- the original rendition was that:
“….on being granted authority by the Attorney-General''.
Why would the Attorney-General be pressurised? I thought the Office of the Special Prosecutor deals with corruption but this is not corruption. [Interruption] --
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:51 p.m.
Hon Member, I am listening to you. If you are done, I would give the Floor to another person.
Yes, Hon Member for Wa West, Mr Yieleh Chireh?
Mr Chireh 1:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as the Hon Majority Leader said, because we want to subject this to the constitutional provision, we do not need the reference to the Attorney- General. So the rendition he gave is the appropriate one. It is also because once we say “subject to article 88'' -- because in article 88, the power has been given to the Attorney-General to delegate prosecutions. That was why we deleted all that. We expect that the Narcotic Commission would be given a fiat to prosecute their cases which is by the Attorney-General.
Mr Hammond 1:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Member has made the point clear. However, the point I would want to make is, why do we want to take off some of the responsibilities of the Attorney-General? This is because the Attorney-General has not complained. We have to set up a Commission and in the setting up of the Commission, we have to give it a prosecutorial power. We are not doing too much.
The Attorney-General has got its functions under article 88 and the Office of the Special Prosecutor has been hived out of which it is supposed to deal with corruption.
With this, we want to set up a Commission but a Commission is not an authority to prosecute and we say that subject to article 88 and subject to the Attorney-General agreeing, they may prosecute. What is all these?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, it is because my Hon Colleague joined us midstream. He should apply himself to the objects and functions of the Commission in clauses 2 and 3. He is taking us back and he should not be allowed that right to take us back.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:01 p.m.
Hon Members, I would put the Question again.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 51 subclause (2), delete.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52 -- Declaration of income and property
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 52, Head note, delete “income and property” and insert “income, property or assets”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:01 p.m.
Hon Members, having regard to the state of business of the House, I direct that the House Sits outside the regular Sitting hours.
Yes, the proposed amendment is for the consideration of the House.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 52, subclause (1), delete and insert the following:
“Where a person is charged with an offence under this Act, an authorised officer shall serve a notice on that person to make a written declaration of the income, property or assets owned directly or indirectly by that person.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 52,
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 52, subclause (3), line 1, delete “The” and insert “Subject to article 286 of the Constitution, the”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just a minor observation. The Head note, “Declaration of income and property” is what obtained. Now, we amended that to include, “income, property or assets”. In the body, there is no “assets” mentioned anywhere. It would then appear that after “property” we should add “or assets”, otherwise the Head note would not make sense.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:01 p.m.
Why do we need “assets” after “property” now that you have somehow -- ?
Do we need “assets” after “property”?
Hon K. T. Hammond, are “assets” and “property” different?
Mr Chireh 2:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:01 p.m.
You were not on your feet and that is why I gave it to him but it is all right. I was asking, if the Head note of clause 52 states, “property” do we need to add “assets”?
Mr Hammond 2:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is no difference. Indeed, if we go to international convention, the first article of the first protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights actually defines what you just mentioned. It talks about property and assets. The European Court says that “assets” is the same as “property”. So there is no distinction; “assets” is the same as “property” and “property” is subsumed into “assets”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think we decided to do that because of the language captured in chapter 24 of the Constitution which really talks about assets and property. We just wanted to conform to the language captured in the Constitution. Other than that --
Mr Speaker, chapter 24 of the Constitution mentions “property” in conjunction with “assets” in article 286 (1). With your permission, I quote:
“A person who holds public office mentioned in clause (5) of this article shall submit to the Auditor-General a written declaration of all property or assets owned by, or liabilities owed by, him whether directly or indirectly.”
Mr Speaker, if we come to article 286 (4), it continues. Wherever “assets” is mentioned, we have “property” as well. It is the only reason. Alternatively, we can define “property” to include “assets” but I think that perhaps --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:01 p.m.
Yes, but we have effected the amendment already, so I will direct that wherever --
Or we could just leave it there and at the end --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe the better approach would be to include the definition of “property” with “assets”. The reason being that, in the entirety of the Bill, we have always used “property” and not “assets”. It only occurred to us when we got there and we quickly introduced it. I think that we can leave it as “property” and define same to include “assets”.
Mr Speaker, in that case we would have to go back and delete “assets” in the Head note of clause 52 and let it stay as it is -- “Declaration of income and property”.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we took inspiration from the Hon Majority Leader. He brought “assets” and we tried to convince him that “property” includes “assets”. He had resort to the Constitution. So I agree entirely with you that we maintain, “property” and define it at the interpretation column.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:01 p.m.
Very well, so we go back to the Head note of clause 52 and revert to the original heading.
I direct that the original heading as contained in clause 52 be maintained.
Now, I will put the Question on the whole clause.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 52 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53 -- Inaccurate declara- tion of income and property
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, flowing from your directive, I wish to drop the amendment
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:11 p.m.
Very well. So you can proceed to (xi).
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 53 subclause (1), opening phrase, delete and insert the following:
“Where the Commission considers at any time during proceedings under this Act that a declaration of income, property or assets is inaccurate, the Director-General may”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this really has to do with the draftpersons. The position of “considers” -- it should rather read; “Where the Commission at any time during proceedings under this Act considers that a declaration of income or property …”
Mr Speaker, we would delete “assets” here as well. It is inaccurate. I think it should be done this way: “The Director-General may…”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:11 p.m.
Which clause were you referring to?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, amendment proposed in clause 53(xi), that is the opening phrase.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:11 p.m.
We have just voted on that. Are you --?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is what I am saying. There appears to be --
Alhaji I.A.B.Fuseini 2:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the amendment is just to delete “Director-General” in the first line and “is of the opinion” in the second line. When “Director- General” is deleted, we substitute that for “Commissioner” and “is of the opinion” is substituted for “considers”. That is all.
So, in line 1, we delete “Director- General” and insert “Commissioner”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:11 p.m.
Let us look at the proposed amendment before us if that is contained in clause 53 item (xi). This is what it reads:
“Where the Commission considers at any time during the proceedings under this Act that a declaration of income and property is inaccurate, the Director-General may …”
So what is the proposed amendment to this one?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the correct formulation should be; “Where the Commission at any time during proceedings under this Act …”
Then the verb “considers” is used.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:11 p.m.
Very well.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, then we will delete “or assets” consequentially. The “or” will come between “income” and “property”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:11 p.m.
All right. So I am reading the new rendition.
“Where the Commission at any time during proceedings under this Act considers that a declaration of income or property is inaccurate, the Director-General may”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 53, subclause (1), paragraph (a), delete and insert the following:
“(a) apply to the Court on notice and provide evidence in support of the inaccuracies in that declaration;
(b) serve notice on the accused or convicted person;”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Banda 2:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that paragraph (a) will serve the purpose of paragraph (b) because if you say that “apply to the Court on notice”, the “on notice” is to the accused and convicted person. So you do not need to this: “serve notice on the accused or convicted person”.
On the other hand, we can make it clearer by just using one paragraph but inserting; “on notice to the accused or convicted person” after “notice” in paragraph (a). So that we will then collapse (b).
Mr Speaker, if I may read for all of us to look at it again;
“apply to the Court on notice to the accused or convicted person and provide evidence in support of the inaccuracies in that declaration”.
Mr Chireh 2:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think this is clearer as captured on the Order Paper because we apply to the Court but in addition, we must serve notice on the convict or applicant.
So I do not think that we should reconstruct the sentence. In doing that we could mix up everything.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:11 p.m.
In that case, do you propose that if you are retaining what is on the Order Paper, then the two notices may generate confusion? So you can delete “on notice” and just retain:
“apply to the Court and provide evidence …” and then “serve notice on the accused or convicted person”.
Hon Member, we would achieve the same results. Is that not right?
Mr Banda 2:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if we leave it as it is, it will be misleading and there will be confusion as to whether we are serving one or two notices.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:11 p.m.
Yes, that is what I am saying; we can
delete “on notice” from sub- paragraph (a) and retain the other two. So it will read:
a) “apply to the Court and provide evidence in support of the inaccuracies.
b) ‘serve notice on the accused person”.
Mr Dafeamekpor 2:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe that the essence of this clause is to ensure that the notice of the said application will be served on the accused person, as the case may be, or the convicted person. However, practically, we know that when we get to this stage, the accused persons act through their lawyers. This is because the notice is just to satisfy the requirement that the person has been notified on the application.
When the person becomes a convicted person, and he is sentenced, service becomes cumbersome. So I am rather of the opinion that we make a provision for a situation where the notice of this application can be served on the lawyers of the accused person or on the convicted person --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:11 p.m.
Hon Member, after conviction, where are his lawyers?
Mr Dafeamekpor 2:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, practically, sometimes the lawyers are retained to handle their peers. Especially, when you are dealing with confiscation of property, these are matters that lawyers act on behalf of convicted persons and normally, it would have gone to the lawyer who must have handled the matter. It is only when the lawyer says he or she is not acting for the person then we are compelled to look for the convicted person and serve.
So my humble opinion on the matter is that we should find a place where the notice of this application can be served to the lawyers in the matter so that it will be simplified.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:11 p.m.
I do not think we should determine whether he wants to retain the same lawyers -- it is pregnant with too many presumptions.
Mr Chireh 2:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that the amendment, as further proposed, is for us to remove “on notice” in paragraph (a) and leave the rest and it will be perfect. Whether somebody is - I mean if the person is a convict, we still have to give notice and the notice is not - we could even find him in the prison as he is easier to serve than anybody else so that we will go there but he will certainly call
for his lawyer. We do not need to legislate that aspect.

Mr Speaker, what is provided here, if we do not want to repeat “on notice” then we just have to remove it from paragraph (a) because once it is in paragraph (b) then it is all right. So I propose we take the further amendment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:21 p.m.
Let us agree on the rendition.
Mr Banda 2:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that this is a legal terminology -- application on notice as against ex parte. What it means is that you serve the processes after filing them on the other persons.
Mr Speaker, this explains why I proposed earlier and I thought it was a bit simpler, better understood and reader-friendly if we insert “to the accused or convicted person” after “on notice”. So once again, I beg to make this further amendment so that we would have one paragraph by collapsing paragraph (b).
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:21 p.m.
Very well. I think it would achieve the same purpose.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:21 p.m.
Item numbered (xiii).
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, following from what we have just done I see that I have to withdraw the proposed amendment numbered (xiii).
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:21 p.m.
Hon Chairman, there is a last part in that proposed amendment which deals with deleting “opinion” and inserting “consideration”.
Do you want to withdraw that one too?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:21 p.m.
Item numbered (xiv).
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 53 subclause (2), delete and insert the following:
“The Court shall decide whether the income, property or assets should have been included in the declaration, where necessary, direct that the income, property or asset be added within seven days after hearing the application.”
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to make a further amendment. The first one is consequential; the first line must read” The Court shall decide whether the income or property should have …” We have deleted “or assets” after “property”.
However, we should insert “and” after “where necessary”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:21 p.m.
Very well. Your proposal is that we should insert “and,” between “declaration” and “where necessary”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:21 p.m.
Item numbered (xv).
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 53 subclause (2), paragraphs (a) and (b), delete.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:21 p.m.
Very well.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:21 p.m.
Item numbered (xvi).
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I seek your leave to abandon the proposed amendment because there is a consequential amendment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:21 p.m.
Very well.
Amendment withdrawn by leave of the House.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:21 p.m.
Hon Members, I would put the Question on the entire clause 53.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, again, I think we decided to delete the word “intentionally” so that 53(3) would read: “Where the Court finds that any property or --
Mr Speaker, with regard to clauses 52 and 53 the Court would have to establish that things were left out when they ought to have been included. But clause 53 alters the landscape and provides that “Where the Court finds that any property or income was intentionally excluded …”
Mr Speaker, the Court is not looking for the intent behind the exclusion; these things ought to have been included but they were not included. So it is not the intent behind what might have caused it not to be included. That is why we suggested that the word “intentionally” must be deleted.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:21 p.m.
The punishment for excluding it is confiscation. Do you think we should delete the “intentionally”?
Mr Banda 2:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, I disagree because we are dealing with confiscation which is a punishment and this provision --
The exclusion may be inadvertent in which case the person does not lose his property. In this case, the exclusion is intentional, deliberate or fraudulent and for which reason the person has to be punished with confiscation of the property. So with regard to
Mr Chireh 2:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if we do not retain “intentionally” then subclauses (2) and (3) would be the same and the punishment would be --
Subclause (2) says that the Court would order for it to be included without confiscation and so if we remove “intentionally” in (3) then it means that the Court should order and not confiscate.
Mr Speaker, but this is something the person deliberately or fraudulently left out. Therefore, the punishment is the confiscation so we need to establish that it was done deliberately and not inadvertently.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:31 p.m.
I would proceed to put the Question on clause 53.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54 -- Presumption of acquisition of income and property
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 54, Head note, delete “acquisition of income and property” and insert “tainted income and property”.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:31 p.m.
Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman is confusing me. We decided to remove the entire clause 54 and relocate it after clause 74 so that in the event, it would come before clause 75. So we are not there.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:31 p.m.
Very well. Propose the amendment you would want and I would put the Question.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 54 begins:
“54. (1) In determining whether or not a confiscation or pecuniary penalty order should be made, the Court shall …”
Now we are saying that we should do a reconstruction to rather begin from “The Court shall…” so that it would read:
“The Court shall, in determining whether or not a confiscation or pecuniary penalty order should be made, presume that the income, property or asset which is the subject of the application, including income, property or asset indicated in the declaration was acquired as a result of an offence under this Act.”
We are saying that this clause 54 should be relocated from where it is to after clause 74. So if he is making the proposal, it would be that we take it with the amendment to after clause 74. Otherwise, he should wait until we get there. He should just say that we should delete clause 54.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:31 p.m.
So what do you want me to do?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, these are the matters that the Court takes into consideration before making a determination. That determination would be made by an application to the Court by the prosecution. Clause 75 is where the
process and the order of the Court is captured. It is also in clause 75 that the Court is entitled to presume that this property --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:31 p.m.
Thank you. I do not have problem with that. Now, what do you want me to do?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:31 p.m.
We should step it down. When we get to clause 75, we can put it there.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:31 p.m.
So move the Motion of its deletion.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, amendment proposed, clause 54, delete.
Clause 55 -- Protection of third parties
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 55, subclause (2), line 2, delete “property” and insert “a tainted income or property”.
The new rendition would read:
“The Commission may apply to the Court for a confiscation order in respect of a tainted income or property”.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it should be “tainted income or property”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:31 p.m.
What about if you are taking the two, income and property? In that way, it would read:
“The Commission may apply to the Court for a confiscation order in respect of a tainted income or property or both”.
[Interruption] Very well. I would put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have lawyers and literature professors around me. I am getting a bit imbalanced. We just amended line 1; “The Commission may apply to…” Now they are saying it is a High Court so we need to use “the” because there is only one High Court. It would then read:
“The Commission may apply to the Court for a confiscation order in respect of a tainted income or property or both”.
Mr Banda 2:31 p.m.
No, Mr Speaker, I think the court that has jurisdiction with this matter are the District and Circuit courts and the High Court. It is not only the High Court. So when it comes to matters of confiscation or a pecuniary penalty order, it depends on which court is making the order. It could be made either by the District or Circuit courts or the High Court.
So if we insert “the High Court” we are restricting it to only the High Court.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:31 p.m.
That is why I went to check whether we have defined “Court”. So when we say the Court and it has been defined, we would have difficulty determining what the Court is. So I think “a court” is appropriate.
Yes, Hon Agalga?
Mr James Agalga 2:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is no definition for “Court” in the interpretation section, but if you look at clause 44, under original jurisdiction of the court, it reads:
“44. Subject to section 48 of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459), the District Court, Circuit Court and the High Court shall have original jurisdiction to try offences under this Act.”
So Court has been defined under clause 44.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:41 p.m.
So “or” is important because it could go to either of the three courts.
Question put and amendment agreed to.

Clause 55 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 56 -- Seizure of movable property
Mr K.S. Acheampong 2:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 56, subclause (1), line 1, before “officer” insert “authorised” and in line 3, delete “illegal” and insert “tainted.”
Mr Speaker, the final rendition becomes 2:41 p.m.
“56(1) Any movable property which unauthorised officer reasonably suspects to be the subject matter of an offence under this Act or which has been used for the commission of that offence, or is tainted property, is liable to seizure.”
Question put and amendment agree to.
Mr K.S. Acheampong 2:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 56, subclause (2), line 1, delete “Wherever any” and insert “Where a” and in line 2, before “officer” insert “authorised”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 56, subclause (2), paragraph (b), line 1, delete “pilot or the master” and insert “pilot, master or driver” and in line 2, at end, add “or vehicle”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K.S. Acheampong 2:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 56, subclause (3), line 1, delete “aircraft or a vessel” and insert “aircraft, a vessel or vehicle”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the amendment moved by the Hon Chairman should also affect the last line of subclause (3). So “…against the owner of the aircraft, vessel or vehicle.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:41 p.m.
Very well.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this is a new addition. I beg to move, clause 56, add the following new subclause: “Any movable property seized shall be transferred to the Commission and the transferring agency shall within thirty- six hours inform the Director-General of the transfer.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 56 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 57 -- Seizure of immovable property
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just a little worry that I have in respect of clause 55 which we just did. It says:
“55(1) The Commission may apply to a Court for a confiscation order in respect of a tainted income, property or asset.”
We inserted “income” before property. Mr Speaker, conse- quentially, should it not affect clause
55(2) and 55(3), that is to insert “income” before property? We are continuing from clause 52 which talks about declaration of income and property. Is it not the case that should consequentially also affect clause 55 (2) and (3)?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:41 p.m.
Hon Member, clause 52(3) reads:
“Where an application is made to the Court for the confiscation order against property, a person who claims an interest in the property shall within thirty days from the date of the application apply to the Court for an order declaring their interest of the person.”
Hon Member, where did you say we should add income?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, before “property”; because flowing from clause 55 there is conjoining “income” with “property” in all of them, but then in clause 55 we omitted it. The Hon Chairman appropriately inserted “income” in clause 55(1). Clause 55 (2) and (3) do not have “income” and that is why I asked. Whether we would --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:41 p.m.
I would rather direct that in the circumstance --
Mr Chireh 2:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in clause 55, we do not need to add anything. It is about the protection of third parties. I derive income from public and nobody would claim that income. But for the property, somebody can have interest in it and that is why “income” has not been put in it.
Mr Dafeamekpor 2:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would have to disagree with my senior. My humble position is that “income” is part of property, especially when we have told the House that when we get to the interpretation section we would include “asset” in the definition of “property”. So when these matters are before a court, “income” is part of assets. So it has been taken care of.
In fact, that is why property can be divided into incorporeal and corporeal which includes all the landed property. It is all part of the definition of property and assets. Wherever a person's revenue is found is part of his assets.
Mr Chireh 2:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Member is making a different argument. I said that the Hon Leaders asked that we should add “income” wherever we have “property”. I said in the case of clause 55 (2), it talks about protection of third party's interest and it can only be property
and not income. If a person earns an income, how can a third party be protected from claiming it? But if that income is used to buy property and somebody buys the property -- So there is no need to add income to it.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the income of a person -- these days when we have bank accounts, they could be contributed to by another person. I know of a practical situation where two brothers had a joint account because they intended to build a house. They knew that each of them could not have the capacity to build the house, so the two of them had a joint account which they intended to use for the future development of the house.
We could also have a situation where one of them could be engaged in some other illicit activities, and maybe, the income from this illicit activity may also find itself being put into that same account --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:51 p.m.
Can we call the joint account an income?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, what it says is that --

income is the source of money that goes into the accounts. So the source is what we seek to attack. One cannot -- if a third person claims your income -- my income is my annual or monthly emoluments that come to me. So, how can somebody else claim --?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I say that in a situation where one person engages in illicit activities, if he is caught by this Act, the other person can lay claim to his portion of money.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:51 p.m.
But the account is an asset or property, not an income.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is what we are saying. That is the same point we seek to make that that account --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:51 p.m.
Let us read clause 55(2) again. It says:
“Where an application is made to the Court for a confiscation order against property, a person who claims an interest in the property shall within thirty days from the date of the application apply to the Court for an order declaring the interest of the person.”
So here, we are talking about a person other than the accused or convicted person, who claims an interest in the property, not the income.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, not necessarily. This is because we have amended clause 55(1) to now read:
“The Commission may apply to a Court for a confiscation order in respect of a tainted income or property.”
Mr Speaker, we are saying that another person could have interest in that income. Perhaps, even your wife --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:51 p.m.
She may have interest in the account, which is a property, but not the income, which is the emoluments I gain from working here.
Mr Agalga 2:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I side with the Hon Yieleh Chireh. What is envisaged under clause 55 is inkling to interpleader proceedings in civil procedure. Normally, those who interplead are third parties who have an interest in some property which has become the subject of liquidation, judgement or confiscation, and orders made appropriately.
So it can only be in respect of property, and here they have been very
clear. It says “movable property.” The Hon Majority Leader tried to -- [Interruption] -- If we insert “income”, I am not aware that we can bring interpleader proceedings in respect of income. Normally, it is in respect of -- [Interruption] -- but the income that flows from an account is a bit tricky.
Mr Chireh 2:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader is talking about an account where he and a friend of his may commonly pay their incomes into. In the case of the account, the point is that they may call for the bank statement and see whether he has paid any moneys into it. In the case being talked about, we can have a tainted property which might have been purchased by someone else, who would have an interest in it.
Also, in the case of this tainted property, if a person did not acquire it properly or pay for it in full, then the other person may still have an interest in it. However, income has to do with what a person derives from his effort.
If we want to describe it as a tainted property, then the person who may be described as a wife must also be tried to show that the income that she also added to that account is also tainted. I say that this is a practical issue of property because people have claims against property.
However, if someone earns his income, then how can another claim that it is his, or it is jointly owned? This does not deal with company accounts; it is law that we seek to make here.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is law, and it is not any game that we are playing. But in the Spousal Rights Bill, it says that if a person has a wife and she performs activities in the house for which she is not paid, whatever income that comes to the husband should be considered as income to the association, such that the husband cannot deprive his spouse of a rightful portion of the income from which perhaps a house may be built, or from which some other property may have been acquired.
Mr Speaker, that is the path that I would want us to go, but if it is the opinion of the House that it is far- fetched and so we should move on, then we can. I just wanted us to consider issues that may ensue if we went on that track.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:51 p.m.
Income emanates from activity. So if a person is jointly engaged in an activity, then the income is jointly owned. Therefore if a person is charged with an engagement in narcotics and the other person is not
Mr Agalga 3:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, flowing from what you said here, the focus or the target is the third party. And flowing from the interpleader, we would find out that most of the time we argue that a person may be the bona fide owner for maybe value et cetera in good faith. So this cannot be the subject for any confiscation orders. It therefore has to do with the third party.
The argument of the Hon Majority Leader is sound, but here, we seek to look at the focus. The example of the Property (Rights of Spouses) Act is very different.

This is because the income earned is by a spouse -- the other spouse can legitimately make a claim for a portion of the share or proceeds of some crime for example.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:01 p.m.
Anyway, let us make progress; we put the Question on 56, right? -- [Pause] -- let us finish clause 57 and then bring proceedings to a close; it is past 3 o'clock.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thought we were going to travel to clause 60 because there are not too many contentions on the subsequent ones.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:01 p.m.
As for contentions, you can never tell where they would come from; sometimes they come from within.
Clause 57 -- I am proceeding; if that proposal comes formally I would consider it.
We have put the Question on clause 56, if you want to propose any amendment -- clause 57?
Clause 57 -- Seizure of immovable property
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (1), line 1, delete “Director-General” and insert “Commission” and in line 3, delete “illegal” and insert “tainted”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition reads 3:01 p.m.
“Where the Commission has reasonable grounds to suspect that an immovable property is a subject of offence under this Act or tainted or is tainted property, the Director-General shall issue a notice of seizure to order for the seizure while investigation is in progress.”
Question put and amendment --
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:01 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Mr Dafeamekpor 3:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, may I humbly arrest the Question and suggest that because we just used “property” here and it is going to be carried, we should go back and look at the headnote for clause 56 where we speak of seizure of movable property? It has been a practice in this House that we do not distinguish between movable and immovable property. It is just property, which we are going to define to include assets.
Mr Speaker, I beg to propose that we delete “movable” from there so that it would be consistent with the use of property throughout the Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:01 p.m.
What we have done in clause 56 is “movable property”; clause 57 is on “immovable property”. It is different. We intend to differentiate between the two.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:01 p.m.
Item numbered (xxvii)?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just to ask the draftpersons to look at the position of “under this Act” in line two:
“Where the Commission has reasonable grounds to suspect that an immovable property is a subject of offence under this Act or tainted or is tainted property, the Director-General shall issue a notice of seizure to order for the seizure while investigation is in progress.”
So I think that we should look at the construction.
“Where the Commission has reasonable grounds to suspect
Mr Chireh 3:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the way it is captured, they are two different things. In fact, in the “tainted” it means that it has been established already but the other one is a subject of an offence under -- let us not qualify it like that; what we are saying is that there would be tainted property different from the subject matter under consideration. So that is why they have put it like that. -- [Interruption] --
No, I am saying that tainted property is established, it is not under the -- no, because as I am saying, if we already have tainted property -- what does the sentence say? It says that:
“Where the Commission has reasonable grounds to suspect that an immovable property is a subject of offence under this Act or tainted or is tainted property, the Director-General shall issue a notice of seizure to order for
the seizure while investigation is in progress.”
Mr Speaker, they are two different scenarios 3:01 p.m.
one scenario is that we suspect that the property might be tainted and the other one is that it is tainted which means that, that one has already been established.
We do not need to say it again because only the offence is under this Law but tainted is already implied by this Law. That is why we are changing it from “illegal” to “tainted”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:01 p.m.
Hon Members, I think that is okay; it captures a sense. If the draftspersons suspect that something is wrong -- [inaudible] -- I think as it is, it captures the sense of what we want to put across.
I will continue with item xxvii.
Hon Chairman?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, before I go to the advertised clause, I beg your leave to go to subclause 2 of clause 57 where I would like to make a consequential amendment, that where there is “an officer”, we have “authorised officer”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:01 p.m.
I thought we directed that where the
context admits, the draftpersons may make changes.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:01 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I then move onto the advertised amendment.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (4), line 1, delete “(2)” and insert “(3)” and in line 2, delete “all dealings” and insert “any dealing, contract or any other thing whatsoever”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 57 as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:01 p.m.
Clause 58?
Clause 58 -- Dealings in seized property after seizure to be void.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:01 p.m.
The item listed (xxviii), Hon Chairman?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, headnote, delete “Dealings in seized” and insert “Transactions in”.
Mr Speaker, it reads 3:01 p.m.
“Transaction in seized property after seizure to be void”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:01 p.m.
The item listed (xxix), Hon Chairman?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, delete and insert the following:
“When property is seized under this Act, and the seizure remains in force, any transac- tion, contract, or any other thing whatsoever, effected, undetaken, or entered into by a person or between any persons in respect of the property is void.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:01 p.m.
Hon Chairman, what are you deleting to insert this one?
Mr K.S. Acheampong 3:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 58, subclause 1; we are saying that “after seizure of” should be deleted and --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:01 p.m.
Very well. I will put the Question.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:11 a.m.


Question put and amendment agreed to.

Clause 58 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59 - Realisation of property
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:11 a.m.
Item numbered (xxx)?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 59, subclause (1), opening phrase, line 2, after “shall” add “order”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:11 a.m.
Item numbered (xxxi)?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 59, subclause (1), paragraph (a), delete “direct”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:11 a.m.
Item numbered (xxxii)?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 59,
subclause (1), paragraph (b), line 1, delete “empower”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:11 a.m.
Item numbered (xxxiii)?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 59, subclause (1), paragraph (c), line 1, delete “order”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:11 a.m.
Item numbered (xxxiv)?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 59, subclause (1), paragraph (d), delete “empower” and in line 5, delete “Chief Narcotic Administrator” and insert “Director-General”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:11 a.m.
Item numbered (xxxv)?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 59, subclause (2), line 2, delete “(e)” and insert “(d)”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Claus 59 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:11 a.m.
Clause 60?
Clause 60 -- Utilisation of proceeds of realisable property
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:11 a.m.
Item numbered (xxxvi)?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 60, subclause (1), lines 2 and 3, delete “to Court and handed in to the Registrar of the Court” and insert “in Court”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, let the Hon Chairman explain because if you say “in Court”, it would then read:
“The Court shall direct that twenty percent of the total proceeds of the realizable property be paid in Court.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:11 a.m.
I think it should end at “be paid to Court”. That is all. When it goes to the Court, the appropriate person --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:11 a.m.
Yes, but he is saying that we should delete “to” and insert --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:11 a.m.
That is not necessary, we should just delete “and handed in to the Registrar of the Court”.
So I think the appropriate rendition should be:
“The Court shall direct that twenty percent of the total proceeds of the realizable property be paid to Court.”
That is all.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:11 a.m.
Item numbered (xxxvii)?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 60, subclause (2), line 1, delete “amount” and insert “proceeds”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:11 a.m.
The final rendition would read:
“The Court shall direct that fifty percent of the total proceeds of the realizable property be paid to the Commission.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:11 a.m.
Item numbered (xxxviii) is about the same thing?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:11 a.m.
Yes, it is the same thing.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 3:11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 60, subclause (3), line 1, delete “amount” and insert “proceeds”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 60 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:11 a.m.
There is no advertised amendment to clause 61. We could take that and bring the day's proceedings to a close.
Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:11 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader, I proposed that we adjourn and I saw you opening your mouth wide. What is the matter?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it was only to plead to see how far we could get because we had intended to complete this Bill last Thursday and then we extended the period to Friday. For three continuous days we were not able to work on it, that is Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. So with respect -- of course, a lot depends on your disposition. If you are well disposed, maybe, we could do a couple of clauses more before we adjourn, but if you are exhausted, I cannot push you.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:11 a.m.
You know we spent the first one hour on matters which should have been resolved at the Winnowing Committee -- [Laughter] -- So if we resolve those matters, we could move faster, but as you can see --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, unfortunately, those who were disputing are “professional litigants”. They were with us at the Winnowing Committee and agreed there, only to come here and disagree. That is most unfortunate but we would still --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:11 a.m.
They had a host of supporters in here. We spent the first one hour on it and I did not even realise it was 2 p.m. until my usher came to draw my attention to it.
Mr Chireh 3:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader has been talking about completing this Bill by a certain date but he alone will reply to everything that anybody says. That also takes time.

If he wants us to finish, I think he should not inflict too much stress on Speaker, but rather, he should allow your biological system to work, then we would know how to complete the winnowing completely, and we would invite the “litigants” to join so that we reduce the arguments.

I also share in your concerns. With regard to Bills, once we have concerns and Hon Members deliberate on them, we should move faster. [Interruption] -- It is his duty because he is the Leader of Government Business.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:21 p.m.
What I suggest we do is that, if there is no agreement on a matter, we should defer discussion on that, so that we can work on those we have agreement; on those we do not have agreements on could be deferred to the last day when we have finished with the others.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, all those we went through have been agreed upon.
Our attention was just drawn to one provision by the Hon Chairman of the Committee that at a point I had to leave the winnowing meeting and after I had left, one Hon Colleague said that he kept quiet because I was present and that in plenary he would activate his own disagreements.
Mr Speaker, I would want to believe that all this is to help nourish the Bill to the extent that it compliments -- I have no issues, except I pray that if there are issues we should resolve them and when we are all in agreement and come to the Chamber, we could flow smoothly because these interjections that are created intermittently do not help.
Mr Speaker, however, as I said the bottom line is your own physicality. If you could tolerate us a bit, we could do a couple of clauses and adjourn.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:21 p.m.
I actually intended to close at clause 55 but the Hon Chairman of the Committee suggested that I should go to clause 60 and I even went to clause
61.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this is a plea from me. [Laughter]
Mr Agalga 3:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, not to interject but to add and plead that in
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:21 p.m.
We spent about an hour on it. I am sure we would have gotten to clause 80 or beyond if we had not spent that length of time. I would also take note,
when we return tomorrow. As soon as there is controversy, I would shield it so that we would move on with the others which are non-controversial.
In the circumstance, I would bring the Consideration Stage of the Narcotics Control Commission Bill, 2019, to an end for today.
ADJOURNMENT 3:21 p.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 3.26 p.m. till Wednesday, 26th February, 2020, at 10.00 a.m.